quote:

---

There is still a false idea out there that feminists back every woman, regardless of how she behaves. Let's leave that behind right along with 2006.

In fact, feminism is just the belief that all people have the full circle of human qualities combined in a unique way in each of us. The simplistic labels of "feminine" and "masculine" are mostly about what society wants us to do: submerge our unique humanity in care giving and reproducing if we're women, and trade our unique humanity for power if we're men.

So yes, I believe that women have the right to be wrong, with no double standard of criticism. But when we have the power to make a choice, we also have responsibility. Biology isn't destiny, and it isn't a free pass either.

---

Discuss.

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
For some reason I get the feeling neither of you read the whole article, just those two lines which can be construed out of context in any number of ways.

---

Also, I wasn't sarcastic or scornful at all. I was just making a statement about the thread subject. I actually think that Steinem gets a bit of a bum rap for being too "Liberal feminist". I've read some really excellent stuff by her.

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Feminists of colour haven't supported racist or non-racially-inclusive white feminists for years. Queer feminists haven't supported heterocentric feminists. Etc.

However, I am going to come at these differences and commonalities from being a neophyte self-identified “feminist”. For me, equality rights and self-determination was something that existed long before I knew about feminism, and others fight for equality. Perhaps that sounds odd, but it is true nonetheless. My mother was a strong self-determined businesswoman, and my up bringing in a rural setting was such that there was no doubt about women’s equality, at least on the surface of it.

Because of this inherent and erroneous assumption of equality achieved, or at least not being as far from it as I now realize, I never have gotten in-depth into the works of feminist writers such as Gloria, Judy, or even Dworkin. In fact, I wanted nothing to do “feminism”, because of the radical optics and male hating verbiage, and considered myself a humanist where men needed liberation as much as women did

From this perspective, I agree with Steinham regarding her statements of uniqueness. Having said that, I feel that she defeated her own premise of uniqueness by saying that feminists do not, and should not back every woman. In order to uphold “uniqueness”, and the right to self-determine, one must be accepting of where any one person is in regards to their perceptions of equality, self-determination, and how to facilitate change within their own “unique” framework. One may not like it, but that is only because it is not what one would do for one’s self.

Note in particular the comment of conservative Christina Hoff Summers:

quote:

---

"But I don't expect to hear much protest (from feminists)," said Sommers, "because their left-wing politics always trump their commitment to the cause of women."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
It seems like Glo is arguing a point made by non-feminists and anti-feminists, again, a number of decades ago.

---

quote:

---

In hair and make-up otherwise reserved for female impersonators, Harris went on television to throw the election to the candidate she had been supporting.

---

In any case, I don't think it serves anyone well to engage in ad-herminem attacks.

I think the article presupposes that there was a time of resolute lock step feminism that all women had to march to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I think the article presupposes that there was a time of resolute lock step feminism that all women had to march to.

---

Steinem expressly describes as "false" the idea "that feminists back every woman, regardless of how she behaves." And to prove her point, she lists several women who do not deserve a "free pass" from feminists.

The article was posted January 16, just a few days after the grilling of Condoleezza Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Barbara Boxer said Rice [who is childless] was making no personal sacrifice in the Iraq War escalation - the sacrifices were all being made by the families of the soldiers who were being sent there:

quote:

---

"Who pays the price?" asked Boxer, a California Democrat. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're [referring to Rice] not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

---

quote:

---

"It had nothing to do with feminism...It was perfectly reasonable, and it could have come from anyone - a grandfather as well as a grandmother. Sen. Boxer was trying to draw a parallel" between herself and the secretary [Rice].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
These are not straw women. These are very real, powerful, and opinion-influencing women, and Steinem is right to be taking them on.

---

Really, just who do you see these women Steinham is "taking on" influencing these days other than some neo-cons?

Do you think Condi has a following to influence?

Ann Coulter?

Christina Hoff? It seems it's only the males who like her words. Plus Jane Fonda appears to be silencing her with her 12+ million donation to Harvard, to basically refute her studies.

Judith Regan?

