Gloria Steinem Makes A Dishonest Apology For Telling The Truth

Steinem

If Gloria Steinem had integrity at all, she would have greeted the criticism over her undoubtedly accurate remarks about young women and politics by saying, “Oh, please. Isn’t feminism past the stage of treating reality like heresy yet?”

But no.

Steinem was discussing Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sanders. When Maher noted the Vermont senator’s popularity with young women, Steinem responded with her theory that women get more “radical” as they get older.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie,” she said. “Now if I said that… you’d swat me,” Maher replied,to which the “Ms.” founder insisted, “No, I wouldn’t!”

Of course, she was desperately making excuses for Hillary, who rots everyone she touches. Steinem disgraced herself  when she chose  to make excuses for Mr. Clinton, reversing her previous support for women who yielded to greater power and succumbed to predatory bosses. When then-President Clinton’s sexual harassment habits finally got him in trouble, Steinem denied that it was harassment at all. On Maher’s show, her intent was to avoid saying that young women quite appropriately reject the cynical feminism of Hillary, who now claims to champion the cause of victims of sexual assault while she knowing rode the coattails of one to power.  Once again facing the dilemma of having to choose between her alleged beliefs and a Clinton, she again threw women under the bus, though this time, she had some truth on her side: yes, there are times in most normal young women’s lives that boys are more important than politics. What a shocking revelation.  And now, a musical interlude…

Where was I?

Oh, right, Gloria…

So not being able to give the real reason a lot of women are supporting Bernie, silly as he is, rather than lying, tired, fake-feminist Hillary, and somehow extracting herself from the politically incorrect observation in radical feminist circles that girls like boys, Steinem spun a sort-of apology of stunning mendacity:

“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.”

Let’s unpack this monstrosity, shall we?

“In a case of talk-show interruptus,”

What is that supposed to mean? It alludes to coitus interruptus, I get that, but what does making a statement on a talk show that lets you say anything you want to have to do with a couple being interrupted in the middle of having sex? Steinem wrote this, it wasn’t just a botched spoken flourish.  Whatever it is, it’s incoherent.

“I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently…”

A lie. She didn’t misspeak. She said exactly what she intended and meant. We know that because she doubled down when Maher suggested that she would call him a sexist for saying the same thing.

“…and apologize for what’s been misinterpreted as implying young women aren’t serious in their politics.”

Got that? It’s the fault of everyone else who misinterpreted her! “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie” really means…wait, what else could it possibly mean other than that young women tend to place boys higher on their priority list than choosing a lying sexual assault-enabler and influence peddling Wall Street crony over a sincerely deluded Eugene V. Debs wannabe?

Nothing, that’s what else.

“What I had just said on the same show was the opposite…”

It wasn’t “the opposite.” Young women can still be interested in politics and be more interested in sex. I have always been passionate about baseball. That doesn’t mean that baseball hasn’t had to yield to higher priorities from time to time.

“…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.”

“Look! A puppy!”  To suck up to the young women choosing to be offended by Steinem acknowledging facts of human nature and sexuality, Steinem is changing the subject, pointing away from the issue, and for good measure, making a dishonest, but popular, argument about the women’s income “gap.” All studies show that women on average earn less money primarily because they work fewer years, fewer hours, and enter different fields. A female lawyer who joins a firm and works in the same practice area as a male attorney for the same number of years in succession will not earn a million dollars less than her male counterpart, or anything close. If, however, she chooses family law (as more women do), and he chooses corporate litigation (as more men do), then the earnings differential will be significant. That woman will have nothing whatsoever to be “mad as hell about.”  That was a choice. Gloria’s pro-choice, I hear.

“Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.”

Wait, wasn’t the question why they were gravitating to Bernie?

On the Apology Scale, this was a #9:

9. Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not (“if my words offended, I am sorry”). Another variation: apologizing for a tangential matter other than the act or words that warranted an apology.

