President Barack Obama and feminist Gloria Steinem before Steinem received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013. Photo: Paul Hennessy/Polaris/Newscom
There is a pattern of thinking that goes something like this: I demand equality for some at the expense of the many. I grew up during the “feminist movement” in America led by Gloria Steinem. The worthy goal was equal rights for women but it came at the expense of the traditional family. I did not see the eventual outcomes of Steinem and her efforts upon that most important institution – the traditional family, which is the building block of all societies and civilization itself.
Steinem remains committed to destroying women, motherhood and thereby the traditional family. Steinem has succeeded beyond even her own expectations.
Twelve years ago Jacqueline Kirby, M.S. in Single-parent Families in Poverty wrote:
One of the most striking changes in family structure over the last twenty years has been the increase in single-parent families. In 1970, the number of single-parent families with children under the age of 18 was 3.8 million. By 1990, the number had more than doubled to 9.7 million. For the first time in history, children are more likely to reside in a single-parent family for reasons other than the death of a parent. One in four children are born to an unmarried mother, many of whom are teenagers. Another 40 percent of children under 18 will experience parental breakup.
Ninety percent of single-parent families are headed by females. Not surprisingly, single mothers with dependent children have the highest rate of poverty across all demographic groups (Olson & Banyard, 1993). Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families. The rate of poverty is even higher in African-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor.
On March 25th, 2014, Steinem’s 80th birthday, Genevieve Wood wrote, “The liberal sisterhood railed against a society they said encouraged women to stay at home and raise children. They demanded the marketplace open up more opportunities for women and pay them the same as men. Fine. But what about women who choose differently? Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women.”
Wood provided the following quotes:
Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”
Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”
Wood notes that Steinem has never been a fan of women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda. “Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”
“So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves,” concludes Wood.
Dr. Larry Reed, President of FEE wrote, “Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.” American women today are less free because of Steinem. Traditional families are increasingly becoming the exception rather than the rule.