Talk:Gloria Steinem

Smith College

Dude, why is there nothing about smith college up in this piece? She is all over that place like all the time.

Steinem's CIA employment

Okay, why is there nothing about Steinem's work for the CIA in here. There are numerous sources/references. It is an important piece of human history, the duplicity that is often concealed. I don't want to see wikipedia get any more censored.

Really, I am more interested in her "undercover" work as a Playboy bunny. Oh man, I wish I could have been undercover with her.

The reference in the article to the effect that she denies working for the CIA is inaccurate. The source cited clearly says that she denies that she continues to work for the CIA. Years earlier, she is on record in the New York Times and elsewhere as someone who is proud of her work for the CIA. See NYT for 1967-02-21, as shown [here]. 68.91.89.21 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So correct it dude sheesh. I hastily added that whole "criticism" section because I was a little appalled that her CIA involvement didn't even get a mention outside of the talk page. Am I doing Wikipedia wrong? Should we just complain about the article here? Echeneida 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's the Wikipedia, not a factual source of historical information. Viva la revolucion and all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.59.205 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to last version

Do to the changing of some verbs in the article to "smurfed". Drn8 01:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See? Their editors can't even spell, let alone check facts. But you can bet they're all either online with PC bullshit or no longer working on the Wikigandia.

POV

"because editors wanted male reporters" is POV

- Huh- editors wanted females- you think? Or maybe they just wanted ducks, cows, pigeons and magic unicorns. If that statement is Point of View (POV), then you might as well have a blank page for every article. If anything, your comment is POV- it shows a hypersensitivity to any rational description of how things actually were in North America at that time. There was an overwhelming consensus, which included BOTH female and male opinion, that women should place family before career. If you fail to recognize that socially agreed upon norm, then you really need to introduce yourself to a basic textbook on social history. Men in many field were given preference by employers partially because of this agreed upon social expectation.--Mikerussell 08:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unless you want to cite a direct quote from an editor from said magazines, your comment is irrelevent. Also, it is readily apparent from your clearly stated position that you are very biased in your views. Perhaps it would be wise to offer you this morsel of advice: it might not be a sound idea for you to edit this article for the sake of neutrality. Let's all keep in mind that we are living in a very diverse world of both misandrists and misogynists, and that chauvinism in regards to your own point of view does not necessarily make your own statements necessarily correct or accurate. User:JaredM by 68.49.77.234

"...edit this article for the sake of neutrality. Let's all keep in mind that we are living in a very diverse world of both misandrists and misogynists, and that chauvinism in regards to your own point of view does not necessarily make your own statements necessarily correct or accurate. User:JaredM by 68.49.77.234" Does the latter statement not itself indicate a lack of neutrality, by its assumption that anything questionable is motivated by some lack of understanding regarding gender issues? The language clearly states the world is "a very diverse world OF BOTH misandrists and misogynists." This puts the incidence of discrimination as total, which is patently ridiculous, and cannot therefore itself be a neutral remark. Further, Mikerussell's sarcasm does not seem indicative of chauvinism, but rather frustration that a "balanced," in other words, "neutral" approach to the subject does not exist. The bias contained in the previous quote further politicises what is already a seriously political issue, and probably cannot be considered worthy of scholastic integrity.

morsel of advice? mis-a-wahat, gee. I am thinking you are commenting on my above remark but I cannot figure out what sort of magazine editors need to say in this regard. A morsel may be a bit heavy for the material weight of your interjection. Moreover, I don't think what I suggested has anything to do with the article's subject, it is more of a description of the social organization that prevailed in Western coutries after WW II up until the early 70s. Women were discriminated in gaining access to law and medical schools, for instance, because they were viewed as primarily mothers-to-be and thus would not use the education they might be intellectually able to achive. Senator Elizabeth Dole was often accused of taking a man's place while at Harvard Law School. Another example would be teachers, a traditionally female intensive occupation, yet most principles and admin were men because women were expected to take care of the family primarily, and interrupt their 'career' when necessary. Whether or not you hate men or hate women- I think this what all the mis-crap is about- is irrelevant to my statement. It impresses me I could be regarded as biased in regards to feminism by making these comments, my ire was more based on the ignorance of recent social history behind the remark, more than affection of Ms. Steinem and her point of view. But I will gladly accept it, I can redirect persons to this when the things I normally get accused of being happen. To interpret everything in terms of hatred-based dispositions is rather unwise, and blurs the basic orientation of the effort.--Mikerussell 20:23, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Try Readers Digest or Life from the 1950s for some quick citations to these attitudes.Tom Cod 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the photo and made headings so people could add to sections more easily. (also- not to nit pick, but 'Bibliography' is not the same as List of Works, a bibliography means what a person read to write an article.--Mikerussell 08:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we not find a better picture of her?--NickCatal

Quotation erroneously ascribed?

