It was the fight for abortion rights that launched Gloria Steinem into feminism.
The idea that women couldn’t reach equality without the ability to decide whether or when to have children was central to the feminist movement of the late 1960s, which Steinem came to embody until her death at age 92 on Wednesday.
Oh you mean the fake feminist CIA plant?
And here you are upholding the time-honored tradition of attacking feminists in order to discredit any positive work they’ve done to advance women’s rights.
Gloria Steinem was a CIA plant to blame the ills of Capitalism entirely on the patriarchy. I mean, sure, blame the patriarchy, but name a tool it loves better than Capitalism today, or a more useful tool for keeping everyone down.
Apparently, its not feminism if an issue isn’t exclusive to women. White lady wrote a book about it, so she would know, right?
As any good socialist knows, the patriarchy is a tool of capitalism. DUH
So attacking the tool alone accomplishes . . . what, exactly? You just accused patriarchy of being nothing more than another distraction thrown-into the pits with the lions and gladiators.
Does that mean we get to keep a little patriarchy, as a treat, when the bread and wine and circusses are truly free?
I’m totally in favor of consigning both to roleplay behind closed doors, between consenting-adults, but I’m not here to point at a doll and pretend “feminism hurt me there”. Can’t say the same about patriarchy or capitalism, and pretending they weren’t both in the room isn’t going to help anyone.
Do you have sources that she was both a CIA plant and that she blamed the problems of capitalism on the patriarchy?
I’ve read that she was an anti-communist, but was primarily against the soviet union, which had become synonymous with communism for a time. I’d like to think someone as educated as her would have a broader picture, but that seemed like one of her blind spots.
The idea that she was a “plant” is so far out of left field I hope to see something to back it up.
She was a CIA operative long before becoming a feminist icon, and this isn’t even mildly obscure knowlege. You think the MOVE Bombing, the labelling of the Black Panthers as gang-bangers and terrorists, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, and Steinem’s rise to feminist “icon” around the time all those movements were approaching a concensus against Capitalism was a coincidence?
Idk friend, what did she blame the ills of Capitalism on? Did she even achnowlege them, or just parot CIA/Capitalist talking-points?
https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/feminist-icon-gloria-steinem-was
She called the CIA “liberal, nonviolent and honorable”. After the Iranian Revolution mind-you, although before Noriega, Pinochet and so-much else came to light, except, she never criticized the CIA for any of it, not even on her dying-day.
https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/05/01/black-feminism-the-cia-and-gloria-steinem/
Divided feminism and turned it into yet-another tool to lock-up black men. It walked like a duck and quacked like one.
Working for the CIA and being a “plant” are two entirely different things. I never doubted she worked for the CIA, as you said, that’s public knowledge. Again, I’m not condoning those actions.
I asked where she blamed the problems of capitalism on the patriarchy.
A few things I think about are:
a) what are the economic conditions which allowed for the liberation of women from child rearing and (to a lesser extent) domestic duties? what happens if those conditions are reversed? and is that what is currently driving the regression of rights?
and
Fatima Goss Graves, CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said progressive proposals — such as expanded and longer paid family leave and better access to affordable child care — are in fact about championing families and making childrearing easier without pushing women to abandon careers and financial independence.
b) would enough women, raised to see motherhood as one of many options, choose to have children at replacement rates? Because the stats are looking like there is no amount of government support that makes enough women willing to put with with the demands of child birth and child rearing to sustain populations. We should absolutely provide those supports, but there’s an idea that with enough support, we can have sustainable birth rates, and I don’t think that is correct. So maybe the policy discussion should switch to how do deal with a declining population instead of trying to dragoon women into breeding.
Because the stats are looking like there is no amount of government support
This oversimplifies and lacks vision.
- There are more reasons than just government support that determine whether people want kids, such as “holy fuck look at the way the world is going, do I want you bring children into that?”
