Why Being a Feminist Does Not Mean Backing All Women
Wed, 2007-01-17 07:27
#1
Scott Piatkowski
Why Being a Feminist Does Not Mean Backing All Women
Wed, 2007-01-17 07:27
#2
Scott Piatkowski
[url=http://www.alternet.org/stories/46621/]Gloria Steinam[/url]
quote:
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.
Discuss.
[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]
Wed, 2007-01-17 07:33
#3
Cueball
Well, I am glad Gloria has sorted that out for us. What will be the signifcant changes now that the feminists movement no longer has to act as monolithic movement supporting all women, no matter what they do or what they think?
[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-01-17 07:52
#4
Heh. I was never under the impression that most feminists DO give women a free pass when they do anti-feminist stuff.
If anything, I think some people hold women to a HIGHER standard than men when it comes to sexism or other oppressions.
Wed, 2007-01-17 07:56
#5
Cueball
Really? I thought they all followed Gloria's lead. It seemed to me this signals a signifacant effort on her part to liberalize the movement. Is there regieme change on the horizon, or is Gloria trying to open things up as a prelude to possible succession followed by the inevitable crackdown on dissent?
[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-01-17 08:27
#6
For some reason I get the feeling neither of you read the whole article, just those two lines which can be construed out of context in any number of ways.
I admit it does seem to raise an obvious point, I assume it's probably within some context. Personally, I'm predisposed to give the benefit of the doubt rather than dish out sarcastic scorn.
Wed, 2007-01-17 10:09
#7
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]For some reason I get the feeling neither of you read the whole article, just those two lines which can be construed out of context in any number of ways.[/b]
You nailed it.
Wed, 2007-01-17 10:10
#8
Yeah, I didn't read the whole thing either. Haven't had a chance yet. Was just responding to the thread title and Scott's quote.
Also, I wasn't sarcastic or scornful at all. I was just making a statement about the thread subject. I actually think that Steinem gets a bit of a bum rap for being too "Liberal feminist". I've read some really excellent stuff by her.
[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Wed, 2007-01-17 10:34
#9
Maysie
I read the article, and as much as I appreciate what Glo did for feminism all those years ago, um, we kinda already know everything she talks about in her article, and have known it for, like, at least a couple of decades.
Feminists of colour haven't supported racist or non-racially-inclusive white feminists for years. Queer feminists haven't supported heterocentric feminists. Etc.
It seems like Glo is arguing a point made by non-feminists and anti-feminists, again, a number of decades ago. This is tough to do, as it gives credibility to their "arguments" and makes the arguments seems like something that needs to be defended against. But the more the mainstream hears what feminism is and isn't the better. I guess.
Wed, 2007-01-17 13:30
#10
remind
Bigcitygal’s points are viable in particular perhaps the defining of what the commonality is between ALL types of feminists, as ludicrous as it seems to be to say such a thing. One would think on the surface there should be obvious commonality, but of course nothing is ever so simple, as human nature, no matter the gender, is as different and complex as 1 snowflake is to another.
However, I am going to come at these differences and commonalities from being a neophyte self-identified “feminist”. For me, equality rights and self-determination was something that existed long before I knew about feminism, and others fight for equality. Perhaps that sounds odd, but it is true nonetheless. My mother was a strong self-determined businesswoman, and my up bringing in a rural setting was such that there was no doubt about women’s equality, at least on the surface of it.
Because of this inherent and erroneous assumption of equality achieved, or at least not being as far from it as I now realize, I never have gotten in-depth into the works of feminist writers such as Gloria, Judy, or even Dworkin. In fact, I wanted nothing to do “feminism”, because of the radical optics and male hating verbiage, and considered myself a humanist where men needed liberation as much as women did
From this perspective, I agree with Steinham regarding her statements of uniqueness. Having said that, I feel that she defeated her own premise of uniqueness by saying that feminists do not, and should not back every woman. In order to uphold “uniqueness”, and the right to self-determine, one must be accepting of where any one person is in regards to their perceptions of equality, self-determination, and how to facilitate change within their own “unique” framework. One may not like it, but that is only because it is not what one would do for one’s self.
