Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Being a Feminist Does Not Mean Backing All Women

By Gloria Steinem, Women's Media Center. Posted January 16, 2007.


It's OK not to care if Condi Rice goes down with a sinking ship or if Katherine Harris, the woman who handed Florida's electoral votes to Bush in 2000, enters history as an unprincipled crook.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Gloria Steinem

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There is still a false idea out there that feminists back every woman, regardless of how she behaves. Let's leave that behind right along with 2006.

In fact, feminism is just the belief that all people have the full circle of human qualities combined in a unique way in each of us. The simplistic labels of "feminine" and "masculine" are mostly about what society wants us to do: submerge our unique humanity in care giving and reproducing if we're women, and trade our unique humanity for power if we're men.

So yes, I believe that women have the right to be wrong, with no double standard of criticism. But when we have the power to make a choice, we also have responsibility. Biology isn't destiny, and it isn't a free pass either.

Take the example of Condoleezza Rice. As George W. Bush's hired gun for foreign policy, she's been working for a guy who is opposed overwhelmingly by African American women and men voters, and by a majority of all women voters, too. Many white men are giving up on him too. Still, Rice could be given credit for sincerity in believing that Bush knows better what is good for the country than most people in it -- if she weren't so hypocritical.

When Rice was made provost of Stanford University, for example, she was the product of affirmative action. (I'm not saying she isn't smart; on the contrary, affirmative action often raises standards by enlarging the pool of talent.) The problem was that she pulled up the ladder behind her by opposing affirmative action for everybody else. When she benefited from Bush's support as well as his effort to attract some black voters by appointing a second African American secretary of state, she quickly became Bush's justifier and marketer instead of his advisor. Unlike her predecessor Colin Powell, she doesn't seem to have tried to mitigate disaster or given unwelcome advice about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Instead, she sugarcoated this illegal invasion in pretty public phrases about democracy, and became Bush's "yes" woman in inner circles, too.

So I don't care that she's going down with a sinking ship. She helped to take the United States to a new low in world respect, a new high in world hatred, and a new danger from increased terrorism. I don't care that she got in big trouble on every front, from shopping for designer shoes on Madison Avenue while the poor of New Orleans were drowning to renewing the painful old image of the smart black retainer working for the not-so-smart Southern family. She has gone from a Presidential "mention" to an unmentionable on the coattails of the boss she chose.

Then there is the pop cultural saga of Judith Regan. As an entrepreneurial editor, she turned Howard Stern's juvenile monologues into a book from her basement, then continued publishing him as he created such trademarks as persuading women (but not men) to strip and subject themselves to ridicule on his television show. Her publishing empire kept going up in profits and down in taste until she finally reached the bottom: O. J. Simpson.

By profiteering on a book and TV interview in which Simpson told his story "as if" he had murdered his estranged wife and her friend -- something millions of Americans and at least one jury believe he did -- she finally reached a point that could no longer be deodorized by money. Though she tried to save her ass by insisting she had got Simpson to confess -- something Simpson promptly denied -- there was a rebellion from bookstores to TV stations, from the families of the murdered to talk show hosts. She was fired as an embarrassment.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminism

Gloria Steinem is the founder and original publisher of Ms. Magazine and serves on the board of the Women’s Media Center.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Condi just affirmative action/feminism frankenstein
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 16, 2007 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is nice to read those who have doggedly served the causes of affirmative action and feminism having a collective puke over the monsters they have created. I shall share my experience in the past ten years with the women who have been promoted through affirmative action.

I have worked with many female bosses and colleagues over the years. But the organisation I work for has been on a binge of hiring women and especially minority women, into senior roles to address inequalities. And to a woman since that has been happening, I have had to work for the most nasty, incompetent women I have ever encountered at work.

I have watchd these women treat other women like garbage, lie constantly to cover up their lack of real talent as managers, and then lock themselves in their offices to avoid all the carnage and bash away on their computer keyboards applying for their next job. In fact, rather than coming up short for failings, such a women is a hot property in today's job market and she knows it. She can pick and choose where she wants to work because every major employer wants to meet all their equity guidelines.