Not feminists, they would not give those she named support or consideration.

remind wrote:

quote:

---

Thats is my point Stargazer, what audience is Steinham speaking to?
Not feminists, they would not give those she named support or consideration.

So who is it? Men?

---

Not everyone is an expert - in any ideology. The backbone of any movement is people who have concentrated most of their life's efforts and learning and other areas, and as such may not be as huge an expert as yourself.

I can just imagine your reaction following a Layton speech on the environment. "Why is he stating the obvious, when all those who disagree with him are just neocons? He's clearly not speaking to environmentalists, as they have no need to hear this."

[ 18 January 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
remind, is it possible that many readers of her magazine may consider themselves feminists, and share in the general values and have specific life-experiences in mind, but not have the decades of academic experience and reading that people such as yourself and bigcitygal have?

---

Possible of course, it is moe than possible, but the people she is speaking about are not even well liked amongst women who are NOT self identified as feminists. Though, in thinking about it, I am not sure just how many women who are NOT feminists would read Steinham even. There could even be other reasons why she wrote it other than the context Mspector put it in.

quote:

---

Not everyone is an expert - in any ideology. The backbone of any movement is people who have concentrated most of their life's efforts and learning and other areas, and as such may not be as huge an expert as yourself.

---

Never said I was an expert "feminist", nor portrayed muyself as such, and I have no idea where you got that from, but I do have my opinions, in partcular of Ms Steinham. And I am expressing them, which I have a right to do.

quote:

---

I can just imagine your reaction following a Layton speech on the environment. "Why is he stating the obvious, when all those who disagree with him are just neocons? He's clearly not speaking to environmentalists, as they have no need to hear this."

---

quote:

---

Possible of course, it is moe than possible, but the people she is speaking about are not even well liked amongst women who are NOT self identified as feminists. Though, in thinking about it, I am not sure just how many women who are NOT feminists would read Steinham even. There could even be other reasons why she wrote it other than the context Mspector put it in.

---

I'm predisposed to giving Gloria Steinem the benefit of the doubt. I could be completely wrong about that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
On the contrary, it's an excellent analogy to the question you raised about who Steinem was addressing!

---

How so?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I'm predisposed to giving Gloria Steinem the benefit of the doubt. I could be completely wrong about that.[qb]

---

The benefit of the doubt about what exactly?

quote:

---

[qb]I think I disagree on your point in the middle of the paragraph though, we must have different life experiences. In my own experience, I've met a lot of people, especially the not politically active, whose views on many issues are ambiguous and don't many of society's dichotomies. I would suspect there are a few million american women (not a plurality in such a large country bit a big enough number to care) who register as independent or republican but still self-identify as feminist.

---

Oh, I know a goodly number of the those who are not politically active, whose views are ambigious and who do not know broad based societal dichotomies, and that is why I made that point. They would not even know who Steinham was let alone read her.

I agree with Steinham regarding not supporting ALL women just because they are women, and I also agree with her statements of "uniqueness". However, I differentiated by saying, I support those she exampled as having the right to their own opinion and course of action, I just do not support their opinions and actions.

quote:

---

Now back who who is her audience?

---

I'm not sure who reads Ms. magazine. I suspect the readers are as knwoledgeable of feminism as readers of Men's Fitness are knowledgeable of physiology. I've never picked it up, but the vast majority of magazines are for interested layman -> educated layman - not experts.

Though pick up a copy of Men's Health. It will probably have a articles informing the reader that almonds are good, mcdonalds is bad, it's best to hold your back straight during many free weights exercise, and that girlfriends appreciate cunnilingus - even though 95% of the readers already know this.

So, who belives this false idea? Not feminists, but people who think they know what feminism is, and specifically they think that feminism means backing women over men, all the time. Exatly who these people are who believe this, I wouldn't venture a guess. But I'm sure they span the political spectrum.

It's like the person who asked my why I was voting for Jack Layton for mayor of Toronto when he ran against June Rowlands (1992? 1995? Who can remember?).

But the right wing wackos that are Gloria's her examples, are pretty far out there, way beyond your garden-variety non-feminist spokewoman. I don't pay attention (much ) to people who espouse views that will raise my blood pressure by reading them, but maybe these women have been saying stuff about women and feminism and Glo felt the need to respond. So I take back, somewhat, my snarky "we talked about this decades ago" post, as clearly, the "we" that I refer to is a very narrow group of peeps.