To my knowledge, it was Quentin Crisp, the gay British playwright, who said, "A boy without a girl is like a fish without a bicycle." --bamjd3d

Can anyone cite references for either of the attributions for this quote? -- Beland 7 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Apparently Steinem attributed the quote to Irina Dunn in an article of Time in the autumn of 2000, I can't get to Time's archives from this computer, though, to make sure, so I'll leave it as disputed for now.--Hal 19:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As there is no source for saying the quote is not Steinems I am removing it, if somebody can provide a source please put it back in. - dissident.

Removed text

I removed the following problematic text:

Although she must feel a great sense of satisfaction at the changes she helped bring about, Ms. Steinem encourages people to never forget about how much is still left to accomplish.

The first half is speculation, which is not really encyclopedic. The second part, as currently worded, is an endorsement of the idea that feminisism's work is incomplete. This needs re-phrasing in order to be neutral (describing Steinem's opinion, not declaring one of its own), but I'm concerned about accurately conveying the original sentiment. I think this passage would be best replaced by a brief quote from Steinem herself. Which can't be too hard to find, considering she is an author, even though the existing text does not cite sources for this claim. -- Beland 7 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

It really could easily have remained, the statement is so common, that it hardly reflects/requires a direct quote. There is an over-officious jerkiness to the suggestion it be sourced. She is more of a media figure than a writer and in many media appearences she makes the statements- from Larry King LIve to local media, it is easily inferred she feels there is still women who are not treated as she would like to see. But sometimes, the comment on the talk page is worth more than the one in the article. --Mikerussell 20:35, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

I think the first half should have been removed. The second half is an exposition of the truth. That is what she has always said for over thirty years.TheGeniusPrince 23:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGeniusPrince (talk • contribs)

It only exists within a recognition that a social revolution is occurring, and that the statement is made in support of that revolution. Encyclopaedic knowledge is a scholarly reportage of established facts, while propaganda is (mostly accurate) literature and media dedicated to supporting organised movements. If the Wikipedia is going to avoid the perennial accusation of propaganda, keeping to the strictest scholastic standards must be every editor's goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.59.205 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

German ancestry

Is there any evidence that she has German ancestry? I'm trying to remove all Austrian, Jewish and Swiss Americans from the German American category.

Yes, but Austrians and the overwhelming majority of Swiss are ethnic Germans in the broad sense along with German speaking people living in the Czech Republic, Poland and Russia.Tom Cod 01:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Her mother is an ethnic German or half-German. Her father is Jewish. Look up a book bio on her at Amazon.com - they're searchable.Vulturell 09:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Pearls Before Swine

Can we also mention that she featured in the comic strip Pearls Before Swine dated 3rd june 2006? Lamuk69 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for cleanup

there are a number of internal inconsistancies in this article as well as being short and VERY incomplete for a significant and potentially controversial figure - Acq3 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

learn how to place comments at the bottom of the TALK page, nobody will read it when placed at the top. Withdrew tag after no effort was made to explain/correct 'inconsistencies' and the tag made the article look inferior.--Mikerussell 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom Cod's opinionate edit

The comments need to be sourced, they sound very biased and unprofessional for a encyclopedia article. A better worded, properly sourced edit would add to the article, especially as they pertain to this assumed 'loss of respect and credibilty' by 'liberrals'. The deleted parargraph violated the Living Person Policy.

No it didn't as it's, unfortunately, nothing but the truth. See PBS Frontline (TV series) [[1]] program "The Search for Satan" [[2]] which aired in 1995 and a previous program they did on "False Memory Syndrome" which Steinem denounced at a meeting of the American Psychological Association.[[3]] It is Ms. Stienem and Dr. Braun's conduct that is egregious and unprofessional and should not be covered over or iconized, whether they are living or dead as the substance of what I wrote was not "patently libelous" but, sadly, actually true. However it is also true that Steinem used to be a great feminist leader who was rightly widely respected. Thus I was absolutely flabbergasted to see her connection with this quackery in the Frontline documentary with her shown attending a conference with certain leaders of the religious right concerned about "satanic ritual abuse" and to have the thrust of this program corroborated to me by a recent, at that time, Ms. Magazine article I retrieved from a local library which featured this alleged menace of "satanic ritual abuse" ON ITS COVER! Yet, how many people's lives were ruined by this hysteria? Isn't it fair to say that reasonable people would view this medieval like hysteria as patently bogus and those who promoted it as discredited? What was Dr. Johnson and Brittanica's view of the Salem Witch Trials? Were they "NPOV" or did they call a spade a spade? What was the Enlightenment about anyway? Or do we just publish puff pieces about public figures that take great pains to all avoid controversy. This is an issue Steinem decided to involve herself with, it's part of her public history and should be exposed; but now, of course, she and her partisans rightly view this as an embarrassment and wish to avoid it.[[4]][[5]]Tom Cod 09:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First things first: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:NPOV. Gamaliel 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, the reality of Wikipedia is that if it cannot be verified by reliable sources, the truth is useless. Especially if it reflects negatively on a living person. There is also a way to present the material without the reader sensing the spittle flying from the editor's mouth. The reader should not be able to tell how you, as the editor, feel about the subject, nor should you spoon feed them conclusions that have not already been drawn by the reliable sources. The reader should be left to draw their own conclusion from factual information presented. As I stated on the BLPN, it shouldn't be very difficult to source your claims, and present them in a neutral and informative way. Crockspot 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely you don't think PBS and the NYT are unreliable sources. My opinions, however, I try to confine to the talk pages where they are appropriate.Tom Cod 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Steinem's first book was titled "The Beach Book"

