Gloria Steinem Gets Presidential Medal For Helping Turn Feminism Toxic
Cathy Young, one of my favorite critics of what feminism has become, writes at Real Clear Politics about President Obama's award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to feminist icon Gloria Steinem last week:
Despite her undeniable talent and charisma, Steinem is practically a poster girl for the gender-war paranoia and the ideological dogmatism that have led the women's movement down such a destructive path.How does Steinem represent modern feminism's worst features? Let me count the ways.
Dogmatic denial of sex differences. There is a perfectly legitimate argument (to which I myself am sympathetic) that male/female differences are culturally influenced and less important than individual differences. There is certainly widespread support for the loosening of traditional gender-based restrictions. But Steinem takes the anti-difference view to fanatical extremes of what dissident feminists Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge have dubbed "biodenial." In 1997, interviewed for John Stossel's ABC News special, "Boys and Girls Are Different: Men, Women and the Sex Difference," Steinem derided scientific research on sex differences in brain functioning as "anti-American crazy thinking." She also suggested that upper-body strength tests requiring firefighters to lift heavy loads were sexist. What about situations when firefighters have to carry injured or unconscious people out of burning buildings? Steinem insisted, with a straight face, that it was better to drag them, since "there's less smoke down there." While I thought the ABC special leaned too much toward generalizations about difference, Steinem made the worst possible spokesperson for the skeptics.
Fixation on male villainy. Like many in the sisterhood, Steinem does not let her belief in absolute equality interfere with a focus on men as perpetrators of violence and evil. In theory, she blames "the patriarchy," asserting that it has robbed men as well as women of full humanity; she has even said (rightly) that we won't have real equality until we recognize men's capacity for care and nurture just as we have recognized women's capacity for strength and achievement. Alas, actual, unreconstructed men usually appear in Steinem's writings as dangerous brutes.
In her 1992 book, Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, Steinem writes, "The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home." She has also touted the long-discredited notion of a long prehistoric period of peaceful, benevolent, egalitarian "gynocentric" societies later displaced by violent, oppressive male rule.
Other bits of her legacy on the list include junk scholarship, misinformation, the victimhood cult, contempt for free speech, and knee-jerk partisanship. Young continues:
Steinem is an undeniably talented and charismatic woman; her message is often couched in appealing terms of female empowerment, freedom, and basic fairness. But in practice, her advocacy promotes far less positive values. This is a Medal of Freedom recipient who has backed attacked on free speech and colluded in the imprisonment of innocent people.If the President wanted to honor the feminist movement, a far better choice would have been a posthumous award to Feminine Mystique author Betty Friedan, who, whatever her flaws, rightly warned against embracing anti-male, anti-family ideologies that treat relations between the sexes as class warfare. Steinem is a class-warfare feminist. In honoring her, Obama signals the importance of organized feminism to the Democratic base -- but also boosting the notion that we are locked in a "war against women" in which the gender warriors are our last line of defense.
I'll admit that Steinem is no Wendy Kaminer. However, the first time I met Kaminer, I asked her what she thought of Cathy Young's writings, and she said, in effect, that she has mixed reactions toward Young - because, for starters, Young often oversimplifies issues. (And, regarding men's rights, I have yet to find any sign that Young has EVER addressed the subject of better male contraception and how it would help to wipe out multiple social ills and sorrows* - IF men were willing to assume the responsibility. My guess is that she's afraid to push for a responsibility that a lot of MRAs just don't want.)
*Namely, unwanted children, unwanted abortions, unwanted adoptions and paternity fraud.
lenona at December 5, 2013 9:33 AM
I enjoy your balanced view on this
Jere at December 5, 2013 11:23 AM
Recent news about the differences between men & women's brains from the UK Guardian. Gloria Steinham hardest hit.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 5, 2013 11:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/05/gloria_steinem.html#comment-4094614">comment from lenonaI have yet to find any sign that Young has EVER addressed the subject of better male contraception
This is her job why?
And it's easy to sneer (or report somebody else's sneering) that somebody "oversimplifies." Feel free to actually show passages that support that.
Amy Alkon at December 5, 2013 11:46 AM
Anyone else find it funny the Gloria Steinem has accepted the PMoF from the leader of a country that she claims is a bastion of misogyny, violence and discrimination against women?
And why is the POTUS giving an award to a woman who is responsible for turning Feminism into a hate ideology?
It's like they're just a couple of bullshit artists congratulating each other on their bullshit.
norman at December 5, 2013 12:36 PM
I have yet to find any sign that Young has EVER addressed the subject of better male contraception
___________________________________
This is her job why?
______________________________
Because she often talks about men's rights being neglected - including reproductive rights - but pretty much ONLY when those rights don't include responsibilities - or doing any real work such as taking precautions. As I mentioned in another thread, complaining about child support - or sympathizing with such complaints - while refusing to take responsibility for one's own fertility is having your cake and eating it too. (Somehow, I don't think the MRAs who champion "choice for men" would agree with a noncustodial mother who didn't want to pay child support because she wanted to choose adoption and the father took custody instead.)
lenona at December 5, 2013 2:40 PM
@lenona
You write like if men asked for something they would get it. My experience with people is that anytime I talk about men needing anything they say "Women need...". So men asking for birth control will do jack.
I consider myself an MRA, and if a woman gave birth to a child only because the father wanted it...I would be fine if she was not responsible for child support as long as she had no rights.
My experience is most men are so happy for custody...they don't risk rocking the boat to ask for child support. Statistics back that up...a much lower percentage of non-custodial mothers have to pay CS then non-custodial fathers. And even when the have to pay it, fewer non-custodial mothers pay it than non-custodial fathers.
So I completely disagree that men want rights without responsibility...they complain right now more about responsibility because they only have responsibility without any rights while women have plenty of right with few responsibilities.
Katrina at December 5, 2013 6:48 PM
There's a picture of (a tender and lovely) Ms. Young as a little girl in her memoir of Soviet childhood that will make you want to find a Russian and kick him in the ballsack.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 6, 2013 2:04 AM
It's like they're just a couple of bullshit artists congratulating each other on their bullshit.
Well, yes, that's exactly what they are.
Flynne at December 6, 2013 6:28 AM
You write like if men asked for something they would get it. My experience with people is that anytime I talk about men needing anything they say "Women need...". So men asking for birth control will do jack.
_________________________________
How do you know for sure? Men have asked for "choice for men" on TV, even though they knew too well they'd be turned into laughingstocks, simply because they were desperate enough to at least start the debate. (The most famous examples were probably Frank Serpico in 1981, Peter Wallis (New Mexico) in 1998, and Matt Dubay (Michigan) in 2006.) Whereas if ANY men have begged for better male BC outside of the Internet, I haven't heard a thing, so I doubt they're that interested. After all, it wouldn't be that hard to make it sound as though this was just as much about women's needs as men's - they could just say: "Our wives can't use the Pill and we can't afford more kids right now and we need more reliable backups! Yes, we'll happily pay for them!"
Why would that not work? Has any group tried that approach en masse? I doubt it. (They could bring their wives to appear with them on camera, after all.)
________________________________
I consider myself an MRA, and if a woman gave birth to a child only because the father wanted it...I would be fine if she was not responsible for child support as long as she had no rights.
My experience is most men are so happy for custody...they don't risk rocking the boat to ask for child support. Statistics back that up...a much lower percentage of non-custodial mothers have to pay CS then non-custodial fathers. And even when the have to pay it, fewer non-custodial mothers pay it than non-custodial fathers.
_________________________________
The stats don't surprise me, and I already sensed that it's something of a moot point. However, IF a man were to go out on a limb and demand child support, I suspect that MRAs, on average, would take his side.
________________________________
So I completely disagree that men want rights without responsibility...they complain right now more about responsibility because they only have responsibility without any rights while women have plenty of right with few responsibilities.
Posted by: Katrina at December 5, 2013 6:48 PM
________________________________
Or maybe they're trying to say, in effect, that a man's right to condom-free sex is more sacred than a child's right to be fed and clothed?
Besides, as I mentioned in a prior thread, what's to stop men from legally abandoning their in-wedlock children as well as out-of-wedlock children? Any man could say she lied about being on the Pill when she didn't lie.
If parents everywhere made their 20-year-old sons get Vasaglel, it would be interesting to see how many social problems could be made moot in a generation or two. (I'm guessing that doctors would not want to tamper with teen boys' healthy, still-growing systems, so taking them in when they're younger would not work.)
lenona at December 6, 2013 9:44 AM
Young gets mixed reactions around the MRA community. I'm not sure why... most of the stuff of hers that I've read has been very positive towards men.
Cousin Dave at December 6, 2013 12:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/05/gloria_steinem.html#comment-4097217">comment from Cousin DaveI never judge people by how a community with a certain agenda sees them.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2013 12:43 PM
"Why would that not work? Has any group tried that approach en masse? I doubt it. (They could bring their wives to appear with them on camera, after all.)"
They need their wives to appear because one cares what men want unless it is for women.
"However, IF a man were to go out on a limb and demand child support, I suspect that MRAs, on average, would take his side."
Under current conditions I don't see how this unfair. Those darn MRAs expecting the same rights as women. Currently women can collect child support from men/boys they have raped.
"Or maybe they're trying to say, in effect, that a man's right to condom-free sex is more sacred than a child's right to be fed and clothed?"
Umm...no...though I am sure you could find some extremist to say so. And wow, that if that demonstrates how you feel about men...I'm sure nothing I say here will make any difference to you.
Anything I read about choice for men has nothing to with leaving children that they have already acted as father to.
Just as women have about 3 months to choose an abortion men would about the same time frame (after being notified) to choose to be a father or not. And one would be all in or all out with both rights and responsibilities.
"Besides, as I mentioned in a prior thread, what's to stop men from legally abandoning their in-wedlock children as well as out-of-wedlock children? Any man could say she lied about being on the Pill when she didn't lie."
As I said above a short window of time just as women have. Then it doesn't matter if anyone lied. Married woman can get an abortion. And if her choice depends upon what his choice is then it behooves her to notify him right away.
Currently there is no downside to a woman lying. Where, if they knew they might have to raise the child w/o the man's help they might be more inclined to wait until he agrees.
There is a risk that he agrees up front and then changes his mind in time frame. And I have read suggestions to get around that, which would be signed agreements up front that waive his ability to choose later. I think they should have expiration dates and need to be proactively renewed.
I've personally have mixed feelings about choice for men...as I prefer to focus on keeping fathers in children's lives (as more than just a paycheck) and valuing fathers and fathering as much as mothers and mothering.
"If parents everywhere made their 20-year-old sons get Vasaglel, it would be interesting to see how many social problems could be made moot in a generation or two. (I'm guessing that doctors would not want to tamper with teen boys' healthy, still-growing systems, so taking them in when they're younger would not work.)"
I enthusiastically agree. In the meantime, I have taught my boys to never to count on a woman's birth control if they don't want a baby, to supply their own condoms, and to dispose of the condoms appropriately. In addition, to be cautious when drinking so that you can still be responsible for yourself.
I've also encouraged them to have any sexual partners sign and notarize a consent form. They think I'm joking.
Katrina at December 6, 2013 1:48 PM
> I have yet to find any sign that Young has EVER
> addressed the subject of better male
> contraception and how it would help to wipe out
> multiple social ills and sorrows
Like, wow. "[T]he subject of better male contraception and how it would" XYZ. People are supposed to talk about that, or at least offer a sign that they have.
Well, there may be a few presumptions tucked in there. I can imagine meeting and admiring a gazillion insightful and sincere feminists who never even thing about it.
At the very least, this may be an instance of a behavior handsomely named by Welch:
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 7, 2013 3:05 AM
If I'd known Amy was gonna cover that two comments later I mighta let it go.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 7, 2013 3:06 AM
> complaining about child support - or sympathizing
> with such complaints - while refusing to take
> responsibility for one's own fertility is having
> your cake and eating it too.
Well, the men's right's guys who show up here are clumsy ninnies, but it's fair to ask why the women are sleeping with them anyway.
Of course there are tragedies, of course there are, sad dislocations and aspirations shot to Hell. But over many, many years, it's become apparent to me that the vast majority of women who don't want to be pregnant don't become pregnant.
It oh-so-many cases, there are little fairy melodies tingling behind their ears when they ought be paying attention to their own behaviors and to the behaviors of men nearby... Entrancingly little songs about how a full life includes this other stuff......
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 7, 2013 3:15 AM
"Why would that not work? Has any group tried that approach en masse? I doubt it. (They could bring their wives to appear with them on camera, after all.)"
They need their wives to appear because no one cares what men want unless it is for women.
Posted by: Katrina at December 6, 2013 1:48 PM
______________________________________
I can think of two simple examples that disprove that. Namely:
1. Viagra. Men didn't have to campaign or fund-raise for that, IIRC. That was because there was little doubt in the first place that it would be a very profitable market. Not so with male birth control. If men want it, they'll have to prove that they outnumber the men who have no real intention of using it (the latter includes the men who say they want it available, but only for other men's sake). Of course, some wives have benefited from men's using it - but other wives of a certain age (aside from those who are tired of sex) have feared their husbands would abandon them for younger women, and single women have always been free to move on to other men.
2. Prostitutes. There's a reason they have very low advertising costs.
_____________________________________
if they knew they might have to raise the child w/o the man's help they might be more inclined to wait until he agrees.
__________________________________
As I've mentioned before, no politician who counts votes is going to support or allow anything that would cause the abortion rate to skyrocket - even temporarily.
lenona at December 7, 2013 1:48 PM
"Or maybe they're trying to say, in effect, that a man's right to condom-free sex is more sacred than a child's right to be fed and clothed?"
______________________________
Umm...no...though I am sure you could find some extremist to say so.
_____________________________
Of course, NO one says that in so many words. However, one could argue that while it's one thing for a man to complain to friends and relatives about having to pay support for an unwanted child, it's quite another to go public with such complaints, and that those who do might as well be making that statement.
BTW, in her 1980s essay "Looking for Mr. Good Dad," the late journalism professor Ellen Willis quoted an anti-abortion writer with whom she'd been debating. The writer said:
"Am I predicting that men are losing whatever tenuous hold they had on parental obligation? That the men are going to take off, and not only that, but feel justified about it? Hell, no . . . I'm reporting it. I do women's shelter work. I see it all the time. A couple has a child. Three years down the line he decides he isn't cut out to be a father. 'But you can't just walk out. This is your child, too!' 'Yeah? But it was YOUR CHOICE.' "
Willis said: "Her view of men reminds me of George 'It's a Jungle Out There' Gilder's: Basically men are moral cretins who have a 'tenuous hold' on parental responsibility and feel justified in walking out on a three-year-old child because it could have been an abortion. To imagine that they might hang around because they care about their children or partners, or that they're capable of empathy with a woman's need to control her fertility, is to mistake the nature of the beast."
At the end of the essay, Willis implied, IIRC, that unwilling fathers should get more help from the state to support their children.
So while Willis didn't mention better male BC, I'd say that MRAs have three choices:
1. Push for Choice for Men
2. Push to end abortion (and I can't imagine that most pro-abortion men are going to change their minds)
3. Push to obtain better MBC.
lenona at December 8, 2013 1:27 PM
Forgot to clarify something: As I mentioned, it would be foolish for individuals to push for Choice for Men because no politician is likely to support CfM, and once better MBC DOES arrive, Planned Parenthood will start pushing it - as will family court judges - and so CfM will be doomed. Which may well be why many MRAs refuse to talk about MBC at all. (Other conservative men have said they don't want to use it for the same reason they don't want to wash dishes - that their wives should be "taking care of that." As if every woman is medically free to use two or three contraceptives at once.)
lenona at December 8, 2013 1:35 PM
> and so CfM will be doomed.
We all adore you, but that's a lot of acronyms.
Yes; we all concur; the nature of men is different than the nature of women. It is dissimilar, they are not the same, and they are not equal... Even in the most loathsome manifestations of each.
When forming policy and judgements, we gotta make peace with that. Goose & gander is a metaphor for other contexts.
By the way, have you heard my Apples and Oranges CD? It enlivens any morning commute, and it's yours for only $17.99!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 9, 2013 11:02 PM
"We all adore you,"
How sweet of you.
I realize no one's likely to read this at this point, but just in case, I found this premature gleefest at A Voice for Men:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/critics-of-the-male-pill-are-wrong-it-would-end-conception-by-deception-empower-men-and-be-the-ultimate-sexual-revolution/
Elsewhere at that site, there's an article titled "The Male Pill: Pros & Cons" warning men that once the male pill arrives, legal pressure to use it is sure to follow - sort of what I said above. (Even so, they're all for the pill, unlike some.)
But re the article I linked to, the commentators are unbelievable. They may have quite sophisticated vocabularies, but precious little in the way of logic. That is, they anticipate a near-complete patriarchy once the male pill arrives and they accuse feminists of being the main culprits in slowing down the arrival of MBC in general. As I've mentioned, if that were true (as opposed to lack of male enthusiasm and other profit problems, unlike Viagra) we'd ALREADY be seeing feminist organizations trying to stop single men, especially, from getting vasectomies! Do we see that? No. Not to mention that since single men will still be under a lot of pressure to use condoms (and how many men are going to use two male methods at once?), and married men will continue to trust their wives, that means the only "big" markets, for a long time at least, are likely to be rich male celebs and married men whose wives can't use hormonal methods. So it's pretty unlikely that society is going to change much as a result. Besides, many a woman who can't convince a man to get his birth control reversed will simply dump him - and many men will be more unhappy about that then they think.
lenona at December 10, 2013 9:01 AM
Leave a comment