>For all that she speaks in a reasonable and measured way, she endorses bad faith tactics. She straight up admits this - Malcolm X was good because he made MLK seem reasonable in comparison. Seeing nothing wrong with this kind of mercenary realpolitik is not conductive to getting anyone to ally with you.

That was the biggest problem I had with her analysis. In his last book before he died Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? MLK specifically said he agrees with the principles of the Black Power movement, he had no problem with their message and privately endorsed it. He understood why it was needed and agreed with it's message.

He was an extremely astute political strategist though and understood political capital and how to gain and utilize it. His problem with the Black Power movement was that it induced white backlash, something he was worried about before the Black Power movement. White middle class support for his causes was absolutely critical to their success, the Black Power movement didn't scare white middle class people to flock to MLK as she posits, it induced them to flee the progressive position altogether. The choices weren't MLK or Malcolm X back then, there was a plethora of conservative and moderate positions that the white middle class could be scared off to. The idea that Black Power bolstered MLKs popularity is just false.

She did not say that Malcolm X is good because he made MLK seem reasonable. She said that even if Malcolm X did not persuade people because he is too radical, he nonetheless creates room for the slightly less radical MLK to be accepted. In fact, she mentions nothing about whether she thinks Malcolm X is right; she is only talking about the effect of Malcolm X on public discourse to illustrate the point that persuasion is not the only function of discourse.

As for the “wrong” body thing, it could be simply that you do not share that aspect of the experience she describes. But, even if that is the case, it is undeniable that who we find desirable is partly shaped by the culture (just compare the beauty standards today vs 50 yrs ago and compare beauty standards across societies!). And, for many people, there would be fleeting moments when we find ourselves attracted to someone that not our “type” (and, come on, we all have a type). One way to see the plausibility of her claims is then to identify that “type” as partly a product of the culture (hierarchical culture in fact), and see those fleeting moments as being attracted to the “wrong” body. The suggestion, then, is to affirm those fleeting moments and to try to change the culture in doing so.

Finally, she never said that the husbands are not also responsible for putting food on the table. More likely, what she means is that if you start with a traditional family with a working husband and a house wife, now with the husband unemployed, the house wife takes on responsibility that she did not have before. And it is easy to see how this may lead to an “awakening” of sort for the house wife.

Hope this clears some things up.

She didn't say you think these people are wrong, but politics does. According to her. I have no clue what she's on about though. I've never felt like politics were telling me who to be attracted to and if they were I wouldn't care.

I honestly do not see any use for this kind of hermeneutical critique. One short text is not sufficient grounds for an attempt at such an examination.