FEATURE:
Feminist Icons
IN THIS PHOTO: Amy Yip, Gloria Steinem, and Saad Amer at Steinem’s Upper East Side apartment for her ninety-first birthday in March (West Coast-based gallery ILY2 gathered influential creative women together at the feminist icon’s apartment)/PHOTO CREDIT: Mike Vitelli/BFA.com
celebrating and spotlighting iconic feminists whose words and work have and continue to inspire. So far, I have discussed amazing women like Michelle Obama, Caitlin Moran and Yara Shahidi. Today, one of the most influential and notable feminists who has ever lived, Gloria Steinem, is in my thoughts. Steinem emerged as a recognised leader of second-wave feminism in the United States in the late-1960s and early-1970s. I am going to come to some fairly recent interviews with Gloria Steinem. Before that, I am going to get to some biography about a hugely important feminist figure. Someone whose has had an incredible career and life:
“From her humble Ohio childhood, Gloria Steinem grew up to become an acclaimed journalist, trailblazing feminist, and one of the most visible, passionate leaders and spokeswomen of the women’s rights movement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Steinem was born on March 25, 1934 in Toledo, Ohio, the second child and daughter of Leo and Ruth Steinem. Her father worked as a traveling salesman. In 1944, her parents divorced, leaving a young Steinem to take care of her mentally ill mother in Toledo. After graduating high school, her sister came to care for their mother, and Steinem attended Smith College in Massachusetts where she studied government. She graduated magna cum laude in 1956 and earned the Chester Bowles Fellowship, which enabled her to spend two years studying and researching in India. Her time abroad inspired an interest in grassroots activism, which would later manifest itself in her work with the women’s liberation movement and the Equal Rights Amendment.
Steinem started her professional career as a journalist in New York, writing freelance pieces for various publications. Getting plumb assignments was tough for women in the late 1950s and 1960s, when men ran the newsrooms and women were largely relegated to secretarial and behind-the-scenes research roles. Steinem’s early articles tended to be for what was then called “the women’s pages,” lifestyle or service features about such female-centered or fashion topics as nylon stockings. Steinem once recalled that, “When I suggested political stories to The New York Times Sunday Magazine, my editor just said something like, ‘I don’t think of you that way.’”
Undeterred, Steinem pushed on, seeking more substantial social and political reporting assignments. She gained national attention in 1963 when Show magazine hired her to go undercover to report on the working conditions at Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Club. While Steinem’s expose—“I Was a Playboy Bunny”—revealed the not-so-glamorous, sexist, and underpaid life of the bunny/waitresses, Steinem struggled to be taken seriously as a journalist after this assignment. She worked hard to make a name for herself, and in 1968, she helped found New York magazine, where she became an editor and political writer.
At New York magazine, Steinem reported on political campaigns and progressive social issues, including the women’s liberation movement. In fact, Steinem first spoke publicly in 1969 at a speak-out event to legalize abortion in New York State, where she shared the story of the abortion she had overseas when she was 22 years old. The event proved life-changing, sparking Steinem’s feminism and engagement with the women’s movement. She attended and spoke at numerous protests and demonstrations, and her strong intellect and good looks made her an in-demand media guest and movement spokesperson.
In 1970, feminist activists staged a take-over of Ladies Home Journal, arguing that the magazine only offered articles on housekeeping but failed to cover women’s rights and the women’s movement. Steinem soon realized the value of a women’s movement magazine, and joined forces with journalists Patricia Carbine and Letty Cottin Pogrebin to found Ms. Magazine. It debuted in 1971 as an insert in New York magazine. In 1972, Ms. became an independent, regular circulation magazine. Steinem remained an editor and writer for the magazine for the next fifteen years and continues in an emeritus capacity to the present.
Steinem’s life has been dedicated to the cause of women’s rights, as she led marches and toured the country as an in-demand speaker. In 1972, Steinem and feminists such as Congresswoman Bella Abzug, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, and feminist Betty Friedan formed the National Women’s Political Caucus. It continues to support gender equality and to ensure the election of more pro-equality women to public office. Other organizations Steinem has co-founded in her vast career include the Women’s Action Alliance (1971), which promotes non-sexist, multi-racial children’s education; the Women’s Media Center (2004) to promote positive images of women in media; Voters for Choice (1977), a prochoice political action committee; and the Ms. Foundation for Women. In the 1990s, she helped establish Take Our Daughters to Work Day, the first national effort to empower young girls to learn about career opportunities.