Glo has always tried to bring a feminist analysis to the masses, albeit a limited analysis, and it's still too much for the mainstream to get, so everything is still reduced to "so you hate men then?" or "so you support all women? What about Condi?" etc etc bla bla.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Do you read magazines?

---

Might pick up a 1985 national Geographic while in the Drs office waiting!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
just curious, remind: why do you insist on spelling her name Stein-ham?

---

Never thought anyone would ever notice, or even comment on it and that I might be doing it on purpose and it not be a typo.

It is my personal term for her, a bit disparaging and that satisfies my personal disregard of her. It is one that I have used since she so sadly disillusioned me about what feminists were supposed be all about, and that happened with her relationship with Kissenger.

And if you note I also do not use, her first name, nor her affectionate name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Perhaps someday I will get over it, or grow more accepting, as I have recently noticed that I cut my nose off despite my face by turning my back on feminism because of her and her relationship with Kissenger. But as of yet my heart is still hardened towards her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
aarghh! KissInger. Kissinger!

and what about him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
aarghh! KissInger. Kissinger!

and what about him?

---

Na, Kissenger, spelling Kissinger is like a blasphemy towards kissing a singer, a oftentimes pleasant thing to do. There is NO thing pleasing about that man at all. I have been waiting years, if not decades, it seems for him to brought to war crimes trial.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
remind, I'm surely no fan of Gloria or many of the second wavers. It's interesting that in the intervening years since she became the MSM's chosen spokesperson for all things feminist, many many feminists of colour have gained more mainstream attention, yet they still have no mainstream platform in which to speak about their more inclusive feminism.

But still to many people feminism begins and ends with Gloria and Ms. magazine. It's a shame.

---

I still cannot get my mind around how a liberated woman, a self professed feminist,a woman who professes to speak for feminists could have a relationship with that man, particularily not the type of one she had. I am so suspicious of that woman and of her actual motives and stance that I could/can hardly read her let alone agree with her on anything.

As for why Gloria, I think she was considered "hot" in her day, literally, and was a "sexy" sell for feminism. Young, groovy, 60s woman, camera friendly, etc etc same old MSM crap.

Wanting a piece of the pie, which is the main thrust of "equality" feminism, is a lot different than saying the pie is rotten, throw out the pie. White middle class women wanting "equality" with (white middle class) men, though it met with resistance at the time, and still does in the present, ultimately doesn't threaten the status quo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
remind, I have to say, I have no idea what the Kissinger reference is about. Please elaborate. (Guess I'm not as "in the know" as I thought.

---

For many years, Steinam had a "secret" ongoing affair with a "prominent married man", who would fly her around and pick her up in his limo...she all the while, was speaking feminist, while doing the opposite in secret.

quote:

---

As for why Gloria, I think she was considered "hot" in her day, literally, and was a "sexy" sell for feminism. Young, groovy, 60s woman, camera friendly, etc etc same old MSM crap.

---

That's where my sentiments of her started going bye, bye, looking at the person, not the image, I started searching for what exactly was she selling. And found I did not like, or feel comfortable with that view of "equality" between the sexes. Don't get me wrong, I was far from hippie feminist in conduct, and was long blond haired WASP, purple velvet bikini wearing "gurl".

A female UCC Minister, just back from years as a missionary in India afforded me a different view of the world. A world of feminist thought outside of "glamour" and WASP parameters. Steinam, and all that she represented was rejected, and further rejected when she was outted.

quote:

---

Wanting a piece of the pie,.."equality" with (white middle class) men, though it met with resistance at the time, and still does in the present, ultimately doesn't threaten the status quo.

---

Exactly! When it is so much more, on so many different levels.

quote:

---

So even though some consider Glo to be a man-hating radical feminazi, etc, she is in fact one of the most pallatable spokespeople one could find, and still be on the pro-feminist side of the line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
These are not straw women. These are very real, powerful, and opinion-influencing women, and Steinem is right to be taking them on.

