We have previously discussed the bizarre treatment of young women who have turned to Bernie Sanders with other young people in unprecedented numbers. Democratic and feminist leaders have increasingly treated those women as ignorant, naive or disloyal. However the most shocking and sexist statement came from feminist icon Gloria Steinem who told Bill Maher on Friday night that young women are simply looking for boys and the “boys are with Bernie.” In the meantime, with Hillary Clinton next to her, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that women supporting Sanders should go to hell. Why? These are women who are refusing to be sexist and simply support Clinton because she is a women. Isn’t that what the gender revolution was about? Many young women have been polled and say that they view Clinton as dishonest and the very personification of the establishment. One can certainly contest those views but the idea that women should be damned or dismissed for not supporting a woman should seem . . . well . . . sexist. Moreover, I fail to see how any of this is helping change any minds among young women.
Steinem triggered a firestorm when, after being asked about the heavy lead of Sanders among younger women, said “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.” This is like repeating the long-standing insult that women just go to college for husbands. Even as a joke, it would be tasteless but, in this context, reflects the growing divide between older feminists and women between 18 and 30.
Not to be outdone Albright continued with, “just remember: there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Really? Does that mean supporting Carly Fiorina or someone like Sarah Palin? What is fascinating is that these young women are looking beyond gender and they are critical of what they see in Clinton on the issues, including issues not directly linked or beneficial to them. Clinton responded to these comments by laughing in appreciation.
There seems to be a rising level of guilt treatment or open contempt by older feminists for young women in failing to fall blindly into line behind Clinton. Younger women have proven far more skeptical including in response to Clinton’s statement that she cannot be considered the “establishment” in the race because she is a woman. The campaign is clearly pushing this line to press young women but it seems remarkably heavy handed and insulting to me. There are legitimate reasons to oppose (and legitimate reasons to support) Hillary, who has insisted that she is running not as the best woman but the best leader. Many (not all) younger woman has found Sanders more compelling as a leader. Yet, they are facing these insulting from older women for coming to what they view as the wrong decision in not supporting a woman.
What do you think?
Source: The Wrap
109 thoughts on “Steinem: Young Women Supporting Sanders Are Just Looking For Men”
These women are not representative of all older feminists! Speaking as an older feminist myself, I support Bernie, support young women (and others) who support Bernie, and think Steinem and Albright should be ashamed of their comments.
Your ignorance about the Constitution is staggering.
What do you suppose the purpose of the Supreme Court is, if not to interpret the Constitution? Never mind, please don’t bother to answer because I’m sure you know what Madison intended, what he meant, what he thought, and what he wanted to happen 200 years hence.
You must be getting your magical knowledge from the likes of David Barton, the known fabricator of American History.
Your constant pronouncements about natural law combined with your insistence of calling everyone treasonous and calling for their death, is not only insane, it’s pretty damn creepy as well.
I suppose it’s a pipe dream, but one can always dream: “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.”
Jen – Suppose they gave a war and nobody came is a logical impossibility. If somebody gives a war, at least the people giving the war would show up.
Paul Schultze “Hildeard – if you read my posts i said the women inn the military should be segregated and fight in their own units. Then they are only fighting off the lesbians.”
That’s pretty funny actually but some of those lesbians might be as brutal as any man, in fact possibly more so. I would say RAPE is probably conducive to keeping up the violent agenda of kill or be killed. Consensual sex on the other hand would leave soldiers with little interest in war. Whoops! No more violent aggression!
Segregating the (heterosexual) sexes serves that purpose nicely, does it not? Why do you think they allow/encourage pornography in the military? Remember Marilyn Monroe visiting the troops? Stoke those hormones, provide no possibility of a healthy expression of same, dehumanize the enemy and send them out to KILL for their benevolent masters. How terrifying is that? And what do these normally ‘good’ boys do when the ‘enemy’s’ village is conquered? Why rape and pillage of course.
There are 2 things we need to cure the disease we call ‘war”:
1.) Eliminate all medals of honor, purple hearts, etc. Absolutely no honoring of anything or anyone involved in war.
2.) Eliminate the idea that eugenics/genocide (killing massive numbers of beings like oneself) is an entirely necessary evil employed to ironically save humanity/Earth.
There’s a reason why segregation of sexes would be a good idea.
1) Gender-integrated units fail against all male units, according to an USMC study.
2) Sexual intercourse among males and females on the battlefield would be greatly reduced.
3) Women won’t have to get uppity with a male commander; neither would men get uppity with a female commander.
4) Rapes won’t happen that often. It would become incredibly difficult for men or women in the military to rape one another when they’re isolated and among only their own sexes. However, I can’t say anything about those who are gay.
