2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWomen respond to Gloria Steinem's apology:
More:
https://m.facebook.com/GloriaSteinem/posts/10153237059092854
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Very impressive group of intelligent young women. The country's future is gonna be in great hands.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)It's almost as if it was written for this very occasion...
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)don't seem to be impressed either.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
kath
(10,565 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)It was "I said something offensive, and it is your fault that it offended you."
boston bean
(36,839 posts)feminists alive today...
Who the fuck do they think they are calling her a sexist. FUCK THEM.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)she should own up and give a real apology. Can't believe you'd defend a statement like that. I thought you were supportive of women. Certainly if that statement came from a man, or a Sanders supporter, you would be all over it.
George II
(67,782 posts)questionseverything
(11,509 posts)but posting polite opinions
we still all have a right to that
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)you forget that everything they say isn't golden. She is completely and totally wrong here and ANYONE can say what they think to and about her because she isn't god. She's a person who said something completely stupid. "Who are they?"
THey are the ones Steinem slut shamed.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)She said something absurd as well as insulting, tried to walk it back and blew it. 
dana_b
(11,546 posts)She's not some sacred or omniscient feminist whose every word is a golden nugget. She's a human being who sometimes says some DUMB shit! What she said was insulting and anti feminist. If she would own it, we'd move on.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)She brought the scorn on herself.
Lancero
(3,257 posts)And no one should be outraged by them?
boston bean
(36,839 posts)Ridiculous thing some one could say.
Lancero
(3,257 posts)But nice dodge
That said, the people are calling her comments - That women only support Bernie because they are looking for boyfriends - sexist, not her.
Some more comments from her FB - I haven't looked through every comment, but none of the ones I've seen have called her a sexist. They are calling her on making a sexist comment, not calling her a sexist.
...her blatantly sexist, demeaning comment
...you said young women choose their political candidates based on what boys want. That was sexist and ridiculous.
...She doesn't get a free pass for making a sexist generalization about an entire generation of women.
...You didn't mean that young feminists support Sanders because the boys are there? What exactly did you mean?
...Unfortunately, you said quite plainly that young women gravitate towards Bernie Sanders because that's "where the boys are"...clearly implying young women could not possibly support Bernie Sanders for their own reasons.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)Lancero
(3,257 posts)None of the posted comments in the OP are calling her a sexist. They are calling of her COMMENT sexist.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)Perhaps someone on FB has called her a sexist, but so far all of the comments I've read on her profile are calling her comment, not her, sexist.
I've just looked over the top 50 though, I've got more important things to do then to dig through over two thousand facebook comments just to find something to back up YOUR allegations.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Who the fuck do they think they are calling her a sexist. FUCK THEM.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Well, then I suggest you read the post you responded to, so you can respond to what I wrote.
He did reply to what you wrote.
You are doing the same thing with Gloria that you do with Hillary.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)boston bean
(36,839 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You got an Uh Huh stuck in your throat. 
boston bean
(36,839 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Cause I bet there's more of those where that one came from. 
boston bean
(36,839 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)boston bean
(36,839 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)believe or think gets thrown under the bus, even if it means throwing the entire issue of feminism under the bus with them.
Funny how the most vocal feminists on this board don't seem to care about feminism when the want to support their chosen one. Supporting a woman no matter what has nothing to do with real feminism. You could learn a lot from reading the comments by those intelligent, strong young women.
.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)boston bean
(36,839 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)burn this place down. She doesn't get a pass. In fact, I would expect her to know better.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I started voting in the early '80s and not once did a boy, or boys, influence my choice of candidate. Gloria, you blew this one.
paleotn
(21,382 posts)you're kidding, right? 
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)and she showed that in spades.
zazen
(2,978 posts)I am very disappointed in Steinem, speaking as a radical anti-pornography feminist.
I know that Andrea Dworkin and her post-mortem web-site maintainer and activist Nikki Craft didn't have a very high opinion of the Clintons and I'm pretty sure Andrea, who was friends with Gloria, would be writing some amazing analysis of all of this right now. Until the last years of her life Dworkin was one the most incisive feminist writer alive. I really miss her.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's who the fuck they are.
She's a public person and public people can be called names and what she said was sexist. Period.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)No one here is campaigning for the republicans.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If Cruz wins the WH, he's determined to roll back Roe v. Wade and all the gains that GS fought for.
She's what, eighty one? She might not be there to lead the charge again.
Rights can be taken away. And all it takes is a GOP asshole POTUS to do that.
Why do you think so many scientists ran to Europe during the Bush adminstration?
Stem cell research? Hello?
No one wore hijab in the cities in Iran and Iraq forty years ago. They rolled back the clock there, too.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I don't follow your logic at all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It reminds me of the way OCCUPY threw John Lewis under the bus.