In 2000, at age 66, the long single Steinem married for the first time in a Cherokee ceremony in Oklahoma. Her husband, entrepreneur and activist David Bale, sadly died of lymphoma four years later.
An award-winning and prolific writer, Steinem has authored several books, including a biography on Marilyn Monroe, and the best-selling My Life on the Road. Her work has also been published and reprinted in numerous anthologies and textbooks. In 2013, President Barack Obama presented her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor. In her honor, in 2017, Rutgers University created The Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies”.
I am going to end with a bit of discussion around her books. You can visit her official website, where there is a wealth of information and links. Looking on her website, I was not aware of the invaluable and wonderful Gloiria’s Foundation:
“Honoring the lifelong work of feminist icon Gloria Steinem, Gloria’s Foundation is dedicated to advancing the feminist movement. Our immediate goal is to preserve and maintain Gloria’s iconic three-story Manhattan apartment—a historic hub of activism, creativity, and community.
As Gloria herself said:
“My apartment isn’t just a home; it’s a political center. It’s where people have come to feel safe, and I hope it can continue as a sanctuary for the feminist movement.”
Since 1968, this beloved brownstone has housed feminist leaders, thinkers, and organizers. From the birth of Ms. Magazine to grassroots meetings that shaped the feminist movement, this space is more than a home—it’s a cornerstone of feminist history. Our mission is to preserve this legacy for future generations, safeguarding both the space and its role in advancing feminist causes”.
I would urge everyone to check out Gloria Steinem’s written work. An icon, activist and inspiring leader who has been this catalyst for change. Living in America now under the leadership of Donald Trump, I do wonder what she thinks. As someone who fights for women’s body autonomy and rights, it must be a frustrating and scary time for her. Women have fewer rights now than they did decades ago. The first interview I want to come to is related to Marianne Schnall’s book, What Will It Take to Make A Woman President?: Conversations About Women, Leadership and Power. Endorsed by Beyoncé – who said it is a book that will make you become a better leader –, Gloria Steinem contributed an essay. As the book was published in 2013, the U.S. has taken a step back in terms of female representation in its highest office. However, I think there are some interesting observations from Gloria Steinem and Marianne Schnall:
“Marianne Schnall: Why do you think it is that we have not yet had a woman president?
Gloria Steinem: One reason is that women weren’t citizens from 1776 through the constitutional amendment [in 1920]. We were possessions, like tables and chairs. So there was not the opportunity [for women] to own property, to have the right to one’s own earnings, to have the right to your own children. You could be forcibly returned to a violent husband. You were property, literally, like a thing. And the laws of slavery were modeled on the laws affecting wives, so that takes care of the long time through the 1920s [laughs].
And since then, we have been overcoming legal barriers. For instance, women couldn’t sit on juries, law schools didn’t accept women, or accepted a small percentage of women when I was growing up. When I would have gone to law school, Harvard accepted no women and Columbia accepted 5 percent. So those are just symbolic areas, but they’re illustrative, real, powerful barriers.
There are also what are called cultural barriers, but I’m not sure we should call them cultural, because it seems to me what affects men is called political and what affects women is called cultural. So the idea that only women could raise children meant that also when this wave of feminism began in the seventies and we began to try to elect women, there were two frequent questions of women candidates. One: If you don’t have children, why not? And two: If you do have children, why aren’t you home with them?
The deeper problem is that we are still raised as children, mainly by women, so we associate female authority with childhood. We, as women, have our own example to go by, so sometimes we change—although there are also women who don’t think that female authority is appropriate to public life. But it’s more likely to be men, and I think we saw it in the response to Hillary in 2008 when big, grown-up, otherwise adult television commentators were saying things like, “I cross my legs when I see her. She reminds me of my first wife, standing outside alimony court.” People who would not ever say such things, normally, were saying them about Hillary, because, I would guess, deep down they felt regressed by a powerful woman. The last time they saw one they were six years old.
“It’s important for the whole country that we are able to choose from all of our talent, otherwise we lower our standards.”