Paul Schultze. Regarding your woefully unenlightened view point on women in the military I thought you might be interested in some excerpts from an article I read today. Then again, this is coming from a person WITHOUT CO STATUS so….never mind!.
“Seeking to implement the most effective methods of preventing suicide by female military veterans, the House passed a bill authored by Rep. Julia Brownley by voice vote Tuesday.
WOMEN VETERANS ARE SIX TIMES AS LIKELY TO COMMIT SUICIDE as non-veteran women, according to studies conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The National Institute on Mental Health also has conducted studies in the past two years pointing to the alarming trend…….
A January 2015 study by three academic experts attempted to identify the causes of female veteran suicide victims, including THE PREVALENCE OF PRIOR SEXUAL TRAUMA. The article ANALYZED DATA FROM 173,969 SUICIDES IN 23 STATES across the country …..and found that, from 2000 to 2010, suicide rates for non-veteran females rose 13 percent while it rose 40 percent for veteran females. Female suicides reached a rate of 5.4 per 100,000 women, while female veterans suicides reached 34.6 per 100,000.
…..ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES have been shown to increase the risk of a suicide attempt and may serve as motivating factors for selecting military service — essentially providing an escape route from suboptimal family environments,” the authors, which included Bossarte, wrote.”
So women may go into the military to get out of a bad situation and find themselves in PURE HELL. This is the result of feminism’s big lie; WOMEN ARE THE SAME AS MEN. They are so incredibly stupid that they can’t see that they were EQUAL all along but DIFFERENT.
A woman would have to destroy any semblance of femininity in order to even imagine that joining the armed forces would be a good idea. And with 90% of the Armed Forces being men who are not exactly BRIGHT or big on self control, what did they think was going to happen? Big brother was going to protect them?
I don’t know but it’s obvious you’re into it.
Hildeard – if you read my posts i said the women inn the military should be segregated and fight in their own units. Then they are only fighting off the lesbians.
John “What do they teach these days, incoherence and direct treason? ” Yes, John.
John : ““Angela Merkel Got Angry When Pope Francis Called Europe a ‘Barren Woman’”
Your statement brings to mind a quote from my favorite wise man Osho about ‘Democratic Socialism’.
“t would be useful to understand a few things about democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms; it is a combination of two words that contradict each other. It is like saying “A BARREN WOMAN’S SON”, which is again a contradiction in terms. If a woman has a son she could not be barren; and if she is barren she could not have a son.
There is no grammatical mistake in the composition of the phrase “a barren woman’s son”, but it cannot be true. In the same way there cannot be a thing like democratic socialism; it is just an empty phrase, a meaningless cliche. Why?
Democracy and socialism, as socialism is currently known cannot go together, because the one cancels the other. Because democracy has to be destroyed in the very process of bringing socialism, the so-called socialism cannot be brought without murdering democracy. And it is necessary to understand why democracy will have to go for socialism to come. ”
“Critiquing the Constitution is not treason…”
Oh Geez! Now the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say what it says.
What do they teach these days, incoherence and direct treason?
Infringing the right to bear arms occurs constantly throughout this nation. Jerry Brown illegally reduced the capacity of AR-15 magazines as an act of nullification and treason. Similar acts have occurred for centuries. That infringement is a violation of the Constitution. That is treason. That requires prosecution. The penalty for treason in 16th century Britain was Drawing and Quartering.
Last time I checked, the Constitution did not provide for “interpretation” and modification by opponents of America and the Constitution. The Constitution would have been its own death certificate.
James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, 10 amendments, to definitively complete the Constitution. Madison feared further amendment would destroy the very Constitution itself. The goal of “progressives” is to progressively destroy the Constitution and America.
Madison intended amendment for “Clarification” not modification. All men knew that the freedom to speak was innate, natural or God-given. He clarified the pre-existing right to freedom of speech, he did not modify nature.
Paul : CO status? What are you talking about? Furthermore I have no expectations of getting ANY type of status! You must have me confused with someone else or yourself perhaps. 🙂
Paul C. Shultze “I am all for women on the front lines. Combat for everyone.”
No feminine woman or feminine man for that matter would consider putting themselves in a position to murder unless it was self defense and deliberately putting oneself in harm’s way via the military doesn’t apply. If women over 18 are going to be drafted to “serve the greater good” there will be a helluva lot of conscientious objectors. That is if the authorities of the collective will allow it. There is a bill right now waiting for the ‘right event’ to do just that…bring back the draft that is.
Hildegard – just because you claim CO status does not mean you are going to get it.
