Originally posted by Bardock42
Steinem's comments are stupid and sexist (and it is ironic that Maher, who tends to be a bigot in many areas, is the one to point it out), however it is indicative of the split in opinion between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists, so not totally surprising.
Steinem on why many younger women do not support Clinton as much as older women:
"I mean, first of all, women get more radical as we get older, because . . . I don't mean to overgeneralize . . . but men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as the age, and women get more radical because they lose power as they age.
So it's kind of not fair to measure most women by the standard of most men because they're going to get more activist as they get older.
And when you're young, you're thinking, 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie, or you know . . .'"
If anything, that statement is ageist, not sexist. It also has the benefit of being true.
Younger women, who are experiencing the height of their societal power, are more insulated from the effects of sexism, and less concerned with feminist issues.
Marion Just, who has been a political science professor at Wellesley College for 45 years, said, "The question, I think, is how concerned [young women are] about having a woman elected to the presidency. This generation has a rather optimistic worldview, which is probably not deserved by the way things have been going for women in this country."
The flippant, "Where are the boys," remark has less to do with sexuality, and more to do with optimistic young women who do not feel the burden of sexism, identifying power, in this case young men, and siding with it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
One comparison that I think was pretty apt is that Hillary Clinton has a bit of the same vibe that Nixon did. Disregarding that Nixon turned out to be a crook/criminal, while having an excellent track record and lots of experience he also had a quality that made him untrustworthy to many people.
Thirty years and millions of dollars of Republican attacks do not hurt either. All because she is a woman who did not know her place. She dared, as First Lady, to do something substantive for the American people, by proposing a universal health care plan, instead of being content to pick out China patterns. And the attacks on her character have not stopped since.
There is also an undercurrent of sexism, which Steinem also addresses:
"But there is a deep reason, I think, with women often . . . because we are mostly raised by women, we associate female authority with childhood emotionality, irrationality . . . we see men's authority later, and it seems more rational and appropriate to the outside world.
We will really only be able to recognize human talent in all of its forms when men are raising children as much as women are and women are in the public world as much as men are."
Many people feel infantilized by female authority.
Mark Joseph Stern adds:
"In any nominating race featuring a female candidate, there will always be a male alternative whose gender allows him to do everything his female opponent cannot.
[In 2008,] Clinton was boxed in completely: If she stuck with her tough-minded pragmatism, she would continue to be depicted as an unlikeable shrew. (Fox News: 'When Barack Obama speaks, men hear "Take off for the future!" When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear "Take out the garbage!"'😉 If she campaigned on her emotions like Obama, she would be mocked mercilessly as weak (at best) or manipulative (at worst) by her foes in the press.
This time around, Clinton changed her tune. Aware that her tough demeanor put off some voters, she presented herself as a positive, cheerful pragmatist. “A progressive who likes to get things done.” A warrior for the middle class—but a pleasant and amiable one, not a calculating establishment politician. This, too, made Clinton an easy target for her opponents in the media. By attempting to seem genuine, the theory went, Clinton proved herself to be a fraud: Anyone who had to try to seem genuine could not possibly be genuine.
In stepped Sanders: Brash, no-nonsense, straight-talking, uncompromisingly liberal. (Or so he liked to claim: In actuality, Sanders has a spotty record on gay rights and a terrible record on guns.) Oh, and he’s a man. Democrats flocked to him as a more progressive alternative to Clinton, despite the fact that his legislative strategy hinges on a “political revolution” that will apparently involve Republicans instantly dematerializing upon his inauguration. He and Clinton have mostly minor policy disputes, but Sanders is heralded as a true progressive, even though his most liberal proposals are politically dead in the water.
Still, Sanders’ angry populist demagogue shtick goes over extraordinarily well with young liberals, especially white ones, who are weary of horse-trading incremental change. As Rebecca Traister recently noted, Clinton would be committing political suicide if she were equally loud and indignant and unkempt and fiery. 'No one likes a woman who yells loudly about revolution,' Traister wrote. Hillary is, once again, boxed in by gender politics—and once again, a male alternative has swept in to claim her prize.
. . . And the key question for Democratic voters . . . is whether they will allow themselves to be so wooed by Sanders’ gendered appeal that they abandon the woman who seemed poised to make history."