no it isn't
So now we have paranoid humorless grouch Camille Paglia denouncing Gloria Steinem for "revealing the mummified fascist within" by, in her "emergency efforts to push a faltering Hillary over the finish line," telling Bill Maher "that young women supporting the Sanders campaign are just in it to meet boys."
Whenever I see a claim like that, that sounds so implausible that anybody would actually say that, I always try to track down what they really said. Here's the interview on video. The actual line is just after 5:00, but if you don't have time for the entire ten minutes, start watching at 3:15, when Maher asks Steinem if she thinks young women are more complacent about abortion rights. Steinem says no, they're very activist - more than her generation was at that age - but they're focused on what's happening to them, particularly economically. Then Maher says, "They really don't like Hillary, though. What do you think that's about?"
That's a question that can only be answered in the broadest generalizations, and Steinem makes clear that she knows that ("I don't mean to overgeneralize"). She observes that among all women as a group, Clinton has much stronger support than among men, and she tries to point out that among the younger women the degree of antagonism for Clinton varies, but Maher shuts it down with an assaholic quip denying that variation is of any significance (Steinem: "It depends where you ask" Maher: "America"). But Steinem then offers a substantive reason for generational difference, that women tend to get more radical as they get older, and only then throws in, as a very casual side remark, "and when you're young, you're thinking, y'know, where the boys - the boys are with Bernie," and then shrugs.
That's it. That's all she said. So first off, it's secondary, so Paglia's "just to meet boys" is a flat lie. Secondly, if a shrugged-off casual remark was intended as an "emergency effort to push a faltering Hillary," then Steinem is the worst campaign speaker of all time, worse than Marco Rubio and Dan Quayle put together. Paglia makes it sound like Steinem was giving a fire-and-brimstone speech. Thirdly, a quick conversational generalization does not amount to an attempt "to vaporize every lesbian Sanders fan into a spectral non-person," as Paglia writes. You can't make caveats and cautions in a ten-minute TV interview, and we've just seen how Maher insulted Steinem when she tried!
Besides, such a vigorous denunciation for not accounting for homosexuals in every casual remark about heterosexual appeal is the kind of righteous PC that people who hate PC hate, and I thought Camille Paglia hated PC.
If you want to criticize Steinem, why not pick up instead on her responding to the generational difference in women's Clinton v. Sanders support with the observation that women become more radical with age? Is she saying that Sanders supporters are less radical than Clinton supporters? What? She had it more right earlier: Younger women's activism is focused on economic injustice. Sanders is focused like a laser on economic injustice; Clinton, not so much. (Her defense is that there are other important issues. There are, but choosing a candidate is about picking your priorities. These young women know what theirs is.)
Then there's Madeleine Albright, who further infuriated Paglia by saying at a Clinton campaign rally, "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other." (Paglia got the quote wrong, as "... help other women"; the above is what Albright actually said. It's a minor wording difference, but it really changes the tone, and the error reveals Paglia's misreading.) As Paglia points out, Clinton laughed and applauded. Why? Because it was funny. Albright had been making the serious point that the feminist task "is not done, and you have to help" and saying "Hillary Clinton will always be there for you." Then, again as a side remark, she threw in "Just remember ..." and everyone laughed. Because to take the general responsibility of women's mutual support and translate it into a requirement to vote for a particular woman is a good joke, just the right kind for a campaign rally. Would Albright have seriously advised a vote for Margaret Thatcher or Michele Bachmann on the same grounds? I think not.
At least Paglia cited her sources. This open letter from a younger feminist alludes to both remarks without saying who made them or when, and similarly mischaracterizes both as thundering damnations. Her outraged fury doesn't survive a watching of either one. "Evil," really? Evil?? I'm supporting Sanders myself, and the article gives a good summation of why, but to embed it in such a condescending lecture is ridiculous.
Whenever I see a claim like that, that sounds so implausible that anybody would actually say that, I always try to track down what they really said. Here's the interview on video. The actual line is just after 5:00, but if you don't have time for the entire ten minutes, start watching at 3:15, when Maher asks Steinem if she thinks young women are more complacent about abortion rights. Steinem says no, they're very activist - more than her generation was at that age - but they're focused on what's happening to them, particularly economically. Then Maher says, "They really don't like Hillary, though. What do you think that's about?"
That's a question that can only be answered in the broadest generalizations, and Steinem makes clear that she knows that ("I don't mean to overgeneralize"). She observes that among all women as a group, Clinton has much stronger support than among men, and she tries to point out that among the younger women the degree of antagonism for Clinton varies, but Maher shuts it down with an assaholic quip denying that variation is of any significance (Steinem: "It depends where you ask" Maher: "America"). But Steinem then offers a substantive reason for generational difference, that women tend to get more radical as they get older, and only then throws in, as a very casual side remark, "and when you're young, you're thinking, y'know, where the boys - the boys are with Bernie," and then shrugs.
That's it. That's all she said. So first off, it's secondary, so Paglia's "just to meet boys" is a flat lie. Secondly, if a shrugged-off casual remark was intended as an "emergency effort to push a faltering Hillary," then Steinem is the worst campaign speaker of all time, worse than Marco Rubio and Dan Quayle put together. Paglia makes it sound like Steinem was giving a fire-and-brimstone speech. Thirdly, a quick conversational generalization does not amount to an attempt "to vaporize every lesbian Sanders fan into a spectral non-person," as Paglia writes. You can't make caveats and cautions in a ten-minute TV interview, and we've just seen how Maher insulted Steinem when she tried!
Besides, such a vigorous denunciation for not accounting for homosexuals in every casual remark about heterosexual appeal is the kind of righteous PC that people who hate PC hate, and I thought Camille Paglia hated PC.
If you want to criticize Steinem, why not pick up instead on her responding to the generational difference in women's Clinton v. Sanders support with the observation that women become more radical with age? Is she saying that Sanders supporters are less radical than Clinton supporters? What? She had it more right earlier: Younger women's activism is focused on economic injustice. Sanders is focused like a laser on economic injustice; Clinton, not so much. (Her defense is that there are other important issues. There are, but choosing a candidate is about picking your priorities. These young women know what theirs is.)
Then there's Madeleine Albright, who further infuriated Paglia by saying at a Clinton campaign rally, "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other." (Paglia got the quote wrong, as "... help other women"; the above is what Albright actually said. It's a minor wording difference, but it really changes the tone, and the error reveals Paglia's misreading.) As Paglia points out, Clinton laughed and applauded. Why? Because it was funny. Albright had been making the serious point that the feminist task "is not done, and you have to help" and saying "Hillary Clinton will always be there for you." Then, again as a side remark, she threw in "Just remember ..." and everyone laughed. Because to take the general responsibility of women's mutual support and translate it into a requirement to vote for a particular woman is a good joke, just the right kind for a campaign rally. Would Albright have seriously advised a vote for Margaret Thatcher or Michele Bachmann on the same grounds? I think not.
At least Paglia cited her sources. This open letter from a younger feminist alludes to both remarks without saying who made them or when, and similarly mischaracterizes both as thundering damnations. Her outraged fury doesn't survive a watching of either one. "Evil," really? Evil?? I'm supporting Sanders myself, and the article gives a good summation of why, but to embed it in such a condescending lecture is ridiculous.