What I have found annoying is watching these women sail ahead while the women I remember who got ahead against many obstacles because they were just good at their job, are still stuck lower down the ladder. It reminds me - that rather than history being an ever-rising arc of progress - progress can actually be failure in drag. Our situation today is widespread mediocrity and incompetence rewarded for other criteria than actual ability. It explains this stupid war and it explains all the corporate corruption and failure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» . . . Posted by: MAD
» Ok, let's deconstruct a little... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Sunset Blvd Posted by: Kelly
This is not a feminist essay
Posted by: anothername on Jan 16, 2007 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is this commentary worthy of AlterNet? The answer is that it bashes people linked to the political right or to examples of ill-conceived corporate behavior. The fact that the main people happen to be women is irrelevant in these descriptions. That irrelevancy is the real success of feminism. We now have enough women in various public and private positions that individuals are free to be themselves and to make choices with less consideration of their gender.

Just as people join the Communist Party in the old Soviet Union or joined the Baathists in old Iraq in order to have jobs without really supporting the beliefs, there are women who take advantage of the efforts of feminists and unionists to improve the options and pay equity for everyone without really believing in the cause. This should not be shocking to discover and should not be the excuse for a vitrolic essay such as the one above. People, regardless of gender, make use of the tools at hand to advance themselves.

As for the first poster in the comments section, I cannot speak directly to the specific situations, but I have found that any company unable to identify between competent and incompetent employees, regardless of gender, ethnicity/race, or other cultural difference, usually has deeper problems. Unfortunately, there also are employers that will place less competent people into certain positions intentionally to better position another person within the company. Affirmative action, as with feminism, has given numerous people opportunities that then allowed other people to have equal opportunity without specific affirmative action. Individuals have won and lost under the actions, but the nation as a whole has been improved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism=equality
Posted by: Allison on Jan 16, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feminism is supposedly about equality with, and not superiority to, men, is it not? So where's the problem in saying "women can be colossal assholes too"? Equality's a bugger, you get the bad with the good - equal opportunity to sell out to power and money, equal opportunity to screw the public you supposedly serve and waste their lives in war. Equal opportunity to have an oil tanker named after you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rhetoric vs Reality
Posted by: H_H on Jan 16, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is still a false idea out there that feminists back every woman, regardless of how she behaves. Let's leave that behind right along with 2006.

Hm. Interesting how she politely doesn't NAME the feminists who acted in such a way *Cough! Dworkin! Cough! Cough! Atkinson! Cough! MacKinnon! Cough! Cough! Mary Daly!* Excuse me.

Gee, I wonder how people would otherwise get such a funny idea stuck in their heads? How, I wonder? It must be totally inexplicable! How on earth could anyone get the impression that much of feminism boils-down to a crude "I heart boobs" formula?

Like, for instance, when NOW came-out to defend Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 kids in the bathtub? They weren't defending a killer on the basis of her sex. No way. They would have shown exactly the same support for a man who drowned 5 kids in a bathtub. Right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hetoric vs Reality Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: hetoric vs Reality Posted by: H_H
» Reality Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Stingers Posted by: Kelly
» RE: Stingers Posted by: H_H
» RE: Stingers Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Stingers Posted by: H_H
» RE: hetoric vs Reality Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
True feminism?
Posted by: lwbaby on Jan 16, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In hair and make-up otherwise reserved for female impersonators"

Why is it still impossible for a woman's appearance to not be made mention of?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good point, lwbaby Posted by: hbw
» RE: True feminism? Posted by: chinaskicharles
» RE: True feminism? Posted by: owlbear1
from an eco-feminist
Posted by: wawa on Jan 16, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bashing others is easy and women as well as men can be jerks.


Activism takes energy, passion and committment.

When it is spiritually based-as was MLK's activism-it will reap results.


"On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?"

"But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?"

"And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. "-MLK


As an eco-feminist, author, activist and person of conscience for me, doing right means:
Doing Something.

