In the NYT: "Where is the next Gloria Steinem, and why — decades after the media spotlight first focused on her — has no one emerged to take her place?"
I mean, I was going to say: After all these years and all of the accomplishments of the women's movement, why do we need another Gloria Steinem?
Then I saw that they put this article in the "Fashion and Style" section, and I was all... hmmmm.
Quite aside from all that, the notion that Steinem was the icon of feminism... that's not the way I experienced history. I remember when Ms. Magazine first came out: It was a glossy magazine aimed at middle-class women. And in the 1980s, the academic feminists I knew didn't think much of Gloria Steinem. But she's been around a long time as an important media figure, specializing in an area where a lot has happened. That's something. It's significant, but not crucial.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
why do we need another Gloria Steinem?
Well, we needed her in Primary 2008 and she did not step up to the plate. So why do we need another one of her? BTW, she famously said then that a woman with Obama's resume would be laughed out of the race and a black woman at that may not even get any recognition. But she voted for him anyway.
We don't, really.
First, anybody dumb enough to say, A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", is someone nobody in their right mind wants to emulate.
Then, of course, there's the fact that Gloria Steinbrenner wasn't exactly fabulous, sartorially, and affected a look reminiscent of a Russian wolfhound.
pm317 said...
why do we need another Gloria Steinem?
Well, we needed her in Primary 2008
Actually, she was the one that let the cat out of the bag and told us GodZero & Co were going to "rule".
Ann, you should have listened.
Where is the next Gloria Steinem, and why — decades after the media spotlight first focused on her — has no one emerged to take her place?
Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out
She's famous for being famous. She reached that point about 30 years ago.
Ah yes, Gloria Steinhem who came up with the "one free grope" rule to whitewash Clinton's sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual abuse of his subordinate employees.
30 years of feminism prostituting itself to a misogynist in exchange for a veto of a partial birth abortion ban. You've come a long way baby!
And the NYTs asks "where is the next Gloria Steinham?"
*snicker*
Gloria's bone structure insures that she'll never be guilty!
Bach Gloria from the Lutheran Mass.
one free grope: if Clinton fondles a woman's breast but stops after she said "no"... not sexual harassment or assault.
The article was in the Style section precisely because being an acolye of modern feminism has devolved into nothing more than another fashion trend. Something like being seen doing something 'earthy' on Earth Day.
an important media figure?
Where I come from she's that bitch with the pie face,...
Wait. Why is this article in the "Fashion and Style" section?
If there's one thing you maturing hippies girls must face about feminism it is this: It was and is all fashion and style. So the NYT is on the money for once in a blue moon.
And in the 1980s, the academic feminists I knew didn't think much of Gloria Steinem.
That may be true, but perhaps it would be worth asking Gloria Steinem what she thought of the academic feminists you knew. In any case, academic feminists (as opposed to the public intellectual / popular culture type) haven't affected society very much, from what I can tell.
Other than Catherine MacKinnon (whose influence came from work outside the classroom - namely with regard to influencing legislation and the courts), can anyone name an academic feminist who influenced contemporary feminism as much as Gloria Steinem? I can't say I'm a huge fan of Steinem's, but if the main knock on her is that she wasn't as influential among academic theorists as she was among the general public, that's not much of a criticism.
You might not need another Gloria Steinem but the world is positively hungering for another Gloria Allred.
What will we do when our current one passes on?
Speaking of Catherine MacKinnon, I wonder what she thinks of the Obama mandate for rape insurance?
She is one of those crazy anti-porn extremists too, like Santorum.
We need another Gloria Steinem like a fish needs a bicycle.
Gloria remains the glory of the feminist revolt.
So she did make style for her time...a style of attitude.
When is Meryl Streep doing Gloria Steinem?
What we need is another Andrea Dworkin. Kind of a Gloria Steinem crossed with Charles Bukowski.
"Where is the next Gloria Steinem, and why — decades after the media spotlight first focused on her — has no one emerged to take her place?"
