Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Response to Gloria Steinem
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."
But we both know that black Americans lacked any real political power until the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts of 1964. We both know that, even after this legislation, the political establishment subdues the black vote through gerrymandering, voter ID laws, felony disenfranchisement, and countless other measures aimed at silencing African-Americans. And we both know that race and gender are not independent of one another but are, rather, entirely interdependent. We know that Hillary might not have gotten to Wellesley or Yale Law or the White House had she been black. We know that the Civil Rights Movement led to serious conflicts over the role of women in its positions of power and respect, and that feminist movements have always led to questions of which women deserve which rights.
Perhaps it is true that a female version of Obama would be unable to rise to his current position. But this is not a defense of Hillary Clinton, whose early life sounds a lot like mine: suburban white girl leaves the nest and becomes socially-conscious at liberal arts college. What is most striking about Hillary's rise is not the hardship she has faced as a woman seeking power; what is striking about Hillary is what she has done with the power she has accrued. She has become the candidate of the machine. She represents an old, established, well-funded politics. During her Iowa concession speech, Hillary stood with Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright over her right shoulder, and Bill Clinton over her left...an image worth one thousand words. Ultimately, your defense of Hillary Clinton comes, not with your explanation of sexual caste, but with your applause of Hillary's experience and resume.
Barack Obama is a candidate of a different mold. He is international, interracial, and inter-party. He has captivated the minds and hearts of a cross-section of Democrats, Independents, Republicans, men, women, blacks, and whites with his call for change and grassroots politics. In my lifetime, I will have lived under 1 year of Reagan, 8 years of Clinton, and 12 years of Bush before our next president takes office. Hopefully, you understand my desperation for a candidate of a different ideological and experiential breed. Hopefully you understand that women of my generation who support Barack Obama do not do so because we take sexism lightly; we do so because Hillary neglects to fight a sexist establishment. Hillary, like Queen Elizabeth, operates under the motto "If you can't fight 'em, join 'em." We support Obama because we are women, but we are also members of a generation hungry for hope and hungry for action.
This is why I have been paying my own expenses to travel from Rhode Island to New Hampshire since September to talk to voters about Obama's candidacy. This is why I lead weekly meetings of some sixty Brown students dedicated to the Obama campaign. This is why I drove to New Hampshire on January 3rd and worked the streets and the phones nonstop until the results came in last night. This is why I'm not done yet, and why I look forward to canvassing and calling the voters of nearby February 5 states Massachusetts and Connecticut. This is why I'm ready for change. I am not, as you suggest, hoping to "deny or escape the sexual caste system." I am fighting to dismantle caste and inequality, which is why I am fighting for Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton.
I began with an expression of gratitude for all that you have done and continue to do for the feminist cause, and I will finish with a request. Please do not pretend to speak out on behalf of my generation of women. Please do not imply that my support for Senator Obama is suggestive of my denial of the sexual caste system. Please do not forget that my generation is a new generation: we realize that to be a feminist does not simply mean to have a right to do something, it means to use that right responsibly.
Respectfully,
Ariel Werner
Brown University, Class of 2009
Brown Students for Barack Obama GOTV Coordinator



70 Comments so far
Show AllCould use another Betty Friedan, maybe. I always supported Gloria, but wonder just what was she thinking, by expecting women to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. HOwever, by just posing Hillary into the main spot as Democratic candidate, the U.S. can show just how prevalent bigotry and hatred of women is still part of our culture. We came a lot further by embracing the Black segment of our population than by supporting and accepting women as equals. As for Obama, he just doesn't have the credentials that should enable him to forge ahead as our next leader. But then, look how many voted for Dumb nut Bush? Hope to see another more qualified women join the race.
To vote for a candidate solely because she is a woman is as sexually bigoted as to refuse to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman.
The problem with Hillary Clinton is not that she is a woman. The problem is the woman that she is.
And the joy of seeing youth get involved gives me hope for the country. But I agree, I would love to be able to vote for a woman president, but not this woman. I prefer Obama or Edwards. But in reality there is no one in either party that thrills my socks off. I want someone who
1. Pulls out of Iraq
2. Cuts our military budget and directs the money towards roads, health care, updating our air control system, schools.
3. Dismantles the School of America
4. Establishes free or low cost universities
5. Gets out of Nafta
6. Encourages corporations to keep jobs in the US
7. Starts working with and not against the UN peace iniatives.
And I don't see anyone who has a chance (Mr. K does not) who is thinking that way.
