A feminist; as according to Katha Politt - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discuss literary and artistic creations, or post your own poetry, essays etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1470609
"For me, to be a feminist is to answer the question 'Are women human?' with a yes. It is not about whether women are better than, worse than or identical with men. And it's certainly not about trading personal liberty -- abortion, divorce, sexual self-expression -- for social protection as wives and mothers, as pro-life feminists propose. It's about justice, fairness and access to the broad range of human experience...It's about women having intrinsic value as persons rather than contingent value as means to an end for others: fetuses, children, 'the family,' men." (p. xxi) -- Katha Politt, Reasonable Creatures: Essays on Women and Feminism


The natural question would be, according to Katha, are you a feminist?

All the same, I post this because I found it to be quite an eloquent treatise on feminism and may yet cite the quote again and again in the future. Admittedly, I had it in my inventory for an extended period of time, but now that my other ploy is deferred, I wish not only to share it with you all but also to discuss the quote as it is.

Therefore, any reader out there is welcome to express their opinions on the piece as mayhaps we may all benefit from each interpretation of this author's eloquence. As a side inquiry, is she a known writer to any out there?

Personally, I find her sentiment that women should not be contingent values, as they usually are socially assigned to be, is quite a compelling summary of how status is situated at present and in the past. Anyone else agreeth?
#15153924
as I can see KathaP has neat will for equality ...

https://feministfrequency.com/video/tropes-vs-women-3-the-smurfette-principle/

... but when I saw (tho coz f-inertia) she stands behind abortion rights [1] I think her will in long run will lack more support at least, at worst burning emotional intelligence would become norm, probably no one still havent conviced feminists that after abortion guilt strikes on hormonal level too [1][1]
#15153931
Odiseizam wrote:as I can see KathaP has neat will for equality ...

https://feministfrequency.com/video/tropes-vs-women-3-the-smurfette-principle/

... but when I saw (tho coz f-inertia) she stands behind abortion rights [1] I think her will in long run will lack more support at least, at worst burning emotional intelligence would become norm, probably no one still havent conviced feminists that after abortion guilt strikes on hormonal level too [1][1]

I've never heard of her. But she's basically correct, besides as you say the abortion stuff. If you're anti-abortion does that make you anti-feminist? I don't think a feminist would tell a woman to shut up just because her views on abortion differ.
#15153934
Unthinking Majority wrote:I've never heard of her. But she's basically correct, besides as you say the abortion stuff. If you're anti-abortion does that make you anti-feminist? I don't think a feminist would tell a woman to shut up just because her views on abortion differ.

Not so sure about that...
[url]users.spin.net.au/~deniset/cconfpap/gdeffem05.pdf[/url]
Second, tolerating everything (except radical feminism) allows anti-feminist positions to masquerade as ‘feminism’. If we don’t know what feminism is, worse, if we’re forbidden to say, how do we defend feminism against the incursions of malestream thought which twist and distort it into a mockery of itself? You don’t think that happens? Then consider the following: Have you ever seen prostitution purveyed as a feminist practice? Sadomasochism? Make-up? Cosmetic surgery? Do you think these are feminist practices? Or are you caught in a dilemma? On the one hand, you have a sneaking suspicion that such things are not feminism; on the other hand, you’re reluctant to say so because that would mean, you think, that you’re saying that women who engage in these practices are not feminists.

But the issue is not who is (or is not) a feminist. The issue is: what is feminism? To define feminism in terms of who is a feminist is to define feminism as an ‘identity’ (and it does get defined that way, despite the taboo against definition). This is one way of blocking any discussion of what feminism is, even of surreptitiously introducing anti-feminism as ‘feminism’ itself. If ‘feminism’ is anything that anyone who identifies as ‘a feminist’ says it is, but we’re disqualified from disagreeing because it’s her ‘identity’, then anything goes, including male supremacist practices masquerading as women’s ‘choice’

I would argue that those who identify as feminists have a responsibility to define what is meant by ‘feminism’, especially those who have the social power to set the agenda. There are already a number of covert definitions around, including the main one, i.e. feminism is about women, women’s equality or women’s rights. I don’t think this is adequate because it makes it look as though women are the problem, whereas I believe the problem is the system of male domination. A crucial aspect of that defining is going to involve saying what feminism is not, that is, of criticising many things which have been said in the name of feminism, and sometimes being thoroughly intolerant of some of them. The current stance of pure tolerance can only impede this necessary task of criticism and clarification.
#15153967
Unthinking Majority wrote: I don't think a feminist would tell a woman to shut up just because her views on abortion differ.


