I came of age--came into my teens and out of them--in the 1970's.
In the 1970's Gloria Steinem was a respected, extremely bright, photogenic feminist who was very articulate and passionate about women's rights. Back then, to be a feminist was considered a progressive thing.
(From my recollections weren't pretty much all Liberals feminists, too?)
Now "feminist" carries some extreme connotations. I've had and known of conversations with women who, if characterized as a feminist will immediately demure by pulling out the tired old phrase about not burning one's bras. :eyeroll:
To me "feminist" means working to achieve equal rights/treatment for/of women. It has nada to do with wearing a bra. That was a symbolic gesture of freedom and wasn't even done all that much (but it made a big impact--which was the point).
I remember it being said and agreeing years ago that white women and black people could find common ground when dealing with who Steinem calls the usual white faces over collars and ties (and no, I'd not heard that expression before but yes, I think it's great. I would not be surprised if she coined it herself).
She mentions it again here when talking about the "irrelevant, (destructive) debate about Senators Clinton and Obama."
I agree with Ms. Steinem and am glad I came across this opinion piece in The New York Times Online.
I found her refreshing--as always.
FULL Article PERMALINK
Op-Ed ContributorRight Candidates, Wrong QuestionI’ve figured out how to answer reporters when they ask if I’m supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I just say yes.EVEN before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton threw their exploratory committees into the ring, every reporter seemed to be asking which candidate are Americans more ready for, a white woman or a black man?
With all due respect to the journalistic dilemma of reporting two “firsts” at the same time — two viable presidential candidates who aren’t the usual white faces over collars and ties — I think this is a dumb and destructive question.
Comments