Laurence Moss asked,
> "Why Becker's Treatise on the family give a strong
> impetus to the feminist critique of the neoclassical tool kit?"
>
Robin Neill replied:
> Because it was such a vacuous, formalistic exercize ?
>
I thank Robin Neill for his response but even if it were a "vacuous,
formalistic execise," why do formalistic vacuous exercises provoke a "feminist
critique"? What makes a critique of a body of economic analysis "feminist"? I really
would like to know. Perhaps my question is unanswerable as I expect it
will be and that helps me make an important point--we should use language more
carefully even when all we want to do is blow off some steam.
Laurence Moss