---

I wasn't expanding much on this, because I wanted others to say it first.

But now that this ice has been broken, I will say, well, what everyone will find predictable.

The straw person Stienem introduces is the false idea she asserts at the begining. I don't think any feminist, or woman of any stripe has ever enjoyed a lack of female contradiction, and I don't know of any credible person who asserts so.

The attack on Harris' appearance is exactly the kind of dumbo right wing approach to argument that an Ann Coulter would be proud of, and something women in leadership have to contend with constantly, which is beyond unfair, and a major issue for anyone who is interested in equality.

There is lots to dislike about Harris, there is no need to take a page from the likes of Limbaugh to attack her.

Stunning though, is Stienem's selectivity. Surely, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor played a bigger role in the death of the American Republic than Harris. O'Connor could have negated all of Harris' efforts. Yet she escapes Steinem's attention.

Ah, but class is thicker than gender, it would seem. In fairness, I have not read all Stienem has ever written. Whenever her name pops up though, it attracts my attention. Her views-- when I have come across them-- seem to lack any kind of class analysis.

When we take a look at the status of women around the globe, the issues of equality come down to economic status.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
The straw person Stienem introduces is the false idea she asserts at the begining.

---

quote:

---

The attack on Harris' appearance is exactly the kind of dumbo right wing approach to argument that an Ann Coulter would be proud of, and something women in leadership have to contend with constantly, which is beyond unfair, and a major issue for anyone who is interested in equality.

---

quote:

---

Her views-- when I have come across them-- seem to lack any kind of class analysis.

---

quote:

---

Maybe she has addressed this, but to me, the above article seems rather esoteric compared to the difficulties most women face today.

---

I will say this, however. When I saw the news coverage of the Rice grilling, Boxer's commentary included, I wrote it off as a tempest in a tea pot. While Rice deserved everything she got, it had me wondering where these strident voices of condemnation were two years ago when they could have been usefull. But then, the make up of the House in the States has changed and now affords those voices a podium they might not have had before.

The whole excersize, and the ensuing debate, seemed like shutting the gate after the horse was gone, and it has coloured my views.

Sorry if, in the process, it seems I wasn't giving your views their proper consideration and respect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Sorry if, in the process, it seems I wasn't giving your views their proper consideration and respect.

---

quote:

---

Ack! Sorry. As previously stated, I know nothing about him, including how to spell his name. Thanks for the correction.

---

The guy was a top presidential advisor in the US government during the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, and he's currently facing war and genocide charges, human rights violations, fraud and international treaty violations in about 30 countries.

He was behind the US government's mass slaughter bombings during the secret escalation of the Vietnam War from 1969 to 1971. He helped mastermind the violent military coup that overthrew the freely elected social democratic government of Salvador Allende (hence where I get part of my name) in 1973 and set up the Pinochet dictatorship, which killed over a million innocent people during its reign.

Two years later, he played a key role in helping the Indonesian military dictatorship invade East Timor, which led to the mass murder of an estimated five million people.

In 1980, he encouraged the Reagan regime to invest literally billions of dollars in an outright war against pro-democracy and labour and liberation movements in Central and South America and propping the various US corporate-backed dictatorships there. Later in the 80s he helped develop the murderous Plan Colombia, which is still largely in effect today.

He's probably best known for his role in quietly approving then far-right Israeli Prime Minister Begin's plan to invade southern Lebanon in 1982, which led to the slaughter of thousands of Palestinian refugees.

So when people, especially activists, hear that Gloria Steinem, while preaching equal rights and respect for women, was reportedly having an affair with:

a) a married man, and

B) a married man who is a corporate-funded fascist that is arguably the biggest mass murderer since Hitler,

Having disreputable affairs with disreputable people! Shame!

Hannah Arendt having a life-long affair with Nazi stooge Heidegger does not in and of itself bring her entire life's work into disrepute. People have blind spots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
It's just as well, since she is clearly a bourgeois feminist and always has been. Frankly, I'm not interested in her class analysis.

---

This comment is stunning in its intellectual lassitude. Obviously if Steinem had a "class analysis," as it is commonly understood in the left, she would not be a bourgeois feminist.

