Am I the only one who never cared for her? She always seemed like a poser, totally out of touch. I recall her saying that masculinity was a disease that needed to be eradicated. She’s anti-porn. She was also never seen without a man. She also had a major hard-on for Bill Clinton. It was hilarious how much egg was left on her face after that. Now she’s BFF with Meghan Markle.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||January 25, 2023 12:29 AM|
Good for her.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||January 24, 2023 6:53 AM|
The only thing I find interesting about her is that she married Christian Bale's dad.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||January 24, 2023 8:10 AM|
She always seemed like a spokesperson rather than someone who actually thought for a living.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||January 24, 2023 8:25 AM|
She’s so elitist and arrogant. She doesn’t help anyone she just wants to be on tv.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||January 24, 2023 8:36 AM|
[quote]Am I the only one who never cared for her? She always seemed like a poser, totally out of touch.
OP = Betty Friedan
|by Anonymous||reply 5||January 24, 2023 10:10 AM|
R5 can’t read.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||January 24, 2023 10:21 AM|
I don't really have an opinion either way, but I do remember reading some of the popular quotes floating around are out of context or incorrect with orgin. One that comes to mind is "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle". Steinman claims that quote is incorrectly attributed to her (it was said by an earlier feminist, which was a play on another quote “A man without faith is like a fish without a bicycle”, coined by Charles S. Harris).
It's very easy now a days to take snips from old writings or speeches and make a person sound extreme. Without context, anything can be twisted... I don't think that a woman that has said many things like "A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men" is after men or hates them. Nor would it make her a hypocrite to be with men.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||January 24, 2023 10:39 AM|
I like her - and she's from another era. I like "public intellectuals". USA has never had enough of them, and she was sorta one. We shouldn't tear them down, rather disagree with them. That's old fashioned as well - nuanced debate. Everything is not a binary.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||January 24, 2023 10:47 AM|
The earlier feminists all killed each off.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||January 24, 2023 10:54 AM|
I question her taste in friends, if that's what's happening. Or maybe one of them called the paparazzi for a well-timed picture of casual and incidentally well-connected acquaintances.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||January 24, 2023 11:04 AM|
The Duchess probably glommed on to Steinem, who doesn't really know who she is. There is not reporting that they are BFFs, is there?
Typing words does not equal facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||January 24, 2023 11:36 AM|
I find her depressing. Nearly 90 years old and still chasing clout. Not that one need live under a rock after a certain age, but when does enough become enough?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||January 24, 2023 11:56 AM|
How is she still chasing clout? Where? I must have missed this.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||January 24, 2023 11:59 AM|
I live in Wisconsin. Steinem was a good friend of someone I knew who lived in my same small town.
I've met her twice.
This'll rankle Steinem's critics, but read it and weep because it's true. She's no "poser". She walks the walk.
I know because my friend was an activist here in Wisconsin. He was gay and was involved in a lot of progressive causes. If he was promoting a cause and he though her presence would help, she'd show- up and put in some actual work.
And that was whether there were cameras there or not.
I can understand why she's not everybody's cup of tea. She's not a naturally out-going person. In fact, when I was around her she was aloof. And no, I didn't try to be too familiar with her. She was all business and focused on her role and activity.
I gather, just from my estimation, that Steinem is one of those famous persons who has lots and lots of friends from all walks of life because they share activist causes. I know that seems contradictory to her aloofness but that's what I think.
Steinem has been famous, and been around famous people, most of her adult life. She's developed an ability to size-up someone fairly quickly.
She's taken Markle's measure and knows who she is dealing with.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||January 24, 2023 12:23 PM|
Womankind is forever indebted to Gloria for having advanced the cause of aviator glasses and concho belts.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||January 24, 2023 12:29 PM|
DL has really become MRA Central lately
|by Anonymous||reply 16||January 24, 2023 12:39 PM|
One can never be too feminist or too thin.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||January 24, 2023 12:40 PM|
Like so many people, Steinem became a caricature of herself.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||January 24, 2023 12:41 PM|
R16 = Gloria
|by Anonymous||reply 19||January 24, 2023 3:37 PM|
I never liked the aviators on her.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||January 24, 2023 3:46 PM|
I lost interest when she shitted all over Mrs. America because it didn’t line up with her vision of all women being feminists at the time of the ERA.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||January 24, 2023 4:07 PM|
You mean shat?
|by Anonymous||reply 22||January 24, 2023 4:24 PM|
That doesn't seem to quite be it r21. She's talking more about tokenism.