KathaP did exactly that to SusanS coz she did exactly that to HillaryC and her neocon abortion of pacifism [1][1][1]

... here we can see KathaP calling not for shut-up mode but shuts up SusanS conscious feminism [1] apparently because was heated on the HillaryC nomination [1] tho even earlier she had some personal issues with SusanS [1]

anyway f-clash between socialist feminist vs postmodern feminist what would be KathaP, and if someone has swayed the election that was SusanS and all the left sensed that! but like this probably contributed for Longer Peace in the world at least by one rotation of p-chairs [1]


edit:

instead acting feminist Susan Sarandon just radiate feminism, as should any other w~equality fighter, probably she is preoccupied with many things in her head, so dont have time constantly to shout like f-megaphone, and think that the correct approach, in my opinion she has realized herself so dont bother with the KathaP question Are Woman Human?, but focus How Woman Can Build Better World ... energy conservancy with sufficient release of clever thoughts, think SusanS should be roll model for modern feminists that are kidnapped by cultural marxism nowadays, its not question what rights are obtained but how they are engaged, in general elitism and snobbism hold as hostage not just woman but man too, and sexism should be addressed as consequence of liberalism not conservatism i.e. woman are equal to provoke with their nudity or tight eroticism and man react instinctively and solution to this mids liberal times would be mass surveillance and/or more Bisphenol-A in the food industry, yet all this in place and still there are excesses coz we live in selfish reckless times etc. etc.

► Show Spoiler


    She's also not joining the #MeToo movement, and she doesn't like to call herself a feminist (she's more of a humanist, thank you very much)

    https://www.wmagazine.com/story/susan-sarandon-harvey-weinstein-hillary-clinton-comments/

who knows maybe because

    "mostly" lower income groups support "furiously" the principle behind feminism

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47006912

but then again how much is enough, so this quoted logic above is wrong if KathaP is measure, but again maybe she is chipped by special-F-focus career!?

    Katha Pollitt net worth 35 Millions of dollars

    https://peopleai.com/fame/identities/katha-pollitt
Last edited by Odiseizam on 31 Jan 2021 18:01, edited 2 times in total.
#15153978
Zyx wrote:The natural question would be, according to Katha, are you a feminist?

All the same, I post this because I found it to be quite an eloquent treatise on feminism and may yet cite the quote again and again in the future. Admittedly, I had it in my inventory for an extended period of time, but now that my other ploy is deferred, I wish not only to share it with you all but also to discuss the quote as it is.

Therefore, any reader out there is welcome to express their opinions on the piece as mayhaps we may all benefit from each interpretation of this author's eloquence. As a side inquiry, is she a known writer to any out there?

Personally, I find her sentiment that women should not be contingent values, as they usually are socially assigned to be, is quite a compelling summary of how status is situated at present and in the past. Anyone else agreeth?


I read somewhere than many Western men now prefer Asian, Russian, Hispanic, Eastern European, foreign wives, etc. They are uncomfortable with a Western woman that does not have traditional values. They seem to enjoy a woman that is more feminine. What a concept! That does not mean they want to oppress women. On the contrary quite often these more feminine women run the show.

I still do not get the fetish feminists women have with equal representation in all walks of life. That equality of outcome is impossible since men and women are not equal. I told my wife about Smurfette being the only girl among the Smurf boys. She thought that made Smurfette very special.

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong???[…]

Sure, but they are too stupid to understand, Trum[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]