But what does one expect when one is arguing merely from definitions and not reason?

Echos of exactly the kind of sexist dismissal of any analysis which critiqued patriarchy in toto and thus not only challenged capitalist patriarchal ideologies, but also leftist partriarchal ideologies, and thus threatened the power bases of the old guard Marxists, as well. Self-servingly it was often argued of course that by waving the magic wand of class struggle, all inequalities would shrivel-up in the post-revolutionary utopia and that there was no need to raise the issue of sexism in the left, as all sailent issues really only resolved around economy, and nothing else.

Gender and race being the two bogey men thus disposed of as being irrelevant to left discourse in any kind of internal critique, as they were not based in "class analysis," and must therefore "bourgeois," as there are only two polls really in the dialectic.

Franlky, nothing drove more feminists away from embracing "class analysis," as these dogamtic dismisals of feminist analysis.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
So when people, especially activists, hear that Gloria Steinem, while preaching equal rights and respect for women, was reportedly having an affair with:

a) a married man,

---

Horrors! How dare she break his wedding vows like that, after she promised he would be faithful?

Your second point is more relevant.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The assertion that they "dated," from what I can tell is on the level of celebrity gossip. What does this mean? They were seen at a bar together?

In her own words, (and this phrasing should tell you something of the terms in which Steinem, and we all should, I think, considers this assertion) :

quote:

---

"is not now and never has been a girl friend"

---

Henry Kissinger Off Duty

Kissingers reply is also revealing:

quote:

---

Kissinger declared that he was not discouraged. "After all, she did not say that if nominated she would not accept, or if elected she would not serve."

---

To me this sound like typical school boy gossip put about Kissinger or his aides to enhance his Macheesmo. Of course the best way to undermine the uppity feminist is to imply that you bed her! What could be more typical?

I have no idea why Babblers are engaging in this kind of political debate based in character assassination though people magazine-type gossip.

Stunning that a thread in the feminism forum should resolve to a discussion of who Gloria Steinem fucked, or did not fuck as sailent in her career.

This is utterly and grotesquely regressive.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

But actually, after reading your post, I agree that even that (the company she keeps, especially in the context of having "an affair") is not relevant at all, really, unless it somehow affected her work as a feminist, or she was compromising her principles by defending his horrendous actions. And considering that there are lots of people who didn't even have any idea of these rumours (like me, and bigcitygal, for instance) might be some good evidence that it probably didn't affect her work.

So I don't see how it's relevant at all.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

So what? I mean, seriously, so what?

Do we believe in women's autonomy or not? Do we believe that when a woman is sleeping with someone, she automatically takes on his worldview and his politics? Do we assume that people only get together with mirrors of themselves? Or more importantly, do we believe that when women get together with men who are very different from them, that they become mirrors of those men?

A very sexist assumption. Most of us have at least one friend or family member that we love but who is not on the same page as us politically. I know I certainly have dated (and even lived with!) people with some extremely repugnant views - classist, racist, anti-semitic, sexist views.

But, now that the issue of who I've fucked in the past is on the table, well, I guess it's time for me to turn in whatever progressive membership card it is I'm supposedly carrying at the moment.

"Well! Gee, if he dated Steinem then that must mean he is not so bad after all!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Obviously if Steinem had a "class analysis," as it is commonly understood in the left, she would not be a bourgeois feminist.

---

You seem to be operating under the delusion that the bourgeoisie is incapable of a class analysis. So you would not recognize such a thing as a class-conscious bourgeois.

In the interest of full disclosure, I own "Revolution From Within" from when she "mellowed" out a bit in the early 90s. It was a gift, I swear!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, but let's just say she DID have a long term relationship with him. Let's just say it's true. So what? I mean, seriously, so what?!)

---

Have been thinking about your saying "so what", and cueball's assertations that "it sounds like research to me". BS it sounds like research, and as to "so what", as far as I am concerned her relationship with such a dispicable man taints her words, actions and her motives and it suggests that her commitment and approach to feminism or even human rights is highly suspect.

quote:

---

Do we believe in women's autonomy or not?

