Charlie Rose

summer9  01/08/2012 07:35 PM Report

Thank you Gloria Steinem, for all that you have done for women. I am a young woman who has learn so much from your teachings.

JMM  08/23/2011 03:55 AM Report

It appears to me that it would be helpful if more women added comments to shows, and not just about: the looks of men,the fact his book was ghostwritten, that he’s married to someone who happens to be wealthier, that Charlie wasted a conversation or full hour on that man, that they wished the women had spoken more than that man because his contributions made no sense. Those type of comments -especially the ones about physical looks- seem to be the norm in this section when it comes to discussing women guests.

Charlie, I’d love to see you add even more conversations about women, because their history and reality is not known or acknowledged by some of the commentators. The education is needed, even for women.

BENEZRAA  08/18/2011 02:11 AM Report

RE: "BLESSED ART THOU...."

All of the comments thus far to this Gloria Steinem conversation are remarkably on the same page, addressing women's actual realities and showing honest respect for women. It is in this context -- the importance of and respect for women -- that this aforementioned Jewish prayer is so often misinterpreted. The correct understanding of this Jewish prayer is, "Stand up and be a man!" (The common misinterpretation is, "Thank you, Lord, for making me a man, as it is a lowly thing, to be a woman.")

This Jewish prayer calls men to their manliness, to manly responsibilities, manly obligations, and manly privileges. This prayer calls men never to presume to femininity, nor to the responsibilities and privileges that are the reserved, rightful, deserved provinces of women.

The high esteem in which Judaism holds women is modeled in the Sabbath Evening prayer, "A Woman Of Valor". And, in order to be worthy to marry a "woman of valor", a man must live up to his manly obligations, as given in the Torah. Neither male nor female, God created man to be man and woman to be woman. In this God discriminates positively and favorably, that women should be women and that men should be men.

In weaker moments this prayer reminds man, "Buck up, lad; it's tough to be a man, which is why I [God] have given you this Torah, so that instead of being ruled about this world by your "lower brain" (i.e. the one located below the waist, which, less face it, can be the greatest tyrant on the Planet) you may instead have a prayer of a chance to overcome this natural necessary biological tyranny by learning and keeping this Torah (in your stupidest moments, you will already be well trained, what to do and what not to do, when to do and when not to do, who to do and who not to do, how to do and how not to do, why to do and why not to do, where to do and where not to do....).

"Stand up! Be a man!" This is the meaning of this Jewish prayer.

Judaism may be misunderstood both by Jews and non-Jews lacking adequate Jewish Torah education. Sadly, amongst Jews today, such extensive ignorance prevails, especially here in the USA, that the majority of Jews already are, or soon shall be, lost to Judaism -- born to be Jewish, deprived of Judaism.

"A WOMAN OF VALOR -- WHO CAN FIND? HER WORTH IS FAR BEYOND PEARLS. HER HUSBAND'S HEART TRUSTS IN HER, AND HE HAS NO LACK OF

APPRECIATION FOR HER. SHE BRINGS HIM GOOD --NOT HARM -- ALL THE DAYS OF HER LIFE...."

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/16/2011 12:59 AM Report

Blessed art thou, 0 Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman . . . Old Jewish prayer.

The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee, carried the male tradition of Judaism over into Christianity when he wrote: "Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinated, even as the law says."

This is from 60 years ago about a woman leading a Jewish congregation:

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,888921,00.html#ixzz1VAH2EYGh

In 60 years, the money has only been a small part of it.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/16/2011 12:37 AM Report

Well Gloria . . .

Among adults 25 and older, 10.6 million U.S. women have master's degrees or higher, compared to 10.5 million men.

Roughly 20.1 million women have bachelor's degrees, compared to nearly 18.7 million men — a gap of more than 1.4 million that has remained steady in recent years. Women first passed men in bachelor's degrees in 1996.

Measured by pay, women with full-time jobs now make 78.2 percent of what men earn, up from about 64 percent in 2000. BUT the current economic slump is a "man-cession" because of the huge job losses in the male-dominated construction and manufacturing industries. Unemployment for men currently stands at 9.3 percent compared to 8.3 percent for women, who now make up half of the U.S. work force.

