Over the weekend, the New York Times (3/18/12) published an article pondering why no one has taken Gloria Steinem’s place as ubiquitous spokesperson for women’s rights:
Over the last 40 years, Gloria Steinem has almost always been at the other end of the phone when some member of the news media has sought comment about a pressing issue involving women’s rights…. And that raises a question well worth asking in 2012: 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?
But is it well worth asking? Why would anyone (besides lazy journalists) want there to be just one (white, straight, white-collar) woman speaking to the media about all things woman-related? Indeed, many of the feminist writer and activists the Times‘ Sarah Hepola interviews express something along these lines; Steinem herself tells the paper, “It’s obviously a great sign of growth and success that the media no longer try to embody the bigness and diversity of the women’s movement in one person,” and the piece concludes,
As for whether there should be another Gloria Steinem, she replied, “I don’t think there should have been a first one.”
Yet none of this diverts the Times from its premise, or keep it from including sentences like this:
The movement has also changed in undeniable ways. The injustices that united so many under one umbrella in the ’70s–no, sir, you can’t put your hand on a female employee’s rear–have been replaced by a thousand shades of gray.
Right, because there weren’t a thousand shades of gray back then too, and the injustices of the ’70s (like sexual harassment) have been solved and “replaced.” (Just curious: Is one of those shades of gray the fact that articles like this always appear in the “Fashion & Style” section?) And then there’s this as an explanation:
It’s rare to find the introversion and intelligence required to be an author and thinker fused with the charisma and good looks to knock it out of the park on the Tonight show.
Seriously–why isn’t there a woman good-looking enough to talk about the subtle problems of feminism in the 21st century?
Oh, but look …
It’s a *female* journalist propounding these views.
So surely you can’t accuse the Times of sexist attitudes.
(I’m sure there’s a icon for “eyes rolling”, but you’ll have to forgive my ignorance regarding it)
So typical of the authoritarian mindset.
The investigation is complete when the one voice of authority that is echoed by the many has been found.
You know, just like it is in the newsroom.
It’s very hard to fit into Gloria Steinem’s shoes. She is a Zionist Jew, a former member of communit party, CIA agent, pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, broken marriage, etc. In fact, her other comrades, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug and Gloria Allred all shared Steinem’s ‘enlightened’ qualifications.
The so-called “women Rights” supporters in the West ”“ have the habit of projecting feminists around the world, who provide cover to western exploitation of female population. The Muslim woman, who received the glowing tributes from many immoral secularist and anti-Islam political leaders and ”Ëœintellectuals’ ”“ was Iranian Shirin Ebadi, who even received Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 ”“ for her criticism of Islamic regime in Iran.
Pity, our Canadian feminist, Irshad Manji, the lesbian darling of anti-Islam Jewish groups ”“ missed her Nobel Peace Prize. Canadian Jewish academic, Henry Makow PhD, in his article Bikini Vs Burka exposed the myth of western feminism. However, one would never hear news about Muslim feminists like Maryam Jameelah (Peggy) (Jewish New Yorker, who converted to Islam and lives in Pakistan) or Iran’s Zahra Rahnavad or Safynaz Kazem from Egypt, who are better qualified ”“ but refuse to bash Muslim societies for the pleasure of the West.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/tale-of-two-muslim-feminists/
Gloria (as annoying as she has sometimes been through the years) has done a lot of amazing things for woman’s rights at a time when the notion was a revelation.Her place in history is firmly established, and as a respect to the vanguard she will always be a go to person for her opinion.An opinion that will always fall on the side of confrontationalism to any supposed slight.And that equals good press.But the climate has changed and she has not.Woman today feel differently.Sometimes even put upon by the Steinem brand that looks down on woman who choose more traditional roles(choose being the main word).And young college educated woman sometimes don’t feel that knee jerk reaction to being second class citizens.Because they know they aren’t.They are in control of their lives.They don’t need her to tell them if they are…or how to be.She should feel pleased at a job well done.And pleased that they don’t need her anymore.
This is another example of the ridiculous notion that one person could be the spokesperson for the movement for womens’ rights. The way so-called journalism is practiced is absurd trying to find one definitive source for a movement such as the womens’ movement, the Occupy movement. Ther women’s movement has many articulate spokesperson including Arandati Roy, Vendana Shiva, Mary Daly and many others who are much more representative and defenders of the world’s women. The corrupt politicians and corporations and male religions are making war on women as usual.