Ms. Steinem's first book was published in 1963 and was titled "The Beach Book". It provides direction as to how to tan yourself, read to yourself, entertain yourself and educate yourself at the beach.

The book had a clever foil dust jacked with directions inside to use the book as a sun reflector to focus the rays underneath the chin. Most anazing of all, the book has an introduction penned by John Kenneth Galbraith of all people. The woman had connections at an early age. The book was published by Viking Press.

Place of birth - Clark Lake (Michigan) or Toledo?

Some sources state that Gloria Steinem was born in Toledo and others state she was born in Clark Lake, Michigan where her father's entertainment pier was located and the family moved to Toledo when she was about 10 years old. Can anyone clarify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FemWriter (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Controversy over marriage

It's barely touched on here, but there was a great deal of press over Steinem's marriage -- many considered it hypocritical in light of her well-documented previous denunciations of marriage (the fish/bicycle quote in the article isn't really a good example here, by the way). Many also supported her decision, claiming that it was proof of the growing-up of feminism, and reflected the changing truths of an aging generation.

Removed useless sentence

I can't understand how "she was a great person and role model for everyone" helps the accuracy of this article.

Gloria Steinem's son? Dead?

Apparently she had a long discussion, on camera, with Tom Snyder about the suicide of her son...

but not only does this page not mention she has a son... I have not found ANYWHERE that mentions she even had a son, much less one that suicided.

One of America's leading feminists male children excutes himself... that's noteworthy and important to this article. -http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tom-Snyder <-- also references the suicide.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.98.227 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can't find anywhere that she ever had a son, why do you think she did? (See WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS.) As far as I know, Steinem never had any children born or adopted. She has three stepdaughters and a stepson from her marriage to David Bale, but the stepson is the well-known and living actor Christian Bale. So I have no idea who or what you are referring to. Maybe you are confusing Steinem with someone else, but I don't know who that would be. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Steinem has never had any children. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gloria_Steinem&oldid=190579989 with description: "MovieEye - either cite your information or stop adding it. Let's take this to the Talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Movieye." WalterGR (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Movieye (talk • contribs) replied on WalterGR's talk page:

Re: Gloria Steinem and American Psycho - see entry for American Psycho. Criticism of Steinem in her later years have been over:

1. Marriage - as noted, she has opposed the institution of marriage.

2. Who she married - the father of the star of American Psycho - both a book and film project she protested against. The irony and criticism is in author, Bret Easton Ellis's book Lunar Park - see references under American Psycho and Lunar Park about Steinem connection. That is why the connection to Bale Junior and Senior is relevant.

Excerpt from Lunar Park: http://notanexit.net/past/2004/11/20_pic_of_lunar_park.shtml

Regarding your point #1 - My edit didn't remove this, though now that you mention it, it does need a .

Regarding your point #2 - Steinem married the father of an actor who starred in the movie adaptation of a book whose publication Steinem (allegedly) boycotted. a) That's not criticism. b) Whether it's even irony is, I think, debatable. c) Furthermore, Lunar Park is a "semi-autobiographical novelization of the life" of the author of the American Psycho book. His statements are therefore neither 3rd party nor disinterested, and as such, reduce his credibility.

If you can find a reliable reference which states Steinem was criticized for her hand in boycotting the publication of the book, then by all means add it.

