Special place in heck for women who don't support women

[HannahT]

I read a rather degrading and insulting article this morning.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Feminist icons Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem criticized young women who support Bernie Sanders instead of backing Hillary Clinton for president.

I have no issue with them supporting Clinton. None whatsoever. This is a very personal issue for each of us that vote. You must vote with your personal conscience.

Yet, do it on the issues - and not the gender. We are bigger than that.

This is a great example of WHY I can't stand politics at times. They are trying to manipulate and use the gender card - because we have 'warriors' for women. Clinton, Albright, Steinem did all help in their own ways break the glass ceiling I witnessed and dealt with way back when. Yes, I'm old. I'm so thankful my daughter and other females won't ever have to deal with some on the stings, insults and degrading attitudes women felt just to do basic things we all take for granted today.

There will always be work to do in some sense for majority of issues, and there is a time and place in which you would support someone over one issue - yet there are also times in which you do not.

All of them feel that young girls have no concept of how hard women - and men - fought to help women to be able to contribute and rise from the stone age.

I'm sure that is true. Yet, they aren't completely ignorant of the past either. Feminism to me as a child was about choices. Not all the other stuff. I had the same choices overall now that my brother always had. I'm more speaking of things I saw my mother struggle with. Can't get a credit card without Dad's permission. Requirement of his signature on things just because they were married. I couldn't play baseball, because of my gender. I had to wear a swin cap, because of my gender - not because of the length of my hair. I could do all the normal things, and now I didn't need some man's permission. To me as a child at the time? I didn't have the scope of all the wacky stuff that when on too. I just felt like the chains came off in my young mind at the time.

I realize today if young women don't have to deal with even some of the smaller stuff that wasn't taboo in the past. They would be protesting with men along side of them, and the news media would be going NUTS! As someone OLD - I'm thankful for that too!

One of the things that ticked me off as a women back then was the stereotypes of women. Delicate, silly little things that must be protected from reality. I remember wanted to knock their block off when they said it.

Yet, Steinem and Albright I guess haven't realize we have moved on. They are now using the old stereotypes.

"We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it's done. It's not done," Albright said of the fight for women's equality. "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!"

Albright later said women could be judgmental toward one another, adding how some women occasionally forget how hard someone like Clinton had to work to succeed.

How there is a special place in H$$L for women that don't support Clinton Albright claims.

"Women are more for [Clinton] than men are," Steinem said. "First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience ... Not to over-generalize, but ... men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age. And, when you're young, you're thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie..."

So young women are only fighting for Bernie because that is where the boys are? Is she serious? Also, I have not found that I have 'lost' power as I aged. I have powers (wrong word IMO, but I will use it here anyway since she did) I never had when I was younger, and I'm not losing anything. You have the occasional idiot here and there - but overall? We are doing pretty good.

I'm not going to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, nor because Bernie is where the boys are.

Just for the record? I hate their stereotypes and manipulation too.

Does anyone else sense the unrealistic bubble I see them living it?

 

[Paulos23]

I agree, issues and past performance. Not gender or race. But do be aware of personal biases, and seek to remove them.

That said, people sometimes re-fight fights they have already won. They don't see how things have moved on.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're seeing now exactly what modern day feminism has evolved into.

What started out as a movement to promote equality, has now turned into a superiority-complex driven, tribalistic, "Us vs. Them" mentality...even within the ranks of their own political party (as you can see).

Anytime a movement transitions from knocking down barriers, to putting up new ones, it officially becomes counter-productive to the original goal they set out to achieve.

I think part of the issue is with the concept of having movements instead of just having goals. Goals are tangible objectives, you achieve them, and then you move on, movements are perpetual (that don't have a definitive end-game in mind), set out to always move just a little bit further...so eventually movements are destined to pass the threshold of what's considered reasonable and slowly drift into the "taking it too far" territory.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You're seeing now exactly what modern day feminism has evolved into.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. There are plenty of young women who consider themselves feminists who would be appalled by what Ms. Albright is saying. I don't buy this idea that today's women might be too stupid to see the obvious pandering from the Hillary campaign. That's why most young people overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders and that's why most Democrats aren't buying what Hillary is selling.

 

[brinny]

I read a rather degrading and insulting article this morning.



I have no issue with them supporting Clinton. None whatsoever. This is a very personal issue for each of us that vote. You must vote with your personal conscience.

Yet, do it on the issues - and not the gender. We are bigger than that.

