The world of feminism is imploding. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday and said, “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’” implying that young women support Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders because they’re chasing the boys on his campaign.
And at a New Hampshire rally Saturday, Madeleine Albright, the first female Secretary of State, endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by saying, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women,” The New York Times reported.
Steinem retracted this statement in a Sunday Facebook post, writing, “Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.”
Clinton defended Albright’s comments in a Sunday appearance on “Meet the Press,” blaming the whole debacle on political correctness.
“People can’t say anything without offending somebody,” Clinton said. “And I think it was a light-hearted, but very pointed remark, which people can take however they choose.”
A recent USA TODAY/Rock the Vote poll found that Sanders holds a 19-point lead over Clinton among Democratic and independent women aged 18 to 34.
Clinton has used feminism as a central part of her campaign thus far, and even refuted Sanders’ implication that she was “establishment” at the New Hampshire debate Thursday by pointing out that a woman winning the presidency would be a momentous occasion.
Though it must be done, calling out Steinem and Albright feels weird.
Steinem misspoke, and her long, storied career as a feminist leader shouldn’t be tarnished by one comment. You have to consider whom the comment came from. This is Gloria Steinem, a leader of the second-wave feminist movement. One comment isn’t going to undo all of the work she’s done for women’s rights. She’s a feminist to the core.
As for Albright, her comments came from a good place. She’s not trying to shame women who don’t vote for Clinton. She’s just trying to play up the feminist angle in Clinton’s campaign, which already appears to be too wrapped up in the fact that Clinton is a woman.
Yes, the United States needs a female president. But it’s possible that Clinton is not the right one.
That’s because gender isn’t the only issue in this campaign. There are all types of reforms, policies and procedures. Clinton is more than just a woman. Emphasizing Clinton’s gender completely disregards her stance on the issues. Her gender is extraneous. It’s one facet of her, and it doesn’t define who she is or what she stands for.
Just being a woman in a high-ranking political position doesn’t make someone a feminist. If all women were supposed to vote for other women regardless of politics, then the real battle would be between Clinton and Republican candidate Carly Fiorina. And what a one-sided race that would be.
If someone doesn’t support Clinton, it generally means they don’t support her political stance, not her gender.
Steinem and Albright’s message should have been, “Vote for Hillary! Also, she’s a woman!” and not, “Vote for Hillary because she’s a woman!” Clinton being a woman is just a bonus.
And women shouldn’t be discussed in this election like they’re part of a mindless third party. The newsworthiness of this event discounts the fact that women have the capacity to choose whom to vote for. They obviously have more sentience than to vote for someone in the name of lust.
It’s easy to put women’s issues on Clinton, even though every other candidate else should be focusing on women too. Feminism naturally attaches itself to Clinton’s campaign because she’s a woman, but it’s not like Sanders is anti-woman. In fact, both candidates’ stances on gender-related policies are essentially the same. There’s no place for an argument when both Clinton and Sanders have feminist-friendly policies.
Feminism is so broad that campaigning too heavily on a feminist platform is pointless. Some voters may consider Clinton the ultimate feminist, while others may say her version of feminism is too shallow.
This conflict also shows a generational divide within feminism. Older feminists may place more significance on having a female president than younger feminists, and may endorse Clinton for that very reason. Steinem and Albright should’ve considered the different values between young and old female voters before they spoke.
Nowadays, feminism is so much more than just female empowerment. The definition of feminism is now stretching to encompass all sorts of new traits like race, socioeconomic class and queer theory. This ain’t your grandma’s feminism, and it’s not the feminism Clinton is banking on.
At its simplest core, the foundation of feminism is liberation and equality for all genders. Women shouldn’t be shamed for not voting for a woman. They should do what they want, and feel fine doing it.
and no less a strong female personality such as Susan Sarandon ( who survived the horrors of Frankfurter’s castle) says”just because I have one(female sex organ), doesn’t mean I have to vote for Hillary”. Good for her- men have been admonished not to think with their dongs for years, still we often do) but women maybe haven’t heard the similar warning as much and here it is from a credible source, tee hee hee.