WalterGR (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As everyone can see, I've made major additions to the page, and I look forward to further edits and improvements from others. That said, I have re-distributed much criticism throughout the article (i.e.Germaine Greer's of Steinem at the '72 Convention, Sex-positive view of pornography, etc.). Of course, wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia: Criticism) state "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged." Hence my effots to distribute criticism throughout the article. I've also re-distributed the charge made by the Redstockings into the article. I can't find a source of any "feminist" criticizing Steinem for her marriage, but if I (or anyone else) can adduce one, feel free to add it back in if they think it's noteworthy (I'm a little skeptical considering all the intense criticism she's received over the years). I hope this satisfies the concerns that have been raised.--216.164.61.173 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I obviously didn't read your additions closely enough -- you have in fact redistributed the information well. Sorry! Echeneida (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, silly me, you only did that after I restored the criticism section. Well, thanks. Echeneida (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

While many citations are included throughout the article, many still need to be added. There are both direct quotes and assertation of facts that need references. I added some tags, but the article needs to be gone over more thoroughly, and it may be that the majority of sentences will require individual references.OwenSaunders (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent efforts to fix the citations on this page are quite impressive. There does, however, still seem to be some issues about the proper use of citations. At least two reference tags I inserted have been removed, with the explaination that the references can be found elsewhere in the article. This is very confusing to the reader who has to try to figure this out. You can use a single reference/footnote at the end of a paragraph if all the information comes from that same source. But you cannot have two separate paragraphs using the same source, but only footnote the end of either the first or the second paragraph. This is can cause confusion for at least a couple of reasons. One, it is not clear that the information in both paragraphs came from the same source as opposed to one paragraph simply did not getting properly cited. Second,if someone else later inserts new material between the two paragraphs with a different source, the link between the two paragraphs (and thus the citation) is broken. The best way is to simply repeat the citation/footnote at the end of both paragraphs so the source remains clear. Considering the frequent editing of Wikipedia by multple editors, it is probably even better to cite each sentence in case the paragraph is later fragmented by additional editing. And if there are multiple sources within a paragraph, you need to cite each sentence individually, even if it means repeating the same citation.

I will go ahead and put back the two citation tags that still need references, although other editors may discover that there are still additonal citations needed. I am particularly concerned about carefully citing this article, as I believe it is a very important one and likely to be a valuable source for readers, including students. If a more experienced Wikipedia editor wants to jump in about citations, I'd also welcome the feedback. OwenSaunders (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the latest rounds of citation needed tags placed in the article, with sensitivity to your concerns regarding trans-paragraph citations. As for the tag after "...staked firm positions," this is a transitionary sentence reconciling her refusal to commit herself to a particular theoretical "camp" within feminism (i.e. liberal, radical), with her clear stance on many feminist issues. That is, she refuses committing to ideological framework, but nevertheless "stakes firm positions" on key issues. I have cited her statement eschewing an alliance with categories within feminism, and cited the sources from which all her positions drawn. I hope this clarifiers why this statement does not have a particular citation to itself. It transitions, connects, and brings cohesion to the section "Feminist Positions."--147.9.54.172 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the problem. When I read, "Nevertheless, on concrete issues, Steinem has staked firm positions," it was not immediately clear that the following sub-sections are examples of those positions. Rather, I originally read it as a concluding statement about her positions which was unsupported, thus the tag. I think the sentence could use some tweaking, but I'll step back for now and let other editors weigh in.OwenSaunders (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish

Is Gloria Jewish? Most articles citing him suggest that he is, but one pro-Jewish editor keeps reverting my edits that state Gloria is Jewish. Some help on this would be appreciated as the editor in question is now threatening me with blocking. MichelleSBernard (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources which state that Steinem is "Jewish", per WP:BLP. Also, don't refer to other editors as "pro-Jewish" - though it's hard to imagine why someone would want to be "anti-Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I did provide reliable sources. I will leave this to others. Why anyone would want to should be left to other pages such as the one about the recent gaza war, or the war in Lebanon. MichelleSBernard (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Beliefnet.com is not a reliable source for biographies of living people, and "half-Jewish" is not "Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A leading political leader of the decade

I've put a citation needed tag on that claim in the lead (added here [6]) as I can't see the support for it. The body of the article describes Steinem as "influential" and a "feminist leader of sorts"; that's significantly different to "a leading political leader of the decade". Could it be referenced please? Ha! (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Objectional use of the word "Icon"

Describing Steinem as a feminist "icon" removes the objectivity from this article, thus compromising its scholarly worth. Even describing her as an "iconic feminist," would reduce the worshipful tone of its current wording.

Strategic mistakes

I second the previous motion. Women need to look elsewhere. Germaine Greer certainly argues better. Perhaps the biggest strategic mistake made by Gloria Steinem was her support of Andrea Dworkin with her obsession with pornography and losing focus on women's economic position. Women's economic ability to survive nowadays is every bit as precarious now as it was in the 1960s and pornography manages to be even stronger now than it was in the 1960s during its so-called "golden era". Betty Friedan was correct on this issue. Unfortunately, not enough paid attention to her...