NY Times Misses Big Slip in Steinem Op-Ed

Gloria Steinem has an op-ed in today's New York Times, explaining why a female version of Barack Obama would never make it in the eyes of the American public.

But Steinem, a Clinton supporter, makes a big slip that the Times failed to catch.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old -- for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton -- while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

Excuse me?

While the Kennedy family's endorsements have largely gone to Sen. Clinton, the top prize of the liberal lion has yet to be dispensed.

Comments

[thatvisionthing]

There's another big slip I see in Steinem's column, or her apparently blind--well deaf--support of Hillary. I looked up to Steinem in the 70s when I was in college. I had a subscription to Ms. magazine. One of the things feminists were screaming about then was that they were not GIRLS! Don't call them girls! They were adult persons, they were WOMEN. So... Hillary's her girl? Steinem didn't barf? That's the thing that's missing from Steinem's column, the dog that didn't bark, the feminist that didn't barf.

[JohnCP]

All you brainy Clinton-haters must be right about her, because I heard Obama won last night in New Hampshire. You guys are sure brilliant.
jp

[nyscribbler]

Ms. Steinem wants to be part of the power base. Hence her decision to support Hillary. It's her best potential "in". As a "victim feminist" she will willingly support conservative causes because they make her conservative fearful nature most relieved.

To those of you who now loudly proclaim her bravery. She is brave in the same way as a cornered cat. Just like the hysterical conservatives frightened of foreigners, of sex education etc. Sure they win presidencies with fear but their leadership is wrongheaded and we will never be brave and progressive following their leadership or that of Ms. Steinem.

[sky2evan]

It's a shame that a leader of the feminist movement is so paralyzed on gender issues that she sees everything through the lens of gender and frames it accordingly.

One of the reasons for Mr. Obama's success is that he DOESN'T do the same thing with regards to his race. He doesn't run on it, emphasize it, or call too much attention to it. He doesn't encourage his supporters to do so either. He doesn't treat it as a big issue - so it doesn't become one... and he earns more respect and acceptance. And he wins. This is in stark contrast to other previous black leaders who attempted to run for higher office - all of whom failed.

Ms. Clinton and her supporters can learn from Mr. Obama, and try the same thing with gender.

Leaders need to unite, not divide. Otherwise, you just get gridlock, whether in Congress, society, or the world.

Not only do you get gridlock, you also get things like Iraq (and perhaps in the future, Iran, which I see Ms. Clinton very capable of doing).

[wanked]

A woman pres would be fine...but not THIS woman.

[Karen1]

Gloria is right. There can never be a debate in this country about women, or about Hispanics, or about any other group. The media will always make it about blacks.
It's no accident that as soon as a qualified, viable female candidate looked as if she were about to break through, out of nowhere comes Obama. It doesn't even matter if he has a one page resume. Qualifications don't matter for him. He's held to a lower standard.
Don't be shocked when we end up with President Romney or President McCain. And Democrats will have nobody to blame but themselves.

[NABNYC]

One more thing. Being a feminist used to mean being a human who valued life, who recognized the importance of all human beings. Oppose war. Support healthy food and water and oppose anything that pollutes our world. Support decent paying jobs for all people, with good working conditions, and day care for children, and good education opportunities for all. It meant a commitment to community, to cooperative and collaborative approaches to conflict resolution. It mean an international perspective which valued the lives of all people.

So how can Hillary Clinton be considered a feminist? Or, how can a feminist support Hillary Clinton?

She voted for the war in Iraq. She said she was fooled and misled. I wasn't. Most of the people I know weren't fooled, and they were against that war all along. And even after it became undisputable that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and was no threat to the U.S., Hillary still never renounced her decision to support that war. A war which has killed maybe 1 million people, and created millions of refugees. Feminist? International perspective?

And Hillary supported Lieberman. She refuses to take a stand to end the war until her campaign started going south, and now she's suddenly the "end the war" candidate. What about the last 7 years when we've all been waiting for her to take a leadership position on this? What then? She supported the war.

She's not a feminist, and does not deserve the support of feminists.

[Nutcase]

Gloria really thinks that Hillary is not part of the status quo? Has she ever heard of the DLC? NAFTA? etc., etc? I would need to see some proof, lots and lots of proof, to outweigh all of the proof that she is.

[NABNYC]

I agree with most of what Gloria Steinem says. Women continue to be excluded from equal opportunity at all levels in our country. In business, law, medicine, politics, academia, we continue to have almost an all-male organization.

But that doesn't mean that black people don't also continue to face the same barriers. It would be more fair to say that racism and sexism both are strong forces in our society. And we need laws to change that because the ruling elite white males will not voluntarily share the power and the money.

The problem I have is with Steinem's conclusion that she will support Hillary because there is still sexism in our society. Would she vote for Condi Rice based on the same premise?

Of course not. I don't know of one thing Hillary Clinton has ever done for women. Not one piece of legislation she has proposed or supported. I hear her applaud and cheer for war and for killing others. But I've never known her to take up the mantle of violence against women, which is a horrendous problem in this country. I've never heard of Hillary promoting laws to require equal hiring and promotion of women anywhere. Not a peep. In fact, my guess would be that she would oppose any efforts to help other women.

Remember Hillary did not get here on her own. Even back as a young lawyer, it has been openly reported that her clients were sent to her by being solicited by Bill. Local businesses who wanted to be "in" with the politico Bill were told to hire Hillary to do their legal work. In fact, everything she's had, every opportunity, has come as the result of her being handed it by her husband.

I'd like to know how Hillary would propose helping real women -- those who aren't handed the privileges she has received.

I have heard Edwards say a lot more about helping working people than Hillary has ever dreamed of saying. If you want to help women, help all working people.

Vote Edwards.

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

Hillary needs Bill like a fish needs a bicycle?

[BlackDots]

I think the big slip they made was allowing Steinhem's article to be printed.

Seriously though, I have a problem with her assertion, a common one amongst Hillary's supporters, that we shouldn't hold her gender against her, but we should vote for her because she is a woman (as you can see in her closing paragraph). What a double standard. So voting against her because she is a woman is sexist, but voting for her because she is a woman is "breaking barriers?" I thought the feminist movement was about equality and not allowing gender to prejudice people's perceptions of ability. Well, the other side of that coin is that no one should get beneficial treatment because of their gender.