This is a great example of WHY I can't stand politics at times. They are trying to manipulate and use the gender card - because we have 'warriors' for women. Clinton, Albright, Steinem did all help in their own ways break the glass ceiling I witnessed and dealt with way back when. Yes, I'm old. I'm so thankful my daughter and other females won't ever have to deal with some on the stings, insults and degrading attitudes women felt just to do basic things we all take for granted today.

There will always be work to do in some sense for majority of issues, and there is a time and place in which you would support someone over one issue - yet there are also times in which you do not.

All of them feel that young girls have no concept of how hard women - and men - fought to help women to be able to contribute and rise from the stone age.

I'm sure that is true. Yet, they aren't completely ignorant of the past either. Feminism to me as a child was about choices. Not all the other stuff. I had the same choices overall now that my brother always had. I'm more speaking of things I saw my mother struggle with. Can't get a credit card without Dad's permission. Requirement of his signature on things just because they were married. I couldn't play baseball, because of my gender. I had to wear a swin cap, because of my gender - not because of the length of my hair. I could do all the normal things, and now I didn't need some man's permission. To me as a child at the time? I didn't have the scope of all the wacky stuff that when on too. I just felt like the chains came off in my young mind at the time.

I realize today if young women don't have to deal with even some of the smaller stuff that wasn't taboo in the past. They would be protesting with men along side of them, and the news media would be going NUTS! As someone OLD - I'm thankful for that too!

One of the things that ticked me off as a women back then was the stereotypes of women. Delicate, silly little things that must be protected from reality. I remember wanted to knock their block off when they said it.

Yet, Steinem and Albright I guess haven't realize we have moved on. They are now using the old stereotypes.



How there is a special place in H$$L for women that don't support Clinton Albright claims.



So young women are only fighting for Bernie because that is where the boys are? Is she serious? Also, I have not found that I have 'lost' power as I aged. I have powers (wrong word IMO, but I will use it here anyway since she did) I never had when I was younger, and I'm not losing anything. You have the occasional idiot here and there - but overall? We are doing pretty good.

I'm not going to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, nor because Bernie is where the boys are.

Just for the record? I hate their stereotypes and manipulation too.

Does anyone else sense the unrealistic bubble I see them living it?

i agree. I never thought of it as the "gender card" (never heard that term used before) LOL!

But that's exactly what it is.

Thank you for posting this.

 

[Nithavela]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-it-for-male-attention.7931596/#post-69233786

Another thread about this issue.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure that's exactly true. There are plenty of young women who consider themselves feminists who would be appalled by what Ms. Albright is saying. I don't buy this idea that today's women might be too stupid to see the obvious pandering from the Hillary campaign. That's why most young people overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders and that's why most Democrats aren't buying what Hillary is selling.

That might be true for some women, but this idea of "If a woman has any self-respect, she'll vote for Hillary" certainly isn't a fringe minority opinion among feminists.

And the women who are taking this stance aren't doing so because they're "too stupid to see the obvious pandering" that's not what I meant when I was posting (sorry to anyone if it came across that way)...I suspect they know exactly what's going on. ...but like with many other movements. It's "agenda first, everything else 2nd"...and that agenda for hardcore feminists, at the moment, is trying to make sure that a woman gets into office.

 

[SummerMadness]

I can't believe anyone would say they won't vote a person unless they're a Christian like themselves.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I can't believe anyone would say they won't vote a person unless they're a Christian like themselves.

Tribalism at its finest...there are far too many folks who have the "I would only vote for a/I would never vote for a" attitude toward the political process.

 

[Vylo]

You're seeing now exactly what modern day feminism has evolved into.

What started out as a movement to promote equality, has now turned into a superiority-complex driven, tribalistic, "Us vs. Them" mentality...even within the ranks of their own political party (as you can see).

Anytime a movement transitions from knocking down barriers, to putting up new ones, it officially becomes counter-productive to the original goal they set out to achieve.

I think part of the issue is with the concept of having movements instead of just having goals. Goals are tangible objectives, you achieve them, and then you move on, movements are perpetual (that don't have a definitive end-game in mind), set out to always move just a little bit further...so eventually movements are destined to pass the threshold of what's considered reasonable and slowly drift into the "taking it too far" territory.

There are 2 branches of feminism. Those who fight for fair wages, respect and rights, and those like Steinem who fight for special privileges, even if they might end up getting innocent people killed.

 

[nightflight]

There are 2 branches of feminism. Those who fight for fair wages, respect and rights, and those like Steinem who fight for special privileges, even if they might end up getting innocent people killed.

