Gloria Steinem is Unintentionally Funny
This morning on CNN Gloria Steinem explained how Hillary lost the nomination due to sexism. During the interview, John Roberts noted that many have argued that Obama was simply a better candidate, and that Obama might have beaten Bill Clinton as well.
Gloria responded. "that's ridiculous to do a singe factor analysis of history ..."
I had to laugh. Apparently casting everything in terms of gender is not "a single factor analysis" but suggesting that Hillary's attributes as an individual campaigner somehow is.
Yes, gender played a significant role in the primaries, working both for and against Hillary Clinton. The same thing could be said of race. Nevertheless, Ms. Steinem's lack of nuance is regrettable. Then again, it did give me a good chuckle, which is worth something, I suppose.
Well the interviewer should have asked Ms Steinem if she thought Hillary coulda beat Bill in any election.
Then ask her why?
June 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill would have lost to Obama too. THEN what would Ms. Steinem have to complain about?
June 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in a real sense, Bill DID lose to Obama. In fact, Obama beat two of the most highly touted political whiz kids of the past 25 years.
Is anyone ready to realize yet that Obama is pretty damned good? He just beat the self-described (by their fawning media) Clinton machine. It wasn't a fluke. He's really better than they are. That's why he won.
June 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Obama is an exceptional politician, in addition to being charismatic and an oratorical genius. He will be recognized as such when he beats McCain. McCain is so toast.
June 9, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Sorry, folks, but Obama ripped off Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign! How many times was Obama's campaign compared to Bill's in '92? Why do you think they were compared?
How old are you people? Were you even old enough to vote in 1992?
June 9, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if this has been made clear downstream ... but Obama ripping off Clinton is besides the point. The argument they are making is that Obama just beat them, plain and simple. Not just that, but he beat them at their own game.
It's fair to say that Hillary herself took up Bill's 92 campaign, as well. The difference was that she didn't started doing it until she was so far behind, that it couldn't help her except to tread water. Thus the arguments about Superdelegates. And popular vote. And the increasingly desperate attacks.
The styles are the similar, yes. But the argument is that Obama would have beaten Bill Clinton in 92, because he does "it" better.
June 9, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with the argument. Without Bill Clinton's example and former staff, it's impossible to say whether Obama could beat anyone. He barely beat Hillary as it is.
June 10, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like thinking about comparing Hillary's campaign to Bill's in '92, btw. I haven't thought about it enough to decide if and how it's comparable.
June 10, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is gasket, smart politicians, smart people in general, know enough to learn from those who came before them. Like sports teams watch plays to learn the moves and tricks of others, so should politicians. You learn from both the good and the bad. What works. What doesn't.
Bill was successful in 92. He ran a good campaign that year. The question becomes, why didn't Hillary "rip off" those themes? She had the master of them right at her side. She should have been the first one to come out of the gate with those themes central to her campaign. Would have likely resulted in a whole different ball game.
June 10, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree; politicians good and bad rip each other off. I generally don't have a problem with that, but I think it's important to understand that Obama's win was built on Bill Clinton's shoulders. When I say that, I'm not diminishing Obama's victory, I'm just bringing it back down to earth.
What I completely disagree with is the notion that Obama could have beaten Bill Clinton.
Bill was unknown nationally in '92, and Hillary was known in '08. She couldn't rip Bill off completely, she had too much history. She couldn't fudge Bosnia, NAFTA, 35 years of experience without people questioning her about it. She couldn't explain away her Iraq vote. She was boxed in. Obama, otoh, has comparatively little public record.
When she ran as the new-improved Clinton, she couldn't pull people in until Appalachia. Florida might have made all the difference.
Because she was known and the frontrunner, Hillary's trajectory could never go up (it could remain level or go down), while Obama's could not go anywhere but up.
That she did as well as she did was due to sheer determination and refusal to give up.
June 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this thread might be long abandoned, but just in case you make it back -
Are we talking '92 Bill vs '08 Obama? This is like fantasy football. That's like a political junkie's dream matchup.When she ran as the new-improved Clinton, she couldn't pull people in until Appalachia. Florida might have made all the difference.
All good and true points. But she also was running to be the first woman president. That simple fact alone could have allowed her to speak of hope and change. Living up to this country's great ideals.
I think if Hillary had started out the way she ended up, we'd be in a different place now. Her speeches got much, much better as the campaign progressed. And she had so much more spirit and determination on display at the end.
