Letters to the Editor
-
Hit the nail on the head
I think Millner got it right on. All due respect to Gloria Steinem, her NY Times piece was embarrassing.
I don't know if I'd say the battles of the 60s are over, per se, but the battles are definitely different. Steinem is indeed stuck in the second wave.
-
Don't blame the Sixties
Socially, at least, the Sixties were a much nicer period, when men and women actually liked and respected each other. You're talking about the battle of the mid-70s to mid-90s, twenty years of Steinem-induced man-slanging that culminated in the Hillary-influenced PC period of 92-94, and that was one of the factors in Gingrich and his buddies taking control of Congress and enabling the pillage that ranged unchecked until 06.
So, no reason to fear a Clinton back in power at all, unless you're a man, or a responsible woman, with a memory.
-
AirPunch -- "YES!"
I'm a feminist and have been ever since I started reading MS at the houses where I babysat.
But my mother is not a college graduate, and her experience with NOW and other feminist organizations have led her to a nearly reactionary stance.
Ms. Steinem's discourse has always been directed at the educated and condescending towards those who are not. I've never had the slightest indication that she considers the poorer women who need the help of feminism at all.
Back in the 1970s the number one concern of women was access to affordable childcare, preferably somewhere close to their workplace. This is still the number one concern of women, but the leaders of the feminist movement have brought us no closer to the goal.
Similarly, health care has long been a top tier issue for women, but seems to be ignored in favor of discussions of glass ceilings. It's important to get more women in management; it's important to shatter that ceiling. But frankly, if you're worried about the glass ceiling, you can probably afford a visit to your doctor even if you don't have insurance. Most women can't.
There are issues which could get women working together toward a better future for everyone, but we need feminist leaders who won't focus on the elite at the expense of the rest.
-
poll taxes and lynching
weren't poll taxes instituted in only southern states (and not all of them?) definitely they were applied across the races, black and white, and i daresay as many or more poor whites as blacks were disinfranchised as a result. how many blacks were lynched for voting, and where? women could not vote in most of the u.s. when my mother was born (1917)-- black men could.
-
neither nor
The most obvious thing to me is this is not a either/or kind of debate. They are both right, and Ms. Stienem can be forgiven a little journalistic exuberance in describing her life's work to create/defend/advocate gender equality.
-
Steinem is the Jesse Jackson of the women's lib movement
Maybe it's not as lucrative as the one Jesse has landed, but in my humble opinion, they are both examples of people who came late, and learned to profit from the actual struggles for equality that were fought by people who came before them and bore the brunt of the persecution for the fight.
And as regards to the Steinem's NYT piece, simply having a vagina does not make you the best candidate for the job. Talk about a vapid analysis...
-
The quote
Reminds me of the writings of Gloria Anzaldua. She wrote a lot of not knowing where she stood, growing up in a border town. She felt Mexico didn't want her, America didn't want her, and on top of all that, she's a woman.
-
Women's Studies 101
What's embarassing is the assumption that Steinem hasn't read de Beauvoir. No one, especially Gloria, would deny Jim Crow, just as no one would deny that there are more animal shelters than women's shelters in this country. The point is: shouldn't all women be concerned that Obama is so heavily supported by so many elite, white men on both sides of the aisle (Rove, Kerry, etc.)?
With that kind of support, we won't need to worry about anything changing for women in the U.S. (whether in the boardroom, or at the doctor's office) any time soon.
Whether you like Hillary or not isn't the issue, she will be expected to make change for women AND minorities in a way none of the other candidates will.
BTW, the battles of the 60s aren't over: Obama keeps reminding us of MLK, Jr. and the neocons keep the story in play. If Steinem had to pitch her article that way, it was because most of the American public HASN'T taken a Women's Studies course.
-
Ariel Werner
I quite liked Ariel Werner's response as well:
A Response to Gloria Steinem
by Ariel Werner
January 9, 2008
Ms. Steinem,
In your op-ed, ” Women Are Never Front-Runners,” you claim that a woman with Barack Obama’s record, experience, and biography would not be considered a viable candidate for the presidency of the United States, and you call for a feminist movement in support of Hillary Clinton. You declare, “What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system.” As one of the countless younger women inspired by and active in Obama’s movement for change, I feel compelled to respond.
Let me begin with an expression of my gratitude. Thanks to the tireless efforts of your feminist generation, I am fortunate to have lived a life, thus far, almost entirely free of the economic, legal, and social barriers that would have prevented me from attaining the rights, benefits, or opportunities afforded my male counterparts. I received an outstanding K-12 public school education alongside male classmates, and the female:male ratio of Brown University, which I now attend, is 53:47. I have never known a time before Title IX, and my mother watched with pride over my four high school years playing Varsity Womens’ Volleyball. I have applied for jobs and internships alongside competitive male applicants and discounted gender as a factor in my ability to attain such positions. I have been blessed by the fight and courage of those of you who came before me. Still, I realize that our fight, as women, is far from over.
For this reason, I feel compelled to use responsibly the rights that I have. This year marks my first year eligible as a voter in a presidential election. One might assume that I am presented with a difficult task: Do I-a hyper-political young feminist-vote for a woman under the assumption that Hillary (back) in the White House brings all women to the White House? Or do I-a socially-conscious activist dedicated to the pursuit of racial equality-vote for the first black man considered a front-runner in a presidential primary?
You see, it’s really not that simple, and I resent, Ms. Steinem, the manner in which you pit race against gender in your op-ed. To your credit, you aim to avoid this juxtaposition, writing, “The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together.” But the very premise of your piece (”Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life”) contradicts this cursory warning. Using Obama’s Iowa victory as evidence, you say, “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women...”
The rest is linked to the user name