MS: What a conundrum for women, though. Because if women who are confident or ambitious or powerful or in positions of leadership are seen as unlikable, how can women be accepted and respected as leaders?
GS: You do it anyway. You just go forward, and you end up changing the image eventually, and you may take a lot of punishment along the way. But I do think that now we could elect a woman as president, because of the bravery of a lot of women, especially Hillary. But Shirley Chisholm also took the WHITE MALE ONLY sign off of the White House door all by herself.
MS: I feel like this whole conversation sometimes gets reframed incorrectly as a men versus women conversation, that it’s some type of competition. Why would electing a woman as president be important?
GS: It’s important because we need the talent of the whole country, not just a small percentage of it. Once at Ms. Magazine we tried to figure out the talent pool from which we were choosing presidents. First you eliminated half the country, the females. Then you eliminated by class, race—because obviously Obama had not yet been elected. Anyway, we ended up with 6 percent. So it’s important for the whole country that we are able to choose from all of our talent, otherwise we lower our standards.
Secondly, gender is still a social force, so it’s still probably true, not always, but probably true that women are somewhat less likely to choose an aggressive solution and more likely to choose a conciliatory one. Not that a conciliatory one is always right, but it’s just that it tends to be the least present in public life….
Men are made to feel that they have to earn their masculinity and to sometimes get into an extreme cult of masculinity that requires control and violence. Cesar Chavez used to say, “We want to rescue the executioner from being the executioner, as well as the victim from being the victim.”
MS: Sometimes I think we’re talking not in literal gender terms, but conceptually, where sometimes feminine values like cooperation and care and empathy and compassion are seen as soft or weak, rather than part of the full circle of human qualities.
GS: But that’s just because masculinity is perceived as superior, necessary, inevitable, conquering, winning—all those things.
MS: When I interviewed Michael Kimmel, he said that it is really important to make sure that this conversation is not anti-men—that men not only lately are being there to support women, they understand why it would be helpful to the world to have more women in these positions, but also to free themselves.
GS: I’ve forgotten who said, “The woman a man most fears is the woman inside himself.”
MS: I feel like Obama does have what you might call more “feminine” traits, in terms of being conciliatory and showing how important family is to him—
GS: I think we ought to forget about talking about masculine and feminine altogether; we should talk about humans.
MS: There are many other countries who have already elected female heads of state, and the United States is ninetieth in the world in terms of women in national legislatures. What do these other countries know that we don’t, and why is the United States lagging so far behind?
GS: There are a variety of reasons and they all function in different ways. One is there’s more power in this country. It’s still the dominant power in the world, so there’s more competition for these jobs. One is that we are multi-racial, and racism always increases sexism because you have to maintain control of women and reproduction in order to maintain racial difference. So one-race countries, generally speaking, as the Scandinavian example, for instance, have slightly less motivation to remain sexist.
Another is that we are big and decentralized, so social reform has to take place fifty times, whereas in France or Sweden or Finland it only takes place once in the national legislature”.
It is a shame there has not been another portrayal of her life and work. Something from the last few years. A modern-day film or T.V. series where she is the centre of the piece or part of an ensemble. The feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s and being right at the heart of things. There was a 2020 film, The Glorias, that Steinem was not a fan of. There was a T.V. series in 2020, Mrs. America, that found more favourable reviews, though I am not entirely sure whether Gloria Steinem was a big fan of that. She was portrayed in that series by Rose Byrne (who was exceptional). I think it was a more even portrait than The Glorias and got a better reaction. It would be interesting if there was a film that took a lead from Mrs. America where Gloria Steinem consulted. Cate Blanchett was exceptional as Phyllis Schlafly in Mrs America. I wanted to take from The Guardian’s review of the series:
“There’s a common and familiar theme of principles versus practicality in these stories. Byrne, in particular, is excellent as Steinem, the media darling of independent womanhood grappling with her role as a leader who instinctively attracts publicity. Aduba’s Chisholm, the first black woman to run for president in 1972, is a deep well of unfathomable confidence and frustration at the compromises made for progress. Margo Martindale takes no prisoners as Representative Bella Abzug, an organizer of the National Women’s Political Caucus, and Elizabeth Banks pinch-hits as Jill Ruckelshaus, a Republican feminist alarmed by the rise of Schlafly’s far-right strain in her party. Feminist-focusing moments speak to contemporary struggles at coalition building, such as how a space like Steinem’s Ms Magazine is less amenable to black feminists like editor Margaret Sloan (Bria Henderson) than its utopian vision admits.