That's something I completely agree with.June 11, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to think that Obama's just gonna whoop McCain's ass, which is going to seem like it was almost too easy. In the end, it may turn out that the Primary was the real battle for him.
June 10, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that all of these aging feminists came out of retirement to stump for Hillary. And their claims of sexism simply don't stand up to fact.
When an objective analysis is done, it will show that what sank the Clinton 2.0 campaign was failing Candidate Skills 101, Campaign Finance 206, Election Strategery 300, Winning Metrics - Delegates Count, 407.
June 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot Iraq War Vote 101
June 9, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of sad to see this. I saw an early indicator of this attitude when she debate Melissa Harris Lacewell on Democracy Now. That Hillary Clinton got as close as she did should suggest that her gender was not a major detriment to her campaign. Women have been a bigger slice of the electorate this season. The exit polls just don't show what Steinem is claiming.
I think this is a disappointing perspective for feminism. Hillary Clinton has gone farther than any woman in the history of this nation. She lost narrowly. Men lose narrowly, too. They also lose big. In fact, think of all the men she beat on her way. In the end she only lost to one man and not by much. I realize that this is a disappointing moment for many of her supporters, but Hillary Clinton's defeat in the primary is still a stirring victory for women.
June 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Lacewell-Steinem interview/debate was great. You can find streams of the episode at here at democracynow.org. Highly recommended.
June 9, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for link.
Ms. Lacewell (who I always enjoy as a guest on Lehrer or Charlie Rose), ran circles around Ms. Steinem in analysis. What was apparent is the mismatch btw someone relying on past sociological/political dogma - coming up against the present (who has a grasp of the now and past -which certain circles chose to tune out).
That's what happens - you get stale when you don't stay open for the new.
June 10, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, you made me choke on my lunch!
June 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh, she only beat Richardson because he's a woman.
June 9, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
I shouldn't be laughing at that, but it was funny.
June 9, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This claim that Hillary lost because of sexism is very, very dangerous and I'm afraid there'll be some backlash against it that women don't realize yet. Obama said that if he lost the primary, and I'm assuming he would say it for the GE as well, it won't be because of racism but because he didn't make his case well enough to the American people.
Why do women want to lead with charges of sexism? How does it benefit feminism or the women's movement to suggest that women simply cannot succeed because sexism is such an overwhelming, insurmountable force?
I think for many who did not support Hillary because of reasons other then her gender, it will just create anger and defensiveness to be accused of this. There are ways to discuss sexism against Hillary's campaign as contributing factors just as there are ways to point to racism for some people who didn't and won't vote for Obama. But this blanket, myopic view is not only false but reduces women to passive victims.
Additionally, it completely contradicts the other meme that is being floated and that is that she won the popular vote (not true of course but folks are sticking to it). So if she won the popular vote and more people voted for her then anyone else in a primary (her claims), how does that square with she lost ONLY because of sexism?
June 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the greatest things about this campaign is that it's allowed people to understand why for the last 20 years, I've been saying that Steinem is an irrelevant twit.
June 9, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Ms. Steinem was a vital and effective leader in the fight (still raging) for women's rights. She was part of the reason that conditions have improved for women, and her continued efforts on behalf of her cause are still admirable.
It's a pity that she has made a fool of herself in this instance. I hope she will keep her ill-formed opinions to herself lest she transform her legacy into a footnote augmenting the story of the soft racism of Geraldine Ferraro.
June 9, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms Steinem is as sexist as those she rails against. She does not want equality nor does she think we ought to be judged on our merrits regardless of gender. She wants women to win and be in charge. Her views are as vile as those of misogynist, white supremicists, and black nationalist.
June 9, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you prepared to defend these statements, or do they merely represent your somewhat overwrought opinion?
June 9, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
All you need to do is listen to her.
The fight for women has been (and is being) fought by many.
Maybe Gloria is your hero. She surely isn't mine; she forgot to keep moving in this relay race and pass the batton.
Some people seek to be the center of attention to much and fail to see what should remain at the center. Gloria S. fails to let new blood add their perspective; it is her way of the highway.
June 9, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't comprehend her. She's over your head.
June 9, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid you misunderstand me. Ms. Steinem is not particularly a hero of mine, although I think she did some heroic work in the 70s and continues to be very useful in the battle for fair treatment for women.
If it is true, as you say, that "all we have to do is listen to her," why don't you provide us with a few sexist remarks she has made recently?
June 10, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tank,
My response to you went all the way below.