24 thoughts on “Gloria Steinem Makes A Dishonest Apology For Telling The Truth

  1. Why do young (and old) women support Sanders over Clinton? It has nothing to do with girls liking boys, it is simply that he seems more honest and sincere and they want what he is promising. The older, more jaded, less idealistic women just know even if he won, he wouldn’t be able to make those radical changes. The president is not an island and the Obama administration is a prime example of how much the House and Senate and Supreme Court can hinder any aspirations for change a president has. If either Trump or Sanders were to win, they would be so hobbled by the Judicial and Legislative branches that they would accomplish little to nothing of what they promised.

    Older female Democrats are a little more savvy to the workings of the political machinery…they also probably remember the relative good times of the Clinton era. So they are more likely to vote Hillary even if they like Sanders more.

    • “The president is not an island and the Obama administration is a prime example of how much the House and Senate and Supreme Court can hinder any aspirations for change a president has.”

      This is utter crap, Lisa, sorry. If a President refuses to work with Congress, compromise, make deals, make friends across the parties, and has no negotiation or collaboration skills and is too much of a narcissist to accept responsibility and accountability, then the system will never work. Obama had majorities in both Houses for two full years. The Supreme Court has been mostly supportive—Obamacare survived (though it shouldn’t have); gay marriage was upheld. The Court has a duty to block unilateral dictating with Congressional consent—I’m not sure where you think SCOTUS has been that great a problem. The problem is the incompetent in the White House.

      Do those women really WANT Sanders’ “changes” to go through? Free college? Free health care? Massive tax increases and an out of control debt? Do they really think they are feasible and responsible, and that small, passive, Scandinavian nations with no international obligations and homogeneous populations are models for the US? Do you?

    • “The president is not an island and the Obama administration is a prime example of how much the House and Senate and Supreme Court can hinder any aspirations for change a president has. If either Trump or Sanders were to win, they would be so hobbled by the Judicial and Legislative branches that they would accomplish little to nothing of what they promised.”

      The language used throughout this gem betrays the folly of the discontent that so many people have with our system. You do know that our system was designed for the President to be the one hobbling the legislative branch’s aspirations for change. For the express purpose of tempering any short passion that could enact disastrous laws.

      The fact that more and more people are appealing to the role of the president as the source of change and see the congress as an impediment is very concerning.

  2. Come on, anyone who would want the job of President has to be a megalomaniac. Those who would really be best for the job wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Who would do that to their family? Who wants that kind of scrutiny, danger, constant criticism and the hassles of having the Secret Service shadow your every move? Not anyone sane and balanced.

    Obamacare came through a mere shadow of what it was conceived as. There was a definite blockading by Congress of the majority of what Obama wanted to do. And if we think Obama had problems – Trump or Sanders would have a lot more. Even fellow Republicans can’t stand Trump and Sanders is just too much change that the slow moving political machinery is not ready for yet. Corporations do virtually own many, if not most of the politicians in the House and Senate, they will pull their strings. And Socialist is still a dirty word in this country.

    I would have liked to see Elizabeth Warren run. But I think she’s possibly too sane for that.

    And yes, I really do think those women (and men) really want those changes to go through. A lot of folks are tired of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle disappearing. I think they look at Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Japan and Australia and figure life doesn’t look so terrible in those places, so maybe they are ready to try something different. No form of government is perfect. There are strengths and weaknesses inherent in all. I think these folks, as evidenced by supporters of Sanders, are just ready to try something different.

    • “I would have liked to see Elizabeth Warren run. But I think she’s possibly too sane for that.”

      Tee. Hee.

      Hiawatha is less electable than either Hillary or Bernie, She’s like… Bernie without the credibility, or Hillary without the backers. But I believe you believe that.