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
You throw the teacher under the bus, you'll have to re-learn the lesson on your own. Those who are so readily alienated might want to note who chiseled the path for them.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But back on topic, what does any of this have to do with Rubio, or Trump winning?
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone" is another way to express the POV. People sometimes take what they regard as rights for granted and they sometimes don't realize that those who oppose them having those rights will work earnestly to take them away.
If the GOP has their way, abortion will be illegal, birth control will be tough to obtain, and women will be constrained in their reproductive choice. This will impact their lives in obvious and negative ways. That's the point I was making.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It's a true statement, but what does women being offended at Steinem's remarks have to do with it?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But go ahead with the scare tactics.
MADem
(135,425 posts)override a veto, we'd have trouble.
And he's going to have to win a LOT of primaries before he can run in a general election. Not just this one in NH.
Can't believe the bias I'm reading in this thread!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You are talking about bias?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Most people hate Congress but love their own reps. It's not easy to shift them. Incumbency has its own inertia.
paleotn
(21,382 posts)...2 per state. No more, no less. No gerrymandering there. Do American Civics much?
Can't believe the bias I'm reading in your post.
MADem
(135,425 posts)you're trying to make. That sounds to me like a few disjointed sentences culled from other posts, jumbled into a paragraph--with a couple of emojis. But it is entirely unresponsive to what I said.
Speaking of American civics, you DO know how a veto is overridden? I'm getting the impression you don't.
And please--explain this "bias" you're reading. Precisely, please. TIA.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)forgotten. Principles and issues seem to always manage to be swept aside when necessary to defend Hillary. Just because you are supporting a woman does not in any way mean are by extension supporting feminism. Defending someone who made a completely sexist comment over the young women who were insulted as not having mind of their own is the clearest example of that yet.
Do you stand by her statement about girls being for Sanders just because boys are? Do you stand by her blaming the young women for misinterpreting her instead of taking responsibility for what she said?
.
MADem
(135,425 posts)above feigning an interest in something to gain advantage in my frisky youth. I only speak for myself, of course.
If she'd said "The boys are where the girls are," or words to that effect, I doubt anyone would have batted an eye.
That said, there's no "winning" this one--this is going to be The Crime of The Century until the next one comes along. "Under the bus, Gloria!! UNDER THAT BUS!! Apologies not accepted, context not acknowledged! Gloria, you remain UNFORGIVEN!!!"
cui bono
(19,926 posts)It was not an apology. She blamed the women for misinterpreting what she said when what she said was very clear. But in defending her I see young women who support Bernie being thrown under the bus.
You just said almost the same thing just now: "I don't presume to speak for girls--or boys. I do know that I wasn't above feigning an interest in something to gain advantage in my frisky youth. I only speak for myself, of course. "
wink, wink.
You are belittling their choice of Sanders right there. Is it so difficult to believe that a lot of women - it seems most women these days - think Bernie is the better candidate? That they aren't going to vote for a woman just because of gender? That they don't see feminism as a team sport but as something that empowers them to be able to think for themselves, make their own choices and not be belittled because it isn't Hillary Clinton?
.
MADem
(135,425 posts)EVER go do something I didn't really want to do simply because there was a chance of getting a date with someone I was interested in. I could say that, but I'd be lying, and I'd rather not do that. And I DO only speak for myself. I am not "belittling" anyone because as I took PAINS to note, I do not speak for them.
But boy--I was right about one thing--not only UNFORGIVEN but anyone who objects to the piling on gets the same treatment!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Surely you can see that?
I'm glad to see the young women who are choosing Bernie are doing so for all the right reasons. They have spoken and made it very clear that they know exactly what they are doing and that to them, feminism means they get to make up their own mind and vote for who they choose.
.
MADem
(135,425 posts)When she was coming up, there wasn't anything wrong or surprising about sexual attraction. It was a pretty common deal in those college years, and the "sexual revolution" was in full swing.
She probably said it, because she DID it.
Now, there are more 'rules' to the process of "hooking up" (such a strange term) that were not in place when Steinem was coming up. The rules certainly make the encounters far more likely to be consensual in every respect, but they weren't part of the routine in her era.
I guess nowadays a person (regardless of gender) isn't allowed to admit that they went to a lecture, took a class, attended a concert or sports event, etc. because they knew that attractive people they were interested in meeting/spending more time with were also attending, or suggest the possibility that others might be doing the same thing, for fear of causing offense.
There was a bank robber Willie Sutton, who, when asked why he robbed banks, replied "Because that's where the money is." People who are interested in finding a partner will go to where they'll find who they're looking for. That's all she was saying. Disagree with her if you'd like, but this stuffing her under the bus is a bit OTT IMO. And you may not be doing any stuffing, but plenty of others are.
