Feminist icon and CIA operative/domestic fifth column Gloria Steinem sat down for an interview with The Hollywood Reporter to hock her documentary-propaganda piece for Viceland with the inspired title of Woman. She also said some dumb shit about America being sexist and hating the embodiment of all women-folk, Hillary Clinton.
Q: Has 2016 been a good year or a bad year in terms of women’s rights?
Steinem: It’s hard to know when we’re in the middle of it. It does seem that we’ve had, in the States, two big waves of movements: One was the abolitionist and the suffragist era, and that took a century for women of all races and black men to gain an identity as human beings rather than cattle. The laws about slavery were adapted from the laws about wives, for instance. That took a hundred years to get a legal identity. Now we’re trying to get legal and social equality. That probably will take a least a hundred years. We’re maybe halfway into it. It’s hard to know, but at least now it is clearly a majority movement. In the beginning, it wasn’t a majority in public opinion polls, and now it is.
Black people, you keep letting these white feminists hide behind you. I’m wondering when you are going to get tired of it and tell them to piss off. I get why black women like following behind white women because they love and revere the white woman (including trying to make their hair look like a white woman’s). But to allow feminists to suggest that the abolition of slavery is remotely related to feminism is not only historically inaccurate, it’s appallingly stupid. Many of the Suffragette/First-Wave Feminist icons waged open war on the passage of the 15th Amendment because it did not include white women. Yes, feminists would rather that only adult white men vote, than black freedmen, who had just five prior, enjoyed NO RIGHTS that the white man was bound to respect (see Scott v. Sanford). Don’t take my word for it, take the feminists at their own words:
“Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the Negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.”
-Susan B. Anthony
“You have put the ballot in the hands of your black men, thus making them political superiors of white women. Never before in the history of the world have men made former slaves the political masters of their former mistresses!”
-Anna Howard Shaw
“The enfranchisement of women would insure immediate and durable white supremacy, honestly attained, for upon unquestioned authority it is stated that in every southern State but one there are more educated women than all the illiterate voters, white and black, native and foreign, combined. As you probably know, of all the women in the South who can read and write, ten out of every eleven are white. When it comes to the proportion of property between the races, that of the white outweighs that of the black immeasurably.”
“What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?”
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton
“The white men, reinforced by the educated white women, could ‘snow under’ the Negro vote in every State, and the white race would maintain its supremacy without corrupting or intimidating the Negroes.”
“White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage.”
-Carrie Chapman Catt
Black people, you keep letting these Feminist Beckys hide behind you if you want to. It gives them a good vantage point to cut your nuts off from the back like they’ve been doing since the inception of American Feminism.
Q: What did you make of the Hillary Clinton bashing at the Republican National Convention?
Steinem: It is very uncivil discourse at a minimum. It’s quite dismaying and alarming. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such extremism as part of even the Republican National Convention before, but it is a familiar tactic. Remember swiftboating with John Kerry? That was the first time that I’m aware of that the Republican establishment invented the tactic of attacking somebody for their strength, not their weakness. They attacked the fact that he was a war hero. With Hillary — who clearly is, as all the objective, fact-checking services point out, more accurate and more truthful than any other candidate — they’re attacking her trustworthiness. It’s swiftboating.
There is obvious bait for a tu quoque here that I will not take. I will only point out that the DNC convention’s band of powerful white males (dare I say “privileged”?) including Tim Kaine, Michael Bloomberg, Harry Reid, Bill de Blasio, Brad Sherman, Leon Panetta, John Hutson, and Barack Obama spent more time doomsaying Trump than praising Clinton. But progressives have this peculiar view of politics wherein you can only hit them with pillows and they can only hit you with brass knuckles.
Uncivil discourse indeed.
Q: Are Hillary’s disapproval ratings connected to her being a woman?
Steinem: Yeah, I think so. It’s hard to know because nothing is a single factor. Part of it is that she is not a new face. The fact that she and Bill Clinton have been in public life for a very long time means that they are not as likely to benefit from unrealistic expectations. But I think there are other deep reasons. For instance, as children, most of us are raised by women, so we may tend to associate female authority with childhood. We see it as emotional, overwhelming, perhaps inappropriate to public life, not rational enough. You can see that in some of the media coverage from otherwise mature, grown-up men, who are saying things like, “I cross my legs whenever I see her. She reminds me of my first wife asking for alimony.” They are responding to the last time they saw a powerful woman. They feel unmanned. I don’t think it’s conscious, but I think it’s present. It’s not going to be easy. It’s a very big change.
Mmmmm, breath that in. That pungent, nutty aroma. Prime bullshit with subtle notes of Freudian psychobabble. Associating female authority with childhood? More like childishness. Hillary wields authority with all of the subtlety of a grade school hall monitor, desperately looking for some schoolteacher’s apple in need of a good polishing or a fellow student to inconvenience with their miniscule and unearned power. In Hillary’s too long career as an elected official and cabinet-level bureaucrat, she has enjoyed more failures than successes.
But speaking of power, Steinem gives an apt and truly “Feminist” description of a “powerful woman”: A woman summoning the power of the state (in the form of law enforcers, who are usually men) to inconvenience another man she claims she must be legally free of…except for his money in the form of alimony. She’s going to need to hang on to that.
How is it that a female cannot be “powerful” without having men to back up her so-called “power”?
Q: Did the historic implications for women have any kind of emotional effect on you?
Steinem: I just want to make clear that it’s not identity politics. In other words, had it been Sarah Palin, I would not have been happy. Had it been Margaret Thatcher, I would not have been happy. What you want is somebody who represents your majority interest and experience, not someone who’s selling you out. Sometimes the media takes it as identity politics, which it isn’t.
It’s not identity politics. It’s just that Sarah Palin and Margaret Thatcher are the wrong sort of female. They aren’t right-thinking like Gloria Steinem, therefore, they aren’t real women for advancing the goals of the Feminist cult.
Q: Do you regret saying on Real Time with Bill Maher that female Bernie Sanders supporters are looking for boyfriends?
Steinem: Well, I would if I said that. I was interrupted mid-sentence. I wasn’t talking about dates. I was talking about power. I had just talked about the massive college debt and that women will get a million dollars less over their lifetime to pay it back. So I was on my way to saying when you’re young you think that power is where the men are. It wasn’t about dates, but he stopped me in the middle and I confessed that it was so far away from what I meant that I just didn’t get it.
Interrupted? Okay. Let’s review the play.
When you’re young you’re thinking, you know, where the boys? The boys are with Bernie.
Maher didn’t interrupt her. She came to a full pause. Dead air which Maher, being a TV professional, stepped in to fill. She had ample opportunity to clarify after and she didn’t.
This is how little Feminists think of the women they supposedly advocate for. “Silly girls, supporting Bernie! You weren’t supporting Bernie for the free college, or pay equity, or raising the minimum wage, or even reviving Glass-Steagall! You were just there for the cute boys! You girls with your false consciousness! Hillary is the candidate you really want! You just don’t know it because you aren’t as in tune with Feminism as Gloria Steinem!”