politics and the inability to see beyond gender and race and inability to recognize political records that favor the few over the many; war over peace; profit over the biosphere; and the beggaring of the working class. LOL is an appropriate reaction - so would the throwing of a dornick.

Oxfam has estimated that the global 1% owns as much wealth as the 99% of humanity. Thanks for his(or is it His?) "intellect and gift for unifying."

I keep hearing what a good president Obomber was.... When I ask what did he do that impresses you - he stood up to rethug obstruction (he did?), He's black, he has great soaring rhetoric (which is only rhetorical)...Obummer Care (the insurance scam?)...

I remind them he hasn't jailed a banker, he escalated wars and droning (of even US citizens), he won't stand up for standing rock, he supervised the militarization of our police,... and on and on.

The same kind of Great president Hellery would make. Steinem lives in the 1% bubble where Obomber is great and the $hill is better. Maybe she needs to find a boyfriend like she accused Bernie supporters doing. I have no respect for the neolibs!

as a CIA agent; directed a small foundation for them.

She was inserted into the growing feminist movement to derail it and turn it in into a tool of corporate and elite influence. Ask yourselves, who funded her magazine, and inserted it onto drugstore magazine racks all across the country?

She's been in bubble wrap for the past 4 decades.

She's fighting a battle for her class and generation's sake, which simply doesn't fit the reality of the vast majority of the rest of us.

I know what my 21 year old daughter would tell her, but I'll keep it to myself. Hint though: Two words. First one starts with an F.

Over at Hullabaloo the owner recommended an article which was similar in content to Steinem's fallacy. The author said that the problem with Clinton's loss was that because people saw all Clinton's coziness with Wall Street, the lockstep endorsement of her by Dem insiders, gift of a Senate seat, etc., and they lost sight of the fact that Clinton was an outsider: given that she was a women she couldn't possibly be an insider the author concluded.

It's a sad statement of current feminism that some of it's visible proponents are horrified when a prominent woman was judged by her actions rather than her genetic makeup.

bemoaning Sarah Palin's loss among the electorate. No one insisted she only lost because she was a woman. No one raved at me and blamed me for her loss by accusing me of misogyny and sexism. No, SHE was on team red, so she was dangerous. In fact, I remember quite a few articles on a site that shall remain nameless that laughed and snickered over how craven the Republican party was to put a woman on the ticket--as though we women were stupid enough to vote for her just because of her gender.

But now? Oh, its a whole different issue now-because, you know, Hillary was so QUALIFIED (and a woman and we need to break that last glass ceiling)....*sigh* this crap is getting on my last nerve

When a last nerve is plucked like that, there is usually just enough time to make the bathroom.

this wasn't a script for an SNL skit or something?

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2936-elite-white-feminism-gave-us-trump-...

Excerpts below:

Conservative political savant Karl Rove said this week on Fox News that focus groups conducted with working-class women showed that they didn’t care that Clinton would be the first woman president. And compared to Obama in 2008, Clinton won fewer votes from women, whether they were black, Latina or white.

...But many Americans — whether they voted for Trump, or more likely, stayed home — knew Clinton had long been an integral part of the system that had failed them. Working-class women knew perfectly well that for all Clinton’s “listening tours,” the only listening that mattered took place in conversations with her high-end funders, in the living rooms of the Hamptons and Beverly Hills– or in the Q&A sessions after her $250,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs. In the fall of 2016, she was spending most of her time with the super-rich.

Her tone-deaf campaign didn’t even pretend to transcend such class divisions. Once she had secured the nomination, Clinton offered few ideas about how to make ordinary women’s lives better. That’s probably because what helps the average woman most is redistribution, and Clinton’s banker friends wouldn’t have liked that very much.

...Feminists have to fight Trump, and his violent sexism, racism and, perhaps most urgently, xenophobia and religious intolerance. But we can’t do it with leaders who would rather hobnob with billionaires than fight for ordinary women. A feminism that revels in its identification with people like Clinton – forming groups with names like Pantsuit Nation – is not a feminism that values the lives of most women.

Trump won all white women voters by 53%. More astounding and indicative of Clinton, she lost white working women by 28 points. I think these margins says something about Clinton. Insane isn't it. Trump won the gender and class war. Some brilliant quotes on the subject:

https://www.thenation.com/article/inequality-between-women-is-crucial-to...


The class divisions between women came to a head in the 2016 election, when Big Feminism failed women, big-time. Mainstream feminists sold women a bill of goods, arguing that the election of a woman president would improve the lot of women as a class. Echoing Sheryl Sandberg’s dubious thesis, they claimed that leadership by women will as a matter of course produce gains for all women—though actually, the social science evidence for this claim is mixed at best. There was also a lot of talk about how having a woman president would “normalize” female power.
...
 But it’s not only the Democratic Party that is badly in need of reform. The feminist movement, too, needs to reorient itself. Feminists would be well-advised to ease up on pop culture navel-gazing and corporate pseudo-feminist drivel like Lean In. They need to shift their central focus from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor, which, after all, is the place where most women dwell. A feminism that delivers for working-class women by addressing their material needs could expand feminism’s base and bring about a much-needed feminist revival. A feminism that delivers for working-class women by addressing their material needs could radically expand feminism’s base. And should feminism once again become a vibrant bottom-up mass movement instead of a top-down elite concern, there’s no telling how far it could go.

Hillary Clinton the feminist who refused to support $15/hr and who praised Walmart to high heaven, one of the worst employers of women.

There was a time when Steinem was seen frequently in public on the arm of Henry Kissinger. IIRC, there were pictures in at least one of the major magazines at the time (Life? Look? Saturday Evening Post?) of Steinem in a spaghetti-strap evening gown dining at a restaurant across the table from Kissinger.

I looked for a picture, but had no luck. If anyone can find one, please post it in this thread. Testimonials of memory also welcome.