June 10, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Unintentionally funny" is a polite way of saying "ridiculous."
June 9, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton won the White Male Blue Collar, non College Male voters. Isn't that the group that is supposed to be the ones that still want to keep women barefooted and pregnant, especially all those in Appalachia. Yet they are the ones thatgave Hillary her biggest margins of victory.
June 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irony is still alive and kicking.
June 9, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appalachian blue-collar workers are the vanguard of feminism! If only it weren't for all those college-educated eggheads holding women back.
Steinem is a twit. She has her preexisting ideas and is immune to facts.
June 10, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
now the unfornuate post-campaign spin is already underway trying to paint Clinton's loss to rampant and virile sexism in the media and america.
Its unfortunate, because its just not true. Hillary ran a horrible campaign, had a horrible strategy, and was vulnerable to be outflanked by a more pure anti-war voice because she voted for the war "with conviction".
Those factors had more to do with her loss than any perceived sexism. Its just sad that her supporters are intent on blaming this loss on sexism than on hillary's weaknesses as a candidate.
June 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"virile" sexism? or "virulent"?
is "virile sexism" anything like "virile misogyny?"
is there such a thing as "virile feminism"?
just askin, in a nitpicky sorta way...
June 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
right. virulent, as in a rabid or destructive course.
not virile.
those words are not interchangeable.
bah...
i blame it on the heat.
June 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suffering from the same myself, otherwise prolly wouldn't've bothered snarking abt. vocab w/you. That said, I agree.
June 9, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot believe that Gloria Steinem has gotten such a free ride in this campaign. She wrote an op/ed piece in the NYT on the morning of the NH primary. In it, she blatantly made a case why electing a woman was more important than electing a black male. The piece was meant as a stick from the shephard to get all the female sheep in line.
That piece was the most emailed and viewed article on the NYT website FOR WEEKS!
Now, after she loses, she blames gender, when that was her battle cry all along, and everyone is giving her a pass. I wonder, what would have been the reaction if a male had said those things toward a woman.
So, who is being sexist?
June 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. Feminists - people who care about challenging actual sexism in our society - need to speak out and challenge this, loudly and clearly. Throwing charges of sexism around as carelessly as it has been in this campaign ultimately renders the public tone deaf to the issues where you want to raise awareness.
June 10, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I miss Betty Friedan, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards,
Bella Abzug, and Molly Ivins. They had the right stuff.
June 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah. i'm sure molly ivins would have a very colorful and interesting take on the last 18 months...
i miss her...
June 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many people, (such as Gloria - despite her denials) endorse equality only when it's convenient. These are the same ones who usually rush to yell that SEXISM! is responsible when women do not succeed in their endeavors. Yes, sexism is alive and well, but it is not always the factual basis for every woman's lack of success.
Many do not achieve their goals simply because of the failure of their own processes. When that happens, each needs to take responsibility and quit looking for someone/something else to blame. That's equality.
To apply SEXISM! as fact for every failure to achieve is an insult to and disrespecting all women who have a legitimate basis for this claim.
I put Gloria in the same category as I do Rev. Wright and others who either can't or won't go beyond applying their mantles and mantras of the past as their stock rationale for current events.
Wasn't it HRC who put forth the statement that if we keep looking back we cannot move forward?
SEXISM! is not the reason HRC lost - To promote this as fact is careless, destructive and distorts the truth. (To quote my daughter, 'It's just sick and wrong!')
June 9, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I question whether Gloria Steinem said that Hillary Clinton lost because of sexism, or whether she said that sexism was a significant factor in this campaign. They are two different points and I hope at TPM and at other progressive venues we don't fall into the trap of conflating the two in order to avoid the issue of sexism in this campaign or discount its seriousness.
I would disagree with Ms. Steinem if her argument was that Hillary lost because she was a woman, but I would disagree with the premise of this post if Ms. Steinem merely spoke of the significance of sexism in the campaign. Indeed, as the media judges itself in terms of how they conducted themselves in this campaign, I see a tendency to frame the issue as the poster claims Steinem framed it, to wit whether, but for sexism, Hillary would be the nominee. That is a strawperson argument that is incapable of proof and besides the point. Sexism, like racism, are still real problems, and their significance does not depend on whether either or both were the determining factor in this year's election.
