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