Steinem defended her relationship to the CIA, saying: “In my experience the agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable.” Steinem also stated that she considered the CIA allies in promoting U.S. government policy against communism during the early Cold War.
i can’t really say that i think crab rave is an inappropriate response to the death of someone who literally worked for the CIA. i think dismissing this sort of thing as just “soft power” “nonviolent” activities is an error too. she played a significant role in neutering the radicalism of the women’s movement in the US, away from class analysis and towards girl boss feminism. that is meaningful harm. and more generally the intellectual struggle and intellectual class war is important, more than a lot of folks give it credit for.
In one of the anti-Gloria Steinem articles that is floating around today there is the quote, “Socialist feminists and radical feminists…like Barbara Ehrenreich…argued consistently that gender liberation without economic liberation was a half-measure…”
Barbara Ehrenreich wrote for Ms. Magazine. She credits her breakthrough as a journalist to a cover story in Ms Magazine, and wrote for them through the late seventies and eighties. She had a column in Ms Magazine where she did write about economic issues, among other things.
Stuff like this is sort of what I’m responding to. You can’t go on and on about the inadequacy of Gloria Steinem and then in your listing of “better” feminists you cite a woman who credits Ms Magazine with her success and notoriety. And not even in a small one off way, she was associated with the magazine pretty closely at both her and the magazine’s height.
And then I’m also responding to the double standard we give certain cultural figures who, despite their extremely egregious mistakes, we essentially elevate to the position of class hero, while others, who are in the end much closer to our positions, we relentlessly attack. Which is maybe deserved, but when seen in the light of our treatment of those much more deserving of such criticism, comes off as insincere.
As I say above and in my original comment, there was a lot to Gloria Steinem and Ms Magazine we’d agree with. While she’s probably been forever tainted by the legacy of liberal feminism, there are economic writings in Ms Magazine. There is anti-imperialism. Steinem was not goose stepping to war in 2003 nor was she in 1991. Ms Magazine articles were making the same points in 2002 regarding the cynical use of women’s treatment by the Taliban as motive for war that we were making on this site in 2021. It’s not all we need more female drone operators. Further, liberal feminism leaves a bad taste in our mouth because we’ve been subject to years and years of epic girlboss feminism, but back in the 70s a huge part of the liberal feminist project was having women not live as essentially wards of their husbands and hey maybe women could get a credit card and own property without their husband’s signature. Those are goals not completely out of step with our own and not the complete den of reaction most of us imagine when we hear “liberal feminism,” even if we wish it could’ve been gone about another way. I mean most of the substantive critiques of Steinem are merely critiques of white feminism and of second wave feminism. The same could be said of Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Frieidan, are we to throw every second wave feminist away because the movement was insufficient? They added something important to the conversation, even if that it enough. The CIA and Gloria Steinem did not create second wave feminism and the cia and Gloria Steinem were not the sole forces pushing it.
So that’s a lot of writing but I hope my point comes across. You write that she was instrumental in neutering radicalism but I disagree with this framing. She wasn’t cynically working against the feminist movement, she was a liberal feminist and far from the only one and there was plenty in her career that was useful and we can single out for praise, and most of what we can criticize is a consequence of liberalism rather than any cynical anti-feminism. Including I’d argue the cia stuff.
OP didn’t really address it in his comment. He identified that critique, but the upshot of the comment appears to come at the end of the prior paragraph:
our actual criticism seems to come down to mere insufficiency
The paragraph about the CIA is pretty meandering, but it appears to say that GS should not be criticized for directly working with the CIA to undermine leftist feminism because DP was a liberal and supported the US?
My own take on OP’s post is similar to what imogen says below. Dolly Parton was a country music singer from East TN, so she was coming out of a world where most figures are outspoken right-wing reactionaries. So having one of the most famous people in that world support LGBT+ and other working class people to some is extremely radical and brave. Like the only accepting relative in a queer and/or leftist person’s family. Gloria Steinham was ostensibly “of” the left, but worked with directly with the CIA to undermine left-wing movements and splinter the feminist movement from the workers movement and feminism is still working to overcome that devastating shift.