- Government support is not a substitute for the economic conditions that cause a lot of people to choose not to have children. Right now people that 2 generations ago would have assumed a retirement with a nice pension was in the way are assuming they’ll never get to retire even without adding the cost of kids. You think free daycare or whatever is going to fix that? If the powers that be want people to have kids, people need economic breathing room.
While the government should be supporting families more and economic conditions do impact people’s decision to have children, there is more and more evidence coming through that shows the driving force of the falling birth rate is women having control over when and how many children they have. Access to birth control, abortions, and family planning have had a huge impact.
Edit:
While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a historic low U.S. birth rate of 1.6 children per woman in 2024, much of the decline, said McConnell, comes from teenagers and young women delaying childbearing.
“The population where the birth rate has been declining most rapidly is actually women 15 to 20 years old,” McConnell said. With better access to contraception and sex education, she explained, teen pregnancies have fallen dramatically—a trend Tiemeier called “a big societal success.”
McConnell also cautioned that the fertility rate, measured year by year, can obscure the bigger picture: completed family size over a woman’s lifetime has not fallen nearly as sharply. “If you look at numbers…that give you a sense of how many babies women have over their lifetimes—women between 40 and 44—the number of children they’ve had is actually not changing as much over time as the fertility rate,” suggesting that the supposed crisis reflects demographic shifts rather than collapse.
Because the stats are looking like there is no amount of government support that makes enough women willing to put with with the demands of child birth and child rearing to sustain populations.
What stats? No govt is currently providing enough support to make being a parent not an economic burden, so we have no stats on whether that would actually work.
In the U.S., this shift is driven in part by a growing number of women deciding against motherhood. According to Kearney, half of American women now reach age 30 without having at least one child. That’s a dramatic increase from two decades ago, when only about a third of American women didn’t have a child by that age. Many families are also choosing to have significantly fewer children.
There appear to be other upsides to declining fertility. Along with growing individual freedom and economic empowerment of women, the U.N. study also found a rapid drop in the number of girls and teenagers giving birth.
“The decline of the adolescent birth rates has been, I would say, one of the major success stories in global population health over the past three decades,” said Vladimíra Kantorová, the U.N.'s chief population scientist.
But as more women and couples delay parenthood, have fewer babies or don’t have children altogether, a growing number of nations around the world — more than 1 in 10 countries — have plunged to levels of childbearing so low that many scientists are worried.
Some progressives — as well as many population experts — also view conservative pronatalist policies, including opposition to reproductive rights and calls for a return to “traditional” family structures, as a threat to women.
“Some of these measures and policies can be deeply harmful, especially those related to sexual and reproductive health and choices and women’s empowerment — and that’s worrying,” said the U.N.'s Kantorová.
Harvard economist Claudia Goldin has found that declining birth rates often coincide with greater educational and professional opportunities for women. Her research also shows that more than one-quarter of the decline in the fertility rates since 2007 can be attributed to falling teen pregnancies rates in the United States.
At the same time, women are not necessarily choosing to avoid parenthood altogether. Many are simply prioritizing other milestones before having children, including pursuing higher education, building careers, securing financial stability, and purchasing a home. Raising a family is a major financial and personal commitment, and many women are choosing to wait.
Edit:
Singapore has spent years expanding financial support for families as it grapples with one of the world’s lowest fertility rates. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong recently announced a major expansion of family support measures, emphasizing that the government wants to provide assistance well beyond a child’s birth and into the early years of parenting.
Under the Baby Bonus Scheme, parents are given cash gifts throughout the first six-and-a-half years of a child’s life. The first and second child get a total of S$11,000, equivalent to about $8,660 USD, disbursed in six-month increments, and every other child gets S$13,000, equivalent to about $10,236 USD.
Despite those efforts, Singapore’s birth rate remains among the lowest globally. The cash incentives began in 2001 and haven’t been able to reverse the declining trend in birth rates.
South Korea has spent billions of dollars attempting to increase what has frequently been ranked as the world’s lowest fertility rate. The government offers an extensive package of benefits that includes monthly allowances for parents, direct birth grants, childcare support, expanded parental leave and housing assistance.