When one broadens this out to woman, such as the ones Steinham used in example, who are evidently not progressive, let alone feminist, the principles of feminism do not apply, nor can they. Those women are simply a reaction to life, as opposed to an action. But again that is individual choice; no judgement or condemnation is required based upon gender. Their self realization has yet to come.
Wed, 2007-01-17 14:24
#11
M. Spector
Steinem's article does not just come put of nowhere: there is a very real, topical context for it, as is apparent in [url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/17/121714.shtml?s=us]this article.[/url]
Note in particular the comment of conservative Christina Hoff Summers:
quote:
"But I don't expect to hear much protest (from feminists)," said Sommers, [b]"because their left-wing politics always trump their commitment to the cause of women."[/b]
Thu, 2007-01-18 10:14
#12
M. Spector
What, did I just kill this discussion by introducing the concept of context? sheesh.
Thu, 2007-01-18 10:41
#13
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]It seems like Glo is arguing a point made by non-feminists and anti-feminists, again, a number of decades ago.[/b]
You're correct. The fact that she feels that she has to is indicative of how far we haven't come.
Thu, 2007-01-18 14:09
#14
quote:
In hair and make-up otherwise reserved for female impersonators, Harris went on television to throw the election to the candidate she had been supporting.
In any case, I don't think it serves anyone well to engage in ad-herminem attacks.
I think the article presupposes that there was a time of resolute lock step feminism that all women had to march to.
I am no expert in feminist history, but niether am I unfamiliar with it. I serously doubt any such time existed-- in feminism or any social or political movement.
Thu, 2007-01-18 14:57
#15
Thank you M.Spector for finding the context I suspected obviously exists. I was totally surprised at some of the dismissive reactions.
Thu, 2007-01-18 15:01
#16
potatoe/pothatoe.
Stienem is jousting with the straw woman.
Thu, 2007-01-18 15:44
#17
M. Spector
These are not straw women. These are very real, powerful, and opinion-influencing women, and Steinem is right to be taking them on.
Thu, 2007-01-18 16:10
#18
remind
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]These are not straw women. These are very real, powerful, and opinion-influencing women, and Steinem is right to be taking them on.[/b]
Really, just who do you see these women Steinham is "taking on" influencing these days other than some neo-cons?
Do you think Condi has a following to influence?
Ann Coulter?
Christina Hoff? It seems it's only the males who like her words. Plus Jane Fonda appears to be silencing her with her 12+ million donation to Harvard, to basically refute her studies.
Judith Regan?
Personally, I have a real hard time accepting anything Steinham says, her relationship with Kissenger years back means that for years I instantly discount much of what she says.
Thu, 2007-01-18 16:15
#19
I agree with Gloria on this. As a feminist I can find no common ground with say, Rice, or Coulter. The only thing we share is the same gender and I find no need to support them, they are well supported by the dominant white male culture. Why is the left supposed to support them when they would love nothing but to squash feminists on the left? I should support my oppressor?
Thu, 2007-01-18 17:27
#20
remind
Thats is my point Stargazer, what audience is Steinham speaking to?
Not feminists, they would not give those she named support or consideration.
So who is it? Men?
Thu, 2007-01-18 19:38
#21
remind, is it possible that many readers of her magazine may consider themselves feminists, and share in the general values and have specific life-experiences in mind, but not have the decades of academic experience and reading that people such as yourself and bigcitygal have?
[b]remind wrote:[/b]
quote:
Thats is my point Stargazer, what audience is Steinham speaking to?
[b]Not feminists, they would not give those she named support or consideration[/b].So who is it? Men?
Not everyone is an expert - in any ideology. The backbone of any movement is people who have concentrated most of their life's efforts and learning and other areas, and as such may not be as huge an expert as yourself.
I can just imagine your reaction following a Layton speech on the environment. "Why is he stating the obvious, when all those who disagree with him are just neocons? He's clearly not speaking to environmentalists, as they have no need to hear this."