On January 27th, I will be marching for Peace and Justice and an End to War and Occupation in the streets of DC.

I will be speaking and offering "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" during the January 28th
Lobby Preparation day


details for action:
http://unitedforpeace.org/

hoping to meet those of you who choose to
Do Something,



e
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: from an eco-feminist Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: from an eco-feminist Posted by: lisaisalefty
» To a beautiful woman Posted by: ssegallmd
So what, Gloria?
Posted by: katyalynn on Jan 16, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
******NewsFlash******

Women *gasp* actually make mistakes and, on occasion, can be assholes just like their male counterparts.

***End Transmission***

Is this really newsworthy? Has feminism come so far that all but a few, select women are beyond reproach? And in Alternet's case, I would ask: when did it become gospel that simply possessing a Y chromosome branded you an all-around bad person? Given the tone of some of their stories, I have to ask.

Gloria's suggestion that we shouldn't endorse all women simply because we're feminists is (I hope) preaching to the choir. My female boss is quite possibly the most incompetent, hateful and bigoted knee-jerk conservative I have ever known and a substantial percentage of women whose presence I am forced to endure are vacuous, budding socialites who never met a book they didn't hate and a Prada bag they didn't "just love".

That said, women need more opportunities on a national, political level as I'm positive they can't do worse than the current batch of troglodytes, but I'm not holding my breath that things will change drastically. Women play the "go along to get along" game pretty damn well. Hillary comes to mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what, Gloria? Posted by: ssegallmd
Ho-hum...
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jan 16, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This sounds like the beginnings of a mirror universe version of Bernard Goldberg's "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)" - except I don't think Goldberg discriminated by sex. Ok, so Gloria gets a pass because she was a faux Playboy bunny once, but I think Jack Huberman beat her to the marketplace with "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America". (It's difficult to believe either when they don't include Joan Rivers...)

I love the way she makes feminism sound so innocuous: "just [as in "merely"] the belief that all people have the full circle of human qualities combined in a unique way in each of us." Can we all join in on the chorus of Kum Ba Yah?

If her claim is true, then why do its advocates so often sound like spoiled and ill-mannered adolescent brats demanding everything be changed to suit their particular fantasies about reality?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ho-hum... Posted by: lisaisalefty
» Ok, since you're drawing the analogy... Posted by: MartianBachelor
2 cents
Posted by: chinaskicharles on Jan 16, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i've never viewed feminism as a movement that backed *all* women. i've always thought powerful feminists backed those women who were good for the cause.

i mean, let's be real: no one is going to back someone who is saying something that is inconvenient to your cause.

well, lawyers sometimes do, but they're in a special situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hits the nail on the head
Posted by: timebomb734 on Jan 16, 2007 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There seems to be some kind of female-guilt associated with knocking women who have achieved positions of power. Academic feminists have some kind of mental block against female critique. I never believed that to be completely true until I took my first (and last) women's studies class this past fall. It was a women and public policy class, and one day we got to the topic of Hilary Clinton. After my unfavorable comments about the senator, I was met with silence and looks of discomfort from every other woman in the class. I laughed a bit and jokingly apologized, stating that I forgot I was in a women's studies class. The only response was a very hasty "it's fine, it's fine, forget about it." It seems that the bastion of feminist education (women's studies departments) are all about open minds and equality until one of their own gets hit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hilary is evil Posted by: julamo
Thank you Captain Obvious
Posted by: Moonbat on Jan 16, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot believe it has taken this long for feminism to figure this out.

Duh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It hasn't - thats her point. Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
What would Martin Luther King say?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 16, 2007 9:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I have a dream... that someday all human beings will be able to engage in cutthroat corporate profiteering regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or physical handicap."

"I have a dream... that someday, the very people oppressing the poor sanitary workers of Memphis will be, not white males, but black females... that someday, the heads of brutal and murderous oil corporations will be as diverse as all the colors of the rainbow... I have a dream!"