If Gloria Steinem is the best the feminists can do, notwithstanding the academic feminists (and what did they ever do too?), then the feminists need to up their game.
But, given the game the feminists have been playing, recent evidence confirms all that means is more excusing away male Democrat sex scandals, enabling left wing hacks to call Republican and conservative women "cunts," demanding free birth control and ensuring the Democrat-Feminist sacrament of abortion is ever-defended.
So feminism may want a new Gloria Steinem; the Republic would undoubtedly be better off without.
Actually, the more important question is, do the 49ers need Payton Manning?
I think the answer is, "they can use him, but they don't need him."
A video response to rh's video.
We have several feminist leaders; Sarah Palin, Pamela Geller, Dana Loesh, Michelle Bachman, Althouse to name but a few.
Gloria presents as a classic on the "Fashion and Style" page, but I'm quite sure she regularly tunes into the cacophony that has become her "Orchestra of Shrill Women".
They're booked EVERYWHERE!
"And in the 1980s, the academic feminists I knew didn't think much of Gloria Steinem."
Pray tell, why? Too much fame? No Phd? Intellectual flabbiness? Publicity hound?
Gloria was a smart, good looking woman with a talent for cultivating the powerful and influential and a flair for getting herself in the news. That fact that her principal talents were physical, social, political and promotional does not diminish her importance. She wasn't an innovator, probably, but she was a relentless popularizer and style setter. The style section is the right place for her, and that is not necessarily an insult.
Husbands are deaf.
Boyfriends wearing earplugs.
Worse than that, kids come equipped at birth with earbuds.
If I had all the money in the world, I would hire Pia Zadora to play her in the biopic. Just to get even for Game Change and that other flick about Margaret Thatcher. It would be an open, not unsymapthetic portrayal of her lifelong struggle to remain a militant feminist while wearing flattering clothes and struggling to keep her weight under control.
Well, without an enormous push from the media, she'd never have become a media figure. Sort of like Cindy Sheehan, who was created out of nothing by the media as a club to beat GW Bush, and who was dropped by them as soon as her political use was over. Steinem, however, is still an icon of the leftist narrative, and like Che will always be on some page or screen or other.
Looks like the NYT is beginning to worry that no new feminist figures are popping up to glamorize. This is a signal for all those who hate Sarah Palin to step up and get visible.
The problem with winning a cause is that it puts all the crusaders out of business.
So in the end, a crusade all depends on perpetuating what was originally meant to be eliminated.
It takes people who devote their entire *life* to identifying invisible sexism or crypto racism to keep it all alive.
It's like going to your stats in your MMORPG and finding out that you've spent 3.4 YEARS killing imaginary dragons and crafting armor that doesn't exist.
It's all Feminism, all the time now.
Obama and the Libiots are on the move, single minded, focused.
Gotta fire up the women. Gotta get B. Hussein re-elected. Circle the wagons. Lock up the Liberal plantation. Tolerate no heresy. Vote Democrat.
Question for the girls: wasn't it bad enough that you had to take the first bite of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. You had to listen to the serpent. Get us tossed from the Garden.
Now you're going to fall for today's serpents (Feminists). Cause more trouble?
Talk about fighting the last war.
Pie face indeed, how rude.
What kind of pie?
Why is this article in the "Fashion and Style" section?
For the modern leftist, politics is a fashion statement. Substance has been superseded by appearance. Indeed, substance and accomplishment have been replaced by intentions and empathy.
The womens movement, environmentalism and scores of other causes are just t-shirts worn by celebrities to attract attention to themselves - not the causes they claim to support.
The election of 2008 is exhibit A - Obama's election wasn't about Hope and Change, it was a fashion statement.
Why the style page? All the answers above are certainly true, but ultimately I think it still comes down to that being the new, stylish name for the "women's section" of the newspaper.
Woman gets ahead by putting out for famous men to get money. Feminism has a poor icon if she is it. Its odd that some of the few public women who have any real sense of accomplishment without riding on the coattails of a man are denigrated by "feminists".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा