Women can thank Gloria Steinem for so much we take for granted now

This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• The column portrays Gloria Steinem as a transformative figure whose six decades of activism helped secure abortion rights, workplace protections against sexual harassment, equal pay, and women’s access to credit and housing, fundamentally expanding the choices available to American women^[1][6].
• It emphasizes that Steinem’s co-founding of Ms. magazine created a groundbreaking national publication owned and operated by women, shifting the women’s media landscape away from recipes and domestic ideals toward candid coverage of domestic violence, workplace inequality, and reproductive rights^[1][2][6].
• The article argues that Steinem’s visibility and charisma made feminism more approachable, turning a movement often caricatured as angry or unattractive into one associated with intelligent, stylish advocacy that helped reframe women as autonomous political actors and sexual beings rather than primarily homemakers^[1][3].
• It underscores Steinem’s habit of seeing systems rather than isolated incidents of bias, suggesting that everyday slights—like a husband stepping over toys and demanding they be picked up—were evidence of broader structures of gendered labor and power that feminism could expose and challenge^[1].
• The piece highlights Steinem’s dry wit and use of satire, citing work such as “If Men Could Menstruate” to show how humor helped deconstruct male privilege and imagine a world in which bodily functions associated with women would be treated as sources of status and public support rather than embarrassment^[1].
• It credits Steinem with co-founding a range of organizations—from the National Women’s Political Caucus to educational and media initiatives—that aimed to increase women’s political representation, foster nonsexist schooling, and promote more accurate portrayals of women in media^[2][3][6].
• The column suggests that Steinem’s feminism connected gender equality to wider struggles against authoritarianism and other forms of oppression, portraying her as part of a broader emancipatory project rather than a single-issue activist^[4].
• It notes that Steinem’s personal life, including a late-in-life marriage after years of critiquing the institution, reflected a belief that social change could alter traditional structures like marriage sufficiently to make them compatible with feminist principles^[2][6].
• Finally, the article contends that Steinem should be remembered as a “hope-aholic” whose work made the world not just kinder but significantly better, inspiring generations of women and allies who may benefit from feminist gains without necessarily identifying as feminists themselves^[1][3][6].

Different views on the topic

• Critics within and outside the feminist movement argue that the second-wave feminism Steinem came to symbolize often centered the experiences of white, college-educated, middle-class women, failing to fully address the intersecting realities of race and class for many women of color and working-class women^[7][10].
• The Nation has highlighted longstanding critiques from women-of-color feminists, who contend that mainstream feminism’s focus on issues such as abortion rights sometimes overshadowed struggles around maternal health, economic survival, and systemic racism, and that appeals to a unified “women’s interest” could obscure deep internal inequalities^[7].
• Scholars examining Ms. magazine’s early years note that the publication was criticized for employing mostly white staff and encouraging a sense of sameness among women, which risked minimizing differences in power, privilege, and oppression across racial and economic lines^[10].
• Some commentators have faulted Steinem’s public interventions in electoral politics, arguing that remarks such as the claim that young women supporting Bernie Sanders were doing so to attract men were offensive and reinforced a pattern of movement insiders policing who counts as a “good” feminist^[9].
• Academic work comparing Steinem with conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly points out that Schlafly and allies viewed Steinem’s agenda as a threat to traditional family structures and gender roles, portraying feminism as destabilizing social cohesion and undermining women who embraced homemaking and motherhood^[8].
• Interview-based scholarship on American feminism has also discussed concerns that certain strands of feminist rhetoric, including those linked to Steinem’s era, encouraged what critics call “victim feminism,” in which emphasis on systemic oppression may inadvertently limit women’s sense of agency or resilience^[5].
• Media critics have argued that celebratory documentaries and profiles often gloss over unresolved questions about the legacy of second-wave feminism, noting that pay gaps, reproductive rights, and intersectional injustices persist and that the movement associated with Steinem has not delivered equally for all women^[7][10].
• Some writers and activists therefore call for a more nuanced assessment of Steinem’s legacy, acknowledging her substantial contributions while insisting that contemporary feminism must confront the exclusions and strategic missteps of earlier eras to build a more inclusive, racially and economically just movement^[7][10].