You'd think she came out as anti-choice, for all the excorating she's getting.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And now are again diminishing these women who choose Bernie by yet again, likening it to a whim just to get a boy.
These are strong, intelligent feminists, as evidenced by their posts above. Steinem was completely wrong by saying they weren't thinking and that they just followed the boys around and you are adding to it with your anecdotes. The women we are talking about have spoken, you can read their words above, and by continuing to say that there are some women who probably do things just to get a date or get noticed by a boy, you are perpetuating the sexist meme.
Why can't you and Steinem accept the fact that young women can be smart feminists and choose to support Bernie all on their own, for no other reason that they think he will be a better president than Hillary?
.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You just tossed that in there to paint me as intolerant. Cheap shot, that.
I don't think the "women who chose Bernie" are special snowflakes. If they are the "strong, intelligent feminists" you insist they are, then they can handle an offhand remark (likely based on her own personal experience) from an eighty one year old feminist icon.
You never "followed around" those you were attracted to? I sure did--and I got "followed around" in return. That's how it was done back in the day. Nowadays, perhaps, the dating/mating game is done differently. That was MY experience, though--and I'll wager it was Gloria's as well. I am not insisting it is anyone else's experience, so I'm not sure why you're trying to play that I am doing that.
I think you aren't reading what I wrote, but instead "interpreting," because I did not say what you're claiming I said. This thought of yours is your creation, not my view:
I didn't say that--never mind "continue to say." But see--you engaged in a low blow and said I said something I didn't say. Not cool. I spoke of MY experience, and speculated on hers, but I didn't say jack about "some women who probably do things."
This kind of "conversation" isn't the way to have an open exchange of views.
But hey, go stuff the old lady under the bus. Eighty one years old, spent her entire life working for the benefit of women and girls, and from the sages at DU we get 'Not GOOD ENOUGH, GLORIA!'
and smh!
I still like Gloria and I think she has a right to her opinions. She's done a lot for humanity in her eighty one years. I think far better of her than I do of the DUers going out of their way to denigrate her for an offhand remark on frigging Bill Maher's show! Another "OH, the Huge Manatee" moment here on this discussion board...
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)So many young women need to understand what rights they have that were only so recently won and how in danger they are of losing them.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Are we all supposed to bow and think exactly as she does - especially when she thinks narrowly?
The womens' movement was and is much broader than just Gloria Steinem. She never was or will be the founder or the only feminist thinker or activist.
An authentic feminist should be able to make her own choices when she goes to the voting booth to vote for who she thinks is best for her and her life. We don't need to be bullied by Steinem's bias in this presidential race. This is really bad form on Steinem's part, and demonstrates she had not thought carefully about this issue before speaking as she did.
MADem
(135,425 posts)No, you shouldn't "credit the womens' movement solely to Gloria Steinem." But you should give credit where due--and she is due a LOT of credit.
No, you aren't "supposed to bow and think exactly as she does" -- but you might stop, and think, and understand she's an eighty one year old woman who came up in a different time and place--and very likely spoke from her own PERSONAL experience.
Anyone who insists that her offhand remark on a satirical, comedic, current events program was "bullying" needs to get some perspective. SERIOUSLY. Steinem is an "authentic feminist" -- and a far better one than many of her detractors, IMO.
But hey--you go on with your bad self, and stuff her under the bus! Then pat yourself on the back for ""saving"" Bernie from a dangerous, elderly woman with an opinion!
DaGimpster
(130 posts)I showed your post to my wife, and you didn't help much.
840high
(17,196 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Wow.
Do you say that to EVERYONE who says anything you ever disagree with? Do you have the ability to recognize that people make mistakes, say things you don't like, etc. and that does not make them bad or evil or hateful or deserving of being told, "f*ck you?"
Gloria Steinem, of course, is going to be fine because she has already burned her legacy onto the soul of this country - and did so while putting up with infinitely worse slings and arrows and insults than the petulant whining we're being treated to by of a bunch of spoiled, entitled narrow-minded people who don't seem to have a clue how much they owe her.
So they can keep up with their idiotic rants to their heart's content. Gloria Steinem will rock on despite them.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)completely wrong. Spoiled and narrow minded. How about having say Phyllis Schlafly say the same thing. Would you defend it too? Poor Gloria. She slut shamed an entire generation and now they don't like it. They should just silently take her criticism instead of defending themselves against it like strong feminist
women.
840high
(17,196 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)
.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)who dared criticize a Hillary surrogate.
.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Not to mention childish. "You said 'F*ck them,' so I said 'F*ck HER!'" Because it really helps advance your argument and your candidate to hurl obscenities at a woman because someone hurled obscenities at other women who criticized that woman.
