Oh dear. And I thought (wrongly, it appears) that the battle against sexism was mostly won! Glad Gloria stepped up and tried to fix the damage. But, as they say, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube! As for Madelaine, well, she is just plain grumpy and crabby!

Yes, the two women did cause my jaw to drop at their poorly-phrased remarks. They're much more than that and young women are more savvy, too.

It did make me think of how few older women are easily-recognized "icons," with so many deserving, but unrecognized. Back to RBG.

The two of them certainly offended me. I may be one of their contemporaries but I still have brains enough to base my support on something beyond M/F. Makes me wonder if they're getting senile in addition to being old and crabby.

I agree Ronni, I expect better from our feminist icons and a presidential candidate. Ms. Steinem’s remark was misogynistic, emblematic of the very attitude she has worked all her life to dispel. Using ‘misspoke’ was a copout, a more convincing apology was indicated. As for Ms. Albright’s remark, she has been around long enough to know women of all persuasions. She may have meant her remark as a joke but it was an opportunity for Hilary to appeal to all voters based on her policies, instead she just laughed.

I saw both of these and was more than disappointed. Grumpy they may be, but I see a lack of relevance their comments have for women today...young and older. I've been too independent to have either affect my vote.

well, I have a somewhat of a different take. Maybe it's just my many years of fighting anti-feminism, or all the years I edited Signs. My take has been influenced by a recent column by Katha Pollitt in The Nation [at least in the online daily Nation] called "What Gloria Steinem Got - Almost - Right." Since I subscribe, I could see it online -- so rather than replace Pollitt's wonderful words with my lesser ones, I tried to highlight just the text. It is pretty brief, let me see if I can paste it in:

"At last young feminists and those imaginary Bernie Bros have something in common: being mad at Gloria Steinem. Free-associating a bit on the Bill Maher show, where she was promoting her new book, Steinem suggested that young women were supporting Bernie because “when you’re young you’re thinking, Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.” It was a silly, not to mention impolitic, thing to say. When I e-mailed her about it Saturday night she said she had tried to clarify: “What I was thinking sitting there was that both young women and young men gravitate toward each other, and here, for a shared reason—Bernie makes an economic message like that of Occupy—but Bill cut me off to make a joke, with a line from the song, ‘Where the boys are’—I said no twice, that wasn’t what I meant, I even said, ‘How well do you know me?’”
Never mind that the dreaded pullquote came after astute and generous remarks about young women: “I find the young women very activist and they’re way more feminist. We were, like, 12 crazy ladies in the beginning, and now it’s the majority. I do think that gratitude never radicalized anybody. I did not say thank you for the vote. I got mad on the basis of what was happening to me, and I think that that’s true of young women too. So they’re mad as hell because they’re graduating in debt, and they’re gonna earn a million dollars less over their lifetime to pay it back, they’re mad about what’s happening to them.”
Needless to say, The New York Times did not run with the headline “Second-Wave Icon Praises Young Women: More Feminist Than Ever, Face New Challenges.” Actual headline: “Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright Scold Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders.” (When I checked it online this morning, “scold” had been changed to “rebuke.” Progress! As Steinem told me, “When two men disagree, it’s about an issue, but when two women disagree, it’s because they can’t get along.”)

Albright’s offense was to introduce Hillary at a rally with her famous aphorism: There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women. This saying, previously thought bland enough to adorn a Starbucks cup, is now the cackle of an old crone stirring her cauldron: Support Hillary, my pretties, or burn in the lake of fire! (The incident also retroactively upgraded Albright to feminist-icon status in the media, although I doubt many feminists thought of her that way before.)

“I do think that gratitude never radicalized anybody. I did not say thank you for the vote. I got mad.” —Gloria Steinem

Steinem quickly apologized for her remark on her Facebook page: “In a case of talk-show Interruptus, I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently, and apologize for what’s been misinterpreted as implying young women aren’t serious in their politics. What I had just said on the same show was the opposite: young women are active, mad as hell about what’s happening to them, graduating in debt, but averaging a million dollars less over their lifetimes to pay it back. Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.” But as she has learned the hard way, you’re only as good as your last soundbite. Hers has spurred furious letters, tweets, Facebook posts, an online petition from People for Bernie, articles from younger feminists attacking her for not understanding intersectionality, and even a clever Feminists for Bernie cover song.

But was Steinem entirely wrong? We’re not living in Plato’s Republic, after all. In real life, one’s preferences are shaped by all sorts of social and psychological factors, including one’s friends, one’s networks, one’s sense of what others think. This is true for everyone, Republicans and Democrats, white and of color. Hillary’s older female supporters surely strengthen one another’s sense of solidarity and excitement at the prospect of making history. White men reinforce their own particular brands of identity politics—since they are the dominant group, they don’t even have to try very hard. Why would young women be immune to real-life influences that everyone else is subject to in one way or another? As Jill Filipovic argues, young people want to be cool, boys determine what coolness is, and boys like Bernie. My 28-year-old daughter, Sophie (a Hillary supporter), put it this way: “Even those stupid fake ads comparing what Bernie and Hillary would say about stuff like Harry Potter seem vaguely sexist to me—another argument that men ‘get it’ and women are boring/basic/out of it.”