Here is the Georgetown Study on pay differences: http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/collegepayoff-complete.pdf

Figure five shows what Gloria mentioned but look at figure six. Those Asians are kicking butt and taking names Gloria--perhaps gender is only a wee bit of the picture.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/26/national/main20057608.shtml

Harryj  08/15/2011 07:32 PM Report

If you try to fight nature, you always lose, and society is unhappier as result of that...but we always have SSRI's to help with that.

Ellen_Dibble  08/15/2011 01:06 PM Report

If in pre-Maoist China bound feet among women indicated high status, that those woman did not need to work (work meaning walking here and there), then do those extremely long fingernails indicate full circle, that Steinem no longer needs to type her own writings? Probably not.

doodah  08/15/2011 12:35 PM Report

the great Gloria Steinem, fighting Nature all the way. And society (men, women, & families) suffer for it. To over simplify by generalizing down to the lowest common denominator of female vs. male has had the opposite effect. Now young mothers raising/training their daughters to be sluts is pretty much the norm. And does not bode well for the future of Rome.

REMant  08/15/2011 11:23 AM Report

Well, I think her grasp of women's history is wanting. Women have been everything they are now for a very long time, law or not, and that includes lesbian. They have occupied significant, if not always identical, positions to men in science, education, religion and politics throughout our history and Europe's. What is different is that the increasing division of labor and the poverty associated with it, plus the decline of the family have made it more likely to see them in the workplace. But Ms Steinem is measuring with a different yardstick, where males, esp WASP males, are oppressors, etc, and hers is supposed to be part of the great Democratic crusade. But that is not really new either, altho they weren't Democrats then. Indeed, there is no way to consider what such Whig and social science reformers have in view in any way other than social control or primitivism.

Feminists have always pushed for market society, and that is really what this has always been about, the demolition of "feudalism," patriarchy and family. In this it could be argued they were no different from Locke, however he would never have embraced the methods used to promote the kind of economic order that lies in tatters around us. Women have. The evidence is that it is not lineage that has been the problem, but its replacement by patronage. Mandeville would no doubt have loved to take on feminism. And Jane Austen certainly took a different tack.

I never noticed in the '50s and '60s any prejudicial treatment of females, except, of course that designed to favor heads of households. After the war most women, no matter what they had done in it, wanted the family life that had been denied them by two decades of turmoil and poverty. This tho particularly rankled the feminists. It was no longer enough to rule the home, school and religion like a Catherine Beecher, they now had to takeover the workplace and the world at large. The "monstrous regiment of women," John Knox long ago termed it.

Too, while I agree with her about "academia" in general, given the number of females graduating these days, there must be something else which prevents them from taking an equivalent proportion of positions in important areas. Blame it on mixed classrooms, low expectations, sentimentalism or prejudice, but in my experience it is simply that they are more given to networking and discrimination, themselves. To put it in Riesman's terms, men are inner-directed and women are other-directed. (On this topic, BTW, Michelle Bachmann, the other night, might have met Peter with Paul: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord...Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church....")

Thinking about Ms Steinem's classic tabloid-style foray into the world of Playboy reminds me how little she understood it. No doubt waitresses lead a fairly hard life, altho many choose it for the remuneration, and doing it in a bathing suit with fuzzy appendages must seem somewhat demeaning to some, but by and large these girls are delighted to appear in the magazines and always have been, tho they may later regret it, which no doubt rankles, too. But they like the easy money, and the feeling of power, and have long hoped it would lead to bigger and better things. It never has had much to do with the girl next door, or sexual revolution, which was acknowledged when Hefner moved to Hollywood, tho I suppose the denizens would have it the other way 'round.

Pornography, too, is nothing like she imagines. Altho there's little doubt there's an excess of hormones behind it, the men are often gay and the women lesbian, are in it for the money as well, and while they make little pretense to romance, or, at least on screen, to affection, the gonzo stuff is as much a fantasy as a Godzilla movie. It is fair to ask why exploitation of this sort has been increasing, but I would have to say it is no more so in porn than in film and literature generally. So far am I from thinking it Marxist exploitation, however, I'd put it, like Helen Mirren, in the category of approved enterprise.