Real class act you got going there . . .
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:34 PM - Edit history (2)
Second of all, you are willfully ignoring the first half of the conversation, because you are showing selective outrage over one "fuck her" and not the other "FUCK THEM" that was directed at all the young women who were standing up for themselves after being described as only choosing something because boys did.
The other, second, "fuck her" was in response to the person who said the sexist comment.
Now, really, which is worse? Imagine it was about racism and not sexism, would you still brush aside the entire issue of racism and say that the blacks who were standing up for themselves after being told they were not thinking for themselves but just following (insert something akin to girls following boys just because boys here)? I doubt it.
But here you are, seemingly willing to tell us women how wrong we are just because you want to defend a Hillary surrogate. Please set aside politics and look at the issue. You are being closed minded and beating up on the victims here due to partisanship.
.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)to insult the present, saying that they were out to get boys, bringing back ghosts that she herself tried to exorcise. Giving someone a hundred dollars yesterday does not excuse them stealing 200 today.
as far as this part:
"petulant whining we're being treated to by of a bunch of spoiled, entitled narrow-minded people who don't seem to have a clue how much they owe her. "
Some of those people that replied did not seem very entitled, many of them were the poor, stressed women that Gloria used to speak for. And considering how many wrote about how they read and loved her, they had an idea what they owed, but that never ever entitles someone to be abusive. I am sure Gloria will rock on, but if she continues this half hearted apology, she will tarnish that legacy.
It would be a tragic if people that spent their whole lives defending women end up demonizing them for the sake of one very privileged woman.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)supporting Bernie because that's where the boys are.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Yeah. Bernie supporters are the big problem.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)
You're just supposed to suck up the abuse because it makes Bernie look bad. 
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Hillary. Must. Not. Lose. Twice.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)omgz....
.
Arazi
(8,678 posts)She's 81 years old and her decades of work are not erased at all by this comment
It was an unfortunate error that's all
Response to boston bean (Reply #4)
davidn3600 This message was self-deleted by its author.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Not so much, any more.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)creatives4innovation
(98 posts)Her statement was sexist, plain and simple. "FUCK THEM" is not a reasoned response.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)what people like John Lewis are to the civil rights movement - they did important work in their day but they have since been co-opted by and have become a part of the status quo, the establishment, so it stands to reason that they both support someone like Hillary Clinton. For them, having a woman or a Black person reaching a certain goal is what's considered good, not the content of that person's character or the ideas they are bringing with them.
Gloria had her day, as did Madeleine Albright. They are both irrelevant in these days, and they are both supporting a candidate who represents irrelevancy in all its meaning.
Arazi
(8,678 posts)I'm guessing you're AA cohorts will be along shortly to "admonish" you (to put it mildly) for speaking your mind
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)bashed in and repeatedly risked his life while fighting for civil rights is, in your view, "co-opted" and irrelevant, while the sainted Bernie, who rode a bus to the March on Washington, watched Dr. King give a speech from, in his words, "way way back on the mall," organized an on-campus sit-in from the safety of the University of Chicago, while staying far away from the real dangers of Freedom Summer, and then, when it came time to decide how and where he wanted to spend his life, moved to Vermont is now being held up by his supporters as some kind of modern-day civil rights icon . . .
Your lack of knowledge, understanding and insight, combined with your bizarre confidence that you are in a position to lecture people about who is and is not relevant would be downright laughable if there weren't a possibility that some ignorant person will read this and think you actually know what you're talking about.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)between the civil rights legacies of John Lewis vs. Bernie Sanders. I give Mr. Lewis his props for the good he did on behalf of Black Americans during his times of marching, and the fact that he (and many others) literally put their lives on the lines to fight for rights that they shouldn't have had to fight for. Mr. Lewis' past works, however, aren't enough for me to overlook the fact that now, after having been in Congress for quite a while, he has now only made himself useful to the mainstream narrators of our existence who dutifully call upon people like Mr. Lewis to make a comment on today's battles for civil rights, whether he likes the Black Lives Matter movement or not, etc.
Bernie Sanders wasn't on the front lines of the civil rights movement and he has never claimed to be, but from the views he's expressed consistently from then until now, I feel pretty damn confident that his heart and opinions on the matter have always been in the right place. The same can't be sad of Hillary Clinton, who started as a Republican (supporting a racist one at that) and has expressed anti-Black opinions on various occasions over the years - your comparison should have been between Bernie and Hillary. The Clinton's have always presented themselves as sympathetic to the concerns of Black people, but once in power, they've consistently worked to do harm and to show how conservative they could be. The Clintons have always used their right hand to shake Black America's, but they've always kept a sharp knife in their left hand to use as soon as we turned around. Lewis endorsing Hillary, in plain view of this fact, shows that he and his endorsement are not relevant.