And punch for punch there’s Schlafly, the focus of the first episode and, for lack of a better term, humanized anti-hero of the show’s feminist vision. Mrs America takes pains to color in the black-and-white dichotomy – Schlafly and her Eagle Forum bad, feminists good – with which most viewers will probably enter. In Washington, Schlafly is cut off from her missile strategy spiel by a congressman who wants her to take notes; the men continue without her as she fetches a pen. She comes home to her husband Fred (John Slattery) weary; he wants to have sex, she doesn’t. Guess who wins out”.
Tied to the release of The Glorias in 2020, Gloria Steinem took questions from twenty-five formidable fans and friends. This was from Interview Magazine. I am not including all of the twenty-five questions, though there are six that really caught my eye so I want to bring them in now. It is interesting what Steinem says in her answers:
“JULIANNE MOORE: I am so impressed and inspired by your patience and tolerance, and how thoughtfully you have instigated change. Which female leader have you found most inspiring, and why?
STEINEM: The problem is that most people won’t know the female leaders I tend to find inspiring. I’m thinking, for instance, of Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay from India. She was a great leader of the independence movement and of the women’s movement, and just incredibly foresighted. But there are different ways of leading. I think of Alice Walker, because she is so true in her writing that she helps everyone who reads her—or knows her, or knows anything about her—be true to themselves.
AMANDLA STENBERG: How does your practice transmute as the language of gender expands?
STEINEM: Oh, language can easily go beyond gender. We just have to rethink and abandon labels. We can refer to somebody by their name without saying, or having to say, where they come from, or what gender or race they are, but by the fact that they are a unique human being named Dorothy or Vladimir. I also think that COVID-19 has helped us go beyond adjectives, because the pandemic doesn’t recognize, and is not limited by, race or class or gender or nationality. I think it’s helping us realize that we are all human.
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON: As a Member of Congress, I would appreciate your advice on which of many issues Congress should flag for attention next year because of its importance or because the issue is most achievable in the short run.
STEINEM: First, I trust you to know the answer to this question better than I do. You are way more knowledgeable about the art of the possible, especially in Congress. If we look at the most basic issue, in the sense that it is the first step in hierarchy, it is controlling women’s bodies as the means of reproduction, which is redoubled if there is racism, because then there’s far more motive to decide what groups increase and what groups don’t. The first step in every hierarchy I’ve ever witnessed or read about is patriarchy. It is about controlling women’s bodies, since we happen to have one thing that men do not: wombs. So I would say that the first step toward true democracy is for everyone, men and women, to have decision-making power over our own bodies. If we focus on that, all else will follow.
IN THIS PHOTO: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/PHOTO CREDIT: David Pexton/The New Yorker
JOY REID: With the Equal Rights Amendment so close to having enough states ratify it, but with women having made so many advances since the days when you launched Ms. magazine, what, in your view, would materially change for women if the ERA became a constitutional amendment?
STEINEM: Everything. To be present in the Constitution would make an enormous difference. So much would change if sex discrimination rose to that level. Also, we would join every other democracy in the world that includes women in its Constitution.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: How have you seen the role of intersectionality in feminism evolve over the years? It seems as though in this moment, many people are revisiting the work of feminists like yourself, Angela Davis, Dolores Huerta, and the Combahee River Collective. How does this moment compare to the beginning of your career?
STEINEM: I agree that we’re rediscovering the beginnings of this wave of feminism, and they were always intersectional. I learned feminism mostly from Black women. I learned organizing from Dolores Huerta. Of course there are divisions in the movement, but the problem is less the divisions than the blindness and inadequacy of history. There was an assumption on the part of journalists—and newspapers are the first draft of history—that the Women’s Movement was white, and the Civil Rights movement was male, and therefore women of color, Black women especially, were not well recorded in either.
SHARON STONE: How have you dealt with the straight male need to control you by not only diminishing your accomplishments but by intentionally choosing to not respond to your emotional needs because they were threatened by your independence?
STEINEM: I left. I left and found another man”.
There is one more interview I want to get to before wrapping up. It is another from 2020 and this if from The New York Times Magazine. Again, inspired by The Glorias – though they note how Gloria Steinem has been portrayed on stage and screen a few times recently -, it makes me wonder whether there will be any new shows or films where we see Gloria Steinem portrayed once more:
“In just the past two years, Gloria Steinem has had her life dramatized three times. First onstage in New York in “Gloria: A Life”; then on television in FX’s much-discussed “Mrs. America”; and finally in the director Julie Taymor’s upcoming decades-spanning film, “The Glorias,” in which America’s best-known feminist activist is portrayed by, among others, Alicia Vikander and Julianne Moore. And while her own story may have reached depiction-in-prestige-entertainment phase, Steinem, who is 86, is fully aware that both her work and the country’s work remain unfinished. “The progress we’ve made is not sufficient,” she says. “But there is an advantage to being old. I have a role to play in the movement by saying, ‘Here’s when it was worse.’”
You’ve spent countless amounts of time doing in-person activism and political organizing. But even though there has been so much energy around protests this year, activism, like everything else, has over time been shifting toward the digital world. Has the ship sailed as far as activists’ prioritizing physical over online communication? I think the ship has never sailed.
I guess “the ship has sailed” is a strange expression. The ship staying in port doesn’t really sound better. [Expletive] the ship. I’m swimming.
Steinem and the activist Dorothy Pitman Hughes in a 1971 photograph taken for Esquire magazine. Dan Wynn Archive and Farmani Group
Spoken like a true optimist, and I imagine that optimism is necessary when you devote your life to activism. Given that you’ve done that, how do you wrap your head around this moment, which in so many ways is one of regress? For example, no matter what happens in November, because of the way different courts have been stacked, there could still be huge rollbacks in abortion rights, birth control, voting rights. We’ve paid, as movements, more attention to Washington than to state legislatures, and we see the penalty for that. Tactically we could have done better. But we are at a point of a backlash because we are winning. The most dangerous time is after a victory — eight years of Obama and moving forward and the fact that now most Americans agree with what social-justice movements have been saying. But what that means is that 40 percent of the country feels deprived of their position in an old hierarchy, and they’re in full backlash.
What are you looking at beyond public-opinion polls when you say “we’re winning”? I’m mainly thinking about public-opinion polls, which are the most general measure we have. The issues that were once the concerns only of social-justice movements, whether it was female equality or gay marriage, have journeyed from being the concern of an insurgent movement to being a majority view. That heartens me. I understand that it doesn’t have a positive impact on the people who don’t agree, but it is a fact.
What do you think it is about you that has allowed you to have an impact? I know that in the early days people used to lazily point to your attractiveness as an explanation for the attention you got, but what deeper qualities helped you become a leader? I don’t understand it. I thought I understood in the beginning because I realized that as a journalist I had written articles about the movement, and so I would be asked to speak about it. But I really don’t know. I suppose it’s partly because I’m a full-time movement worker, which most people can’t be because they have another profession. That probably makes a difference. It’s also partly that no one can fire me. Most people don’t have that freedom. Maybe that plays a role. If I had to pick one reason, it’s because I have a sense of humor. That’s crucial. It allows you to laugh at yourself and say when you’re wrong. One of the things that Native American culture understands and we probably don’t is that laughter is the only emotion you can’t compel. You can’t make anybody laugh unless they want to. I suspect that the people who last the longest, who continue to be trustworthy, are people with a sense of humor.
You’ve seen a lot of political and ideological trends come and go. Are there contemporary attitudes or ideas that belong to younger activists — or even the political left generally — which you’ve found challenging to understand? I did sign a recent statement about cancel culture. I was — and am — concerned about what seems to me a function of being on the web too much and focusing on words more than actions. You’re saying exactly the right thing or not, and people are responding with hostility instead of an invitation. Instead of being against a specific act or statement or article, you’re against the person who said it, and that makes no sense to me because that ends the conversation. If you care about having the conversation, surely you want to try in a humane way to convince the other person, not do away with them.
People have tried to cancel you before. What have you learned about the best way to mitigate those kinds of attacks? It’s important to learn from criticism. We all [expletive] up. If and when the criticism bears no resemblance to reality, then we have to move forward and understand it comes with the territory. Part of what may seem unfamiliar to some people is because we’ve been raised with this patriarchal, racist idea of normalcy. Those of us who are not obeying those past ideas may seem to be unnatural.
