Normally, I would just stay silent if Gloria Steinem said something with which I did not agree. I admire her so much. She has shown so much courage on behalf of women's issues throughout the years that it is a bit absurd for someone such as me to even consider challenging any comment she makes regarding women.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Bernie's "we" includes all.
I watched as Gloria spoke on the Bill Maher show. The words came out of her mouth, but where the heck did they originate? Was it a comment from someone on the Clinton staff, or right our of Hillary's mouth that these ideas originated. Does Gloria Steinem really believe that "young" women are not capable of THINKING for themselves and aligning their votes with the best Platform in the run for the presidency? Surely she does not believe that women are that stupid!
I am soon to be 65, and all three of my children, all in their 30's, are aligned on all Policies with Mr. Sanders. Have been for many years.
Hillary is representing herself now as a progressive, taking on many of the policy stances, after she hears they are popular with the Sanders voters. Where was Hillary when we needed Obama to stand FIRMLY with The People on Single Payer, back when there was a really good chance to push it through? You CANNOT change things if you do not have the courage and the good judgement to Stand Firm at the Right Moments in Politics. You cannot stop a LIE that results in decades of war if you are not smart enough to recognize the LIE in the first place. Where was she when AMERICA was LIED TO over going to war? She bought the LIE.
And I say to GLORIA. Gloria, you have bought the LIES now. You support someone whose FACT checking is not honest about her own efforts and votes and not honest about Mr. Sanders' efforts and policies. That is the fact.
I never thought I'd be AGAINST an idea that Gloria Steinem came up with. Well, I was very wrong about GLORIA. I stand FIRMLY with Mr. Sanders on his Policies. FIRMLY! He has my vote and the votes of my entire family. What an absurd statement to have made to Bill Maher. Gloria, you have failed all women, and most especially those of us who pay full attention to Rights, to Justice, to Progress, no matter what age we are!
It's not just Steinem.
Over at The Nation, Joan Walsh has heartily, joyfully endorsed Clinton on phony feminist grounds. (That Walsh's daughter is earning six figures working for the Clinton campaign, instead of serving coffee for minimum wage, has absolutely nothing to do with it.) At Salon, clueless nouveau-"feminist" Amanda Marcotte pens one pro-Clinton article after another, all centered on fighting sexism by working towards the First Female Presidency.
What do these writers have in common with Steinem? All ignore that HRC is directly responsible for the death, maiming, rape, and oppression of women all over Libya. And the rape, enslavement, and genital mutilation of thousands of girls there. They will never address this, the very locus of Hillary's evil. If they ever tried to justify it, the cognitive dissonance would overwhelm them.
Anyone who supports HRC is no liberal. Anyone who condones Clinton's mass slaughter of thousands of women in Libya is no feminist. How tragic, that the pioneer of liberation, Gloria Steinem, has sunk so low.
Considering her career, we really shouldn't be all that surprised Steinem supports Clinton. After championing women her entire career, she's not going to support a man for president, her ultimate goal.
I think it is so fine that a generation of young women has ascended and personify what it is to be free and equal to men in this society (even if the law and certain segments of society deny them affirmative equality). My teenage daughter and her friends are full of themselves in such a wonderful way. Society itself has been transformed by Steinem and so many other fierce women.
She certainly did stick her foot in her mouth this time though, but we should give Gloria a break. She's been fighting a long time, and can't see that in many ways the battle is won. Regardless of gender, millions of young women have made an educated choice and plan to vote for the candidate who's offering them a future with a lot more opportunity than the status quo. You go, Girls!
I suspect that some sort of relationship has developed between these two women over the years as well. Let's remember the once radical Steinem is pretty well established these days and take our cues from the rising stars in the younger generation. Women for Bernie!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
So is Steinem saying that women should not cast their vote based on rational choices but simply because another woman is in the race? Isn't that attitude exactly like the sexists who claimed that the suffragettes (women) shouldn't get the vote because they aren't able to be objective or rational about picking whom to vote for?
Pretty unconscionable for a feminist icon to say the very sexist comment that she would have railed against in any other situation. Pathetic try Clinton supporters...this will only grow the support for Sanders.
I'd like to thank you for saying what I've been thinking. By the way, Katha Pollit, maybe a month or so ago endorsed Hillary too and she is someone that I admired a long time ago. Her reasons? Liberal, feminist and democrat. Sheesh! You can't be a feminist or a liberal just by saying so and Hillary "woman killer" Clinton is neither (there were women under those bombs in Libya and Iraq, there were women who inhaled that DU dust in Fallujah). I can only figure that some of these endorsers either want to be invited to the White House parties or want to be undersecretary of something or other like Cookie Nuland. Maybe they need a good stock tip from Goldman Sachs.
There is no blood on Gloria Steinem's hands and she can be excused for her maladroit observation. The other woman who rushed to Hillary's support, Madeleine Albright, cannot be excused for her criminal complicity in the genocide resulting from the Bush-Clinton sanctions on Iraq. When asked if the resulting death of 500,000 children was "worth it," Albright said it was and did not even challenge the figure. You can see the video on Democracy Now:
No need to say more. This sums it up.
All the recent statistics I have read from left and right confirm that more young women are supporting Sanders than young men are supporting him. You don't need a PhD in statistics to understand that such stats are more indicative of boys supporting Sanders solely to get womens' attention rather than vice versa.