Finally, assuming the poster was correct and accurately described Steinem's positions, I still wouldn't chuckle. It ain't funny. I think it highlights something about sexism in this society. I wouldn't think it funny if an African American man blamed racism on his failure to get a job, even if I knew that a more qualified person got the job. Instead, I would understand the man's suspicions that his race was determinative to his detriment. I would understand Gloria's suspicions about sexism too, that is, if the poster is accurately portraying what Steinem said this morning.
June 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You "question whether Steinem said" HRC lost because of sexism. In fact, Steinem did not use the word, "sexism."
Here is the interview.
The full transcript of the Gloria Steinem interview from Monday’s "American Morning:"
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: So today I am standing with Senator Obama to say, yes we can!
KYRA PHILLIPS: Senator Hillary Clinton suspending her historic campaign this weekend and throwing her full support behind Barack Obama.
JOHN ROBERTS: But will the millions of women who back Hillary Clinton follow her lead? Pioneering feminist author Gloria Steinem supported Hillary Clinton in her campaign. She's now backing Barack Obama. She was at the speech on Saturday and she joins us now. Good to see you, thanks for coming in.
GLORIA STEINEM: Thank you so much.
ROBERTS: Let me start first of all with this idea that six months ago, she was a lock for the nomination. What do you think went wrong? Was it that, as her husband has suggested, she got a raw deal as the first female candidate to go this far, or was it something else?
STEINEM: Well, I am in kind of a special situation here because I never thought that a progressive woman could win the top spot in my lifetime, and I never thought she could win, which was all the more reason it was important to support her. We have a very bad record in this regard. We're like 82nd in the world in terms of representing women, and the pattern at the very top is that you have different varieties of men, the Jewish man, the Puerto Rican -- you know, before you have a woman in that spot. Clearly, part of the problem is the misogyny and the culture at large, and especially in the media. I mean, you know, no candidate in history has been asked to step down by the media. She was. The average time that it takes for a loser to endorse a winner in this situation is four months -- four months. She did it in four days, and look how she was criticized, you know, for not doing it the very same night. It's outrageous.
PHILLIPS: Well, you know, it's interesting. You said something that everyone -- or women are more likable as the loser.
STEINEM: Yes, right.
PHILLIPS: So do you think -- do you think the fact that she did not win is actually going to be better for women in the long run because of that?
STEINEM: No, no, no, no, it's not good for women to be liked as losers. But it's an evidence of the bias in the culture. It's the way sex roles, gender roles are policed, let's put it that way -- that men are liked when they win and women are liked when they lose. It's the way we are policed into our roles which oppresses men too. You know, they should be liked whether they win or not.
PHILLIPS: But is it sort of the thing that -- well, men still don't want to see women get it, get that brass ring and so....
STEINEM: Right, and some women don't either, you know, because we're all raised by women or most of us are raised by women until we come to think that female authority is only appropriate in childhood, and we feel when we see an authoritative woman, we feel almost regressed to childhood, because that was the last time we saw an authoritative woman. So, it's deep, it's going to take quite a while, and we're taking even longer in this country than most countries.
ROBERTS: Gloria, some people, including former Senator Bob Kerrey, have suggested that she didn't lose because she was a woman. He just ran a better campaign and had he have run in 1992 against Bill Clinton, probably would have beaten him too.
STEINEM: Yeah, but that's ridiculous to do -- a single factor analysis of history, you know, she didn't win or lose. But, you know, we're all unique people. Every situation is unique. But had she not been a woman, you know -- she was very close. So any single thing, you know, could have made the difference.
ROBERTS: Do you think he needs to do a speech on gender, very much the way he did one on race?
STEINEM: Well, look, her candidacy was really born in Beijing during her first term, when she went there gave a fantastic speech about women's rights as human rights -- women from Africa, Asia, you know, stood up and said she should be a leader. He needs to read that speech, I think, which I'm sure he understands anyway, and always speak about women's rights as human rights, and having had his own experience of discrimination, makes it much easier for him to understand what women of all races go through.
PHILLIPS: Did she miss an opportunity, though, to do a speech on gender? He came out with the race speech in March. It was amazing, riveting -- should she have done the same thing?
STEINEM: Well, I think that -- I think she should have. But I think the pressures on her not to were enormous, because people would have said, oh, she's fetching, she's complaining. You know, the fact is that gender is still perceived as part of nature in a way that race used to be and, you know, sometimes still is, but it's not as much anymore, thank goodness. So I'm not sure that -- I mean, she would have been so criticized in the media. Look how criticized she's been for even raising the fact that she's a female human being.
