Gloria Steinem: Women are Never Front-Runners

nadine · Post by **nadine** » January 8th, 2008, 2:06 pm

Op-ed on NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opini ... ref=slogin

mpbrockman · Post by **mpbrockman** » January 8th, 2008, 3:05 pm

Gender is the most restrictive force in American life?

Perhaps in some areas, but not in politics as Ms. Steinem claims. There religion (or lack thereof) wins hands down.

The latest Gallup info I have shows that 92% of Americans would vote for a qualified woman for public office while only 49% would vote for a qualified person of no religion. The glass ceiling has given way to the the stained glass ceiling.

It is also worth noting that views of women as subordinates have their roots in religious dogma and their most ardent supporters among the religious right. Read up on Huckabee - if you're interested in women's rights, some of the things he's been signatory to should scare the crap out of you.

So while I empathize with some of the sentiments voiced by Ms. Steinem, she has her typically monodirectional sights aimed a little too shallowly.

Jessica · Post by **Jessica** » January 8th, 2008, 8:06 pm

I've felt very hurt by the occasional article asking "can a woman be president." I think it makes it really obvious that we are still considered not quite fully people. It just makes me sad and sick to my stomach.

mpbrockman · Post by **mpbrockman** » January 9th, 2008, 2:09 am

Hey, N.H. makes Hilary look like the the front-runner again!

How 'bout that.

I hope McCain is enjoying himself tonight. Could be his last victory of the campaign.

I have a friend who does political writing in Seattle and has called every election from a year out correctly since '92. She assures me that Obama will win the presidency. I'm skeptical, but every time I tell her she's wrong I get burned. She actually predicted a Bill Clinton victory a year and a half before the general election of '92 and told me Bush/Gore would be close enough to call the whole electoral college process into question.

Hmmm. Dare I challenge her prescience once again? I rather saw Obama as a near lock for Hilary's VP in 2008.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » January 9th, 2008, 3:53 pm

I agree with your friend. Obama will be President.

beardedlamb · Post by **beardedlamb** » January 9th, 2008, 5:32 pm

"well-behaved women rarely make history"

this bumper sticker annoys me because the same is true for men.

pssh. silly world.

Mo Daviau · Post by **Mo Daviau** » January 9th, 2008, 6:00 pm

One of my theories as to why women in particular like to hate on Hillary is that she is a frumpy, nerdy woman who got to marry a foxy guy like Bill Clinton. I think this pisses people off and people want to punish her for it.

That's just one theory, though. From my BIG BRAIN (TM).

arthursimone · Post by **arthursimone** » January 9th, 2008, 9:46 pm

I do think there's a double standard in the eyes of many voters... a relative asked if I could really bring myself to vote for someone with such "naked ambition."

To which I responded that any human being seeking the office of the presidency has "naked ambition."

but you know what? she's gotta deal with that doublestandard and overcome it. I hated how people felt about Al Gore's "dishonesty" in '00, I hated how the media swallowed the "Swift Boat Veterans" garbage in '04, but what I hated more than anything was Gore and Kerry's inability to just deal with it. It's out there, it's arbitrary, it's retarded and disgusting, but it's a thing and no amount of calling 'no fair' is going to matter a lick. It sucks, but there it is.

mpbrockman · Post by **mpbrockman** » January 9th, 2008, 11:24 pm

arthursimone wrote:a relative asked if I could really bring myself to vote for someone with such "naked ambition."

To which I responded that any human being seeking the office of the presidency has "naked ambition."

True. I would probably would have added "and you would prefer someone who was better at dissembling?"

Marc Majcher · Post by **Marc Majcher** » January 11th, 2008, 12:21 pm

Emotionally Unstable Bush Weeps Openly; Insists We Should Have Killed Jews, Instead.

mpbrockman · Post by **mpbrockman** » January 11th, 2008, 5:27 pm

I'm sure the Hebrew ashes appreciated the red, white and blue wreath.

Oh... thanks... feeling much better now.

It is interesting to contemplate why they didn't at least bomb the railway leading to Auschwitz. I don't know enough about the information Roosevelt had when he decided to bypass this option for me to make an informed judgment.

Any history majors wanna weigh in?

Jessica · Post by **Jessica** » January 11th, 2008, 9:25 pm

While the response to the death camps was pretty woeful, this one is somewhat legit. US and allied forces were very strapped for resources. Flying was still an expensive and difficult operation. They opted to take out military targets and civilian targets that they felt would bring a faster end to the war. In the end this decision may have resulted in a smaller number of deaths.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » January 11th, 2008, 10:23 pm

Jessica wrote:They opted to take out military targets and civilian targets that they felt would bring a faster end to the war. In the end this decision may have resulted in a smaller number of deaths.

Dresden.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » January 12th, 2008, 12:06 am

The Brigadier wrote:
Jessica wrote:They opted to take out military targets and civilian targets that they felt would bring a faster end to the war. In the end this decision may have resulted in a smaller number of deaths.
Dresden.

Dresden was in theory performed to destroy the remaining industrial and military centers which still aided the Nazi war effort. However, if you look at this from a neutral standpoint, I believe this was more of a message to Germany that the allies were either retaliating for the buzzbomb attacks on England, or this was a tactical plan to crush the civillian support for the war, and get Germany to surrender before the Soviets could invade Berlin from the east. Either way the "Smaller number" of deaths that were the goal of the bombing were not meant to be in favor of the enemy. "Smaller casualty numbers" were looked at to mean "Less of our people dying, screw the other side." That's why the nuke was really invented. You can obliterate your enemy, his population, and his cities/industry with a minimum of casualties to your side. The fire bombing of Tokyo created more casualties than the Hiroshima bomb. Both tactics were used to spare allied lives. They could give a damn about the enemy. Besides, a child, a woman, or an elderly person could still be ( and were) used to defend the homeland, so why not remove that support base. Kill 100,000 civillians and watch the military morale crumble. Kill a million or more, and you have the soldiers on the other side questioning why their command can't keep the populace safe.

The problem with the bombing tactics at the time was that it was possible to lose approximately 45% of your attacking force to fighter and flak/aa fire in one run during daylight hours. America was the only force to bomb during the day, while the British and Germans bombed targets mostly at night. With the lack of sophisticated navigational systems, infrared or night vision, it was easy for a bomber flight to stray off course and drop their payload on civillian targets. Truth is, most bombing runs were mediocre successes at best, as the bombs weren't very accurate. Even the famed Norden sight used by the Americans left a large margin for error.

Auschwitz was brought to the attention of the allies by Polish soldiers/civillians who fled to England after Poland surrendered to the Nazis. The allies knew roughly that there was a camp containing Jews and Soviet prisoners of war, but little was invested into stopping the camp, as there were 'higher priority' targets to risk losing men and aircraft to like fuel plants, major railway depots, and factories. Winston Churchill asked that a plan be devised to disrupt the camp by a bombing campaign but was later informed that a raid could possibly result in a high amount of civillian casualties. There is even an account of an allied recon flight taking a picture of the camp by accident, but the photo was not really evaluated and the significance of such a camp wasn't discovered until 1970 when someone was analyzing the photo and discovered what was in it.

But probably the lack of action regarding the concentration camps was either due to the lack of support to put much needed resources into a mission/missions which had no real military ( although a large humanitarian) significance, or the fact that there was an element who just didn't want to accept this was going on and decided to sweep it under the rug. Anti-semitism was high in Europe ( and possibly the US) with few countries being willing to listen to the plight of the Jews. There is a story about a ship full of Jewish refugees from Europe who had to sail to several different countries in order to find a government willing to take them. Even the US denied this ship a safe haven and made them leave after a lengthy plea by the ship's captain.

But the real reasons remain with those who knew what was going on and did what they did. Maybe we'll never know the whole truth. But it's easier to brush off a bunch of faceless folks if you can claim it's for "The greater good."