Steinem: Young Women Supporting Sanders Are Just Looking For Men

220px-Wheretheboysare220px-G_steinem_2011We 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.

220px-AlbrightmadeleineNot 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”

  1. An excerpt from: Logical: Founders Fathers Intent: The Real Purpose Of The Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement

    “What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”? The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution. What does this tell us?

    That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza,” because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

    Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

    And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work.

    Emer de Vattel (25 April 1714 – 28 December 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work (The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns) which focused largely on the rights and obligations of citizens and states. The Law of Nations has been described as “unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders”.

  2. John “The constitutional rights and freedoms of Americans in California have been nullified by unconstitutional legislation and “legislation from the bench.”

    AGREED with everything you said about ‘The Golden State” and that’s exactly why I am leaving this God forsaken place as soon as humanly possible; hopefully before this time next year. California is the poster child for U.N. Agenda 21 and the New World Order and that’s a fact but only AWAKE people get it.

  3. Paul….there is a difference between drafting women and front line combat. That is what needs to be talked about. But “they” framed the argument….to whit now that women are in combat women be drafted. As a woman i served. I know women can serve and serve well. But the argument of the draft was leap frogged. All along it could have been sure draft women as momma bears to backfill the deployed bases. Thats gone. Now its draft moms to fill the front combat lines. A distinction and difference. And hunters bill is just more delegation of duty despite the constitutions clear command on who ….gets to regulate the military. Hunters bill is well beyond two years and the peoples congress.

    1. J – women who crossed the prairies with their menfolk were just as good a shot as the men. And when attacked by Indians they could shoot just like the men. I am all for women on the front lines. Combat for everyone.

  4. One thing should be pointed out: Steinem is an outed, admitted “former” CIA operative/disinfo agent who started(essentially with CIA money) Ms Magazine, thus launching the ’60s incarnation of the Feminist Movement(while under CIA employ/control). That automatically disqualifies her in my view. Madeline Albright(500,000 children under 5 dying under Iraqi sanctions is acceptable) and her psychopathy is only topped by the person she’s endorsing(“We came, we saw, he died. Hahahaha”), so if you don’t like mass-murdering psychopathic “Feminists”(whose policies strangely murder females), that should disqualify her also. Interestingly, Leslie Stahl was the interviewer both times regarding ’90s Iraqi sanctions, and Libya ” NATO” siege resulting in Gaddafi’s brutal death.

  5. “In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.” Alexander Hamilton


    Thank you for your direct answer. It was illuminating to say the least. You believe Chinese should be called “yellows” as Americans are called “whites.” I like your rational, linear thinking.

    To be clear, America has not undergone “immigration” for the past 5 decades, it has suffered an invasion. The country is overcrowded, the landscape destroyed and the culture balkanized. America did not achieve global hegemony under “balkanization” or “multiculturalism,” in fact and coincidentally, segregation was in effect until the “Great Society” and the “War on Poverty” which is the inflection point into decadence and decline.

    Americans stabilized the population in 1960 by a voluntary reduction in the birthrate to “replacement” level. Liberals, intent on manipulating the vote, and employers were outraged and “voted” against that by imposing unintended, incoherent, counterintuitive, “compulsory” and illegal immigration.

    Allow me to present the immigration positions of the “confused and messed up” Founders and to remind you of the original intent of strict, disciplined, exclusive and effective immigration.

    Thomas Jefferson –

    “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?”

    “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

    Alexander Hamilton

    On the “generous immigration” policy of the Indians:

    “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

    Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended

    “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    George Washington

    contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration,

    “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.”

    “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

    Abraham Lincoln on emigration, reverse “immigration” or necessary compassionate repatriation:

    “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

  6. John, I am afraid you are even more confused and messed up in your thinking than I thought. You chose not to give a direct answer to my query.


    To remind you when any one migrates to the USA (and ALL Europeans are immigrants or the offspring of immigrants) and fulfill the requirements and to become a US citizen; they are (to use a colloquially imperfect but widely used term) Americans. This is NOT limited to European immigrants only – maybe you need to read the US constitution.

    Have a good day.

  7. Hilde
    as a famous editor once said when rejecting a manuscript: “It’s not necessary to eat the whole omelet once you discover the eggs are rotten.” Sorry I couldn’t watch the whole hour plus of that video, but after 20-30 minutes it is so obviously insane I had to stop. I won’t say anything else about it. You’re obviously into it.

    Jim22. No idea what you are talking about. Maybe you should try googling “Fiorina” and “lie” or “liar” and notice how many hundreds of hits you get. Lies at the debates. Lies on TV. Lies at campaign events. It’s non-stop with this woman. If you have anything of actual substance to say, have at it.

  8. You’re spot on, Professor Turley! As a college-educated woman roughly Clinton’s age, I’m appalled by the statements of Clinton, Albright and Steinem. If there is “a place in hell” for anyone, I would suppose it’s well-populated with politicians.

