how Gloria Steinem's "boys are with Bernie" comment hurts women
In a February 5 interview with Bill Maher, feminist author and speaker Gloria Steinem made the impossibly ironic comment that young women supporters of Bernie Sanders were only supporting Sanders because "the boys are with Bernie."
More specifically, Gloria said, in reply to Maher’s question about why more millennial women support Sanders than Hillary Clinton: "And when you're young, you're thinking, you know, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie, or, you know …" (Bill interrupts at this point to point out that if he had said that, Gloria would have swatted him. Not untrue.)
The idea of women in politics is no longer outlandish; it is the norm. Women politicians are among the best and brightest, now working right alongside (and often pulling ahead of) their male counterparts. This is nothing new, at least for this generation (although women still hold less than 20% of congressional seats). Regardless, the ceiling for women is diminishing and no one so much as bats an eyelash at a woman politician. So why is it exactly that women voters -- especially young women voters -- are seen as such an anomaly that they are only identified as they relate to "the boys"? Is it a generational divide? Perhaps Gloria and others are still entrenched in the 1970s-esque feminism that decries men as mere "boys" but also flexes heavy muscles of guilt and anger toward women they do not perceive to be riding the same feminist wave.
If one of the most prolific and vocal feminist icons of the day has made a statement that essentially reduces young female voters to boy-crazy girls whose only reasoning for supporting one political candidate over another is attracting or being near members of the opposite sex, it must be time to recognize that there is a difference in how female voters are perceived versus how male voters are perceived. One would almost expect this type of comment from an older male commentator or public figure, one who might be pegged as a chauvinist, however, it is extremely disheartening coming from one of the frontrunners of feminism.
I think Gloria still unwittingly represents what I call “old feminism” rooted in a rebellion and cynicism that has outlived its usefulness. “New feminism” is taking over and making strides under the ideology that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” There has been a movement in the last several years toward collaboration rather than competition, as women begin to realize that we progress and become truly successful only by building and encouraging the other women -- and men -- around us, not by accusing, attacking or tearing them down.
Even though she later apologized in a Facebook post and said that her comment was "misrepresented," Gloria's unmistakably condescending criticism represents an unfortunate communication and understanding gap that is mirrored over and over again between women of an older generation and millennial women. Ideally, Gloria and others would be the older mentors cheering younger women on, not making disparaging comments like the one she made to Bill Maher.
What good has been done by the leaps and bounds made by feminism if women are still tearing down women? If sarcasm rather than genuine support and solidarity rules the roost of public conversation centering around female voters? Even among self-proclaimed and vocal feminists, there is an apparent tendency to talk down to young women about the motivations behind their political opinions.
Young women who care deeply about politics can be stereotyped as nerdy or bookish. And young women who exercise their right to vote – especially in primaries and local elections, taking the time and care to participate in more than just one presidential election every four years – may be chuckled over, the equivalent to a “that’s cute,” and a pat on the head. This isn’t necessarily every woman’s experience, but it is mine.
So what is the result? Is condescension the actual problem, or is there a chain reaction that leads to a bigger issue? The real heart of the matter is that we don’t have time to go back in time. Women earned the right to vote in 1920. Just shy of 100 years later and we are still making it an issue of sex and gender, and more specifically, we are still giving the dominant, “lead role” to male voters. Another direct and damaging result of this type of public dialogue is that other women Gloria’s age may agree with her simply because of her fame and longstanding clout; in essence, Gloria has a following and they are not being done any favors by her remarks. Additionally, Gloria’s assertion vaguely insinuates that young male millennials are more politically informed and active than young female millennials. Is that true? Polls show otherwise.
Here's a wild thought: if millennial women are supporting Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary Clinton, perhaps it is because Clinton does not connect with young millennial women by speaking and acting on issues they care about. Perhaps it is a matter of the issues at hand rather than the sex of the candidate standing on the stage. Quite honestly, insisting that women should vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she is a woman is equally as damaging as asserting that women are only supporting Bernie Sanders to be near men (or “boys”) their age.
If Gloria wants true feminism, she is going to need to change her tack and encourage young millennial women to become informed, intelligent voters, and speak positive affirmations for the scores of young women already fulfilling that role. If it’s division and undercutting she wants, well, we already have plenty of that along party lines. Let’s separate the women from the “boys” as she would call them, and recognize that millennials neither need nor appreciate comments like the one Gloria Steinem made to Bill Maher. Let’s move forward and let statements like “the boys are with Bernie” fall and remain where they belong: at the bottom of the ocean above which all boats are being lifted by a rising tide.
