Tag Archives: gloria-steinem

Yes, Olivia Wilde, You May Also Play Linda Lovelace

If I’m not forgetting anyone, Olivia Wilde is now the third person who may play Linda Lovelace in an upcoming biopic of the late porn actress. According to Wilde, she’s considering taking the title role in Lovelace , helmed by Oscar-winning codirectors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman. “It would be a tremendous honor,” she said to E! . “She was a fascinating woman–with where she came from to Deep Throat to then working with Gloria Steinem and Nora Ephron. It’s really fascinating.” No, this has nothing to do with the Malin Akerman/ex-Lindsay Lohan project Inferno , but it is the one that was recently offered to a pregnant Kate Hudson. Which of these ladies would be best?

Originally posted here:
Yes, Olivia Wilde, You May Also Play Linda Lovelace

Hollywood Feminism: Women Smart, Men Dumb

“Feminism is a Crock – and Other True Stories.” That’s the title for a book I’d like to write someday. The reason I say feminism is a crock is because it has morphed from “equal rights for all” to “women are better than men, and if you disagree you’re a sexist pig who should be castrated.” It’s also morphed into a sexual free-for-all: what used to be sauce for the gander (and those ganders were usually considered cads) is now sauce for the goose. This image is being perpetuated by pop culture and entertainment, and women are more and more frequently being portrayed as strong through their sexuality, not through their actual accomplishments. Is this the standard to which we want our daughters to aspire? Early feminists fought against the centuries-old image of a “woman on a pedestal.” Gloria Steinem (she of the “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” who in later years ended up getting married anyway) once said, “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space.” I suppose a bra is also a small, confined space, which might explain the bra burnings of the 1960s. But the early feminists had a point – to a point. If a woman wants to be put on a pedestal and admired and adored, fine. But if she doesn’t, she should have the right to do with her life as she chooses. She should be free to pursue any vocation  for which she is qualified,  either as a single or married woman, children or no children. But one of the problems with the new feminism was the annoying little fact that children could get in the way of this brave new world. Having to either stay at home with the little tykes or find daycare for them – not to mention all of the discomfort and disfiguration that comes with pregnancy itself – sure put a damper on Gloria Steinem’s idea of a “liberated woman” being “one who has sex before marriage and a job after.” Unbridled sex does, after all, have consequences. And so,  according to historian Elaine Tyler May, birth control was “an important tool to gain control over their lives.” May touts the contributions of Margaret Sanger, whose group eventually became known as Planned Parenthood, conveniently ignoring – as many do –  Sanger’s devotion to eugenics . Sanger spoke of sterilizing those “unfit” to contribute to the gene pool, a group which included not only blacks and other ethnic minorities but, according to  Sanger associate Dr. Harry Laughlin, the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.” What a classy group of people. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against safe, legitimate birth control methods. But when tooting the horn of the likes of Margaret Sanger, we need to be honest about what really drove her pursuit of birth control for women, just as we should be honest about what drives the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood –  profit . And quelle surprise – Planned Parenthood as we know it really  came into its own in the 1960s . In a nutshell: True feminists of the time felt that you could only be a feminist if you rebelled against the natural workings of your body and eschewed marriage and motherhood  for a “higher cause.” There are still many of the old guard around today. But the times, they are a changin’. Fast forward to 2010. Many would say the fight for equal rights has pretty much been won. Girls can dream of going to college and becoming airline pilots, electrical and biological engineers, teachers, doctors – the list is almost endless. In fact,  more women graduate with college degrees than men  – perhaps  due in part  to more focus being put on girls than boys in school to “make up for” previous inequality and also what is being called the feminization of society (what Rush Limbaugh calls “chickification”). And for years, the entertainment industry has done its part for the last 20 or 30 years by portraying men as bumbling but lovable fools who wouldn’t be where they are if it weren’t for the