  9. phillyT – “This notion that it’s “time” for a woman to be president is correct, but it should be Elizabeth Warren, not Hillary Clinton. And certainly not any of the loons from the other party, namely professional grifter Palin or compulsive liar Fiorina. I get the desperation of Steinem and Albright wanting to see a woman president in their lifetime, but Clinton has made too many errors in judgement in her career, all vast right wing conspiracy hits aside.”

    This is hilarious. Calling Fiorina a compulsive liar after stating Warren should be the first woman president. Off the reservation Priceless.

    1. Jim22 – personally I think the first female President should be Condi Rice. She thinks she should to Commissioner of the N.F.L.

  10. What the old feminists don’t realize is that their double standard of demanding that no one measure or judge a woman incompetent simply because she is a woman but that all women (and feminist men) must support any candidate who is female when they say so merely because she is a woman. The hypocrisy is self evident. I’m very proud that young people are completely ignoring the “settle for less” attitudes that the old feminists and the establishment crowd are trying to force feed on everyone. They blame sexism for Hillary’s failure to be successful on the Presidential level but it really isn’t sexist at all. She is not a very good candidate nor is she a very likable candidate. Most people whether young or old that support Sanders are doing so because they support his positions and they do not support Hillary’s positions on issue of importance to them. As mentioned in the article, Hillary Clinton is the virtual embodiment of the establishment and that establishment has, via its own nauseating corruption, lost all legitimacy with the public.

  11. John Yes I agree. 1984 is being used not as a warning but as a training manual. I’m just glad someone else here gets how bad it is. On a happier note as a constitution lover have you heard of the CSPOA? These are the true white hats in this country.

    ““We can’t ignore where the Sheriff came from, where this power has come from and that we as deputies and peace officers who have all sworn the same oath and that we stand united in making sure that the people in our counties have individual liberty. I don’t think there is anything in our jobs that we won’t view differently, and I’m talking about even writing tickets or doing checkpoints, roadblocks and anything else that we do in law enforcement. It will all change once we start looking at it through the prism of the Constitution. It is our foundation, my friends. I’ve never built anything in my life, I don’t know how to build a room or a building or a cardboard box but I know this, that if you destroy the foundation, the rest of the building falls.”

    -Sheriff Richard Mack

    The Red Coat List

    Lavoy Finicum would be alive today if he had instead took his protest to a county protected by a CSPOA sheriff.

  12. So Hillary Clinton plans to overcome sexism in politics with a sexist insult against women who support another candidate?

    What more evidence do we need that to Hillary Clinton women’s issues are just a tool to use to manipulate voters – otherwise she doesn’t care about them and she is willing to be just as sexist as any man if it serves her political ambition.

  13. Hildegard, please read this definition of newspeak once again. It is precisely what you stated earlier –
    “…a controlled language created by the totalitarian state…to limit freedom…”

    It’s perfect. It is now. It is America.

    “Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.”

  14. If you can imagine; Ronald Reagan came from and was the governor of California. California is a one-party state. The collectivists and their allies in the judicial branch effected an invasion of California in order to manipulate the vote. Unbridled immigration and growth have overpopulated the state, overcrowded the roadways and made even basics like land and water scarce and inordinately expensive (those public workers unions require lots of tax money from the wealth creators).

    California is a totalitarian collectivist state comprised of entitlement beneficiaries including teachers and public workers unions. The public worker unions aren’t required to produce anything or create wealth, just consume taxes. Welfare and affirmative action are imposed by the government. The right to possess and dispose of private property is gone. The constitutional rights and freedoms of Americans in California have been nullified by unconstitutional legislation and “legislation from the bench.”

  15. Ah yes, John, my friend from around the bend, I stand corrected.

    “In “1984” Orwell introduced us to the words doublethink and newspeak.

    A word he DIDN’T use – but which combines the two – is doublespeak.

    Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite.

    In 1984 when BIG BROTHER and the Party say PEACE they mean WAR, when they say LOVE they mean HATE, and when they say FREEDOM they mean SLAVERY.”

    Kind of like mandating voluntary standards.

  16. Whoops…big error on my last post.

    “2.) The National Assessment Governing Board’s policy MANDATES that the content of the NAEP reflect MANDATORY standards.”

    It should have read:

    “2.) The National Assessment Governing Board’s policy MANDATES that the content of the NAEP reflect VOLUNTARY standards.”

    God I hate all this typing!

  17. Hildegard,

    You may have meant Newspeak.

    “Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.”

  18. Rational Wiki does a starter’s job on breaking down Agenda 21:

    The DailyBeast goes into a little more depth:

    Seriously folks, this is so crazy the John Birch Society walked away from it.

    Glenn Beck is still a believer I guess, but this is un-be-liev-a-ble. Seriously. There is no there, there. Nothing. Nada.

    Believe what you want to believe, I guess, but I ain’t going down this road with you.

Comments are closed.