"I have a dream - that someday, all of God's people will be given the opportunity to oppress others with impunity so that they may become fabulously wealthy, and be able to sing, loud and clear, 'Filthy rich at last! Filthy rich at last!'"

(To make this work, you have to imagine the rich oratory timbre of MLK's voice)

BULL! That's not the idea, but that's what most of the lame 'equal rights' movements have morphed into over time - measuring success by how many of 'their people' get to be 'top dog' - totally pathetic sell-outs to the overriding notion of nihilistic corporate greed - yes, I'm talking to the Puff Daddy hip-hop stars - and to the friggin baby boomers - don't expect me to pay for your social security, either! @#$%^&*! (okay, some of you get a pass, and three cheers as well, but you know who I'm talking about)

Martin Luther King must be turning in his grave to see what's become of the great movement that he participated in. Wake the f--k up! James Brown would be pulling out his shotgun right about now, and giving you a little bit of soulful wisdom - "you know, slaves were sold by black people - so until I deal with both the seller and the sellee..." (See what happens when you drink too much coffee before posting on Alternet? I'll probably regret this in the morning)

Stephen Colbert's take on "I have a dreamsicle" was right on the money - I also get a friggin' headache when I think about this issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Equally bad.
Posted by: BazookaTooth on Jan 16, 2007 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife said something really wise once. (We are both white women.) I wondered what would motivate black people to be homophobic, as they have experienced prejudice. She said, "You believe that black people are just as good as white, am I right?" I nodded. "So can they not also be just as *bad*?" It reminded me that they could make their own decisions and were just as responsible for their hatred as any white person. And a bit of racism died in me that day.

I think the same principle applies when it comes to women we disagree with, or even think are doing outright horrible things. We've spent so much time arguing that women are as good as men, and we are. But we are also as bad, and when that happens, we need to be called into account and held responsible, just like men.

May that happen to Ms. Rice and all the rest of them QUICKSTYLE!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: qually bad. Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Gloria - We have a long way to go...
Posted by: Arlene1971 on Jan 16, 2007 10:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1971, following a women's rights press conference, I walked along a Atlanta hotel hallway chatting with Gloria Steinem, delighted to finally meet the icon of the feminist movement. I was a NOW VP at the time, a strategist, impatient to get on to a morning meeting to insure passage of the ERA.

I had followed Gloria's career since her bunny story days. I knew about her "Beach Book." I teased her about it. We laughed. I said "Ahhhh. We really have come a long way - and it won't be long now." I believe we believed it.

That was my single encounter with Gloria Steinem.

That day was a giddy day - and one of the last times I would ever naively hold the faith that simple fairness, logic and reason - and if not that, the law - would prevail for women's rights in this country.

Over the next several months, I experienced a rude awakening. The ERA fight went down in a stunning defeat in Georgia. The fight had little to do with reason or fairness. It had everything to do with personal prejudices and a blinding resistence to intellectual honesty.

Now, over 31 years later, I read blogs like this one and find myself puzzling over why so many people, including women - inexplicably women - still cannot seem to think past their own private, personal experiences when formulating their world view of a woman's place in society. Whether intentional or not, these narrow prisms of thought are intellectually dishonest, and extraordinarily limiting - as they have always been. The whole of human kind suffers for it.

Several of the comments here are predictably anti-feminist, no surprise. What amazes me, however, is that several hold the opinion that this is a non-story.

The mere fact that anyone believes our world is presently so egalitarian that Gloria's comments are unnecessary proves beyond a doubt how painfully necessary they still are.

You go, Gloria!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gloria Lightning Rod
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 17, 2007 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For people of a certain generation (mine), Gloria Steinem is a lightning rod, sure to attract that stray bit of lethal negative energy, drowned out often by people angry that a good-looking woman like her would speak so persuasively against the prevailing popular mindset.

She doesn't give up, or grow silent—or cranky—as she ages. That's integrity, for me.

I think we must recognize that until the 2006 election we were marching pretty much lockstep into a fascist state. That the "unitary" power of the presidency, insured by people like Cheney, DeLay, Norquist, Rove, and Abramoff, seemed to some unstoppable and ubiquitous.