Having circulated in Washington DC circles too long, Steinem is part of the club. The only two possible explanations are that she is running out of excuses for supporting Clinton, or she is getting senile.
Years ago, a poster here used to start arguments with me related to Feminism on the assertion that Ms. Steinem for a time was a CIA asset. I did read something that seemed to agree.
She is also an Aries, the sign ruled by Mars and therefore may have an inner admiration for militarism--Hillary's chief passion it would seem. (Ultimately, this nation is run by the banks and military industrial complex so being deferential to those two entities is a key component when it comes to passing snuff with the Deep State/Power Establishment.)
And working as a Playboy Bunny, in my view, was catering to the latent sexism in society; and that was how Ms. Steinem also developed her bona fides.
Powerful women identify with Hillary... since she's in the Powerful Woman Group.
But women of conscience, women who support humanity, women who recognize that existing Establishment policies and protocols are harming women everywhere (not just inside the U.S.), women who care about Mother Nature and preserving living ecosystems, women on the front-end of all the fields of employment that mend the wounded in body, mind, and spirit... know that Mrs. Clinton largely represents a continuation of Dynasty Brand Politics.
A change is overdue. And young people know it, sense it, and rightfully demand it!
Mr. Sanders has lots of right-on ideas and many of us hope that his intelligence and compassion around domestic policies reliant upon sufficient funds will reciprocally draw down the monies that The Beast demands on an annual basis... so it can go about the world destroying homes, habitats, cultures, and thousands upon thousands of human beings.
It's amazing how people can be right about one thing and so very, very wrong about others.
Wow! Steinem's statement pretty much goes against everything she has been working for for decades. It would be something you'd expect to hear from a 'male chauvinist pig.'
As for Albright, the fact that she supports Clinton really says a lot about her establishment politics and the kind of foreign policy might be expected.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The millions of Fundamentalist Christians taught to think in terms of Personal Responsibility--and that "entitlement programs" are just plain wrong, and taught to think of Arabs and Muslims as some kind of religious foes in an unfolding End Times Conflict (purportedly predicated on "God's" will) don't identify with that WE.
It's always paternalistic to decide what person or group falls under any umbrella terminology.... and this is particularly true since for so many centuries, empowered white males made that determination and used force to impose it.
I am hearing lots of people from disaffected groups question that WE frame. And it's about time!
Granted, the world would be a better place if more people DID identify with a frame that's specific to Bernie Sander's stated positions and would-be policies (minus support for the use of drones).
Please understand that my interpretation of Bernie's "we" is "we that get it". "We" ain't everyone--never will be...
Although I don't agree with you on most things, much that you've written here is accurate apart form the above quote.
The rape, enslavement and genital mutilation of girls in the Arab world has gone on for a LONG time and it can hardly be made attributable to Mrs. Clinton. Even if it were possible to bring Democracy to these regions (not at bayonet point), that would not change their cultures overnight.
These acts are the product of misogyny.
It's fair to say that Mrs. Clinton is part of the War Command that brings fire and brimstone and the ruin of property along with the taking of lives. But it's a cheap shot--and 100% inaccurate--to attribute the cultural practices of Fundamentalist Islam to Mrs. Clinton.
I always find it amusing that ideas that I posit (and they ARE specific to me) end up recycled back by people like you who very often attack me. In other words, you coopt ideas and invert them (to use) for your own purposes.
There are many women who are so anxious to see A WOMAN in the seat of the Presidency that they miss the actual record of the woman closest to the throne.
Just as there were many Blacks who voted for Obama a second time after his pattern of betrayals had already set in.
While I don't agree with these stances, I think they are understandable--to a point--since they represent such long frustrated urges to see society represented fairly and equally.
Thank you for lightening up this discussion!
If you are a father, your kids have benefitted from your wit and intelligence.
To the posters who can't understand the sort of Feminist who supports Mrs. Clinton, I think my depiction of "Mars Rules" helps to explain it.
For decades, U.S. citizens have been so thoroughly conditioned to the Military State that what it does "in our names" (realistically, what it does is done to further the ambitions of corporations and continue to create rationales for the existence of the costly MIC behemoth) for many, goes unquestioned.
Instead of questioning the establishment that is inordinately based on militarism and foreign plunder (the sorrows of Empire), these "feminists" just want to see women become part of IT.
Maybe there is a gap here... a gap that parallels that of DLC conservative Democrats, "liberal hawks" and so forth (which to many of us, just are postures that essentially reflect Republican stands) in contrast with Progressive Dems.
Perhaps among Feminists, there are those individuals (many of them made comfortable in $ and status by The System) who don't see a need to create a new paradigm entirely... so long as token females operate some of the gears of the existing monstrosity.
(I call it a monstrosity since it is destroying nature at a maddening pace, and destroying cultures and human beings even faster.)
Women that support or laud another woman solely for that fact is a betrayal of all women, IMO. Voting for gender above all other considerations seems so shallow, ill-informed, and myopic. That knee-jerk support response could possibly be understood coming from "ordinary" people, but when those who should know better, especially those who have a history of advocacy for a group, support a candidate based solely on that candidates "belonging", it demeans all they have claimed to stand for........was their history a lie or is the current political pressure just too great?