In his New York Times column, Charles M. Blow said much the same thing, in a degendered way: Sanders’s support “is hardening into hipness. Supporting Sanders is quickly becoming the thing to do if you are young and want to appeal to those who are.” So far as I know, no one has suggested that Blow is old and out of touch, much less lectured him on intersectionality.

A bit lost in all this is the candidate herself. Here’s what Hillary says about young women: “I think it’s wonderful that they’re so enthusiastic about Bernie, I love to see their political passion, and I hope to earn their vote.”

Perfect. Why can’t we leave it at that?

Ruth-Ellen's comment makes sense to me. Although public figures "should" think before they speak, especially where they might be quoted (or misquoted), life doesn't always happen that way. The intent behind what was said may not be clear, but I would tend to think neither Ms. Albright nor Ms. Steinem intended to denigrate or devalue women of any generation.

At 79, I'm not sure at this point whether I'll vote for Hillary or Bernie. I do think that the way our country goes about nominating and electing candidates for the highest office in the land is totally nuts! At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old woman, constant repetitive media exposure (including in social media) is NOT helpful. Candidates, their supporters and their opponents are reduced to sound bites and photo ops, and woe betide any who slip up for an instant.

For the better part of a year Presidential candidates crisscross the country on almost no sleep and bad food, burning a gazillion gallons of jet fuel and spending (mostly) money donated by multi-millionaires. I'm not sure this results in a better-informed, more "enlightened" electorate as a whole. Low-information voters will continue to reject anything that doesn't agree with their worldview. Perhaps this explains the appeal of the top two Repub contenders.

How about 100% publicly-funded time-limited campaigns, with major restrictions on advertising, that last for a maximum of 6 months? That I could vote for!!

I always enjoy "Crabby" when she comes out to play Ronni...she has insightful things to say and it's more than ok to be crabby. Whenever we feel like it.

I wish I could have heard, in context, Steinem's full statement, even went thru YouTube videos to see if I could find the ending Ms Steinem says she was trying to insert, as soon as she got her foot out of her mouth, however I couldn't locate it..if anyone else finds the full clip I'd appreciate a heads up.

Ms Albright has been, herself, a crabby old lady for decades and more power to her. Her statement was not well considered but she's entitled to her own opinion. As is, of course, Ms Steinem.

My local Bernie Phone Bank, BTW, has many more women than men involved - at least it seems that way when I go to do my volunteering. Of course it's telephoning so maybe thats something women show up for more than men..I dunno...I enjoy doing the poling and talking. I'm a retired CWA union member and I call other union households and even other CWA households. All are registered democrat or independent. I'm usually pleased at the reception.

Keep letting Crabby out of her cage-she needs to be heard!

hugs from neighbor Elle

I am a huge supporter of the younger women of today. I am a huge supporter of Ms Albright and Ms Steinem. Just because she puts her foot in her mouth, I do not abandon a woman. Just as I've understood over my 78 years that men are human and err, I understand that women are human and err. Yes, I cringe at some statements by some people; but, if I can forgive a man for making a mistake, why can't I forgive a woman.

I don't care for the song, myself, but Dolly Parton put out a recording of "Just Because I'm a Woman". Part of the lyrics, follow:

"My mistakes are no worse than yours
Just because I'm a woman"

Of course, you are correct, Peter, about Ms. Rice. How could I have forgotten...

Albright has been saying that line for years in a lot of places. It's her tag line to end speeches so it didn't bother me at all. Saying it at a political rally, of course, turned out not to be a good idea but I'll cut her and Steinem a lot slack because they walk the talk of helping women and truly meant no harm.

When time allows on a weekend morning, I like to go back and read all the comments that I might have missed on posts from earlier in the week. I'm particularly glad to have done this today, as there are so many thoughtful comments on this thread. Several have helped remind me of the need to be more mindful and think and investigate more deeply into these media storms, especially when these storms may have been created to exploit an opportunity to try to return to, or reinforce, archaic thinking. The material from the Nation, shared by Ruth-Ellen, was especially helpful. I very much appreciate the exposure to intelligent, well-considered writing that I may have missed otherwise. This was an excellent example of that. Thank you.

As a man, I can only comment on "Female Grumpiness" from a distance. But, from what I have observed, as women get older, they appear to go into a more defensive mode, which may appear to some as being grumpy.
As for grumpy old men, a topic with which I have a closer relationship with, I know friends of mine who have been grumpy old men since high school when their testosterone levels where as high as the Mississippi at flood stage.