I'm not sure why you chose to attack me personally, that you assume I'm suffering from a "lack of knowledge" (trust me, I'm not) and that any confidence I display is "bizarre", but I assure you that I've done my homework and I don't post on this site holding the belief that any potential readers are too ignorant to understand what I'm saying.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)useful to the mainstream narrators of our existence who dutifully call upon people like Mr. Lewis to make a comment on today's battles for civil rights" is all the evidence needed that you do, indeed, suffer from a woeful "lack of knowledge."
Your other comments merely confirm that obvious fact.
Not a personal attack at all - simply an observation based on your own comments that you have willingly offered.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)has made himself useful recently, Empowerer.
Elaborate and maybe you change alter my perception.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Besides, you'll be more likely to remember it and less likely to dismiss it if you learn it on your own.
Doing the research may also keep you too occupied to post any further comments questioning John Lewis' "relevancy;" and thereby, prevent you from appearing ridiculous.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)You don't have any knowledge or an argument to challenge what I've said. Stop wasting my time if all you want to do is insult me.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)about anyone or anything.right?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)but she is getting called out for saying something sexist. Not the same thing at all but don't let that get in your way of selling out young women just because they support the 'wrong' candidate. Way to stand up for women.
I guess women are only supposed to speak their minds and stand up for themselves as human beings in their own right when they support the 'right' candidate.
.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)because of what she did 30 years ago. Funny, the one time I agreed with yoru side was that Ralph Nader was trying to stretch his past to a future. If Nader does not get a license to be a fool in the present day, neither should Gloria.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Your argument being that young women should know their place ("who do they think they are?" in the presence of popularity (well known and admired), and keep their reasoned critiques to themselves...how very, patriarchal of you.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that has amassed an enormous wealth (30 to 50 million dollars) while supposedly working for women. There are 16,000,000 children living in poverty and another 16 million living in low income homes because of the greed of the corrupt culture of Big Money in government that she is firmly engaged. Goldman-Sachs gave her over $500,000 for a couple of speeches and you can bet she didn't mention helping women, children or those living in poverty. That's graft.
The bottom line is just because she is a women doesn't mean she will help women. Judging from her actions, her first priority is to amass wealth and power. I firmly believe, as I think many do, that while she might spout rhetoric about helping women, she will never ask the 1% to spend a dime to help. The wealthy 1% have made her super wealthy because they are depending on her to keep the current corrupt system in place.
cloudythescribbler
(2,598 posts)this reminds me a little of the Donald Trump suit against Bill Maher to recoup a reward promised (as a joke) for proof that Trump was not the spawn of a human and a red-headed baboon. Lighten up people! I consider myself a feminist and a Bernie Sanders supporter, but Gloria Steinem, overall, seriously answered that question (the anger of young women coming out of college laden with debt and still facing much less opportunity than men) before making that flip remark. Two things about this controversy -- (1) it's exactly the kind of politically correct prickliness that Bill Maher so rightly condemns in so many contexts and (2) it runs the risk in some contexts of feeding into the serious "bros" issue that has been raised.
The idea of a woman president is itself very galvanizing, but Hillary Clinton is undeniably a neoliberal like her husband, which for progressives like myself, of any gender, is uninspiring. I favor giving Gloria Steinem a break and holding back on progressives cannibalizing our leaders for every supposed inapt remark. The RW tolerates just about ANYTHING from their leaders no matter how outrageous and serious (eg Trump) while progressives are too inflexible (as here).
here's the link to the other thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141340630#post8
druidity33
(6,861 posts)followed by a non-apology. Out of Gloria Effing Steinem's mouth. If she had just said... "you know, that was out of line, I'm Sorry"... i don't think anyone here would still be outraged.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Read the comments by the women who were insulted.
Real Time is not just a comedy show. It is a political discussion with comedy on the side.
Steinem said that young women can't think for themselves, that they just follow the boys on one of the most important matters in our country, choosing a president. Not only that, it was a jab at Bernie by saying the boys are for him and he's only getting women because they are blindly following the boys over. Both of those are incredibly shallow and insulting.
And then she had the nerve to blame the women she insulted by saying they misinterpreted her sexist remark? This is the face of feminism being willfully tone deaf because she thinks these women are choosing the wrong candidate, because they are choosing a man over a woman.
That is so much more than a "flip remark on a comedy show"! It speak to the very core of what feminism is and how partisan people get that they are willing to throw issues aside just to have a woman elected. It's very sad and scary. I would think Steinem would be better than that. Perhaps her view of feminism has become a bit antiquated in these times. Women who think for themselves are choosing the candidate they think is the best candidate. If it isn't the woman, so be it. Their choice. Diminishing their choice because it isn't one's own choice is bullshit. Diminishing it the way Steinem did is sexist.