I, too, have "problems" -- her voting record, while senator, is pro-Bush. All the time, all the way.
Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama is the only option for the feminist cause.
I hope Steinem, and others at NOW etc. read this. I would only add, that I am a 55 year old white woman, and Hillary does not speak for me, or for my concerns.
dlnelson7 - great post.
I think the issue of reparations (as thorny as it is) also needs to be studied and then the reparations need to be properly implemented. Might give this country a bit of humility which in my humble opinion is sorely necessary if we want to continue with any future integrity.
The clintons seem to be nothing more than the same old same old. Another baby boomer of unlimiited ambition based on over-inflated ego is not going to be helpful.
She isn't even from New York so why did they vote for her in the first place. Is there not any better leadership out there?
Peace,
Ken
Thank you, Ms. Werner, yours is an excellent retort to the crass appeal from Gloria Steinem. I heard her being interviewed on CBC Radio yesterday and what she seemed to be saying is that Hillary Clinton deserves support simply because she's a woman. WHAT!!! How sexist can you get? How brainless can you be? Mrs. Clinton may deserve support for a variety of reasons, but certainly not for just being female. Moreover, she has long sold out what may have been her idealism to the rich corporate/kleptocratic world which she now inhabits. Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, is a supreme triangulator but she suffers heavily if you spend a few minutes figuring out where she gets her support. Obama is compromised, too, and is too full of meaningless rhetoric for my liking but there is hope that he will be progressive because he is not yet fully in the clutch of DC power-brokers. Edwards might be the best bet and I hope he does very well. Going by Steinem's logic, reactionaries like Margaret Thatcher deserved support although such politicians laid seige to feminism and progressivism.
I appreciate the passion of this writer, but I think her energy is misdirected. Obama is as much of a politician as Hillary, and by that I mean pandering to the middle and corporations. I think that both Hillary and Obama are more about lip service than genuine change.
Also, the line "Please do not pretend to speak out on behalf of my generation of women" is a low jab.
Hillary should run for governor of New York. I'm an old-time feminist, too, and won't vote for Hillary at all, even if she's the Democratic candidate. That's because on all important matters, she has voted every single time to support Bush's illegal unconstitutional agenda along with the neocons. It was the character of the Bush administration, not their gender, that led us to this crisis, and it was Hillary's character, not her gender, that led her to support them.
So why on EARTH would anybody vote for Hillary because she's a woman? America is in crisis because of the Bush administration's destruction of our Constitutional government, and let me emphasize it: Hillary supported that destruction. Gender had nothing to do with it, and gender won't restore America. Only integrity will do that.
Yes, maemae is correct. Aeriel has fallen into the age old battle that plagues all minorities, gender or race. Separate and conquer, get them to tear apart each other. If those that seek to discriminate can get us to fight against each other, we are doing their dirty work.
As gloria makes an empassioned appeal to not blind ourselves to sexism, it is important we do not feel the need to dispute the sexism just to defend our differening positions.
Wait until you get out of college, sexism is alive and well and it will probably take you a while to really understand it and see how covertly it is applied and how accepted it is. Sure, no more butt-slapping, at least that was easy to point to as wrong.
At least there is a constitutional amendment protecting race from discrimination. When will women get that equal right?
Yes, longingforsanity, I am 54 and feel the same way. I agree with Anney, above also. Obama is the one, at least for this time.
Ms. Werner obviously lacks the life experience to realize that the major candidates being foisted upon us by the MSM are total tools of the established order and will not bring about any significant changes for the vast majority of the American people. We are constantly held out the 'hope' of 'change' (a couple of words being used ad nauseum by those candidates). It is a false choice. I even have my doubts about Edwards - too rich, too close to some hedge fund people - but at least he's talking about real, structural change.
I'm with Kucinich to the (probably) bitter end. After that, if anyone other than Edwards is the Democratic nominee, I will probably end up voting for a BLACK WOMAN for President, when the Green Party will most likely nominate the unfairly savaged, former GA Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney. For me, it truly is about what the candidate stands for, more than their supposed charisma, that matters.
Obama lacks the depth of experience and personal power base to be his own man. He is totally under and beholden to the Rahm Emanuel, Harold Ford, Al From DLC machine, which the Clintons still lead, and which sold the vast majority of the American people down the road to ruin in the '90's. They are part of the same team, and acceptable to the REAL powers that run things. Neither wants to truly upset the established order. You can see that by looking at who is funding them. Please, look at where the money comes from. It was true when Woodward and Bernstein were exposing Watergate, and it is even more true today.