    • You do realize don’t you that in socialist countries the rich get richer and the poor get poorer… Don’t you? You do realize that the unethical stifling of competition and unethical protection of the politically connected that you find in socialist countries is precisely why socialism doesn’t lead to prosperity…. You do realize that whether we like t or not, we live in a socialist country now… Right? And you wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and middle just disappears…

    • Dear Lisa,

      My wife and I have been living in The Netherlands for the last two years where my wife is working for a multi-national. If you think living in a European socialist country is ideal, you should come on over and see things for yourself. Suffice it to say, It’s not all sweetness and light. If you think the U.S. is a rat race, come on over here and see what living in a rat cage is like.

    • “A lot of folks are tired of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle disappearing.”

      I like when people state this, and just move on without clarifying why the middle class is shrinking, leaving the implication that the reduction is due to average Janes/Joes becoming part of the lower class. Not true.

      From Reason.com: “It is true that Pew’s analysis shows that the number of households that fit within their categorization of middle class has shrunk by 11 percentage points since 1971. It is true that the proportion of households that are classified as lower class has increased from 25 percent to 29 percent. But it is also true that the proportion of households that are classified as upper class has increased from 14 percent to 21 percent.

      That is to say, part of the reason that the middle class is disappearing is that they are succeeding and jumping to the next bracket. And a greater number of them are moving up than moving down. Be wary of the assumption that the drop in the middle class is a sign of a crisis.”

      http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/10/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-th

      • You asked what they are thinking, what their motivation is, you didn’t ask for an analysis of the various merits and problems with those reasons and their relative validity or invalidity, again much is a subjective thing.

      • I think that’s a partial answer, Chris. The main complaint I hear out of the middle class is that the incomes — salaries, benefits, profits, small business choices — are shrinking while expenses such as higher education, rental, home prices and such rise seemingly exponentially. At the same time and in spite of ubiquitous hand-held devices, communication is disappearing (if you think not; try finding the “complaint department” of any corporation, much less dealing with it: AT&T is a good bad example). The underlying complaint I hear is of (albeit unrealistic) diminished and dashed expectations, particularly from contemporaries — that is, crochety old people like myself. To some extent, these are just the detritus of our misspent lives. The promises, spoken and unspoken, of the end of our parents’ Depression, the Post-War Era, the Great Society, the Moon Walk (both of them) and the Other Post-War Era were all believed. There is real fear (somewhat driven by Hollywood’s favorite apocalyptic visions) that this generation’s young people “will not have anything left” or . . . be overrun by zombies. Find me some optimism. Go ahead; I dare you!

  3. Jack,
    I have a few short questions regarding your post about which I am still unclear:

    -Are young women gravitating to Bernie Sanders because of men?
    -Or was Gloria Steinem incorrect about why they flock to Bernie but correct in suggesting that some young women prioritize sex over politics?
    -Or both?
    -Why do (you think) the liberal boys flock to Bernie?
    -Do men also prioritize sex over politics too?
    -More than women? Less? The same?

    Hope you’re well.

    • “-Are young women gravitating to Bernie Sanders because of men?
      -Or was Gloria Steinem incorrect about why they flock to Bernie but correct in suggesting that some young women prioritize sex over politics?”

      I think, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Jack was alluding to the idea that as women get older, they get more radical. David Packman had an interesting take on this… He said something to the tune of that there’s an old saying: “There’s nothing more heartless than a young conservative or brainless as an old liberal.” And made the connection that as men get older, they generally amass some amount of wealth and power, and are interested in preserving it, where the argument could be made in reverse for women, where women have an amount of sexual power, and as age, beauty and childbearing ability fade, they lose an amount of power, and so are more interested in seeing the system change. It’s perhaps telling that in Steinem’s world, supporting a woman over a socialist is ‘radical’, but there it is.

      -Why do (you think) the liberal boys flock to Bernie?

      I think young liberals in general vote for Bernie because young liberals are idealistic. They like the idea of socialism, because it seems fair and just, but don’t have the frame of reference to realize that it doesn’t work well in real world situations. Bear in mind: young men and women favor Bernie in almost the same proportions, there isn’t necessarily a gendered split here, It was Steinem that said that the young women were horny and sex crazed, I think it’s up to her to prove that.