South Korea launched a program in 2022 that gave mothers 2 million won, the equivalent of about $1,500 USD, when they gave birth and then an additional 700,000 won, equivalent to about $500 USD, each month until their child turns one. Then, parents get 350,000 won, equivalent to about $260 USD, per month until they turn 2.
South Korea is still struggling with its birth rate, but the number of babies born in South Korea increased in 2024, the first time in nine years.
Estonia has combined direct payments with broader family support programs aimed at encouraging larger families.
Parents receive childbirth allowances and other child-related benefits, with support increasing for households with multiple children. The country also offers paid parental leave and childcare policies that policymakers say help reduce the cost of raising children.
Estonia’s birth rate has been on the decline since 2021. The child allowance started in 1992.
Finland has adopted a combination of cash benefits and family support services to encourage child-rearing. One of the country’s most famous family programs is the baby box, which provides new parents with essential supplies for newborns. Families can also receive financial assistance and monthly benefits.
Despite being family-friendly, Finland has one of the lowest birth rates among the Nordic countries.
“So we cannot really any longer say that it’s our good family policies that explain good fertility in the Nordics,” Anneli Miettinen, a research manager at Kela, told NPR in 2025.
I’m not sure what your point is. As I stated, there is no govt that fully compensates for the costs of having a child. None of the examples you’ve given state otherwise.
There are stats. There isn’t an amount of money the government can give to bring birth rates back to where they were before women had more control over their reproductive health and career/educational goals.
Women are choosing to have less children and having children later in life. That’s the driving force behind the falling birth rates. Not the only force, but the main one.
Yeah OK, you’re just being intentionally obtuse and ignoring my point.
There isn’t an amount of money the government can give to bring birth rates back to where they were before women had more control over their reproductive health and career/educational goals.
This is your personal opinion. (Not that we need birth rates back where they were, we just need them at a more sustainable level). It should be obvious that most would-be parents today do not have the financial security they would need to have more kids. This applies even in those countries in your examples, because those benefits are a tiny fraction of the costs of raising a child.
Women are choosing to have less children and having children later in life.
That’s not in dispute, but the reason for that choice is in part financial.
I’m not ignoring it, the economy being shit does have an impact.
Birth rates are falling even in countries that have strong social programs and wages. It’s a multi-faceted problem, but the driving force is that women have access to abortion, birth control, education, and career opportunities that they’ve never had before.
More money isn’t enough to force women to have more children than they desire. When women are given the choice, they choose to have fewer children and they have them later in life.
I’ve lived in Norway, one of the countries with the best QoL and support for kids. I have family in Singapore. I can assure you ‘strong social programs and wages’ are nowhere close to what kids actually cost. Finance is a huge factor.
driving force is that women have access to abortion, birth control, education, and career opportunities that they’ve never had before.
I’m not even disputing that they’re factors. Go back to my original post and you’ll note the only thing I asserted was WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH DATA ON WHETHER ACTUALLY REMOVING THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF KIDS WILL HELP. You’re not addressing my point, you’re just busy with your own talking point that nobody’s disputing.
what are replenishment rates? it depends on who you ask, and for what. the world can not sustain our current levels of population without massive changes in how we live, but at the same time others argue that to maintain our current way of life, we must match the amount of children to keep the current levels… but also to care for the current amount of people, replenishment rates force a forever growth!!
ultimately any argument for reaching certain amount of replenishment is by definition short sighted. anecdotally these arguments have only been made by people who only care about their comfort at the cost of the future.
the real answer is that the current way of life was never capable of sustainment, and as such there is no need to push for replenishment. we should be incentivizing fewer children. best way i see to do that is to keep the populous highly educated and free from the fear of not being able to provide an idealized life and free medical care. I believe Societies who obtain these qualities find slower or reversed population growth with out draconian measures, or relying on war and famine to cull the weak
feminism back then didn’t include black people