[ 18 January 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Thu, 2007-01-18 20:24
#22
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]remind, is it possible that many readers of her magazine may consider themselves feminists, and share in the general values and have specific life-experiences in mind, but not have the decades of academic experience and reading that people such as yourself and bigcitygal have?[/b]
Possible of course, it is moe than possible, but the people she is speaking about are not even well liked amongst women who are NOT self identified as feminists. Though, in thinking about it, I am not sure just how many women who are NOT feminists would read Steinham even. There could even be other reasons why she wrote it other than the context Mspector put it in.
quote:
[b]Not everyone is an expert - in any ideology. The backbone of any movement is people who have concentrated most of their life's efforts and learning and other areas, and as such may not be as huge an expert as yourself.[/b]
Never said I was an expert "feminist", nor portrayed muyself as such, and I have no idea where you got that from, but I do have my opinions, in partcular of Ms Steinham. And I am expressing them, which I have a right to do.
quote:
[b]I can just imagine your reaction following a Layton speech on the environment. "Why is he stating the obvious, when all those who disagree with him are just neocons? He's clearly not speaking to environmentalists, as they have no need to hear this."[/b]
This is not a good analogy my friend, more of a strawman argument.
Thu, 2007-01-18 20:33
#23
M. Spector
On the contrary, it's an excellent analogy to the question you raised about who Steinem was addressing!
Thu, 2007-01-18 20:34
#24
quote:
Possible of course, it is moe than possible, but the people she is speaking about are not even well liked amongst women who are NOT self identified as feminists. Though, in thinking about it, I am not sure just how many women who are NOT feminists would read Steinham even. There could even be other reasons why she wrote it other than the context Mspector put it in.
I'm predisposed to giving Gloria Steinem the benefit of the doubt. I could be completely wrong about that.
I think I disagree on your point in the middle of the paragraph though, we must have different life experiences. In my own experience, I've met a lot of people, especially the not politically active, whose views on many issues are ambiguous and don't many of society's dichotomies. I would suspect there are a few million american women (not a plurality in such a large country bit a big enough number to care) who register as independent or republican but still self-identify as feminist.
Thu, 2007-01-18 20:52
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]On the contrary, it's an excellent analogy to the question you raised about who Steinem was addressing![/b]
How so?
Jack Layton, would be speaking to a broader base of people than Steinham in my opinion.
Thu, 2007-01-18 21:07
#26
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]I'm predisposed to giving Gloria Steinem the benefit of the doubt. I could be completely wrong about that.[qb]
The benefit of the doubt about what exactly?
quote:
[qb]I think I disagree on your point in the middle of the paragraph though, we must have different life experiences. In my own experience, I've met a lot of people, especially the not politically active, whose views on many issues are ambiguous and don't many of society's dichotomies. I would suspect there are a few million american women (not a plurality in such a large country bit a big enough number to care) who register as independent or republican but still self-identify as feminist.[/b]
Oh, I know a goodly number of the those who are not politically active, whose views are ambigious and who do not know broad based societal dichotomies, and that is why I made that point. They would not even know who Steinham was let alone read her.
I agree with Steinham regarding not supporting ALL women just because they are women, and I also agree with her statements of "uniqueness". However, I differentiated by saying, I support those she exampled as having the right to their own opinion and course of action, I just do not support their opinions and actions.
Now back who who is her audience?
Thu, 2007-01-18 21:45
#27
Remind wrote:
quote:
Now back who who is her audience?
I'm not sure who reads Ms. magazine. I suspect the readers are as knwoledgeable of feminism as readers of Men's Fitness are knowledgeable of physiology. I've never picked it up, but the vast majority of magazines are for interested layman -> educated layman - not experts.
Though pick up a copy of Men's Health. It will probably have a articles informing the reader that almonds are good, mcdonalds is bad, it's best to hold your back straight during many free weights exercise, and that girlfriends appreciate cunnilingus - even though 95% of the readers already know this.
Do you read magazines?
Fri, 2007-01-19 06:08
#28
Maysie
Just to pull this argument back a bit, Glo states that "there is still this false idea out there..."
So, who belives this false idea? Not feminists, but people who [i]think[/i] they know what feminism is, and specifically they think that feminism means backing women over men, all the time. Exatly who these people are who believe this, I wouldn't venture a guess. But I'm sure they span the political spectrum.
It's like the person who asked my why I was voting for Jack Layton for mayor of Toronto when he ran against June Rowlands (1992? 1995? Who can remember?).