PHILLIPS: She got up there, not only as a contender but -- right next to him.
STEINEM: She has made such a huge advance. You know, this is the first time. I mean, I ran as a delegate for Shirley Chisolm 36 years ago. Shirley Chisolm took the 'white males only' sign off the White House door -- both, you know. And, you know, we've had 50 women, you know, running over time. It takes a long time in this -- in a country that is this big and that is this biased against female human beings. I mean, let's face it, you know, we have this kind of frontier macho thing and we've still got it. But, therefore, we're choosing our leadership talent from a tiny pool. But what we have to remember is that men have gender, too. We have to talk about gender roles as men. White people have race, too. We have to talk about white racism. Every time we talk about -- race doesn't belong to the people who are afflicted by it. It belongs to all of us, and if we do that, this campaign really will be historic and we will have enlarged the talent pool from about 6%...
PHILLIPS: Both of them having cracked the doors. They've busted open the doors, from race to gender....
STEINEM: It's huge. We had an embarrassment of talent this year, and I'm very proud to have been part of both campaigns and we're going to elect Barack Obama.
ROBERTS: Gloria, thanks for coming in this morning -- appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
STEINEM: Thank you.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/06/09/cnn-turns-steinem-blame-hillary-s-loss-sexism-media
June 9, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This remark is most perplexing. Interviewer suggests that maybe she just got beat fair and square. Nope! Don't say that. That's a single factor analysis of history, which is ridiculous. Instead, let's say that things would have been different if she weren't a woman. Or if he weren't black. Or something. That's not single factor, is it? The last sentence is the best. She was close, so anything could have made the difference. Just not losing in a fair fight. Had to be something else.
June 9, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's perplexing. The confusion begins with the question.
You perceive that the interviewer is asking a single, clear question. I perceive that the interviewer is asking one bungled question and one hypothetical (while completely ignoring everything Steinem has said so far). Here's what the interviewer said:
Translation of question text: Kerrey thinks Hillary lost not because she's a woman (a single factor to Steinem) but because Obama ran a better campaign (also a single factor to Steinem). He could have beaten Bill in 1992. Yes or no.
Translation of answer text: Steinem says you can't analyze history by saying Obama just ran a better campaign. There are many factors involved in his win (Every situation is unique), any of which can be isolated out to put him over the top (So any single thing, you know, could have made the difference).
Steinem never used the words "fair fight." That's because she's not even thinking about "fair fights"!
You and the interviewer both completely ignore her very first comment:
Through Steinem's lens, it was never what she would consider a fair fight, and never could have been. However, Hillary made huge advances.
In his original post, Rick Spilman said:
Wow! Rick Spilman's inability to detect and understand nuance is what's regrettable. Steinem was 100 percent nuanced!
June 9, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The disconnect in Steinem's reasoning is that she is perfectly willing to accept that had she not been a woman -- she was close. But why doesn't that apply to any of the other serious mistakes Hillary Clinton made? In other words, if she was so close AND you can admit that she made mistakes, then why is that not also a reasonable suggestion?
I'd agree with her that laying it on any single factor ignores the others, but I think it's clear that she's much more willing to do that for one particular factor above the others. This is particularly silly to me because she seems to acknowledge how out of touch she is in one statement -- she never thought it would happen at all -- but can't reconcile the fact that Hillary getting so close proved her wrong.
In other words, she doesn't get it.
June 10, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The disconnect in Steinem's reasoning is that she is perfectly willing to accept that had she not been a woman -- she was close. But why doesn't that apply to any of the other serious mistakes Hillary Clinton made? In other words, if she was so close AND you can admit that she made mistakes, then why is that not also a reasonable suggestion?
I'd agree with her that laying it on any single factor ignores the others, but I think it's clear that she's much more willing to do that for one particular factor above the others. This is particularly silly to me because she seems to acknowledge how out of touch she is in one statement -- she never thought it would happen at all -- but can't reconcile the fact that Hillary getting so close proved her wrong.
In other words, she doesn't get it and she doesn't get that she doesn't get it.
June 10, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF:
To Steinem, Hillary won. Not the nomination, mind you, but Hillary won so much more than Steinem ever imagined was possible in her lifetime (She has made such a huge advance. You know, this is the first time).
Since Steinem's not looking at Hillary's performance as a loss, she can't answer the question the way we want her to (I am in kind of a special situation here).
She is consistent in her answers; she never wavers.
