- 06 Mar 2008 22:52
#1470609
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?
"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?