very attractive, smart-as-a-whip women they somehow managed to marry. Television’s  Home Improvement  and King of Queens  are two of the more recent examples. And, of course,  commercials like this one . So even if the woman did commit the sin of marrying, she always had the redeeming quality of having the upper hand in just about any situation. Earlier, I said that unbridled sex without birth control or easy access to abortion has the consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. Today, unbridled sex with birth control and easy access to abortion combined with an increasingly “anything goes” attitude in society and pop culture gets girls who have as their role models the like of Paris Hilton, the Kardashian sisters, Snooki from MTV’s  Jersey Shore  and various other “celebrities.” Their claim to fame is not similar to being the  first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean  or  receiving the Nobel Prize for pioneering work in radiation , but for on-camera antics like tanning, catfights, and puking after binge drinking, and having their “sex tapes” released to the press for quick and easy profit. Too many are the next target of the creator of the  Girls Gone Wild  video series, which shows images of drunken girls taking off their tops and making out with one another. We also have the likes of Lady Gaga, who makes Madonna look like a choir girl – almost. And those who begin their careers as wholesome young things (Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lindsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus) often decide that “growing up” must mean “giving out” – figuratively speaking in some cases, not so figuratively in others. As the mother of two girls, one just starting college this year and the other starting high school, I find these so-called role models severely lacking. Writing for  Macleans , Anne Kingston also notes this disturbing trend. As those she interviews see it, the fight for women’s equality is not over but has taken a giant step backward because of something called “enlightened sexism”: where women are not only “empowered” by overtly flaunting their sexuality, but are also obsessed with getting married. Certainly this new trend in the entertainment media, which exploits this so-called sexual empowerment for fun and profit, is partially to blame. But what about the parents? Where are they? Sure there are the mothers quoted in Anne Kingston’s article who are upset about this trashy turn of events. Unfortunately, there are plenty of others who are pushing the trend. I was in TJ Maxx some time ago and heard two women talking, excited because the store was finally carrying the tacky  Juicy Couture  clothing line. Yet I had to wonder – were they excited because they could buy it for their children or were they excited for themselves? Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw an older, heavyset woman at the mall who was with a boy who looked like he might be her grandson. She was wearing a tight t-shirt with the word Juicy across the front and it was painfully obvious that she wasn’t wearing a bra. Nothing like mutton dressed like lamb a la  Absolutely Fabulous . Blech. Then there’s the  recent story  about skinny jeans for toddlers. Why anyone would put their two- or three-year-old in an item of clothing usually connected with sexuality is beyond me. But then we have shows like TLC’s  Toddlers & Tiaras , where some think ” beauty pageant stage parents make Jon and Kate Gosselin look like Ward and June Cleaver .” There are notorious stage parents like Dina Lohan, who has  done her best  to  launch her own career  on the back of her daughter, nearly sucking her dry. Double blech. My take? The left tried its hand at social engineering in the name of equality – but rather than focusing on equal rights in education and the workplace,  ended up giving women the same “rights” as men in the arena of sex with no consequences. Religion and morality were for squares, no matter what  Huey Lewis might have said . Yet it has backfired. Girls still like to look pretty and still like to attract boys. However, now they don’t have to worry about public stigma for public misbehavior. A girl who would once be labeled a skank for certain behavior is now celebrated.  Be famous for being a no-talent party girl with an expanding rap sheet ! No need to ” settle with a man just to have that child .” Go back to the creep who  used your face for a punching bag . Turn yourself into a  literal caricature through plastic surgery . You deserve it. You’ve come a long way, baby . Here’s hoping you can find your way home again. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Read more:
Hollywood Feminism: Women Smart, Men Dumb

Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt Calls For Enacting Equal Rights Amendment