But the right wing wackos that are Gloria's her examples, are pretty far out there, way beyond your garden-variety non-feminist spokewoman. I don't pay attention (much [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ) to people who espouse views that will raise my blood pressure by reading them, but maybe these women have been saying stuff about women and feminism and Glo felt the need to respond. So I take back, somewhat, my snarky "we talked about this decades ago" post, as clearly, the "we" that I refer to is a very narrow group of peeps.
Glo has always tried to bring a feminist analysis to the masses, albeit a limited analysis, and it's [i]still[/i] too much for the mainstream to get, so everything is still reduced to "so you hate men then?" or "so you support all women? What about Condi?" etc etc bla bla.
I'm glad she has the energy for this. I don't.
Fri, 2007-01-19 07:00
#29
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b] Do you read magazines?[/b]
seldom, and never Ms.
Might pick up a 1985 national Geographic while in the Drs office waiting! [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Further, I don't suppose many of the readers of Ms magazine would know what context Steinham was speaking from or to. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-01-19 10:16
#30
just curious, remind: why do you insist on spelling her name Stein-ham?
Fri, 2007-01-19 10:52
#31
remind
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]just curious, remind: why do you insist on spelling her name Stein-ham?[/b]
Never thought anyone would ever notice, or even comment on it and that I might be doing it on purpose and it not be a typo. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
It is my personal term for her, a bit disparaging and that satisfies my personal disregard of her. It is one that I have used since she so sadly disillusioned me about what feminists were supposed be all about, and that happened with her relationship with Kissenger.
And if you note I also do not use, her first name, nor her affectionate name.
Perhaps someday I will get over it, or grow more accepting, as I have recently noticed that I cut my nose off despite my face by turning my back on feminism because of her and her relationship with Kissenger. But as of yet my heart is still hardened towards her.
Fri, 2007-01-19 15:50
#32
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Perhaps someday I will get over it, or grow more accepting, as I have recently noticed that I cut my nose off despite my face by turning my back on feminism because of her and her relationship with Kissenger. But as of yet my heart is still hardened towards her.[/b]
More curiousity, why did Steinem make you "turn your back" on feminism? And what about her relationship with this Kissenger also influenced the afore mentioned decision? The reason I ask is because while I've read some of Steinem's writings (a lot of which I think is tantamount to common sense but perhaps her work had a more prolific impact twenty years ago than today), but I do not know a lot about her in general, nor am I familiar with Kissenger. I'm curious as to why one person (or two, as the case may be) could have altered your attitude/opinions/whatever like that. I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just genuinely curious.
Fri, 2007-01-19 15:58
#33
aarghh! KissInger. Kissinger! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
and what about him?
Fri, 2007-01-19 17:13
#34
Maysie
remind, I'm surely no fan of Gloria or many of the second wavers. It's interesting that in the intervening years since she became the MSM's chosen spokesperson for all things feminist, many many feminists of colour have gained more mainstream attention, yet they still have no mainstream platform in which to speak about their more inclusive feminism.
But still to many people feminism begins and ends with Gloria and Ms. magazine. It's a shame.
Fri, 2007-01-19 17:42
#35
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]aarghh! KissInger. Kissinger! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]and what about him?[/b]
Ack! Sorry. As previously stated, I know nothing about him, including how to spell his name. Thanks for the correction. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-01-19 18:09
#36
remind
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]aarghh! KissInger. Kissinger! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]and what about him?[/b]
Na, Kissenger, spelling Kissinger is like a blasphemy towards kissing a singer, a oftentimes pleasant thing to do. There is NO thing pleasing about that man at all. I have been waiting years, if not decades, it seems for him to brought to war crimes trial.
Kissenger is like the kiss of anger, perhaps I should have been using an a instead of e, eh? Good point jas, thank you.
Fri, 2007-01-19 19:19
#37
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]remind, I'm surely no fan of Gloria or many of the second wavers. It's interesting that in the intervening years since she became the MSM's chosen spokesperson for all things feminist, many many feminists of colour have gained more mainstream attention, yet they still have no mainstream platform in which to speak about their more inclusive feminism.But still to many people feminism begins and ends with Gloria and Ms. magazine. It's a shame.[/b]
I still cannot get my mind around how a liberated woman, a self professed feminist,a woman who professes to speak for feminists could have a relationship with that man, particularily not the type of one she had. I am so suspicious of that woman and of her actual motives and stance that I could/can hardly read her let alone agree with her on anything.