I would urge Ms. Werner to take a close, objective look at what is going on below the surface, beyond the soaring rhetoric and attractive photo ops. If you're going to come out with a passionate essay supporting your candidate on a forum for people seriously interested in politics and issues, then it behooves you to have as complete an understanding of what is going on as possible. I've been there as a young political science major, and later as a long-time liberal activist. Look deeply, question completely, and never take these people at face value.
mercury
At least there is a constitutional amendment protecting race from discrimination. When will women get that equal right?
There is NO Constitutional amendment that protects people from being discriminated against because of their race. There's the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but the principles of race and sex discrimination had to be interwoven with this underlying principle and incorporated into law, and it took years and years. There was no Constitutional amendment passed pertaining to race and not gender.
Ms. Steinam is a nitwit. Hillary got her first and current elected job as US Senator with ZERO direct political experience. Being married to the President doesn't cut it. I'm not worried about the 'glass ceiling' stopping her from going anywhere.
Recommended reading:
http://www.oilempire.us/hillary.html
http://www.oilempire.us/obama.html
Well the younger generation is doing it thing. I remember with amazement all the fuss over Dubba, 8 years ago; he was chrismatic, little real political experience, no military experience, talked a good line and had the reputation as "the best candidate to have a beer with", etc. He stole the election with the blessing of the supremes and we have been paying for it ever since. Obama is an aweful lot like him; he ascended to high political office on basically charisma only. His record in the Senate is uninspiring and not all that effective; I have been unable to find legislation with his sponsoring name; I don't know how much service he has provided to individual voter in Illinois, but he hasn't been around long enough to have the horse trading skills needed to deal with the political machine. Let's not be foolish to think that the current crop of "movers and shakers" is going to go away because Obama is on the scene. They do not fear him.
I will vote for Hilliary because she has a proven record in the Senate; she provides her NY voters with services from her office, she was an outstanding First Lady, she is kind, smart, energetic, strong, calm, attentive to the needs of her NY citizens, she know how to play the boy's game and is effective against and for them. She is a LEADER and will further the cause of women in her administration. She is also a mother with a child and will probably be a grandmother in the future and she has expressed much concern over what the future holds and how the current government operates. Hilliary is the right person for the right reasons at the right time for this most right of elected offices.
I am sorry for all the young women and men who think gender and race do not matter. . .well they do and a when it comes to women, appearances are more important that even we would like to admit. . .why, because the boy's club is in control and that's what they like. Cute, giggly, blonde, big-chested, "free", not to smart girls who don't ask too many questions and will go away after awhile. That is why women do not hold much political power in the "land of the free". As for black men, well the boy's club talks a good line, but they support their own, irrespective of political party.
All I can say is, support your gender, support real change for once. Stop making excuses for failing to help the most electabl candidate, because f her gender or your perceptions of her in the past. Help Hilliary get elected and together we will have the power to improve life for everyone, not just the boys in the club.
A very, very fine article by an observant young lady only 20-21 years old. We should all read it again.
Wow, an "educated" GenX-er. Too bad she drank the Obama KoolAid. Obama is status quo except for his skin color, just like Hillary is status quo except for her gender. If people wanted real change, and were educated enough to dig below the surface, they'd vote for John Edwards. He may have left NH, but he's still in the race. Too bad the Obillary show is all that people can manage to think about. It really is just "American Idol goes to Washington"...
Gender change is NOT what America needs. A change of integrity and character are what we need at this time of crisis.
It's an insult to all women to call on people to vote for Hillary because of her gender, as though "malenesss" is devastating America. It ISN'T!!!!! It's the neocon character and contempt for the Constitution that is destroying America, and Hillary has supported them ever since GW Bush was elected.
I'm a 65 year-old-college educated-white-retired nurse. I have experienced gender bias my whole life. And I agree with Ms. Werner 100%.
Nothing is more important in the office of President than character, integrity and wisdom. If all of the candidates offered those qualities in equal measure, then I would vote based on affirmative action principles, and to my mind, racial bias is the more pervasive, insidious and pernicious. After all, white middle class women already "belong" to a favored group while women of color experience a double or triple whammy of exclusion.
I disagree with Ms. Steinem about Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president based on "....(her) community organizing experience...years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule..."
While I admire her talents, Clinton failed to achieve any health care reform, claims credit for decisions that harmed gays, poor women, and has supported the status quo in Iraq. I don't see how this suggests that she has more to offer than another candidate. And I am offended by the presumption that she didn't get most of her clout from her association with establishment men.