The disconnect comes from the interviewer and consequently from us. We aren't looking at it the way Steinem is (repeat: I am in kind of a special situation here).
To understand Steinem, you have to override the interviewer and override your own concept of winning and losing. It's like she and the interviewer are having two separate conversations. If you force Steinem into a box, you won't get what she's saying. You have to take her on her terms, like you would a philosopher.
If you can succeed in taking her on her terms, she has some very interesting things to say about all of us.
June 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. All the spin is dizzying and simply silly. In some respects Steinem is no different from Jeremiah Wright - so stuck in past bitterness that she cannot see where we are today.
She said "I never thought that a progressive woman could win the top spot in my lifetime, and I never thought she could win." How different is that from the perception that a black candidate would never stand a chance to win in white America? Wright said, ““Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.” Apparently like Steinem, he doubts that Obama has any chance of winning.
Wright claims that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…" while Steinem says "clearly, part of the problem is the misogyny and the culture at large, and especially in the media."
Both speak of hatred for race or gender effectively as barriers. Both Clinton and Obama deserve credit for working to break through these barriers. Racism and sexism both exist yet both can be ultimately overcome, even if those like Steinem and Wright are too caught in the past to see it.
June 10, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion, your juxtaposition of Wright's statements with Steinem's is invalid. As I point out at the end of this comment, I think you actually contradict yourself.
When Steinem says, "I never thought that a progressive woman could win..." she is clearly stating an opinion. When Wright says, "Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” he is stating a fact.
Similarly, it's difficult to argue against Wright's statement that "racism is how this country was founded." OTOH, Steinem's "the problem is the misogyny" is not a factual statement, it's a conceptual one about her view of why the nominating process went the way it did, and is not statement that can be scientifically proved or disproved.
In any case, I don't see how this comment supports your original thesis, and nowhere do you provide any evidence that either Steinem or Wright are "too caught in the past to see" that their respective complaints can be overcome. In fact, I'd say that Steinem's statement about being proved wrong about her opinion of a progressive woman's chances rather contradicts the "too caught in the past to see" idea, wouldn't you agree?
June 10, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In fact, I'd say that Steinem's statement about being proved wrong about her opinion of a progressive woman's chances rather contradicts the "too caught in the past to see" idea, wouldn't you agree?"
Excuse me? Steinem has been proved right. What she said was "I never thought that a progressive woman could win the top spot in my lifetime, and I never thought she could win.." Guess what Hillary lost. She didn't win the "top spot". Haven't you heard?
And no, I think that both Wright and Steinem are stuck looking at the world through their own particular prisms of race and gender, respectively. To their credit, the same cannot be said of either Obama or Clinton.
June 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that both Wright and Steinem are stuck looking at the world through their own particular prisms of race and gender, respectively.
There is no doubt that they have their prisms, but don't we all -- and shouldn't we all? Of course their views are skewed by their experiences and their struggles. I don't see that as a bad thing.
As far as Hillary's defeat validating Ms. Steinem's remark is concerned, Steinem is not dead yet, and for that matter neither is Sen. Clinton.
June 10, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, you can't do nuance.
June 10, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are repeating yourself. If you have really to say, why bother posting?
June 10, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I should have saved myself a step and called you a moron instead. Next time I'll be more efficient.
You're wrong and stubborn. How many people do you need to tell you that? If you need any more to tell you, then you're just dumb on top of it. Your choice.
June 10, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent question that could be asked of any of us from time to time, and many of us all the time.
June 11, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wigmarx:
Thanks so much for taking the time to post this. I have to say that Ms. Steinem's comments are somewhat hard to pin down, but I think it's unfair to say that she claimed that Hillary lost because of sexism. She does indeed discuss misogyny in our culture and I have a hard time disputing what she says. She did not concede that Hillary lost fair and square, as someone points out. My only response to that is that politics is not a fair and square sport, and there is no doubt in my mind that Senator Obama is the nominee and his victory is legitimate in my eyes.
Nobody here, or anywhere, knows what would have happened if all variables were equal. There is no such world and in any event this all assumes we could identify the values to equalize.
I'm left with two conclusions. First, Senator Obama legitimately won the nomination and he has my full support. Second, sexism, like racism, remains prevalent in our society, and it is no laughing matter.
I don't laugh at Gloria Steinem. I thank her for making it just a little bit easier for my three daughters to do more with their lives than their grandmothers could ever dream of doing with theirs. And in two short weeks, maybe I'll remember to thank Gloria and her like-minded activists when my oldest daughter walks with her male and female colleagues to accept her bachelor's degree from one of the finest academic institutions in America.