.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)do not care about politics and are only attending political functions to find a boyfriend is demeaning as hell.
How can anybody couch a statement such as that as anything other than offensive and sexist?
sheldon
(233 posts)Since she really didn't have anything to apologize for, except for making people that are WAY TOO uptight get their panties in a wad.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Serves her right, she attacked them and implied they were hormone crazed "girls", not intelligent young women. Then she insulted their intelligence again by implying they "misunderstood" what she meant.
All because she's shilling for Hillary.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)That's real feminism.
the women in my family don't think of someone's gender when voting. It's "who do I align with the most and who do I think will do the best job". I thought that was where feminism was supposed to take us?? To get beyond the point of making decisions based on gender.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)is just the opposite. They've put Hillary and now Steinem on a pedestal and worship them, and cannot accept or even allow honest criticism about them.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)as if they(well, especially Steinem) is some sort of perfect feminist being who is beyond reproach - ever. Give me a break. This is NOT discounting all of Steinem's works, just THIS particular thing that she said. And it was shocking to hear BECAUSE of all of the previous good work that she has done.
Seems when you support Hillary you lose common sense.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)belittling blacks for supporting Hilary.
I'm not an HRC fan, but there's a bit of hypocrisy here. Going after Steinem for her stupid remarks but remaining quiet re: Sanders and his fanatics' condescension when it comes to the black electorate.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)They insult black folk regularly and we're just supposed to shut up and not comment because any objection from us is whining, divisive race-baiting. But an icon says something they don't like and they stomp and moan and attack her, belittle her accomplishments and contributions - accomplishments and contributions they probably can't come close to matching in three lifetimes -
And they wonder why they've got the reputation they've got . . .
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)That those who belittle blacks for supporting Hillary are doing Bernie no favors (just like belittling ANYONE for supporting Hillary does him no favors).
However, those making the assumption that black people as a group will reflexively support Hillary as the result of these misguided Bernie supporters, also insult black people's intelligence.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)who support Sanders and plenty like me who don't support either candidate.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Gloria Steinem says something dumb and apologizes and they pile on her, whine, play victim and, in general, behave like a bunch of children.
And they think this is going to attract more people to Bernie?
Funny thing - I think that most reasonable women who were offended Steinem's comments have enough sense not to think this was important enough to destroy her lifetime of contributions. But they ARE likely to start getting pissed off watching Sanders' supporters trash this legendary woman so nastily after she apologized. So any political advantage they think they're gaining by harping on this is likely to get wiped away by their ridiculous behavior - par for the course.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)For some, he's their one and only black friend.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)like to know it.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)That cannot be disputed.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)have psychological issues with that.
TRUTH!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:50 AM - Edit history (1)
But for others, including PoC, there is criticism to be made because he has furthered the move of the Dem Party to the right. And it's not a racist thing because the same people have the same criticism of Bill Clinton. A lot of our current problems are due to policies he signed. And when Obama took office he immediately appointed banksters to his admin. That is a slap in the face to the people.
Of course race is a major issue in this country, but not every criticism of a PoC is due to racism. Liberals and progressives have long been unhappy with the party's shift to the right that has been happening since the formation of the DLC, which courted and recruited Bill Clinton to make the Dem Party more corporate friendly.
Well now we have two parties that are center and right and until we get a president (and other Dem leaders) to start shifting it back to the left, the president and Dem leaders are going to be criticized by those who want the party to get back to its roots and be about the people and not corporations and banksters.
.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)GS insults Sanders supporters and they shouldn't express any displeasure because it doesn't win Bernie Sanders any supporters, among people who were never going to support Sanders anyway? And you call that ridiculous behavior and politically disadvantageous? 
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Then she apologized. And they're STILL bitching about it and calling her names and completely discounting everything she has accomplished and contributed in the last 60 years. THAT, in my view, is a childish overreaction.
Mature people just accept the apology and move on. But I believe they are harping on it because hey think it will result in some political advantage for their candidate. But all it's going to do at this point is piss people off.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)you describe. And what's it to you if they don't accept her non-apology apology? The only ones getting pissed off and acting childish are Hillary fans.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Just as you want whites to listen to blacks so should you listen to those young women. They are clearly expressing what seems obvious to me, that Steinem did not apologize. She said women misinterpreted. She's still blaming them. Presumably because they back the wrong candidate.
If Cornel West came out with an 'apology' that said he misspoke but that's not really what he said and you just misinterpreted him, do you think that's an apology?
Perhaps if you step back from being a Hillary supporter you would be able to see that you are doing to these young women what you say you don't want done to you and yours. I believe you are posting with dissing Bernie supporters and defending Hillary in mind. And when we talk about these important isms in our society, we have to put that shit aside or people just talk past each other.
.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How dare they call out someone who made a sexist statement about them! They should just shut up and sit the fuck down. (That's sarcasm for the jury.)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I think that most reasonable women who were offended Steinem's comments have enough sense not to think this was important enough to destroy her lifetime of contributions.
Hyperbole much?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)These intelligent and strong women are standing up for themselves.
Why is it okay for you to speak for them and diminish their feelings when you were just talking about how white people treat blacks? You are doing the almost the same thing you complained about here:
And they wonder why they've got the reputation they've got . . .
except you are doing it not to a public figure, who should be scrutinized, you are putting down a whole group of intelligent, strong women who are speaking their mind. Why are they not supposed to speak their mind? What if a white person told an entire group of blacks not to speak their mind after they were referred to as less than a thinking human being? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't stand for that.
And the fact of the matter is, Steinem was wrong to say it and then she was wrong to say she was apologizing when she was ust further insulting the women by telling them they misinterpreted her. They did no such thing. They just happen to be supporting the 'wrong' candidate in Steinem's mind - and yours it seems - and so they have to be the ones who are wrong.
No one is throwing Steinem under the bus or blittling her accomplishments and contributions, they are calling her out for an extremely sexist comment she made and an insulting non-apology.
I think you are also responding as a Hillary supporter first and are allowing yourself to sweep the very real issue of sexism and feminism aside to defend a Hillary surrogate and by extension, Hillary herself. This isn't about Hillary or Bernie. This is about a woman who should know better belittling women with an extremely sexist comment just because they didn't make the same choice that she made.
.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I've heard many people here talk about it, but have not actually seen it.
Is it possible that it is being "misrepresented" by people who have an ax to grind? Like the Hillary supporters who jumped all over Bernie from the very beginning of his campaign, calling him sexist and racist and all sorts of lovelies that were factually incorrect?
You are calling Sander's supporters fanatics? I think that shows your bias.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Sometimes burping and farting can make you feel better too.
cali
(114,904 posts)was bad.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)who responded to that and gave her NO QUARTER.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)bus by these women because, at 81, she said something stupid during an interview on a comedy show?
The childish tantrums say much more about them than they do about Gloria.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)She didn't "throw anybody under the bus." She made a stupid remark. She apologized for it. Period.
These people need to grow up and stop behaving as if the entire world revolves around them.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She implied they were supporting Bernie to catch boys, if Sarah Palin had said that you'd have a snit because it's so sexist but you're giving Gloria a pass because you support the same candidate.
I'm proud of those young women, they're speaking their minds.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)It might do you good.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)paleotn
(21,382 posts)....do you people actually THINK about what you type?
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)the entire world does not revolve around any certain people.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Is that all you people know?
Love what I love and revere what I revere or throw it under the bus?
Lancero
(3,257 posts)Wow.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)But continuing to rant about it AFTER she has apologized IS.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They knew exactly what she meant.
paleotn
(21,382 posts)...you understand that, don't you?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Each post of yours becomes more extreme.
Are you having a tantrum? Cause it's starting to look like it.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I got no problem saying that.
And I'm a boy who is for Hillary.
Lancero
(3,257 posts)That makes you a clueless child throwing a tantrum.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)simply cannot see their own errors and therefore will never own them.
Being upset by that is like cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season (one of the few things the Bible ascribes to Jesus that I never understood at all)
eridani
(51,907 posts)At the time the Gospels were settling into their final forms, Mithraism was a major rival of Christianity. Three guesses what tree was sacred to Mithra, and the first two don't count.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I've read the Bible, but I've not read Biblical scholars.
zentrum
(9,869 posts)As a female, feminist, and progressive I would never, nor want my future daughters to ever, blindly follow a corporatist female just because she's got the approved anatomy. I have no interest in An Old Girl's Club. That is not a change in paradigm at all.
How dare you scold us for not wanting a female who voted for the Iraq war to be our standard bearer. How is that kind of vote feminist? Feminism like this serves the Military Industrial Pharma Complex—bad for women, bad for men, bad for families, bad for the environment. And it's why the Military Industrial Pharma Complex supports her.
She didn't even get onto the national stage on her own—it was through marriage to a powerful man. How is that being a role model?
Thatcher, a ceiling breaker by your standards, ruined unions in England and really harmed the working class. Should we have supported her too, back in the day?
If HRC gets us into another war as she calculatedly tries to prove she can be the Commander in Chief—will you still say we should support her because she's one of "us"?
150MIllion in speaking fees for the Clintons—so we should support corrupt women too? Look who she'll appoint—people like Rubin, Summers, Podesta. Millionaires whose policies move our wealth up into the 1%. Excuse me while I shout—THAT IS NOT FEMINIST.
