My vote this election season will go to Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton.
According to comments made earlier this month by feminist trailblazers Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright, this makes me either a boy-crazy political infidel (Steinem) or someone worthy of a special place in hell (Albright). Judging from the reaction these comments received, I apparently am not the only one who felt angry, bemused, belittled, and befuddled by these statements.
Albright appears to have gotten somewhat of a pass for her oft-repeated statement that there is a “special place in hell for women who don’t support other women.”
But Steinem was taken to task on Twitter for her comment, made while speaking to HBO’s Bill Maher earlier this month, “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’”
Young feminist voters created the hashtag #notherefortheboys to let Steinem know just how far off base her comment was.
#Notherefortheboys clearly demonstrated the disconnect between those who gave birth to the second wave of feminism and those who are riding on it today. Slate magazine writer Christina Cauterucci had this to say about the schism:
These unfortunate statements about young women and the backlashes they triggered reveal a common thread between ageism and sexism, which intersect in ways specific to progressive movements. Some older women are convinced that younger women take for granted the struggles that preceded them and aren’t yet wise enough to lead the movement; some younger women believe that their forbearers are out of touch and old-fashioned, hampered by the racism, heterocentrism, and class divides of feminisms past.
Cauterucci is on to something here.
Longtime proponents of women’s rights Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright have experienced some resurgence in the media as of late, but not for defending women’s rights.
Instead, they’ve made headlines for what many are calling anti-feminist views.
Discussing the presidential election in an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem suggested that younger women are voting for Bernie Sanders in an effort to meet boys: “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’”
The outcry against Steinem was immediate, and she later issued an apology
Albright, however, has made no such apology for her statement at a Hillary Clinton rally, that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
Young feminist voters, who in the Democratic party largely support Sanders’ presidential bid, took umbrage at these statements, and an obligatory new hashtag, #notherefortheboys, was born. No one can blame this new generation of feminists for their anger. Steinem’s statement insultingly dismissed young women as too boy-crazy, naïve, and incompetent to have any real understanding of the political process, while Albright’s statement, while one she’s been making for years, used here seemed an explicit attempt to guilt women into voting for Clinton.
You can read the rest of this article at Sojourners, by clicking here.
I am not one to eschew the feminist label. I am a feminist, plain and simple.
But I reject the notion that there is one standard definition of “feminist.” I remember how rejected and misunderstood I once felt in the women’s studies department of my undergraduate institution — so much so, in fact, that I dropped my women’s studies minor a mere one class short of completion. My particular Christian ethics did not jibe with the feminist norm being taught, and many thought me a traitor to the cause.
That was about 15 years ago. In the interim years I’ve learned a lot about popular conceptions of what it means to be a feminist. I’ve realized ideals I once thought immutable are actually cyclical and subject to both minor and major revisions, made by different thought leaders over time. And one current, popular semi-wave of feminism is being led by comedian and actress Amy Schumer.
Schumer’s style falls distinctly under third wave feminism — the main wave we’re riding now — but Schumer has succeeded in taking it to a more popular level, appealing to both men and women alike with her “cool girl
Salon recently dubbed Schumer a potential “feminist savior.” That may be a tough label to live up to, but Schumer gives it all she’s worth. She takes seriously her power to further gender equality, creatively using her Peabody award-winning show, Inside Amy Schumer, to deconstruct and redefine notions of female sexuality, expose the absurdity of “bro” culture, and highlight the injustices and double standards faced by women today.
You can read the rest of today’s post on the “new” (problematic) face of feminism at Sojourners. (Definitely worth a visit, if for no other reason than to check out their beautiful new website!)
Earlier this week, a friend of mine asked, “Have you heard about what happened on Twitter between Rachel Held Evans and The Nines?”
Of course I had.
My online microcosm has been all abuzz with what happened, a Twitter storm of accusatory and angry tweets, as Evans—well known Christian blogger and author—criticized the online leadership conference, The Nines, for having too few women speakers in this year’s line up.
Having four female speakers in a line up of over 100, she wrote, is “not what the church looks like.”
Read the rest of today’s blog post at Christian Feminism Today by clicking here.