Is Hillary Clinton the candidate with the most integrity and wisdom and ability to build consensus? While I like her a lot, and I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, I think Democrats have a better choice available this time.
I'm reminded of another feminist I greatly admired (may she rest in peace), Molly Ivins. It was almost 2 years ago she wrote an article titled "I will not support Hillary Clinton for president" (see this link for the full read http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304 ).
I would LOVE to vote for a strong woman for President and may still do so, BUT, unlike a lot of others it will NOT be for Hillary Clinton. In the past I have done just like everyone else and voted for someone I did not support only because I didn't want the "alternative" in office. I don't know about you but that hasn't worked very well for me. I figured out part of the problem and want to share it here.
The problem is I HAVE BELIEVED THE LIE. I've been constantly told that my candidate "doesn't have a chance", that American isn't "ready" for him/her, that I'm (and my candidate) are "too idealistic", etc. And I'm sure after I write this someone will feel compelled to set me straight with more LIES. We are lied to every day in so many ways through so many sources. The DLC, and other corporate interest has a vested interest in being sure you don't hear Kucinich or Gravel and if, by some miracle, you have heard them you are told (as though it were fact) "they don't have a chance". They are the ones behind the LIE. If everyone I've ever heard say "yea, but they don't have a chance" were to vote for the person who most closely reflects their beliefs and ideals I have no doubt Kucinich would be our next President. It's only their belief in the LIE that holds them back. I would ask everyone to BELIEVE that you can have someone who reflects your values and interest. What do you have to lose?
As for me I will vote for Kucinich in the Primaries regardless of what the LIEING polls tell us on the LIEING media. And if Hillary becomes the candidate for the Democratic Party and is able to LIE her way into that position with the help of her LIEING friends like Rupert Murdock I will vote for Cynthia McKinney. Take that you LIEING SOB's at the DLC, AARP, MSM, NPR, etc!!!
Excellent piece!
I don't support Obama though and would only reluctantly vote for him -- he's too centrist for my liking. Edwards is my pick because he speaks to class issues and has a sound power analysis.
hillary is NOT the first woman president this country needs....
what about eleanor holmes-norton?...(delegate from washington dc)....she would be great!...
micah,
Yes, she would. Back in the 70s I admired her very much and then didn't keep up with what she was doing since she was so busy and not in the limelight as much.
Classy, educated, lots of government experience -- she's got a lot to offer.
How about the fact that they both suck (obama and hillary)?
Holmes-Norton would be great though.
I agree--I'm voting for the issues not for the gender. Clinton's connection with Bush and the monied system (see solari.com, webofdebt.com) is much too deep for me to be comfortable voting for another 4 years of the same old stuff. Heck, even Chelsea works for the Hedge funds--so you can see where the allegiance of this family has gone.
Bill might've once been a poor boy from Arkansas, but together the two of them have become part of the good ol' boys network. No thanks...
Gloria Steinem is ignoring much about HRC which makes her such an undesirable candidate --- particularly when we are trying to end a war and reign in the MIIC.
Then there's the DLC in the Democratic Party ---
it's control is probably nearing 50% of the party now when we consider the Democratic "blue dogs" who confer with the White House and the GOP on their votes/decisions/posititons -- and the constant DLC rounding up of new "blue dog" candidates to run against Democratic liberals and progressives.
Hillary is DLC ---
Bill was a co-founder of the DLC with Gore --
This is the corporate-wing of the Democratic Party --
This is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party -
And Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of that -- !!!
Hillary is going to take another shot at giving us national health care? Evidently, by starting off with taking the most money from the health-care lobbyists!
Let's also keep a sharp eye on the VP nominee this time around --- and ensure that we don't have another Liebermann who would have been a Fundie Trojan Horse.
Hi Truthteller . . .
QUOTE: Truthteller: I'm with Kucinich to the (probably) bitter end. After that, if anyone other than Edwards is the Democratic nominee, I will probably end up voting for a BLACK WOMAN for President, when the Green Party will most likely nominate the unfairly savaged, former GA Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney. For me, it truly is about what the candidate stands for, more than their supposed charisma, that matters. UNQUOTE
We're pretty much in the same boat ---
I'll vote for Kucinich or Edwards --- after that
I jump ship ---
I, too, read the article from Gloria Steinem in defense of Mrs Clinton. And all I could think about was Thatcher. From the beginning I have been personally offended as a feminist woman by the claim that Clinton's mere womanhood will lead to greater gender equality.