Power is seductive, and it's not surprising that women are drawn to it. The right takes advantage of this. Disagree with Colin Powell? You're a racist. Oppose Condi Rice? You're both a racist and a feminist hypocrite. Just look what happened to Barbara Boxer the other day: she tried to make common ground with Rice, and both Rice and the media zeroed in on half her remarks. Even Rice's own cousin, a community activist, says Condi is drawn to courting power rather than empowering the powerless.

Let's not forget on those women who speak their truth to power: Cindy Sheehan, Boxer, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Nancy Pelosi, Helen Thomas, Mollie Ivins, add your own. You may not agree with everything they say, but I would argue that these women have helped pop the bubble that has surrounded Bush all his life, especially since 9/11. Gloria's right, sucking up is easier, but being used is not a feminist value.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not about feminism
Posted by: packer29 on Jan 17, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Steinem not bringing feminism into the Condi/Steinem debate has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with partisan politics, just as she does not support the plight of women subjected to the chauvinism of Islam. To a liberal the issue is always subordinate to the skewing of the political perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beyond liberal feminism
Posted by: hagwind on Jan 17, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Steinem wrote:
In fact, feminism is just the belief that all people have the full circle of human qualities combined in a unique way in each of us.

This is a pretty good formulation of liberal feminism as practiced in the U.S. of A., but there's more to feminism than that. Distilled down to one sentence, feminism is a worldview that puts women in the foreground. No other major political theory, philosophy, or theology does this. We're so used to the idea that men are in the foreground and women in the back (or completely off-stage) that this requires both imagination and courage. Over the years I've noticed that the feminist thinkers who get bashed the hardest (by women as well as men, need I say -- including other feminists) are the ones whose theories and strategies put women in the foreground and devote minimal or no attention to making men comfortable.

A feminist who puts women in the foreground -- not just one or two women, or just women of a particular class or country -- won't have much trouble figuring out why she's under no obligation to uncritically support Condoleezza Rice -- or Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi for that matter. (Why didn't Steinem mention them?? Her essay would have been stronger if she hadn't picked such easy targets.) As long as the political structure is patriarchal (i.e., it assumes that men are entitled to the foreground), women have strong incentives not to put women first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rampant myopia Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Beyond liberal feminism Posted by: DaBear
Brava, brava, brava, Gloria!
Posted by: movieluddite on Jan 17, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a woman who's worked in a very tough, very macho, overwhelmingly male field for over thirty years. (Some of my other vehicles have 3000 horsepower V-16 General Electric diesel engines.) And I have been so heartily sick of the expectation of "We have to support all women on The Job, no matter how befuddled, incompetent, or dangerous to life and limb they are," that this article is a breath of much-needed fresh air!

I've said for many years that equal opportunity means not only the opportunity to excel; and not only to do a decent day-to-day job, plodding along with the rest of your co-workers.

It also means equal opportunity to be an obvious royal screwup and take your lumps accordingly, without blaming The System, The Man, the moon's phases, or "everybody hates me because I'm an outspoken woman."

It's good to see someone prominent come right out and say that there are some women whom you simply cannot support (publicly or privately) with a straight face, because their actions other than being female simply don't warrant support.

