Don’t become a feminist. I mean it. Because then you might end up like Katha Pollitt. Wait, isn’t Pollitt an award-winning poet and columnist? Isn’t her “Subject to Debate” column what most of us turn to first when The Nation arrives? As the sharpest feminist commentator in the country, doesn’t Pollitt make feminism seem cool? Not if you’re the New… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (5)Page 1 of 1 pages“most frequently used image to illustrate the movement was a woman learning karate; male editors actually insisted on this. “
Did they have a meeting where all the male editors were given these rather odd marching orders? :)
Can a woman be both a feminist and anti-abortion? Or do feminists themselves impose a rigid dogma on all other women?
Seems to me the problem with feminism is that it is a victim of its own success. Equal opportunity and pay for equal dedication and work. Equal access to education. Goals that have been largely, if not entirely, met.
PS - if we want to use anecdotes, how about those feminists at Duke University that condemned the lacrosse players? I am sure they have been very apologetic for their horrible racist and sexist statements, right? :)
Posted by wolf on Oct 9, 2007 at 8:05 AM Hm, personally I’m more of a humanist than a feminist, although I’m not a true “-ist” of any kind because I’m too suspicious of “-isms”. More inclusive, more timely, at least as necessary as feminism once surely was (and may still be, at least in some contemporary incarnation).
“Women, especially young women, are not about to give up the gains won by feminism, but they also see the costs of failing to conform to a narrow, corporate definition of femininity.”
I hope this is an editing error, but shouldn’t it say, “...the costs of conforming to a narrow, corporate definition of femininity...”?
Who wants a narrow, corporately-conforming person of any kind? I think only Taliban.
Gotta be a typo.
Posted by Kuya on Oct 9, 2007 at 11:33 PM Thank you for writing this!
I was also taken aback by the review of Pollitt’s book and puzzled by the choice of Bentley as reviewer.
I am and have been a feminist since I first learned about feminism in high school (I am 53).
I have learned a lot about women, men, and how they can relate from conversations with thoughtful, emotionally present people. I have learned equally as much from the writings of those who have struggled with what feminism means, the effects it has had, and how it changes through time.
I have never learned anything from someone who doesn’t know me telling me who or what I am ... as a feminist or as anything else. Individuals are complex. All of the -isms we use when describing ourselves are necessarily constricted shorthand that represent large, complicated landscapes in our psyches. Curiosity, openness, and authenticity allow us to explore those landscapes.
What could be more fun than that?
Posted by AriseSubside on Oct 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM The trouble with feminism really is that the loudest feminists are the ones that give it a bad name. the feminists that are the stereotype described above rarely exists, you want us ti believe. However, they are the ones that promote their cause the most.
If you want to change that make them shut up, or seek the public instead of them. As long as that does not happen (and it will not i think) stop calling yourself feminist.
you cannot complain about peoples perception of a thing. if i for example would be catholic but do not like what the pope does- well tough luck! then i can not be upset that people assume i am supporting his ideas when i go around calling myself a catholic.
the same is true for feminism. feminism has been hijacked by some unnerving retards who misuse the idea of equality to push through their insane political agenda (see Christina Hoff-Sommer).
I call myself a humanist. So far a term that has not been hijacked as far as can see. And it is much more inclusive than the term feminism. To many males “feminism” has a bitter taste of “anti-male”. humanism includes everyone who favors a world of equals- each in accordance to their own preference, not following a “feminist blueprint” for what they think equality should be.
---------------------------------
http://blog.davidkramer.dk/
Posted by Snusket on Oct 11, 2007 at 3:37 AM Connie Schultz: ‘The privileged already have their advocates. They don’t need me.’
Except for Hillary Clinton.
A feminist who supports another woman solely on her gender is like the fool that rallies around the flag with a t-shirt that says, “my country, right or wrong”.
One is left to wonder if African- Americans feel that Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas furthered the legitimacy of black participation as anything other than Uncle Toms or, as Belafonte suggested, “house servants”.
Surely Rice and lately, Ms Pelosi, serve to underscore the reverse; woman in roles with a high degree of responsibility are incompetent.
And I don’t think it is particularly in the best interest of woman to advocate role models who seek success by emulating the very worst traits of macho bravado and that would be Clinton.
Posted by Vern on Oct 17, 2007 at 9:23 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