Would Ms Steinem support, let us say, Ann Coulter for president? Ms Coulter is a national figure with much experience within the political arena and she is articulate and smart. She is also an horrible example of a human being. Now I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is the same as Ann Coulter. If I was ever alone in a room with the two of them, I would most definitely snub Coulter and talk only with Clinton. However, Ms Steinem's statements of support for Hillary Clinton for the sake that she is a woman could easily be applied in support of Ann Coulter for president. And that is not only appalling, but also smacks of - dare I say it? - sexism.
There are just too many ways in which Mrs Clinton is flat wrong on foreign and domestic policy for me to ever vote for her in the national election. I support Mike Gravel for president.
Happy Trails
Lilleth
Thank you, Ariel Werner, for that exceptional response to Gloria Steinem's op ed.
Ariel Werner sounds like she has the potential to be the first woman president.
I lost a lot of respect for Ms. Steinem back in 2000 when she joined corporate Dems in attacking Ralph Nader. She seems unchanged since then.
HRC is much worse than Maggie Thatcher, as Thatcher was never an all out war monger nor would should go near as far with privatization as even Tricky Dick did here nor be as much against the unions as the GOP was back in the last 1940s when they pushed through the Taft Hartley slave labor law to get rid of the unions' power in this country.
HRC is, as Counter Punch has pointed out, a Goldwater Republican and always has been. Nobody should trust her itchy trigger finger on the nuclear trigger with her all her war mongering, neo con orientation.
History students know that Gloria Steinhem has never wandered too far from the center, and Corporate America.
She worked for the National Student Association, when it was a CIA front group and met personally with C.D. Jackson, the master of psychological warfare who ossilated between serving Henry Luce at Time-Life (later,he obtained Zapruder film in Dallas on behalf of said firm) and President Eisenhower in formulating Cold-War propaganda strategies.
Her work for the the CIA can be seen as a classic left-gatekeeping strategy. The goal was to counter Soviet sponsored World Youth Conferences in Vienna in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The NSA was liberal, but the CIA used it as a left-gatekeeping counterweight to the Soviets propaganda appeals.
http://www.amazon.com/Mighty-Wurlitzer-How-Played-America/dp/0674026810
For those interested there is a good book on CIA domestic front groups just published by Harvard U. press. This book mentions a lot of detaila about Steinhem's work for the CIA and tries to be "fair" about it. This is not to say that Steinhem has not changed since 1958, but she sure has come full circle if she is supporting the belligerent Clinton, who is a better Liberman than Joe.
It is too bad that an otherwise bright young person who said this: "She has become the candidate of the machine. She represents an old, established, well-funded politics." doesn't realize that Obama's and Clinton's policies are virtually indistinguishable. They are conservative, militarist candidates of the corporate regime machine.
Ariel, I hope you read the writings of Glen Ford and Paul Street about Obama's actual policies before you conclude that his worldview, and his professed policies are actually different from being a "candidate of the machine."
I hope you do yourself and your future a favor and do some more studying about the candidates "of the machine."
Recent Ford essay:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16163
Street's many essays are available on the same site. Here is his site there:
http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
When it comes to candidates and predicting what they will do, facts matter.
Ms. Ariel Werner,
I salute you! A marvelous response to Ms. Steinem's reasoning for casting a vote for HRC.
As a 65 year old lesbian-feminist who was very active in the 60's and 70's (indeed one of those you so eloquently acknowledge) it warms my heart and makes me proud to see young women, such as you, active and strong in their beliefs. I hope there are many more of you as this country needs you if we are ever to recover from the disasters of the Reagan thru Bush administrations.
I will absolutely not vote for HRC. I will not vote for anyone who voted for Bush Co.'s war. Woman or no. Nor do I want Bill Clinton back in the White House. To vote for HRC because she is a woman is beyond reason. Our country is crying for change and HRC is ever so far from that change.
I personally lost total respect for Ms. Steinem in the 1970's in dealings with her and she has nothing since then to change my opinion.
Stay strong Ariel and many thanks to you.
Very well written... SHE should be running for office...
Ms. Steinam's article was not written in a vacuum. Explicitly sexist comments from many members of the media and other candidates, particularly from John Edwards, have been very damaging not only to her campaign, but also to the cause of gender equality. But still more damaging are the more subtle sexist attacks, such as the press accounts describing Edwards as "fiery," and Clinton as "angry," in Saturday's debate. Obama's suggestions that Clinton's experience was obtained by "osmosis," and that she spent her travels as First Lady having tea, exploited the power of subtle sexism. Matt Bai was at least honest enough to admit to practically "recoiling," in response to Clinton slightly raising her voice.