June 9, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
All criticism of Hillary Clinton (or Gloria Steinem) is motivated by sexism. All criticism of Obama or Jeremiah Wright is motivated by racism. All criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism, as is all criticism of Mr. Hagee. All criticism of actions taken by the Bush/Cheney administration is motivated by sympathy for suicide bombers. All criticism of Bill Clinton is motivated by sympathy for the vast right wing conspiracy. One could go on . . .
June 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
[The ghost who walks] Pssst.... your mothers are watching. Hope. Pass it on.
June 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lost my respect for Gloria Steinem in 1998 when she defended Bill Clinton's escapades with Lewinsky, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey -denying that his actions constituted sexual harassment.
She appears to fight rather selectively for women's rights.
June 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
[The ghost who walks] Pssst... Maybe it's just that you're wrong. Hope. That's the new word. Pass it on. The ship's sailing.
June 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that's right - she should have defended bogus law suits and stories that even the prosecutor said weren't trustworthy.
June 9, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa! You're defending Bill? The President of the U.S. hits on a 20-something intern? Is this relationship a little unequal? If this wasn't sexual harassment, what is?
June 9, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Gloria Steinem explained how Hillary lost the nomination due to sexism"
- Absolutely incorrect.
"She appears to fight rather selectively for women's rights."
- It's called having a unique opinion. Professionally, Gloria Steinem has been, and always will be, moved by feminist thought. She is a highly independent thinker with a lot of style and character but famous for her unconventional brand of feminism. She is a celebrated academic and not, at least by today's standards, a media talking head or political pundit. She isn't stumping or anything like that. Her talent lies elsewhere. She was brought in to discuss the "subject" of sexism as it has recently (for better or worse) become a media topic and for which she is extremely qualified to represent those concerned: older generational women.
"Unification" means more than simply awaiting Hillary's capitulation. It means assimilating her core supporters. Even with Hillary out of the picture, and especially while the GE remains a tie, women's issues will have to be vented. They are a very important demographic.
I really don't understand why you would choose to air your personal "issue" with Steinem at this point in time. As she said: "...we're going to elect Barack Obama." She's a talent, she's on the team, let's move on.
June 10, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to be a HUGE fan of GS. I knew of her when I was a little tot, because my babysitter read Ms. Magazine.
I took womens studies classes, and I devoured her articles, and took them to heart.
I have spent my adult life trying to be the best embodiment of male feminism that I knew how to be.
It's sad now to watch an icon and a hero become a parody of herself.
June 9, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, imagine a parody like that endorsing and campaigning for Obama. Can it get any worse than that?
June 9, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait until the sixties are over.
June 9, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken by a true 34-year-old.
June 9, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a shame no one buried Gloria Steinem when she died ...
June 9, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
this IS true. Whatever promise feminist icons of the 60s like Steinem had, they squandered in the 70s and 80s.
white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action, and the so-called "feminist movement" is in fact, the "white women's movement".
Hillary and Steinem are as irrelevant to the struggles young women face today as civil rights-era dinosaurs like Wright and Jackson are to the fight against racism and discrimination.
June 9, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
She may not have used the word sexism. She used a stronger word implying outright hatred of women. She said, "Clearly, part of the problem is the misogyny and the culture at large, and especially in the media." If anything, "misogyny" - suggesting a hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women is a significantly stronger condemnation than if she had said said "sexism," which refers to a preference for an adherence to traditional roles.
Steinem invokes broad societal reasons that Clinton lost then dismisses the possibility that Clinton just wasn't as a good a candidate as Obama. She is as someone once put it, a prisoner of the gender wars.
June 9, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a possibility - Steinem thinks that Clinton was just as good a candidate as Obama. I know I do. I found them both to be good candidates for the nomination.
I also don't see how you can translate the phrase "part of the problem" to mean a single factor. Doesn't "part of the problem" mean that there was more than one factor? And when Steinem said "it's ridiculous to do a single factor analysis of history" I would think any sentient person would understand that she wasn't ascribing her defeat to one factor. That doesn't mean that her statement that "one single thing" [could have changed the outcome] might have made a difference, because one single thing could have made a difference. I would imagine that Clinton is right now looking back and considering that one single thing she would have done differently or that she thought made all the difference. I would be willing to bet that Obama is doing the exact same thing - trying to pinpoint that one thing that he felt put him over the top.