Did you follow all the hubbub around that cancel-culture letter you signed? I was asked to sign the letter, and I signed it. I believed in the letter, so I thought, Fine. I didn’t read any of the response because I knew that it was going to be mixed. But if someone has a problem with it, then start another letter. There should be lots of letters. The most painful criticism or attacks come from people who share your values, not people who don’t share your values. If Trump spoke well of me, I would shoot myself.
Have you ever met the president? It’s interesting you ask that. I did, a very long time ago. I was raising money for something, as usual, and I went to see him. He was sitting on the other side of the desk, and he praised me to the skies in a way that made me know he didn’t have a clue who I was. Then he gave me a very small check.”
Even though the interviews I included are from five years ago, Gloria Steinem remains active and very busy. I would love to see her writing celebrated and made the centre of an exhibition. Something in London to honour her. Whether an exhibition or something else. There is this excellent article about Steinem’s underrated book, The Beach. When Steinem turns ninety-one in March, Glamour noted how “Steinem has proven that women can not only care deeply about the way they dress, but use clothing as a powerful force for change”. There is this article that covered Steinem’s recent birthday and how she used that occasion to mix activism and art (“West Coast-based gallery ILY2 gathered influential creative women together at the feminist icon’s Upper East Side apartment”).
IN THIS PHOTO: Gloria Steinem in 1979/PHOTO CREDIT: Sara Krulwich/The New York Times
I want to close with some recent writing from Gloria Steinem. She wrote an article for Harper’s Bazaar in January. As part of their series where they celebrate adventure at all ages and highlight the importance of taking risks and pushing boundaries, they spoke with Steinem. She wrote how we all need to “embrace an 'on-the-road' mindset”:
“For me, it wasn’t that I was making a decision for the distant future – or at least, at the time I didn’t think it was. It was just day-by-day or year-by-year decisions which turned out to be the whole future. I had been drawn to women who were leading their own lives, and being with them gave me a bigger sense of what was possible. That’s not to say that children spell the end of adventure for their parents. I may not have my own children, but I have them in my life, and they seem to have a sense of adventure that sometimes grown-ups have lost. Just asking children what they think, what they want to do, what they hope for their future can help restore our own sense of adventure.
Over my own long life, I have also learned that not everyone is a nomad. In fact, many people prefer to stay mostly at or at least close to home. It’s also true that it’s less safe for a woman to go on the road than it is for a man, yet at the same time, home remains the least safe place for women. I have long had my own permanent home in New York, a city I love, and more and more I am enjoying staying put. I have lived more than 50 years on two floors of brownstone, in rooms that have witnessed lives before mine, and will know others after I am gone.
Since we’re communal animals, it helps to find at least one other person who shares our hopes and ideas for the future. For me, that used to be externally, on the road. Now, it’s more and more who comes to visit – after all, we are social animals. In fact, being deprived of human companionship is one of the worst punishments of all. Whether we are related by blood or by ideas on distant sides of the world, whether we have been divided by species, war, religion, race or class, we are all co-passengers on Spaceship Earth.
"Adventure means attempting something new, something where the goal or even ending is not clear"
Age hasn’t stopped me from living the way I want – in fact, perhaps, it is the opposite. The prescription of the ‘feminine’ role is mostly for the central years of life. It’s why women are said to be more free before we are 10 or after we are 50 or 60. We can appreciate that freedom, and try to bring it into the central years of life. Adventure means attempting something new, something where the goal or even ending is not clear. That’s an important way of staying open and not being the prisoner of our predictions. Stay open to the moment, even if it goes beyond your plan. Let possibilities become realities”.
I am going to stop there. I have tried to cram a lot in (there are videos like this, this, and this that you should watch). However, when it comes to feminist icons, there are few as important, prominent and inspiring than Gloria Steinem. She is nine years shy of her one-hundredth birthday, and you know that she will continue to campaign, write and influence. We do hope that she can comment on America post-Trump and the Republicans. Maybe she will live to see a woman become President in the U.S., though one wonders whether that will ever happen. Having inspiring and changed the life of countless women, there is no doubting Gloria Steinem’s key place in history. I hope that I have managed to do her…
JUSTICE here.