Would the NYT try to pull this off when it comes to Afro-Americans?
Ms Steinem was carefully vetted and groomed for her role as “spokeswoman” for all womankind by the elite establishment, precisely because she represented the near-penultimate misogynist image of the Other (Ensnaring) Sex.
As far as I can tell – and I’m thinking about the current popularity of Rick Santorum’s stance on civic rights and virtues – she caused more harm than good.
When I think of all the money wasted purchasing and the time wasted reading The Times these last more than 50 years I want to weep. Think of what useful, fulfilling things I might have done with those hours and that cash. The Times is no more than a collection of fatuous boobs. “All the news that’s fit to print” indeed! What a crock!
Gloria was an important icon (but just an “icon”; a brief representation of something much more expansive) back in the 60’s and 70’s, but these days, her legacy has been used as much to oppress and demonize males as it has been used to uplift females.
The problem with uplifting one gender is that you have to step on the other to do so.
But heaven forbid we suggest there’s a current bias against males; that’s just misogyny, now isn’t it? There’s no misandrist prevalent attitude in the West at all.
One woman to represent all feminists? What a silly thing to write about. that’s why OWS is so popular, because it doesn’t need a figurehead. Women just want to be equal in access to jobs( even though Larry Summers thinks women can’t do math : )
They want equal pay for equal work ( although with the results of the Lily Ledbetter case , we women know we still haven’t got that yet! ) I always thought that the legal clock started running on the point of discovery, but not for her. I guess we don’t have equal clocks yet either. A lot of women want the GOP lawmakers to keep their laws out of womens’ vaginas too! Just like men, women want rewards for hard work, a good living wage, a chance for a career that they feel passionate about, and a choice to be married or not and have families or not. isn’t that what men want too?
I don’t think men and women are that different, but I do have to ask, is there a prototype man that represents men? No, thank goodness, but I am glad that Gloria Steinem made things better for women in America, although my favorite American woman in women’s history is Mother Jones! There’s a passion and a direction for you, and she helped men as much as she helped women and children! I will be very happy when we can all be identified together as HUMANISTS.
When women step into respectful and equal partnership with men and when men long for and deeply respect women in positions of power sharing, we enact a new cultural paradigm that ends the war of the sexes, ends patriarchy and ends feminism as we know it. Men and women guaranteed equal representation in seats at the decision making tables of the world is the next step in the global women’s movement that is already taking place. And it is not called feminism because it is, in essence, a “pro democracy” movement that benefits men and women by guaranteeing that neither gender will have more say than the other in decisions affecting the human family.
The US is way behind in this new movement and Occupy might want to ensure equal representation between men and women as a centerpiece of it’s work if it hasn’t done so already. http://www.quotaproject.org/ shows the global movement to get equal representation between genders in world governments.
Feminism is the response of the human heart to the dominant male power structure in our world that has become increasingly destructive. As long as we have this imbalance of power, we have a need for feminism. Male power and privilege has now culmintated in the greatest concetration of power and wealth in human his-story and is threatening our democracy and life itself. If the past 6000 years was the “herstory” of domination of women over men, that imbalance would be unnjust as well, but we’d be talking about “masculinism” instead! Ultimately, anything short of respectful partnership between men and women is essentially dehumanizing and puts us at odds with each other. We go beyond patriarchy and feminism when we recognize the powerfully co-creative opportunity we have as respectful and complimentary partners in life.
Reading some of the posts above only reinforces the need for “feminism”. The answer, of course, is equality before the law. We here in the USA have not yet ratified the Equal Right Amendment. Nor, has our nation ratified CEDAW. No one woman represents the women’s movement and all women know that including Gloria. Some have become spokespersons; but, even they would tell you they do not represent all women. The only accurate, non prejudicial, definition of feminism is the democratic
principle that women should be equal to men. All the other negative definitions you will hear are put forward by those who do not want women to have equality. We are all human and we all deserve to be equal under the law as humans. Women gaining equality will not put men down; it may in fact help lift them up. Some need a lot of lifting; though I know many men that understand and support equality and human rights.