And you are correct it is a shame, and one wonders why not? What is at work?
Fri, 2007-01-19 21:05
#38
Maysie
remind, I have to say, I have no idea what the Kissinger reference is about. Please elaborate. (Guess I'm not as "in the know" as I thought. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] )
As for why Gloria, I think she was considered "hot" in her day, literally, and was a "sexy" sell for feminism. Young, groovy, 60s woman, camera friendly, etc etc same old MSM crap.
Wanting a piece of the pie, which is the main thrust of "equality" feminism, is a lot different than saying the pie is rotten, throw out the pie. White middle class women wanting "equality" with (white middle class) men, though it met with resistance at the time, and still does in the present, ultimately doesn't threaten the status quo.
So even though some consider Glo to be a man-hating radical feminazi, etc, she is in fact one of the most pallatable spokespeople one could find, and still be on the pro-feminist side of the line. (Probably those same people who keep asking the question "Don't feminists support women over men")
Fri, 2007-01-19 22:07
#39
remind
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]remind, I have to say, I have no idea what the Kissinger reference is about. Please elaborate. (Guess I'm not as "in the know" as I thought.[/b]
For many years, Steinam had a "secret" ongoing affair with a "prominent married man", who would fly her around and pick her up in his limo...she all the while, was speaking feminist, while doing the opposite in secret.
quote:
[b]As for why Gloria, I think she was considered "hot" in her day, literally, and was a "sexy" sell for feminism. Young, groovy, 60s woman, camera friendly, etc etc same old MSM crap.[/b]
That's where my sentiments of her started going bye, bye, looking at the person, not the image, I started searching for what exactly was she selling. And found I did not like, or feel comfortable with that view of "equality" between the sexes. Don't get me wrong, I was far from hippie feminist in conduct, and was long blond haired WASP, purple velvet bikini wearing "gurl".
A female UCC Minister, just back from years as a missionary in India afforded me a different view of the world. A world of feminist thought outside of "glamour" and WASP parameters. Steinam, and all that she represented was rejected, and further rejected when she was outted.
quote:
[b]Wanting a piece of the pie,.."equality" with (white middle class) men, though it met with resistance at the time, and still does in the present, ultimately doesn't threaten the status quo.[/b]
Exactly! When it is so much more, on so many different levels.
quote:
[b]So even though some consider Glo to be a man-hating radical feminazi, etc, she is in fact one of the most pallatable spokespeople one could find, and still be on the pro-feminist side of the line.[/b]
My question is; "is she really"? Perhaps on the exoteric side of it, but not on the esoteric.
Sat, 2007-01-20 06:00
#40
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]These are not straw women. These are very real, powerful, and opinion-influencing women, and Steinem is right to be taking them on.[/b]
I wasn't expanding much on this, because I wanted others to say it first.
But now that this ice has been broken, I will say, well, what everyone will find predictable.
The straw person Stienem introduces is the false idea she asserts at the begining. I don't think any feminist, or woman of any stripe has ever enjoyed a lack of female contradiction, and I don't know of any credible person who asserts so.
The attack on Harris' appearance is exactly the kind of dumbo right wing approach to argument that an Ann Coulter would be proud of, and something women in leadership have to contend with constantly, which is beyond unfair, and a major issue for anyone who is interested in equality.
There is lots to dislike about Harris, there is no need to take a page from the likes of Limbaugh to attack her.
Stunning though, is Stienem's selectivity. Surely, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor played a bigger role in the death of the American Republic than Harris. O'Connor could have negated all of Harris' efforts. Yet she escapes Steinem's attention.
Ah, but class is thicker than gender, it would seem. In fairness, I have not read all Stienem has ever written. Whenever her name pops up though, it attracts my attention. Her views-- when I have come across them-- seem to lack any kind of class analysis.
When we take a look at the status of women around the globe, the issues of equality come down to economic status.
Again, I've not read or heard everything Stienem has done. Maybe she has addressed this, but to me, the above article seems rather esoteric compared to the difficulties most women face today.