One can reasonably argue that race is the most restricting force in American life - although the deep inequalities between African-American men and women lead me to think otherwise - but it's clear that in the political media, gender is the more restricting force. Acknowledging that fact does not require denying the interdependent relationship between racism and sexism. Shining a light on sexism (or racism, or homophobia) weakens all prejudice. Early 19th century feminists understood that when they stood up in the fight for abolition. And after the Civil War, when white men abandoned women in their fight for equality, many African-American men understood the need to fight for women's rights. Let's not fall into the trap of forgetting that fighting one form of prejudice weakens all forms of prejudice.
Steinam is not someone to be taken seriously.
Ahh Ms. Werner, you are a rose, with thorns, very best kind...long life....prosperx7x7...
Peace.
MCDEE: Short and accurate quote!
ANNEY: Would you argue that extreme militarism, a form of psychological machismo is a feminine trait? I recognize the continuity of the soul, that is, each of us has lived lives as both genders. However, the socialization process for males is definitely more aimed at demonstrating brute force. All kinds of contests (mostly in sports, but also in combat) encourage aggression in males. Some women, like Hillary, identify with this mechanism, and that's borderline tragic. Certainly ONE facet of US imperialism is the influence (and profit motive) of the military-industrial complex, and many who would seek the highest office must cater to this coterie.
I would much rather see a society based on honoring the contributions of both genders, and equally, there are men in touch with feminine components and women in touch with masculine. Each of us is a galaxy of archetypes within; but the basic contexts of Yin and Yang are distinct. A woman trying to be Yang is not doing society or the evolution of humanity any service. (That's Hillary)
I have proudly called myself a feminist since the early 60s! I respected Gloria for her journalism and for Ms. Magazine. But I take great exception to her endorsement of Clinton and her reasons for doing so. I have resigned from NOW because of their early endorsement of her and now may have to discard Ms. Magazine. This 70+ school teacher agrees with those young vibrant women who are working for Obama - he is proudly liberal when it comes to women's rights and social programs, and proudly practical & centrist when it comes to uniting and energizing this country. He will serve as a shining symbol to the world of the nation we want to be!
Someone tell Gloria that its not about gender , but class. How can somebody that votes to keep troops in Iraq, support funding for Guantanamo , her and her husband pushing WTO,and nafta ever represent the working man or woman?
A lot of you said it. It is the record that is weighing down support of Hillary.
Wouldn't Steinem be more valuable if she found a position Hillary supports that is good or gets Hillary to support an additional good position?
It is a waste of time to tell racists and sexists that they are racist and sexist. Convince them they are wrong or that a more important thing makes their belief counterproductive.
Basher,
There is no reason for you to become so rude. It was distasteful for you to write:
"Never take anything written from anybody named 'Ariel' very seriously, folks."
Your point was received loud and clear without that statement.
Happy Trails
Lilleth
Gee, and I was under the impression that a writer of an op-ed piece was speaking out on no one's behalf but her own.
So much sound and fury...
I'm looking forward to the day we don't even mention race or gender in our discussions of candidates..for anything...and we can focus on issues, proven competencies and track records.
Bravo, Ariel. Let's just say that I'm older than your Mom, maybe even than your grandmother! I'm thrilled to see your commitment and well articulated response to Gloria. Keep up your activism. This gives my generation hope!
warmly, jean
As a woman who has had to fight her way through a male-dominant profession, and have had to put up with sexist jokes, and try to compete with the male brotherhood closing ranks against 'the interloper', put up with "all she nees is a good f---" attitude, I sympathise with Clinton. I see the brotherhood putting the same squeeze on her now! She is equal to, or more intelligent and competent, than all the others. I urge all women to get out and support her.
Sigh. How long until the Boomers die?
God damned health food.
But seriously, what if we somehow tracked down any Boomer who personally owned any object adorned with the slogan "Don't trust anyonne over 30" and make them, just them, shut the fuck-up already?
Had your chance. Blew it. Give us a Try.
Or at least stop listening to people like Hillary Clinton or Gloria Steinem, there fooling you, and it hass stopped looking funny and is starting to look like early-onset Alzheimer's.
The Kids are getting worried Mom,
-matti.