Brava, Gloria!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in summation
Posted by: xenacat on Jan 17, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women can be complete assholes just as well as men can. It is worthwhile to take a clear eyed look at that fact. It is the humanity and competence of the individual that should be looked at, not the gender. Forget the masculine/feminine BS, since it is usually just a smokescreen. Good for Gloria - she merely states the obvious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Add To Gloria's List...
Posted by: bob t on Jan 17, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the likes of other vicious women such as Peggy Noonan and Phyllis Schlafly. Yup Gloria is correct their are women who do not deserve any support and their are vicious women just as their are vicious men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gailzy
Posted by: gailhen on Jan 17, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally! I get so tired of being told, especially by other women, that a woman who is behaving badly should still be supported because a female has finally attained a breakthrough in some male bastion. Bull Pucky! In order for this breakthrough to be meaningful, it is necessary for this woman to bring our so-called positive feminine attributes to the fold instead of trying to outdo some nasty male behavior in order to show we can do the job as well or better than a man. Thank you, Gloria. As usual your input is great and because you're you and have accomplished your leadership by doing precisely the above, people pay attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But what about the Mirror, Gloria?
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 17, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like this piece... it gives me hope: naming the enemies of feminism, etc. and all that. But what about the mirror? What about applying this rubric to Hillary, Nancy, and other women of the "left" who have used (or let others use on their behalf) their gender as a pass and have often held the uncritical support of second-wave feminism's leaders? Gloria had plenty of shame for the men of the left, particularly Nader, Camejo and David Cobb, but oddly she gave a pass to the female-gender heros of her own tribe? I guess the mirror is still blank, eh, Gloria? Oh, maybe it's part of that female wild zone that my male gender-limited humanity cannot know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a general rule
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Jan 17, 2007 11:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women shouldn't support women who hate women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Believe it or not...she's got a couple of innacuracies mentioned...
Posted by: realmuzik on Jan 18, 2007 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but fear not. They have nothing to do with the overall theme of this article...which is indeed a "breath of fresh air" as some of you have remarked here. ;-)

CORRECTION: Judith Regan did not start her publishing career editing Howard Stern's books. She started with the first RUSH LIMBAUGH one. And believe it or not...some men have indeed undressed on Stern's show. ;D

My problem with Steinem is that she refuses to acknowledge the sex-positive side of feminism, which to me is about taking charge of one's own sexuality...claiming it as part of one's own healthy relationship with one's own self and/or any one (or more?) other person(s?)...which is...duh...fact-of-life #1. Nina Hartley, BUST magazine, Heather Corrinna, Tristan Taormino, Annie Sprinkle, and Susie Bright come to mind (to name a few). She must still be mourning Andrea Dworkin...who I thought was delusional having previously read her dreadful works in-between the lines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jeri Rasmussen, feminist, activist, mother, grandmother
Posted by: jerir on Jan 20, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo Gloria. The Bushes are vile family of privilege and can the end come too soon. When it comes to stem cell research I am waiting for the day that Barbara Bush's ugly, bulging eyes roll down her patrician checks....then "boy" will go into high gear. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns...every death in Iraq is stiched to their miserable souls. May they never rest in peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals To Black Beneficiaries of Affirmative Action: We Own You
Posted by: Jamila Akil on Jan 24, 2007 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good thing that Gloria Steinem isn't calling Condolezza Rice dumb in light of the litany of accomplishments which speak for her intelligence, ambition, and ability to achieve any goal that she sets for herself--too bad Ms. Rice has an invisible sign atop her head that reads loud and clear "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RECIPIENT". One has to wonder why Steinem believes that Ms. Rice owes her continual success to affirmative action policies when her credentials speak for themselves?

The problem that Gloria Steinem failed to articulate is that Ms. Rice is not sufficiently supplicant to the will of feminists such as Steinem and the fact that Rice dares to be a black Republican and conservative, when we all should know that the Democratic Party ( and by association, the liberals, who have advocated the idea that affirmative action is a necessity for black people to ever gain equality in America) de facto own the vote of every black person in America. Now that white liberals have been so kind as to support affirmative action out of the goodness of their hearts under the guise of helping alleviate inequality, Steinem, and others of her ideological leaning are here to tell black people that they must return the favor by supporting a liberal agenda and, in turn, the Democratic party. White liberals want to know how can a black person dare to vote for a Republican, or, (gasp!) be a Republican after all the Democratic party has done for them. Look at how ungrateful you black folks are!

At the end of the day, affirmative action is the ball and chain that liberals get to tie to the ankle of any black person that is deemed to be too independent thinking or too conservative. In other words, the liberals may have given minorities in America something free in the form of affirmative action, but those same liberals won't hesitate for one moment to remind a black person that the price of their gift is unflinching allegiance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]