Sat, 2007-01-20 09:49
#41
I'm sorry I'm frustrating you. I get a sense we probably don't disagree on much. Sommer's comments didn't register on me that much because it's just spin, and I tend to tune it out as noise. I get that Steinem (someday, we will just dispence with the whole ei ie combination and go with one vowel or the other) was reacting to it, but I thought-- and still do-- that it over blows the idea she calls false.
I will say this, however. When I saw the news coverage of the Rice grilling, Boxer's commentary included, I wrote it off as a tempest in a tea pot. While Rice deserved everything she got, it had me wondering where these strident voices of condemnation were two years ago when they could have been usefull. But then, the make up of the House in the States has changed and now affords those voices a podium they might not have had before.
The whole excersize, and the ensuing debate, seemed like shutting the gate after the horse was gone, and it has coloured my views.
Sorry if, in the process, it seems I wasn't giving your views their proper consideration and respect.
It wasn't my intention.
Sat, 2007-01-20 11:17
#42
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]Sorry if, in the process, it seems I wasn't giving your views their proper consideration and respect.[/b]
I only ask for consideration. Respect is not required. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-01-24 01:23
#43
Folks, again I don't want to cast too much of a presence on this forum. But since I remember Gloria Steinem from the 60s when I was a kid, I got to reading this thread and noticed that a good question about Henry Kissinger by Asthenia repeatedly doesn't seem to have been answered.
quote:
Ack! Sorry. As previously stated, I know nothing about him, including how to spell his name. Thanks for the correction.
The guy was a top presidential advisor in the US government during the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, and he's currently facing war and genocide charges, human rights violations, fraud and international treaty violations in about 30 countries.
He was behind the US government's mass slaughter bombings during the secret escalation of the Vietnam War from 1969 to 1971. He helped mastermind the violent military coup that overthrew the freely elected social democratic government of Salvador Allende (hence where I get part of my name) in 1973 and set up the Pinochet dictatorship, which killed over a million innocent people during its reign.
Two years later, he played a key role in helping the Indonesian military dictatorship invade East Timor, which led to the mass murder of an estimated five million people.
In 1980, he encouraged the Reagan regime to invest literally billions of dollars in an outright war against pro-democracy and labour and liberation movements in Central and South America and propping the various US corporate-backed dictatorships there. Later in the 80s he helped develop the murderous Plan Colombia, which is still largely in effect today.
He's probably best known for his role in quietly approving then far-right Israeli Prime Minister Begin's plan to invade southern Lebanon in 1982, which led to the slaughter of thousands of Palestinian refugees.
So when people, especially activists, hear that Gloria Steinem, while preaching equal rights and respect for women, was reportedly having an affair with:
a) a married man, and
B) a married man who is a corporate-funded fascist that is arguably the biggest mass murderer since Hitler,
they tend to get put off and start questioning her sincerity. You can see why it’s an issue for people.
Wed, 2007-01-24 07:07
#44
Cueball
Yikes!
[img]http://rwor.org/i/graphpage/redgrd.gif[/img]
![http://rwor.org/i/graphpage/redgrd.gif[/img]](http://rwor.org/i/graphpage/redgrd.gif[/img]){kind=link}
Having disreputable affairs with disreputable people! Shame!
Hannah Arendt having a life-long affair with Nazi stooge Heidegger does not in and of itself bring her entire life's work into disrepute. People have blind spots.
Rather than demanding our heros be squeeky clean, perhaps we should just stop having heros, hmmm?
Wed, 2007-01-24 07:27
#45
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]It's just as well, since she is clearly a bourgeois feminist and always has been. Frankly, I'm not interested in her class analysis. [/b]
This comment is stunning in its intellectual lassitude. Obviously if Steinem had a "class analysis," as it is commonly understood in the left, she would not be a bourgeois feminist.
But what does one expect when one is arguing merely from definitions and not reason?
Echos of exactly the kind of sexist dismissal of any analysis which critiqued patriarchy in toto and thus not only challenged capitalist patriarchal ideologies, but also leftist partriarchal ideologies, and thus threatened the power bases of the old guard Marxists, as well. Self-servingly it was often argued of course that by waving the magic wand of class struggle, all inequalities would shrivel-up in the post-revolutionary utopia and that there was no need to raise the issue of sexism in the left, as all sailent issues really only resolved around economy, and nothing else.