      -Do men also prioritize sex over politics too?
      -More than women? Less? The same?

      No, we don’t. Perhaps we’ve never had to. For various reasons men have always made up the majority of political choices, and so we’ve never really seen it as an issue. I wonder if that weren’t true, and if women made up the majority of historical candidates, if we’d feel differently. I’d like to think not, but it’s qualia.

      Or now that women are breaking into politics is it going to be an issue? I reject on it’s face that the reason Hillary gets the hell she does is merely because she’s a woman. That’s the mewling chorus of people too timid to give a hard long look at their candidates. But is some of the flack Hillary gets because she’s a woman? I think she’s made so much political hay out of her vagina she could build a house to hang out in with her Goldman Sachs buddies until the big bad Trump blows it down again, so I don’t think it’s possible to separate her bad ideas from her gender the same way it might be possible for say… Mary Fallin, Nikki Hayley, or Susana Martinez.

      • Humble,
        I don’t mind or disagree with your commentary, but they’re also completely irrelevant. I read/post here solely to hear Jack’s take on things.. The reason I seldom comment on your posts or we seem to talk past each other is because I never read them.

        You may be an intelligent, interesting person, but you’re not who I’m here to see.

  4. It is amazing what the media will label and headline as an apology. I suspect “crisis managers” tell their clients when they’re in a bind: “Oh just put anything out there. It doesn’t matter if it makes any sense and you don’t have to mean it. Just put ‘apology’ in there somewhere and you’re good to go. The media will take it and run with it and you’ll be good as new.”

  5. Gloria was wrong in both the original statement and the apology. First, while it IS true that women become more radical as they get older, her thesis would support more college age women supporting Hillary, not Bernie, because Bernie is the far more radical candidate. By comparison, Hillary is mainstream. Thus, Gloria’s definition of radical appears to = women must vote for other females. This might be a 70’s view of feminism, but it is not a modern one.

    Older females — even though we are more radical when it comes to demanding equality of treatment and other social issues — tend to support Hillary because she has a far more realistic chance of winning against the Republican nominee in November. She also knows the ropes in DC (even if you dislike her) and would be a more competent President than Bernie.

    The apology is just nonsense.

  6. Gloria Steinem lost all credibility about 30 years ago. She is old news. She is an icon from the 1960s. If she’s all Hillary can drag out to defend her, then Hillary is even worse off than she seems to be. At least I hope so.

  7. Wasn’t Steinem the same person who said “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”? I find it interesting that the supposedly moderate candidate is trotting out the far radical fringe of feminism. Meanwhile, apparently fmr SecState Albright has turned into Phyllis Shafly, telling women they’re going to go to hell if they don’t do as their ‘betters’ tell them.

    I think the disconnect is that women of my generation don’t think in terms of 2nd-wave feminism, the way women of Hillary’s generation do. This goes into Beth’s point, that 70’s feminism and modern feminism have a big gulf between them. Most women AND men of my generation are feminist in the sense of wanting equality, but in many parts of our lives equality has already been achieved. Fewer things are ascribed to sexism than to life simply being unfair, to everyone, and modern feminism is a consolidation of gains rather than a revolution against some evil ‘patriarchy’, at least outside of the liberal arts colleges. It’s not a form of 70’s identity politics – it’s economic issues such as maternity leave, the balance of family and career, and simply debates of how to use the freedoms won by earlier feminists.

    This is really an example of how destructive identity politics can be – feminists like Steinem see the world in a binary us vs them, and don’t realize that their battles have been won. Thus, any person who doesn’t subscribe entirely to their ideology is seen as the enemy, even if they agree on most points.The radical wing of feminism is still fighting the battle when everyone else on their side has planted the victory banners and started burying the bodies.

Leave a Reply to Chase Davidson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.