It's really a shame that because you misunderstood her and didn't want to understand her, you assume that she was wrong and not you. Amazing that in this entire interview you find the one single thing that she said that was guaranteed to piss you off.
June 9, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bev. Thanks so much for your help with the avatar. Now I have to try and paste it on or whatever you call it. :) Cheers.
June 9, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't sound to me like she's just saying here that sexism was simply a part of the dynamic of this campaign. She seems to be saying that Hillary failed to win the nomination because she's a woman.
June 10, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's really a shame that because you misunderstood her and didn't want to understand her, you assume that she was wrong and not you. Amazing that in this entire interview you find the one single thing that she said that was guaranteed to piss you off."
I think I understand exactly what she said. And I guess you didn't notice, but she didn't piss me off, she amused me.
I think she is stuck in the past, which is fine with me. I just find her sweeping generalizations and refusal to even consider the specific to be funny.
Hillary lost not because Mark Penn's strategy sucked, not because she refused to apologize for being a champion of Bush's war, not because she was late to effectively use the Internet for fund raising, not because her husband gives loose cannons a bad name. No, Hillary lost because of misogyny. Sure. Tell me another.
June 10, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, win, lose, or draw, Hillary is still the big story at TPM. In the meantime, Obama gave a stirring talk to his campaign workers at Chicago, and not a peep out of TPM.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bnhmByYxEIo
Very inspiring.
June 9, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gloria Steinem is Unintentionally Funny
I wish it were funny that everyone trashing Steinem is simply not able to comprehend her. But it's not funny. It's depressing.
Steinem is not easy, and she often doesn't translate into sound bites. You have to work to understand her.
Molly Ivins is a lot easier to understand. That's because she wasn't a philosopher.
June 9, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's because she acted like a guy. Guys like that.
June 10, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero,
Maybe you, and your feminist views can explain to all of us how it is that a woman should act!
Because, of course, there could only be a way a woman should act, right?
(To bad you can't see that your comment does nothing good for women.)
June 10, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you scroll to the part of Steinem's interview where she discusses the "policing" of gender roles?
June 10, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, personally, I took the position early on that we had enough experience with Pale Males as president. So with three different types criss-crossing Iowa and all in the running I quickly determined I had to focus on Hillary, Obama and Richardson and choose the best of the three. Edwards did make it a little hard to keep to my no Pale Male mantra because he was everywhere and accessible to everyone, but I just felt enough was enough.
And this is the thing. I think a ton of other Iowans did the same and thats why those three were in the top four, with the last four spots taken up by Pale Males. It was clear Richardson, Clinton and Obama all had the mojo going, as did Edwards, Biden and Dodd. But I just couldn't let myself vote for another pale male with all of the talent out there in folks who would present a transcendent presidency.
So I disagree with G. Steinem. But for her sex, I don't know that Hillary would have been in my final 3 (and ultimately final 2). If I was just going on how their positions matched my own, it would have been Richardson, Obama, Dodd and Edwards.
June 9, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I say that she is sexist?
You are extrapolating my words and finding something that's not there. Maybe it is because my comment is attached to your second; instead of your first comment.
What I did say is that she is not ready to pass the baton to the new generation (very much like the Clintons, by the way), and that she is not open to new perspectives. That in itself is quite stagnating for the cause.
Please feel free to listen to the interview/debate reference above by leszek. It can also be found in youtube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eQkzgr8kXDc (Parts 1-4)
In relation to Gloria Steinem's accomplishments, Hillary could have reminded us that it is not the activist who make things happen, but Presidents...
Well, maybe that only applies to MLK!
June 10, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I say that she is sexist? You are extrapolating my words and finding something that's not there.
My error. Larry Geater claimed that Ms. Steinem is "as sexist as those she rails against." I challenged him to produce some links, and when you said "All you have to do is listen to her," I thought you were supporting the sexism charge.
I'm not sure I agree with you that she is losing her flexibility (although I certainly am!), but I do agree that a lot of feminists -- both self-styled and genuine -- have crossed the border between reality and fantasy these last few months.
June 10, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
In researching a response to you I read more about Ms Steinem. I was wrong. She occasionaly uses hyperbole but is not anti male. I was getting her confused with others in her movement. I stand corrected.
June 10, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admire people who can admit a mistake, and I agree that she habitially goes over the top. In her defense, remember that massive embellishment was part of the whole 60s/70s milieu. Remember Peter Max?
June 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink