»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Gloria Steinem?
| The Alley |
|
Gloria Steinem? |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. http://www.observer.com/2008/stumping-clinton-steinem-says-mccains-p-o-w-cred-overrated Christ, Gloria Steinem in Texas disparaging John McCain’s years as a tortured prisoner of war! Despite all the millions for better advice, how stupid can you get? Who’s in charge in the Hilary camp, Bozo? PS: Also read some of the responses and found a common theme in that the “feminist movement” is viewed now as an elitist white female phenomenon. How much good or harm did it then actually do? . |
||
| © Copyright 2008 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good old Gloria! Back in Willie's reign she was asked by reporters why the feminist movement didn't come to the aid of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones and the other Clinton fiascos and she replied that she wasn't involved in things like that anymore. She's always been a class act - NOT. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
The headline of the article is misleading. The disparaging reference you might be referring to occurs about eight paragraphs into the article. "Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.” I think I'd agree, though I might not phrase it that way. In and of itself, time spent in a prison camp neither qualifes nor disqualifies anyone from being President. I think this is what Steinem asked. It's not different from referring to Romney's fortune and asking, "What, the ability to make money is a qualification to be President?" This doesn't denigrate the ability to make money, just questions the overall relevance to assuming the Presidency. The follow-up comments on Steinem reflect the general level of hateful nonsense associated with the site. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Some good things that the Feminist movement seem to have accomplished include laying the groundwork for "no fault" divorce; for Title 9 provisions regarding equal funding for men and women sport at institutions which accept Federal funds; and for raising national consciousness to the point that a woman, for the first time, can be a credible candidate for the Presidency. Senator Clinton seems to be credible to just under or just over half the Democratic party. The fact that her campaigning causes so much vituperative spew from the Reactionary right adds to her precieved credibility as a candidate. Why would anyone bother with Senator Clinton if she was irrelevant? The "Women's Movement" has hardly ceased. The National Organization for Women as an organization lost focus years ago, a victim of infighting as well as its own success in broadening the base of awarness. Not all women, or men, agreed with some of its more strident members, while still not rejecting its fundamental premise: Women are equal to men. In this sense, Gloria Steinem and NOW did an enormous amount of good. To see it otherwise might be a function of "fear of change." Some people reject Senator Clinton and Senator Obama based on disagreement with the general Democratic Party positions on management and social issues. Others seem to reject them out of hand for more emotional reasons, and I suggest that the basis of such response is fear of change or fear of the "other." I hope this is an Alley-acceptable way of suggesting that hate mongers are hate mongers. Senator McCain represents "more of the same" to a greater extent that either major Democratic candidate. Those satisfied with "more of the same" will probably vote for him. It will be interesting to see if Senators Clinton or Obama attempt to demonize Senator McCain personally during the Presidential campaign. Bad idea, I think. Whether or not anyone chooses to vote for Senator McCain, it doesn't alter the fact that the man has served his country admirably in war and peace. All politics seem to have emotional overtones. I trust that the emotions stem from a from a love of the ideals of this democracy. Jim |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