---

Truly, what has believing in a woman's autonomy got to with her long term affair with Kissinger? Nothing! I would feel the same about anyone who had a relationship with that man, male or female.

quote:

---

Do we believe that when a woman is sleeping with someone, she automatically takes on his worldview and his politics?

---

Her actions in having a relationship with him, atually do validate his actions, it does not matter if she takes on his view or not. Close constant proximity over extended periods of time more than suggest, acceptance, if not approval of Kissingers actions. From this perspective I simply cannot understand how a feminist, who professes to believe in human rights and the fight for equality could actually enter into a relationship, sexual or not, with someone who is a mass murderer and has done the things he has done. It would be equivalent to looking to Eva Braun as being one's mentor.

quote:

---

Do we assume that people only get together with mirrors of themselves?

---

That is a strawman Michelle, there is a world of difference in getting together with someone who differs from oneself, and having a lengthy decades long relationship with a murdering war criminal who supports the erosion of human rights.

quote:

---

mportantly, do we believe that when women get together with men who are very different from them, that they become mirrors of those men?

---

Again not pertinent, her relationship with him validates his actions.

quote:

---

sexist assumption.

---

quote:

---

Most of us have at least one friend or family member that we love but who is not on the same page as us politically.

---

Uh, no, when it comes to racist acts and oppression and mass murdering of others, I personally draw the line at associating with family friends or other.

How would you feel if she had a relationship with Saddam or Pinochet?

quote:

---

I know I certainly have dated (and even lived with!) people with some extremely repugnant views - classist, racist, anti-semitic, sexist views.

---

And how did those relationships work out for you?

No one made an issue of who you fucked but you.

quote:

---

You know, the more I think about this, the more it annoys me. I was annoyed before but didn't see it this clearly until Cueball pointed out exactly what the problem is with this sort of attack. (And I'm usually on top of this sort of thing, too!)

---

Yes, I kinda feel the same way but from an opposite view. And what exactly did cueball point out? That no one lightens Kissinger's actions because he was with Steinem? That was an empty commentary, as he does not know that, or a least did not prove that, and I would say in fact that he is wrong.

Personally, I would ask; do you feel you are defending Steinem's actions, because you are on record as supporting her?

And NO it is NOT gossip. It is credibility of words matching actions in order to see if one should put any store into positions taken. Again, I would NOT look to Eva Braun for mentorship, why in hell would I look to Steinem? Why would anyone?

IMV anyone can fuck who they want. But that does not mean I can't judge who they fuck as being representative of what they represent, or are stating they represent.Putting credence towards someone who chooses to fuck a war criminal that has caused untold, and told horrors, against peoples around the world, for decades, all the while saying they are a feminist and progressive, is impossible IMV. It at best means her positions are of the shallowist sort.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Putting credence towards someone who chooses to fuck a war criminal that has caused untold, and told horrors, against peoples around the world, for decades, all the while saying they are a feminist and progressive, is impossible IMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Again, I would NOT look to Eva Braun for mentorship, why in hell would I look to Steinem? Why would anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Gee, I wondered how long it would take for someone to pull out Eva Braun. Now we nazi-bait classic feminists - tres progressive methinks.

---

gee, I wondered how long it would take for someone to make such a comment regarding my Eva Braun comment.

It's not Nazi baiting at all, which is why I thought long and hard about what parallel I would use. Have you read up on poor Eva? Furthermore, IMV just because some think she is a "classic feminist" does mean she gets a pass, or her less than feminist actions get excused.

Apparently, historians say she was not a Nazi, and she was "just" Hitler's lover. Her diaries seem to bear that out also. Though she knew of his actions, she was against them, but she loved "her man" and stayed with him anyway.

Moreover, she, if one thinks about it, rejected Nazi philosophy regarding females. One could liken her to a type of "feminist" as she did not stop wearing make up, she smoked and she drank. All of which were taboo for women in Nazi Germany. And that is why in the end I decided to choose her to get my point across.

And IMV putting "Glo's" actions in an actual contextual value perspective, is more honest and progressive than those who would either shut their mouths, or cast aspertions upon others for daring to speak truths.