Critiquing the Constitution is not treason. It’s why the founders included a process for amending it: they knew they didn’t have it perfect and they knew things were going to change over time. As they have. Lighten up.
Also, your understanding of the second amendment is historically inaccurate and incredibly shallow. The second amendment was a response to Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and had nothing whatsoever to do with empowering the citizens. It was, in fact, just the opposite, a way for the fearful government to arm militias to put down these citizen rebellions. Read a book.
phillyT – the first 10 amendments were passed and sent to the states in 1789, finally ratified Dec. 15, 1791. The Whiskey Excise Tax was passed by Congress in 1791. Shay’s Rebellion was put down by a military force rather than a militia. You might want to re-read your sources.
“The Constitution is NOT holy scripture. It is full of mistakes.”
Pure Abject Treason.
The Constitution is far better than holy scripture; it is the law with dominion.
“The principles according to which we conduct the affairs of people.”
“Constitution For Dummies”
noun: constitution; plural noun: constitutions
1. a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.
verb: govern; 3rd person present: governs; past tense: governed; past participle: governed; gerund or present participle: governing
1. conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
“he was incapable of governing the country”
“British/American History For Dummies”
Great Britain colonized North America and introduced slavery. Slavery began with the sale of tribe members by African Chiefs to Arab slave traders. Great Britain conducted slavery for 250 years. The U.S. Constitution inexorably lead to the abolition of slavery 72 years after its ratification as a consequence of its thesis of freedom (George Washington’s slaves were freed in his will upon his death in 1799).
“Amendments For Dummies”
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..”
A separate, distinct dependent clause providing a rationale.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
An independent clause providing a law as amendment to the Constitution.
I hope you enjoyed reading of the Founders intent for “immigration.” Looks like they had some severe restrictions. Did you ever read their words, “…to ourselves and our posterity,..?” I wonder what those words mean. I wonder if words have meaning. I’m gonna take a guess that “ourselves” means ourselves. And that “our posterity” means our posterity. You don’t suppose the Founders wrote those words so that they would be ignored, do you?
You might appreciate this anecdote related to the European birthrate “death spiral.”
“Pope Francis is right about this. A birth rate of 2.1 children per woman generates a stable population. According to the Daily Telegraph, several European countries are below that: Germany (1.3), Poland (1.3), Italy (1.4), Spain (1.4) and Russia (1.4). More people are dying in Europe each year than are being born. The consequences are frightening.”
“Angela Merkel Got Angry When Pope Francis Called Europe a ‘Barren Woman'”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel placed an angry phone call to Pope Francis last year after he compared Europe to “a barren woman,” the pontiff revealed for the first time this week. “She was a bit angry because I had compared Europe to a barren woman, incapable of producing children,” Francis said in an interview with Italy’s Corriere della Sera.
“She asked me if I really thought Europe could no longer make children. I told her yes it can, and many, because Europe has strong and deep roots.” Francis added that Europe “in the darkest moments it has always shown itself to have unexpected resources.” Merkel’s testy phone call came after a November 2014 speech Francis delivered to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Germany.
In his address, the Pope criticized a “haggard” Europe which he charged was “now a grandmother, no longer fertile and vibrant.”
We can only guess if they are referring to Germans or “refugees.” Do you think “refugees” are officially referred to as “Germans” in Germany. I wonder what the percentage of “refugees” rises to in neighborhoods before the Germans move out. What do you think? 10% “refugees,” 25% “refugees,” 50% “refugees,” 75% “refugees,” or 90% “refugees,” before the Germans move out of the neighborhood? A good statistician must be able to track the “refugeeists,” huh? We sure don’t want any FREEDOM around Germany, huh?
Thanks Jen. The support is much appreciated!
By the way, people, did you know that Gloria Steinem is a perfect anagram for “Merit Gasoline”? Coincidence? I don’t think so!
And for the love of Mike, what is this obsession with sussing out the hidden intentions of the framers? Once again, the Constitution is great, it was a great effort by smart men doing the best they could with what they knew at the time. The Constitution is NOT holy scripture. It is full of mistakes. Remember slavery? Remember leaving women out of the equation? And the sick lack of clarity in the second amendment to the Bill of Rights? No doubt if they were all here today, and able to look at modern America they would derive a different document.
So, as interesting as it is to know what Hamilton was writing in his diary, why not use the brains WE have to sort out what makes sense in this day and age. No one gets it right for all time, it’s not possible. We know things they never even dreamed of. Pay your respects and move on.
I like the cut of your jib. Your comments are thoughtful and one of the voices of reason in a morass of archaic attitudes. You’re a good egg. 🙂
Comments are closed.