Removed by mod
i can’t really say that i think crab rave is an inappropriate response to the death of someone who literally worked for the CIA. i think dismissing this sort of thing as just “soft power” “nonviolent” activities is an error too. she played a significant role in neutering the radicalism of the women’s movement in the US, away from class analysis and towards girl boss feminism. that is meaningful harm. and more generally the intellectual struggle and intellectual class war is important, more than a lot of folks give it credit for.
In one of the anti-Gloria Steinem articles that is floating around today there is the quote, “Socialist feminists and radical feminists…like Barbara Ehrenreich…argued consistently that gender liberation without economic liberation was a half-measure…”
Barbara Ehrenreich wrote for Ms. Magazine. She credits her breakthrough as a journalist to a cover story in Ms Magazine, and wrote for them through the late seventies and eighties. She had a column in Ms Magazine where she did write about economic issues, among other things.
Stuff like this is sort of what I’m responding to. You can’t go on and on about the inadequacy of Gloria Steinem and then in your listing of “better” feminists you cite a woman who credits Ms Magazine with her success and notoriety. And not even in a small one off way, she was associated with the magazine pretty closely at both her and the magazine’s height.
And then I’m also responding to the double standard we give certain cultural figures who, despite their extremely egregious mistakes, we essentially elevate to the position of class hero, while others, who are in the end much closer to our positions, we relentlessly attack. Which is maybe deserved, but when seen in the light of our treatment of those much more deserving of such criticism, comes off as insincere.
As I say above and in my original comment, there was a lot to Gloria Steinem and Ms Magazine we’d agree with. While she’s probably been forever tainted by the legacy of liberal feminism, there are economic writings in Ms Magazine. There is anti-imperialism. Steinem was not goose stepping to war in 2003 nor was she in 1991. Ms Magazine articles were making the same points in 2002 regarding the cynical use of women’s treatment by the Taliban as motive for war that we were making on this site in 2021. It’s not all we need more female drone operators. Further, liberal feminism leaves a bad taste in our mouth because we’ve been subject to years and years of epic girlboss feminism, but back in the 70s a huge part of the liberal feminist project was having women not live as essentially wards of their husbands and hey maybe women could get a credit card and own property without their husband’s signature. Those are goals not completely out of step with our own and not the complete den of reaction most of us imagine when we hear “liberal feminism,” even if we wish it could’ve been gone about another way. I mean most of the substantive critiques of Steinem are merely critiques of white feminism and of second wave feminism. The same could be said of Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Frieidan, are we to throw every second wave feminist away because the movement was insufficient? They added something important to the conversation, even if that it enough. The CIA and Gloria Steinem did not create second wave feminism and the cia and Gloria Steinem were not the sole forces pushing it.
So that’s a lot of writing but I hope my point comes across. You write that she was instrumental in neutering radicalism but I disagree with this framing. She wasn’t cynically working against the feminist movement, she was a liberal feminist and far from the only one and there was plenty in her career that was useful and we can single out for praise, and most of what we can criticize is a consequence of liberalism rather than any cynical anti-feminism. Including I’d argue the cia stuff.
Non-violence and soft power is just imperialism.
https://nonsite.org/change-agent-gene-sharps-neoliberal-nonviolence-part-one/
You just reposted a critique that the OP addressed in their comment, I’m not really sure what the point of this is.
OP didn’t really address it in his comment. He identified that critique, but the upshot of the comment appears to come at the end of the prior paragraph:
The paragraph about the CIA is pretty meandering, but it appears to say that GS should not be criticized for directly working with the CIA to undermine leftist feminism because DP was a liberal and supported the US?
My own take on OP’s post is similar to what imogen says below. Dolly Parton was a country music singer from East TN, so she was coming out of a world where most figures are outspoken right-wing reactionaries. So having one of the most famous people in that world support LGBT+ and other working class people to some is extremely radical and brave. Like the only accepting relative in a queer and/or leftist person’s family. Gloria Steinham was ostensibly “of” the left, but worked with directly with the CIA to undermine left-wing movements and splinter the feminist movement from the workers movement and feminism is still working to overcome that devastating shift.
Fair points!