The way straight homophobes are the ones with the actual power to take our rights away, but they adore a Milo or a George Santos or anyone else who can be set up to make it look like gays themselves don't want any civil rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||January 24, 2023 4:29 PM|
The brand of masculinity that Steinem disparaged WAS AND IS A DISEASE. And it’s after effects are ONGOING.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||January 24, 2023 5:04 PM|
I think she was one of the better white women feminists. She included black women and stayed in the background, at times.
IMO, Jane Fonda seems more dubious as far as living the life that she's preaching. She comes out slowly with all these revelations that belie her earlier stances. Jane seems more male-identified than Gloria, IMO.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||January 24, 2023 5:16 PM|
Years ago I had to work with her and she was, well, extremely difficult. Given that this concerned an article in a major publication, she seemed to feel that every word about her was of supreme importance and her only concern was that others would see her as the Joan of Arc of her time. Her ego was far bigger than her reality.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||January 24, 2023 5:22 PM|
[quote] The brand of masculinity that Steinem disparaged WAS AND IS A DISEASE.
Fuck off, frau.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||January 24, 2023 5:25 PM|
Uh oh, MRAs activated!
|by Anonymous||reply 28||January 24, 2023 5:28 PM|
[quote] The brand of masculinity that Steinem disparaged WAS AND IS A DISEASE.
Wrong. And masculinity is responsible for the greatest inventions and art in history. Gloria is as nuts as his mother. Men don’t have to start acting like women. Gloria turned feminism into a therapy session.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||January 24, 2023 5:28 PM|
You know who built the pyramids? A man! Or maybe aliens. Male aliens!
|by Anonymous||reply 30||January 24, 2023 5:32 PM|
OP, you sly puss.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||January 24, 2023 5:34 PM|
I was a theatre manager in DC. She came quite often and was very friendly. One evening while I was chatting with her, a woman approached and said: “Didn’t you USED to be Gloria Steinem”?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||January 24, 2023 5:44 PM|
Elder gay here who understands that activists like Steinem made it BETTER FOR ALL OF US.
I don't give a fuck about the cathedrals and pyramids built on slave labor. You can build and create without warfare and slaughter. Steinem understood that late capitalism depends on marginalizing groups of people to keep them docile and afraid.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||January 24, 2023 5:45 PM|
[quote] I don't give a fuck about the cathedrals and pyramids built on slave labor.
What? You can appreciate the beauty of the cathedrals and pyramids and still acknowledge that the people who built them were not compensated fairly for their work.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||January 24, 2023 5:50 PM|
What r33 said.
Still, I didn't need Steinem's permission to feel sympathy for Monica Lewinsky.
Months after the Clinton Lewinsky "scandal" broke, but it was still blazin' hot, Steinem gave a speech and said the attacks on Lewinsky are wrong and had to stop.
From second one, the moment Lewinsky's young face and brunette hair appeared on the national morning "Breaking News" breathlessly reported by Tom Brokaw, or, whoever it was, I felt instant, deep sympathy for Lewinsky.
I knew, right then and there, that for the rest of her life, she would be notorious and a target of undeserved ridicule.
I was correct about that. I think Steinem waited too long to say what she said in defense of Lewinsky.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||January 24, 2023 5:57 PM|
Prior to her speech on Lewinsky, she defended Clinton against the accusations he was facing coming just short of calling his accusers liars. Was she truly supportive of Lewinsky or cleaning up her own image? The Republican hypocrisy and the circus they created was execrable. That being said, Clinton degraded himself and the office with his actions. Steinem should have thought twice before speaking in defense of him.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||January 24, 2023 6:25 PM|
R36, I agree with you and I write this as someone who eagerly voted for Clinton twice, Hillary once and would vote for either or both of them again.
The entire fault of that now quaint-seeming episode belongs to Bill Clinton, as he himself says in his biography.
And not to that young, helplessly besotted woman.
Now cue the stone- throwers who want to to talk about her blue dress and thong.