In my view, all societal movements of great change coalesce around a core of strong leaders. After initial goals have been more or less reached through legal and legislative action, the heat is off and more diverse voices are then given the floor. I don’t believe we will rally around another small core of strong feminist voices again – unless/until voters continue shifting us to towards adopting a US version of Sharia law (the goal of a growing movement of right wing religious conservatives who were once thought of as radical, and now are increasingly accepted as being more mainstream.
I say that we allow diversity in the news room, and in return, we get only one white male modderate and one white male conservative pundit each.
With their fear and/or hatred of Nancy Pelosi, I would have thought that the Right Wing nutjobs would have appointed her for the job. Hark! Having said that, I hope that they don’t nominate Hillary Clinton for the post. Lord knows that’s the last shill anyone – least of all women – need on their side. With friends like her, no one needs enemies.
After reading many of the comments and direct slams against Gloria and Mrs. Clinton (who has worked tirelessly to change women’s rights all over the world in the last 20 years) it appears that we need several “Gloria’s”.
The Ledbetter Act was signed into law two years ago after 35 years of discussion. America’s top justices still consider women second class citizens in virtually every case brought before them and we rank 73rd among other country’s in women representation in government. A country that considers it’s largest population group to be subservient to the other gender seems to still be living in the closet.
Where has the women’s movement moved to. Let’s get real, the men have been in charge for the last several thousand years and the evidence is in. The women need to take over the world.
Time magazine recently had a cover story showing how woman are in fact doing far better that men theses days
A welknown Jewish poet and historian Tamam Kahn, in her book, “UNTOLD: A History of the Wives of Prophet Muhammad” has proved that among the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the only genuinely feminist faith.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/untold-a-history-of-the-wives-of-prophet-muhammad/
Who needs a charismatic leader when we are legions? We are out there and making a difference. Need a march for women’s rights? Just watch it happen. Maybe men need to follow iconic images, but women will gather whenever and wherever we are wronged. Look at Code Pink and Planned Parenthood. How many signed petitions in support of their work? Think about it.
Rehmat, don’t even TRY to convince us that Islam is good for women. None of the world’s major religions are good for women. But what practitioners of Islam have done to women, in the name of Islam, if not always in following what the Koran says, is the worst misogyny that I have heard of. Irshad Manji speaks the truth — I have great respect for her, and I worry about her safety, given what many Muslim men do or threaten to do with women who do and say things that men don’t like.
“She is a Zionist Jew, a former member of communit [sic] party, CIA agent, pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, broken marriage, etc.”
A. That’s “pro-CHOICE” not “pro-abortion.”
B. You say these things as though they’re all bad things. They’re not.
C. She was not a CIA agent. She worked for an organization that received funding from the CIA. So What?
D. You seem to be spending a lot of time reading right-wing propaganda.
Mk ultra, I don’t know what kind of problem you have with Hilary Clinton, but I’m proud to be an admirer of her. And as a feminist, I am very glad that she is one of the many, many spokeswomen we have.
Jamie I agree that Hilary is a good role model in many ways.Of course her acceptance of Bills banging every girl within reach the world over probably needs a bit of explaining.
Rehmut really?Islam = Feminism?Yeah a lot of muslim girls would probably love to take off the cloth covering every inch of their bodies.Do what they want, and tell the men lauding over them to go pound sand up their butts.There is a reason they dont.Tell us oh book of knowledge…..what is the PUNISHMENT for that?
Few people have a problem with the pragmatic goals of the women’s movement. That said, feminism is not just a theory of sexual equality. It also consists of ideas and ideology concerning sex and gender, the nature of male/female relations, inequality between the sexes, sex roles, sexual and domestic violence, marriage, morality, etc., all of which is by its very nature theoretical and therefore contestable. To wit: During the ’60’s, the woman’s movement became more ideological than pragmatic courtesy of Gloria Steinem and her ilk. To the average feminist theoretician, no right was more precious than the right to think of her gender as an oppressed class.. Countless hours were spent portraying women as victims of men and breeding contempt for men in popular culture as oppressor/abusers. In this perhaps more than anything else, Steinem and other feminists have been, with the help of the media and modern education, very effective. Today, few women or men have escape this indoctrination or even question it. Hooray!
Interesting viewpoint Martin
I read this paragraph completely concerning the resemblance of
most up-to-date and earlier technologies, it’s awesome article.