Identity politics—they're regressive.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)zentrum
(9,869 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Response to zentrum (Reply #50)
Name removed Message auto-removed
zentrum
(9,869 posts)…..Gloria's age also supports Sanders, so it's not just young women. I'm so surprised that she's saying such non-progressive things against a brother-in-arms (Sanders).
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I have no interest in An Old Girl's Club. That is not a change in paradigm at all.
zentrum
(9,869 posts)
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
zentrum
(9,869 posts) Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Clinton b/c she is a woman.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)All this time we've been saying that it's about being treated as EQUAL human beings. Feminism does not promote the idea that women are inherently better than men. That's misandry, not feminism. She's doing great harm to the cause by continuing with this sexist nonsense, but I guess she doesn't care as long as we aren't discussing the real issues.
kath
(10,565 posts)Exactly. Playing the sexism card over and over and over is her chosen way of deflecting from real issues.
And people are way freaking sick of it.
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/hillary-clintons-internet-supporters-desperately-w.html
senz
(11,945 posts)not hesitant and apologetic like my generation. I find them very admirable.
I would simply ask that they not be too hard on an elderly woman who has worked her whole life for equality.
polichick
(37,626 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Perhaps there is a good reason for that.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Second, she's 81. Give her a break.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)She should have said that instead of saying it was misunderstood.
She is old enough and smart enough to know that words have meanings.
I think things like this always get more overblown than they need to, but trying to defend her for saying something so stupid, and using hyperbole (too much of it here in this thread)...is not helping for this to pass and die down.
betsuni
(28,640 posts)In the movie "The Front," the McCarthy era comedian tries explaining to his interrogator that he'd marched in a May Day Parade and subscribed to The Daily Worker only because he had a crush on a cute commie; really, he wasn't political at all. They don't believe him and he's blacklisted. He mournfully says, "and I didn't even get laid."
No matter how many words are used to try to turn a sentence into a big huge deal, I'm not buying it. And she's 81.
Arazi
(8,678 posts)and doesn't deserve this.
She made a mistake. She's 81 years old and it happens. I feel badly it's playing out like this but her decades of great work overshadow this one unfortunate remark.
eridani
(51,907 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
mythology
(9,527 posts)You can't follow up saying that you "misspoke" with "misinterpreted". She said something stupid and got called on it. It happens, suck it up and apologize sincerely.
sheldon
(233 posts)Sounds like a bunch of whiners.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)If that remark was allowed to fly, it would be used all year against any female that did not dare support Hillary.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)is no better. She can't spin it away and for this old feminist it's disheartening to see her act so dismissively towards huge groups of women.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)She didn't. She needs to say that she made an error...and correct it. Not throw out some "sorry you took me wrong" I don't care how old she is. She still carries the decades of feminism on her shoulders.
I don't throw her under the bus, however. She was my first feminist role model...I remember Ms Magazine. It was scandalous at the time. We all make mistakes...she just made two, IMO. But it does not negate the good she has done for women.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Told ya our brilliant young ladies wouldn't appreciate Gloria's insulting remark. They didn't like Madeleine Albright's nasty threat either.
Tsk, tsk.
Going down in flames again! 2008 - wash, rinse, repeat.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Duppers
(28,459 posts)of her age, there is an 81yr old on DU who doesn't get that pass.
Just saying.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Bill Maher was right; if he had said what you did, you would have slapped him. You knew what you were saying. We haven't misinterpreted your words. This apology isn't one. It's to cover your tracks because you treated us like idiots and were surprised when we responded angrily.
Female solidarity isn't a one-way street. If you want our respect and support you have to realize that we know what we're about. You have to treat us like human beings. Which I thought was the whole point of feminism, but perhaps we don't have the same definition.
177 · 8 hours ago
Good for them. Steinem needs to be a woman and own up to what she said instead of doubling down and blaming the other women again for "misinterpreting" her.
.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)fed up
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)so I suspect she has seen a lot of sexism toward women and lived in a time where women were required to bow to men. I suspect that some of her feelings about that leaked out.
I am a Bernie supporter and I do not dislike her for her error. I feel sorry that she has gone through those days of hardship against women that put her there.
kath
(10,565 posts)just sayin' - since it wasn't a real apology.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)But that would have turned the title of the thread into an editorial, and I was trying to just present it kind of matter-of-factly: This is what many women thought of her apology; rather than "It wasn't an apology." Putting the focus on the response she got, and letting people come to their own conclusions about whether or not it was a true or fitting apology.
kath
(10,565 posts)many thanks for the OP!
snot
(11,424 posts)ever since she got plastic surgery, and then suggested other women shouldn't . . . eccchhh.