Gender and race being the two bogey men thus disposed of as being irrelevant to left discourse in any kind of internal critique, as they were not based in "class analysis," and must therefore "bourgeois," as there are only two polls really in the dialectic.
Franlky, nothing drove more feminists away from embracing "class analysis," as these dogamtic dismisals of feminist analysis.
[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-01-24 07:34
#46
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[b]So when people, especially activists, hear that Gloria Steinem, while preaching equal rights and respect for women, was reportedly having an affair with:a) a married man,[/b]
Horrors! How dare she break his wedding vows like that, after she promised he would be faithful?
Your second point is more relevant.
[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Wed, 2007-01-24 07:58
#47
Cueball
Yes, but is the issue that she pursued a long term affair with Henry Kissinger in the manner of being some kind of life partner, or that she dated this guy to see what made him tick?
The assertion that they "dated," from what I can tell is on the level of celebrity gossip. What does this mean? They were seen at a bar together?
In her own words, (and this phrasing should tell you something of the terms in which Steinem, and we all should, I think, considers this assertion) :
quote:
"is not now and never has been a girl friend"
[url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,905709,00.html]Henry Kissinger Off Duty[/url]
Kissingers reply is also revealing:
quote:
Kissinger declared that he was not discouraged. "After all, she did not say that if nominated she would not accept, or if elected she would not serve."
To me this sound like typical school boy gossip put about Kissinger or his aides to enhance his Macheesmo. Of course the best way to undermine the uppity feminist is to imply that you bed her! What could be more typical?
I have no idea why Babblers are engaging in this kind of political debate based in character assassination though people magazine-type gossip.
Stunning that a thread in the feminism forum should resolve to a discussion of who Gloria Steinem fucked, or did not fuck as sailent in her career.
This is utterly and grotesquely regressive.
[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-01-24 08:08
#48
I agree. I guess I'm just saying that it's more relevant to discuss the company she keeps (whether she fucks them or not) than it is to discuss her sexual improprieties.
But actually, after reading your post, I agree that even that (the company she keeps, especially in the context of having "an affair") is not relevant at all, really, unless it somehow affected her work as a feminist, or she was compromising her principles by defending his horrendous actions. And considering that there are lots of people who didn't even have any idea of these rumours (like me, and bigcitygal, for instance) might be some good evidence that it probably didn't affect her work.
So I don't see how it's relevant at all.
[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Wed, 2007-01-24 08:18
#49
Cueball
She did go undercover at Playboy, so she is obviously not above some well-intentioned subterfuge. If its ok for her to research Hefner by dressing as Bunny and hanging out in his bars, but there is something "unsual" about her meeting Kissinger in these same type of environs?
It sounds like research to me. Though I guess women can't really hang out in the diplomatic bar scene in Washington without really be a whore in some manner or other, really.
Wed, 2007-01-24 08:24
#50
Well, but let's just say she DID have a long term relationship with him. Let's just say it's true.
So what? I mean, seriously, so what?
Do we believe in women's autonomy or not? Do we believe that when a woman is sleeping with someone, she automatically takes on his worldview and his politics? Do we assume that people only get together with mirrors of themselves? Or more importantly, do we believe that when women get together with men who are very different from them, that they become mirrors of those men?
A very sexist assumption. Most of us have at least one friend or family member that we love but who is not on the same page as us politically. I know I certainly have dated (and even lived with!) people with some extremely repugnant views - classist, racist, anti-semitic, sexist views.
But, now that the issue of who I've fucked in the past is on the table, well, I guess it's time for me to turn in whatever progressive membership card it is I'm supposedly carrying at the moment.
You know, the more I think about this, the more it annoys me. I was annoyed before but didn't see it this clearly until Cueball pointed out exactly what the problem is with this sort of attack. (And I'm usually on top of this sort of thing, too!)
Wed, 2007-01-24 08:32
#51
Cueball
Certainly, no one seems to think that assertion that Kissinger dated Steinem in any impugns his status as a world class asshole.
"Well! Gee, if he dated Steinem then that must mean he is not so bad after all!"
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]