So fucking what. Whatever she did or didn’t do with regard to Clinton, bottom line, it was his responsibility to not even start up with her.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||January 24, 2023 6:48 PM|
Not the young, besotted woman, but I would also add in Ken Starr, Linda Tripp and the whole fucking bullshit regime that is Republican "morality" in Washington. The Clintons, him especially but her also, did not behave well, but what really wrecked her life was Ken Starr and that completely bogus "Get Clinton for something, anything at all" investigation.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||January 24, 2023 6:51 PM|
Bill Clinton was at fault, absolutely. And I think he was, for the most part, a good president but that was a horrible error in judgement. As soon as Monica flashed her thong at him he should've had her transferred out of the White House immediately and had no contact with her.
That being said, the Republicans behaved abominably regarding that whole affair. They were totally disgraceful.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||January 24, 2023 6:52 PM|
Kenneth Starr was total scum. He had a pathological hatred of Clinton that bordered on mental instability. He should've been removed from his position.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||January 24, 2023 6:53 PM|
Of course Ken Starr was ultimately removed from his position, but not that one. Removed from president of Baylor University for covering up RAPE, cause that is Republican morality. The earnest defense of innocent womanhood simply doesn't matter when it comes to girls raped by football players. Cause Jesus or some shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||January 24, 2023 6:59 PM|
Steinem killed feminism. She turned it into a joke. She’s an elitist snob.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||January 24, 2023 7:43 PM|
She really did nothing to counteract the perception that the feminist movement was by and for upper class white women. That was a big problem.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||January 24, 2023 7:45 PM|
Are you a woman, r42/OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 44||January 24, 2023 7:48 PM|
If you tear down and cancel all the public intellectuals on the left..... Well, you're not going to like the result.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||January 24, 2023 7:55 PM|
[quote] Prior to her speech on Lewinsky, she defended Clinton against the accusations he was facing coming just short of calling his accusers liars.
Of course she did. Gloria Steinem was CIA. The husband of California's Lt Governor sweeps it under the run as youthful idealism.
Pacifica Radio isn't as forgiving.
PRA Archive #: AZ1108 Description:
"Kathie Sarachild is interviewed on KPFA's "Unlearning to not speak" program by Susan Elisabeth. Sarachild is a member of the Redstockings radical feminist group which has just published a "warning" that Gloria Steinem and MS Magazine (Steinem is editor) may be fronts for the CIA and powers that be to block progress on feminist issues such as the exploitation of women. Focus is on Steinem's political history since the 1960s and her association with the Independent Research Service, which is believed to have been used by the CIA to block Communist youth activities in Finland and in Europe. Suspicions and warnings are being published in the Redstockings Journal. Other articles are cited in other publications on this issue. Produced by Susan Elisabeth. Outro with music".
|by Anonymous||reply 46||January 24, 2023 8:00 PM|
She turned women into victims. She loves the spotlight and made millions from it. Now that second wave feminism is dead, she has no idea what to do. She was catapulted because she was one of the few “feminists” that weren’t butt ugly. Betty Friedan was no oil painting.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||January 24, 2023 8:02 PM|
[quote]OP: Am I the only one who never cared for her?
For decades, she's been hated with the intensity of a thousand suns by the Christian Right and conservatives everywhere.
Is there something you wanna tell us about yourself, OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 48||January 24, 2023 8:07 PM|
Had a friend that worked for her about 10 years ago and she apparently did a ton of work that got no publicity whatsoever and she did it all for free. Traveled to small towns to give lectures for free, helped edit random books for free, etc. etc. etc. Agree with the poster above that said she walked the walk. I forget the specific examples my friend gave, but it was impressive. She’s not wealthy by any means. He said she was very scattered, but extremely generous.
He recently heard that she has dementia.