Those who conflate equal opportunity with equal outcome.

 

[HannahT]

There are 2 branches of feminism. Those who fight for fair wages, respect and rights, and those like Steinem who fight for special privileges, even if they might end up getting innocent people killed.

I'm not sure how Steinem could get people killed. To think she feels she has 'less' power now compared to when she was younger? Nonsense. She may not be as popular and well known - but individual human freedoms? She has gained like anyone else.

Tribalism? Yes, it sounds like that. I would love to have the first woman president, but I'm not going to vote for her just because she is a woman. I want what I feel is best for the overall country, and not just anyone due to gender.

 

[Vylo]

Those who conflate equal opportunity with equal outcome.

Exactly. Look up Steinem's views on female firefighters.

 

[Blondepudding]

Gloria Steinem apologizes for female Sanders supporters remark

Steinem and her vitriol makes feminism look in total like her perception of it. Something she's made a career out of and to the detriment of strong women at that.
The perpetual victim mode she believes women retain despite our advances is sorry.

 

[Vylo]

I'm not sure how Steinem could get people killed.

In 1997 when asked about women firefighter's, Steinem thought that women should make up 50% of firefighters regardless of qualifications. When pressed about how most women would have trouble lifting a grown man to safety, one of the most basic things you need to be able to do as a firefighter, she said women could just drag them.

Mentalities like that are what get people killed.

 

[Blondepudding]

There are 2 branches of feminism. Those who fight for fair wages, respect and rights, and those like Steinem who fight for special privileges, even if they might end up getting innocent people killed.

I don't always agree with Steinem's politics. However, I believe you have to show proof as to what special privileges would you be referring to per her fight for women's rights?

 

[Vylo]

I don't always agree with Steinem's politics. However, I believe you have to show proof as to what special privileges would you be referring to per her fight for women's rights?

She wanted to use simple quotas for positions with professional and/or physical requirements in order to increase the number of women in those positions, that would be a special privilege.

 

[Blondepudding]

In 1997 when asked about women firefighter's, Steinem thought that women should make up 50% of firefighters regardless of qualifications. When pressed about how most women would have trouble lifting a grown man to safety, one of the most basic things you need to be able to do as a firefighter, she said women could just drag them.

Mentalities like that are what get people killed.

Steinem had naught to do with this.

Firefighter who flunked physical injured 10 days into job
By Susan Edelman

November 22, 2015 | 4:12am

 

[HannahT]

In a case of talk-show Interruptus, I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently, and apologize for what's been misinterpreted as implying young women aren't serious in their politics. What I had just said on the same show was the opposite: young women are active, mad as hell about what's happening to them, graduating in debt, but averaging a million dollars less over their lifetimes to pay it back. Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before. - Gloria Steinem

People in general are mad as hell about those issues, and at times the salary part is debatable when we look deeper. That's not to say some don't get paid less, but not as much as some squawk on about.

All those items aren't 'feminist' issues is what I'm saying. Things are happening in this country to most people that are placing us in the debit pile - as in men too - and trying to melt that into feminism? Please. Those are human issues. Period.

I may not agree with everything she believes, but I do thank her for her past work for women. She did make a difference. She was a mover and shaker. Sadly, she didn't do much when things started to go off the deep end at times when it came to women issues. She enabled them, and that goes far beyond what her original focus. It happens to many in her position - men and women - it is what it is.

What she doesn't mention is there is so many flavors to feminism today. Some are nuts and extremist. Some are everyday women. The spectrum is huge - along with their beliefs systems. Women in general are activists - not just young one anymore. People in general seem more involved.

I respect many parts of the work she has done, but she is also being disingenuous. She isn't the first feminist of her flavor claiming young women don't take the movement as serious as they should.

 

[Blondepudding]

She wanted to use simple quotas for positions with professional and/or physical requirements in order to increase the number of women in those positions, that would be a special privilege.

Regardless of fitness for the post?
Putting female bodies in a position just to argue women are therein made equal is ridiculous. Steinem is part of the problem as far as I'm concerned and when it comes to having people take Feminism seriously. Or have respect for those that identify as Feminist.
They look to her example because she became the most vocal proponent early on. And despite the fact she is not the founder of the movement people very often see her as such. Therefore her public example as spokeswoman for Feminism as a whole is given permission to blanket all women who are Feminist.
Now, no pun intended, non-Steinem bots have two hurdles to overcome. Gender bias and the Steinem Feminist meme that's grown in America since the 60's and as the parthenogenic bastard child of a delusional enemy of strong women.