Re: Pornography

[u3a97@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk (The Silver-Flag Boy)]

Kbfreakc (kbfreakc@aol.com) wrote:
: Hoorah, hoorah, I couldn't have said it better myself.  Contemporary
: feminism tries to teach us that women are oppressed by men.  Like Kate,
: you understand that women are just being what they want to be.  It is no
: wonder that Kate is critical of modern feminism for making "feminine
: energy" look stupid, and that she does not want to be too closely
: identified with feminism.  I would think that Kate would realize that
: Gloria Steinem is just as pathetic as is Phyllis Schlafly.  They both have
: their idealogical boxes that they want to fit women into.  I think that it
: is a good thing that they refuse to go, and that we have champions of
: common sense like Kate around whose greatness is not predicated on being
: hogtied to a certain idealogical position.  Kate Bush is great just being
: herself!

I'm not totally sure which article you are replying to... but anyway you are
right. Kate is unideological, and ideological warfare of the kind well-known
on American campuses and in some newsgroups goes against everything that
Kate stands for. Because she sings about love, beauty, spirituality... and
these arguments on feminism and other things seen here recently are not very
beautiful, or even constructive. They are intended to convey hate, and as
bait for the extremist element in opponents, even less vociferous ones. To
put it another way, people like the above names, and Rush Lamebrain, intend
to polarize society in an un-Kate-like way.
That parlour-game has no place on a forum dedicated to a Silver girl...
Remember we're Love-hounds, not Rottweilers of hate.

Al
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CGCE, 108 Holly Cross, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5JB
u3a97@cc.keele.ac.uk

Children of England, why do you run for your lives,
When you need someone I'm gonna show?
Sandra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------