Being under the auspices of standing up for her, and her actions with Kissinger, because she is prominent supposed "feminist" and an alleged public voice of women is wrong and perhaps does feminism a dis-service IMV.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I missed the memo where you got appointed as spokesperson for what is commonly understood in the left.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that the bourgeoisie is incapable of a class analysis. So you would not recognize such a thing as a class-conscious bourgeois.

That's really unfortunate, because such delusions lead to serious errors in judgment.

---

You seem to be operating under a number of delusions. Chiefmost, is the one that you are actually on point. This no doubt derived from the idea that you understood what I said.

You are the one who is having an issue with such distinctions. I was speaking entirely within the framework of the ideology that someone represents, her class background was of no relevance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
It's just as well, since she is clearly a bourgeois feminist and always has been. Frankly, I'm not interested in her class analysis.

---

Essentially you have said because she has no "class analysis," (represent a bourgeois-feminist line which precludes -- in fact rejects -- a class analysis) I am not interested in her class analysis."

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Yes, I kinda feel the same way but from an opposite view. And what exactly did cueball point out? That no one lightens Kissinger's actions because he was with Steinem? That was an empty commentary, as he does not know that, or a least did not prove that, and I would say in fact that he is wrong.

Personally, I would ask; do you feel you are defending Steinem's actions, because you are on record as supporting her?

And NO it is NOT gossip. It is credibility of words matching actions in order to see if one should put any store into positions taken. Again, I would NOT look to Eva Braun for mentorship, why in hell would I look to Steinem? Why would anyone?

IMV anyone can fuck who they want. But that does not mean I can't judge who they fuck as being representative of what they represent, or are stating they represent.Putting credence towards someone who chooses to fuck a war criminal that has caused untold, and told horrors, against peoples around the world, for decades, all the while saying they are a feminist and progressive, is impossible IMV. It at best means her positions are of the shallowist sort.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

---

My hypothesizing about what may or may not have have led to Steinem, possibly or possibly not, having some kind of fling with Kissenger is entirely conjecture. My point more than anything is that people do "dance with the devil," and just because Mick Jagger screwed Maggie Trudeau does not mean that I don't think "Sympathy for the Devil," is not a good song.

That said there is a difference between someone having a long term relationship with direputable people, as that clearly affirms more consideration and thought on the part of the actors, so, I think Hitler's and Eva Braun's relationship is far mor indicative of Eva Brauns true nature, because it transpired over a period of time, than any possible liason between Kissinger and Steinem. Braun, it seems, at the very least a bit of an opportunist in love with the limelight, and power.

As well, it should be considered that in the mid-sixties there was a sea change within the American intelligencia in the way people understood the operations of the US government, and even now, the idea that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, is not a comon conception of who he is. It is hardly damning, even in the event that Steinem did have an affair with him, since she, like most Americans were largely immunized against the idea that US government did anything worse that get bad resultd from good intentions.

So, at worst I think we can say Steinem might have shared the general naivete of the American intelligencia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
If she has no "class analysis" she has no class analysis. Period. If she had one however, then it would be different, because she could not be arguing from bourgeois ideological perspective, because bourgeois ideological perspectives ignore, in the best case, reject, in the worst case "class analysis," of any kind.

---

People with bourgeois ideological perspectives are quite capable of understanding the class nature of capitalist society and of formulating ways to preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie. It is in fact only with a consciousness of the interests of the ruling class that they can hope to do so.

The term is not simply a composite of the meanings of the two words which make it up. It is right in there with "class consiousness," and "class struggle," they are all three linked concept bound in the framework of Marxist thought.

This is generally understood and accepted, no matter how much you want to argue with me because you don't like me. People like Milton Friedman, and even Gloria Steinem don't talk about having a "class analysis," because they don't have one, and don't want one, and don't think you should have one either.

You seem to be arguing that they express ideologies that latently or overtly express class interests, and come from a world view embedded in class, and their relationship to a class, and their personal interests in that class, and that their analysis reflect class relations conciously or unconsiously but this is not the same as having a "class analysis," which is actually a specific conceptual tool used to analyze "class interests," "class relations" and so on and so forth.

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]