Yes, you read that headline right. Larry Flynt, the outspoken publisher of the men’s magazine “Hustler,” is advocating equal rights for women. Even better, the real punch line in his Huffington Post piece was that he blamed the failure of the 1970s Equal Rights Amendment on feminist stalwart Gloria Steinem. Readers are strongly cautioned to keep fluids out of their mouths and away from their computers for the duration: I have long believed the reason the ERA didn’t pass back then is that Gloria Steinem co-opted the debate about women’s rights, approaching it from a New York point of view rather than a national one. Saying things like “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” and “A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after,” not to mention “make him sleep on the wet spot,” didn’t go over well with women in the Midwest who considered themselves feminists but still wanted to be mothers. If there is one person to blame for the failure of the ERA to pass, it’s Ms. Steinem.  With that on the table, Flynt called for the ERA to be proposed once again in Congress. “Surely without the ill-advised, self-serving rhetoric of Ms. Steinem, reason can prevail.” Actually, with the current state of the economy, any future ERA might have to be to protect men and not women, as this recession has been far harder on male workers than female employees. The unemployment rate for men stands at 10.6 percent; it’s only 8.6 percent for women. Beyond this, recent college trends have shown far more women seeking higher education. But let’s not allow such inconvenient truths to get in the way of the entertainment value of Flynt’s proposal, or what Steinem wrote about the smutty publisher in 1997. Enjoy. 

See more here:
Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt Calls For Enacting Equal Rights Amendment

CBS’s Katie Couric Fawns Over Left-wing Feminist and Her Outrageous Claims

“[Carly Fiorina’s] position on taxation would deprive women of childcare.” The Hyde Amendment “penalizes poor women terribly.” “You can’t be a feminist who says other women can’t” have an abortion. These are just some of the outrageous statements left-wing feminist Gloria Steinem made during an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric on the latest installment of “@katiecouric,” which was posted to the CBSNews.com Web site on June 23. Couric’s responses to the “godmother of the modern women’s movement’s” absurd claims ranged from silent agreement to reflexive endorsement.              Although the former Playboy Bunny railed against the legislation that banned federal funding of abortion, Couric responded approvingly – “right!” – and changed the subject to the hockey mom every liberal feminist loves to hate: Since we’re on the subject of reproductive rights, can you be a conservative feminist? Sarah Palin recently, I think, rankled some traditional feminists by calling herself a feminist, despite the fact she doesn’t espouse many traditional feminist, uh, points of view. Instead of challenging Steinem’s feminist litmus test, Couric, turning to liberal activist Jehmu Greene, asked, “Do you agree with that?” “I would say that Sarah Palin does not represent many of those same sentiments,” Greene responded. The most vigorous defense Couric could muster on Palin’s behalf was, “In what way? I mean, why?” On Steinem’s bizarre correlation between low taxes and less access to childcare, the “Evening News” anchor uttered not a decibel of skepticism. Eschewing her journalistic duty to hold interviewees accountable for their pronouncements – particularly the outlandish and unsubstantiated ones – Couric once again undermined her credibility as a professional newswoman. Click here to view Katie Couric’s June 23 interview with Steinem and Greene in its entirety. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
CBS’s Katie Couric Fawns Over Left-wing Feminist and Her Outrageous Claims

Joan Jett vs. Cherie Currie: Who’d You Rather?

Filed under: Who’d You Rather? Former Runaways members Joan Jett, 51, and Cherie Currie, 50, reunited in NYC on Wednesday. Question is … See Also Hot Lips vs. Gloria Steinem: Who’d You Rather? … Permalink

Read this article:
Joan Jett vs. Cherie Currie: Who’d You Rather?

‘Hot Lips’ vs. Gloria Steinem: Who’d You Rather?

Filed under: Who’d You Rather? The original “Hot Lips” from the 1970 film version of “M*A*S*H” Sally Kellerman, 72, and feminist icon Gloria Steinem, 75, both showed up to the same event in Beverly Hills on Tuesday.Question is … See Also Robin, Leona, Mel or Natasha: Who’d … Permalink

Continued here:
‘Hot Lips’ vs. Gloria Steinem: Who’d You Rather?

Did feminism make women miserable?

Feminism made women miserable. This, anyway, seems to be the most popular takeaway from “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” a recent study by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, which purports to show that women have become steadily unhappier since 1972. Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington greeted the news with somber perplexity, but the more common response has been a triumphant: I told you so

See the rest here:
Did feminism make women miserable?