I always liked her based on his experience working for her.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||January 24, 2023 8:12 PM|
R43 Not true. Steinem often went on speaking engagements with Florence Kennedy, a black civil rights lawyer. People thought it bizarre that a black and white 'lady' traveled together.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||January 24, 2023 8:19 PM|
Here's Gloria's 2010 NYT article about Clinton. Sorry, I have a hard time understanding what she's saying. I'll have to reread it. I guess she's saying that Bill wasn't as bad as others and that feminists need not jump ship on Bill.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||January 24, 2023 8:35 PM|
Sorry, that's a 1998 article (op-ed) by Steinem, posted at R51.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||January 24, 2023 8:38 PM|
Gloria's 2017 explanation of her 1998 position.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||January 24, 2023 8:38 PM|
Any pro abortion democrat is entitled to one free rape or sexual harassment case -- Gloria
|by Anonymous||reply 54||January 24, 2023 8:43 PM|
R53 I'm a Steinem fan but that article is certainly disturbing. She chooses not to understand what sexual harassment is. She thinks that because Paula Jones said 'no' when her boss dropped his pants and her boss Clinton obliged, she wasn't being harassed. WRONG.
On the other hand this should make Steinem a hero on DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||January 24, 2023 8:50 PM|
Paula Jones alleged that Bill "asked her to perform oral sex and even dropped his trousers."
"CNN polls taken right after Ms. Willey's interview on '60 Minutes' showed that more Americans believed her than President Clinton." That's pretty incredible, for that time.
Glo said that Bill's "accused" of making a "pass" (ugh) at Paula, acknowledges it was a "low point" in Paula's life, then said that's not sexual harassment.
[quote] The truth is that even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took 'no' for an answer.
I never knew the history of this.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||January 24, 2023 9:08 PM|
r47/OP, you didn't answer my question. Are you a woman?
|by Anonymous||reply 57||January 24, 2023 9:23 PM|
She once was a playboy bunny.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||January 24, 2023 9:33 PM|
Major pussy hound. Big Bush supporter.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||January 24, 2023 9:35 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 60||January 24, 2023 9:46 PM|
Jesus your are a 4 star dunce OP. Activist, writer, editor, philanthropist and one of the most pivotal people of her time. Suggest you educate and inform yourself and a lot of the brain dead posters who think they’re being witty?
DL can so depress at times.
Ignorance and no idea of why gay men and lesbians have come as far as they have oust WW2. So, so ignorant.
I don’t agree with all and every thing she advocated, wrote, lobbied and worked for. But my God she is a great woman.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||January 24, 2023 9:58 PM|
“Since” not oust- weird auto correct
|by Anonymous||reply 62||January 24, 2023 10:00 PM|
[quote]DL can so depress at times.
Only if you let it, Charlie. The trolls we've been getting recently are so blatant as to be laughable (and that includes OP).
|by Anonymous||reply 63||January 24, 2023 10:05 PM|
She looks so frail there. Oy.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||January 24, 2023 10:07 PM|
Charlie has sand in his vagina again. Aren’t you tired of being outed as an idiot, hon? The amount of egg on your face could make a good omelette.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||January 24, 2023 10:13 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 66||January 24, 2023 10:13 PM|
[quote] But my God she is a great woman.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||January 24, 2023 10:14 PM|
Check out OP's other posts and get back to me.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||January 24, 2023 10:18 PM|
Good lord Charlie is such a windbag.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||January 24, 2023 10:34 PM|
Kirstie was a hotter Gloria
|by Anonymous||reply 70||January 24, 2023 10:41 PM|
Four sentences exhaust you r69? Are you Roxanne?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||January 24, 2023 11:26 PM|
Exhaust? No. Calling out a prissy Mary? Yes.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||January 24, 2023 11:29 PM|
Lay off Charlie.
He’s added more to the DL than any of you could ever.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||January 24, 2023 11:30 PM|
You know, honestly, charlie, I'd be curious what exactly you don't agree with her about, in terms of actual policies and advocacy. My guess is most of the feminist program of the 1970s is pretty much standard these days, despite all the shrieking and howling. Even abortion, which was often the most controversial part. Most Americans are pro-choice. Some restrictions, but the idea that it is always a terrible horrifying sin and crime is very much a minority position.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||January 24, 2023 11:42 PM|
R55 and R56, historically, Steinem was correct. When the concept of sexual harassment was first identified, its definition included a pattern of behavior, not a single unwanted sexual overture. I'm not sure that, legally, even today, it would be "harassment." Any HR DL-ers here who were around back then?
|by Anonymous||reply 75||January 24, 2023 11:48 PM|
Gloria, don't you think you're falling? If everybody wants you, why isn't anybody calling?
|by Anonymous||reply 76||January 25, 2023 12:29 AM|