| ▲ | paimapi 5 hours ago | |||||||
it really isn't - it's well-documented: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/feminist-was-spy "While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying: “In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable.” Less cloak-and-dagger and more a young, energetic, global representative for American values and freedom" was part of the Cold War-era soft power projection for the US since Communist countries were uplifting their women a lot more intentionally and structurally, especially compared to their historic baseline [0]. it looks pretty bad if your primary values are freedom but they don't apply super well to half of your entire population there's also a further-left critique of Steinem [1] as being the public face and visage of pro-American, capitalist feminism, someone who took it from being the more Emma Goldman/Combahee River Collective rooted form - a kind of 'JFK' for the masses to substitute for the more revolutionary ideals of, say, Malcolm X or Dr. King, both of whom were very unpopular in their time and often derided as 'asking for too much' [2] [0]https://kristenghodsee.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/om... [1]https://publicseminar.org/2016/06/feminisms-of-the-left-poli... [2]https://news.gallup.com/vault/246167/protests-seen-harming-c... | ||||||||
| ▲ | EyeEmOe 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> “In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable.” "was" doing some heavy lifting. Nothing against Steinem specifically but seems pretty clear the elders tend to view their past with rose colored glasses Imo the federal apparatus should be broken up and handed to states with a mandate to collaborate to avoid concentration of power | ||||||||
| ||||||||