'We're Women. We Were Trained To Be Nice. We Weren't Direct Enough'

Nice bit of revisionist history from decrepit feminist icon Gloria Steinem.

"Women are told they can have it all, that they can do anything, as long as they also keep doing everything else they were doing before," she said.

Asked what she would change about the women's movement in its nascent stages four decades ago, she said early feminists should have been more commanding.

"We were too nice," she said. "We're women. We were trained to be nice. We weren't direct enough."

Really? Four decades of belligerent in-your-face politics wasn't direct enough?

Angry Feminist Relic on Palin: 'She is Phyllis Schlafly, Only Younger'

The Los Angeles Times opens up their editorial pages for possibly the most bitter editorial on Sarah Palin imaginable, courtesy of the irrelevant Gloria Steinem. It's so laden with misinformation and Democrat talking points, I'll assume she used a ghostwriter. Needless to say, this was clearly written before Palin brought the house down last night, but regardless, it speaks volumes about an era of feminism that is rapidly coming to an end. The far-left feminist crowd has been replaced by working mothers that don't revel in their status as victims. Instead of whining, they set out and get the job done.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

How Steinem can say Palin's speech was divisive is beyond my imagination. As I said, it's obvious this was written well in advance of her speech as none of this column make any sense in relation to what Palin discussed last night.

As for Rush Limbaugh touting Palin all summer, I'd like her to point to one instance where he did that. I listen to Rush as much as possible and with the exception of her speech last Friday, I don't recall Rush ever talking about her much, if at all.

As far as McCain being owned by the right wing, that's just absurd. If that were the case, why did he propose Shamnesty for all the illegals?

I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Aww, I'm sure poor Sarah is glad to have your sympathy. Having said that, I hope Ms. Steinem tunes in October 3 and doesn't have someone write her column in advance. If she thinks a plagiarizer like Joe Biden is going to have his way with Palin, she's in for a long night.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Cute. I guess Steinem's ghostwriter didn't get the memo about that the bit about creationism is a falsehood. As for mythical global warming, where's the evidence a majority believes in it?

Then again, Steinem is part of the left-wing hate machine, so why bother with the facts?

It's so painfully obvious these far-left fringe feminists are angry and bitter that a strong, successful woman like Sarah Palin has gotten where she is without them. This is so eerily reminiscent of the Clarence Thomas appointment to the Supreme Court. The reaction from the establishment left then just as now was unhinged bitterness, divisiveness and smear tactics.

It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Decrepit Feminist Hag: McCain's P.O.W. Cred Is Overrated

Typical bilge one should expect from this relic, so I'm not really surprised she'd have the temerity to say such things.

Just keep it up, folks. But don't whine and moan when John McCain is being sworn in next January.

AUSTIN, Texas—Feminist icon Gloria Steinem took to the stump on Hillary Clinton’s behalf here last night and quickly proved that she has lost none of her taste for provocation.

From the stage, the 73-year-old seemed to denigrate the importance of John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In an interview with the Observer afterward, she suggested that Barack Obama benefits—and Clinton suffers—because Americans view racism more seriously than sexism.

Steinem also told the crowd that one reason to back Clinton was because “she actually enjoys conflict.”

And she claimed that if Clinton’s experience as First Lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might “finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss’s job and take it over.”

Steinem raised McCain’s Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

Just disgusting.

Obviously realizing what a loon Steinem is, Clinton spokesthing Howard Wolfson issued a statement.

The Clinton campaign sends over the following statement from Howard Wolfson: "Senator Clinton has repeatedly praised Senator McCain's courage and service to our country. These comments certainly do not represent her thinking in any way. Senator Clinton intends to have a respectful debate with Senator McCain on the issues."

Doubtful that will be happening.

Don Surber has some thoughts on this vile woman.

Update: Thanks to Don Surber for linking back. Others weighing in include Hot Air, Jules Crittenden, Patterico's Pontifications and Power Line, via Memeorandum.