Meryl Streep

[dissention]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

I think this is an unfair assessment. Gloria championed Linda at a time when many people were inclined to bash her. And I hardly think she threw women away like garbage. I do not always agree with Gloria's opinions, but I would not call her a user.

- Jake

I would when it comes to Linda Lovelace, even Lovelace thinks so (or did, bless her soul). Gloria didn't champion her, she used her for her own agenda and when she couldn't get anymore out of her, she forgot about her. People still bashed her when Gloria around, but with Gloria's presence, the bashing took on a life of its own. Gloria Steinem is just as much to blame for Lovelace's horrible life as Lovelace's old husband was.

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by dissention

I would when it comes to Linda Lovelace, even Lovelace thinks so (or did, bless her soul). Gloria didn't champion her, she used her for her own agenda and when she couldn't get anymore out of her, she forgot about her. People still bashed her when Gloria around, but with Gloria's presence, the bashing took on a life of its own. Gloria Steinem is just as much to blame for Lovelace's horrible life as Lovelace's old husband was.

You equate Gloria's alleged abandonment with a husband's alleged abuse that included holding a gun on his wife to make her perform acts on animals? I don't know how to begin reasoning with that.


- Jake

[dissention]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

You equate Gloria's alleged abandonment with a husband's alleged abuse that included holding a gun on his wife to make her perform acts on animals? I don't know how to begin reasoning with that.


- Jake

I don't mean it that way. I mean that Steinem's exploitation of her impacted her life in just as much of a negative way as what her husband supposedly did. Obviously, the acts aren't the same, but the effects of both forms of exploitation are. Where was Steinem and all the other feminists when Lovelace was on welfare and couldn't afford to buy her necessary liver medication? Where were they when she needed a double masectomy? Where were they when she was fired over and over at various jobs? Where were they when she was ebing abused by her second husband? Where were they when she was on her deathbed? Unfortunately, like her first husband, they had already used her for what they could get and let her rot in her misery. They simply didn't care and that, to me is unforgivable after what she had done for them and their cause.

[Keith]

I can't let Denzel get 'diss'ed... I think he's a great actor. He was Malcolm X in that movie and should have won an Oscar for his performance. And his final scene in "Training Day" was powerful. His self destruction deserved the oscar.. so.. ok.. i have the original dvd of "The Manchurian Candidate" and watched it again a couple of months ago.. makes me drift away in my flat upstairs.. i can't wait to see the remake.. Meryl Streep is an amazing actress.. my favorite Meryl Streep films are "kramer vs. kramer" "out of africa" "the bridges of madison county" "silkwood" "manhatten" "death becomes her" and "The Seduction of Joe Tynan." whew.. an amazing actress..

abb..

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't mean it that way. I mean that Steinem's exploitation of her impacted her life in just as much of a negative way as what her husband supposedly did. Obviously, the acts aren't the same, but the effects of both forms of exploitation are. Where was Steinem and all the other feminists when Lovelace was on welfare and couldn't afford to buy her necessary liver medication? Where were they when she needed a double masectomy? Where were they when she was fired over and over at various jobs? Where were they when she was ebing abused by her second husband? Where were they when she was on her deathbed? Unfortunately, like her first husband, they had already used her for what they could get and let her rot in her misery. They simply didn't care and that, to me is unforgivable after what she had done for them and their cause.

I disagree, and I see no point in arguing assumptions.

- Jake

[Janet]

I always had a thing for Meryl Streep.

My mother LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE HER.

It's scary. Since I was a little girl I would watch people tell my mom how much she looks like Meryl. My mom is 10 years younger but wow.

If you watch Deer Hunter especially, it's scary. Then there is Falling in Love. My mom always had long blonde hair and those two movies she looks most like my mom when she was younger.

Now they are older. In the new movie, she doesn't look so much like my mom but on interviews, as a woman with short blonde hair like my mom now, it's still very eery.

Meryl as an actress? My favorite is Silkwood. I just think she was amazing in that movie.

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by Janet

I always had a thing for Meryl Streep.

My mother LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE HER.

It's scary. Since I was a little girl I would watch people tell my mom how much she looks like Meryl. My mom is 10 years younger but wow.

If you watch Deer Hunter especially, it's scary. Then there is Falling in Love. My mom always had long blonde hair and those two movies she looks most like my mom when she was younger.

Now they are older. In the new movie, she doesn't look so much like my mom but on interviews, as a woman with short blonde hair like my mom now, it's still very eery.

Meryl as an actress? My favorite is Silkwood. I just think she was amazing in that movie.

Your mom's a lucky lady. Meryl is pretty AND interesting looking.
I've never seen Silkwood. I'm not even sure I'd recognize Cher before most of her surgeries.

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

I disagree, and I see no point in arguing assumptions.

- Jake

I'm not arguing assumptions, I'm simply agreeing with what Lovelace said in her own words. Feel free to read her many interviews that I'm sure are on the web.

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm not arguing assumptions, I'm simply agreeing with what Lovelace said in her own words. Feel free to read her many interviews that I'm sure are on the web.

Feel free to show me where Lovelace said that nothing Gloria said or did in the '70s mattered because Gloria got married.
I know Linda wrote four autobiographies whose facts are seen as dubious at best, so I don't know that I would trust everything she said in an interview. And Gloria wrote the introduction for the fourth book. If I remember, Linda's health was already poor at the time.

- Jake

[amber]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

Feel free to show me where Lovelace said that nothing Gloria said or did in the '70s mattered because Gloria got married.
I know Linda wrote four autobiographies whose facts are seen as dubious at best, so I don't know that I would trust everything she said in an interview. And Gloria wrote the introduction for the fourth book. If I remember, Linda's health was already poor at the time.

- Jake

Gloria was a spokesperson for a movement to change peoples minds. I think she was an excellent one, and very brave, smart, pioneering. Leaders of movements to change people's minds about something important often use the best examples they have at hand, wherever they come from, to further their goal. They are thinkers and speakers. I don't understand what Gloria was supposed to do, follow Linda and whoever else around for the rest of her life seeing that her every need was attended to? Leaders and speakers for movements need to change, find new info all the time, think, present new ideas in new ways. She has given very generously of her time and everything else over the years, I think it's very narrow to criticize her for her treatment of Linda or her marriage. it's kind of like saying MLK, Jr.'s work was for naught, just cause he had affairs. IMO, it's a little ridiculous. I always enjoy hearing people's diverse opinions and knowledge, though. , so thank you, Diss.
Amber

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by amber

Gloria was a spokesperson for a movement to change peoples minds. I think she was an excellent one, and very brave, smart, pioneering. Leaders of movements to change people's minds about something important often use the best examples they have at hand, wherever they come from, to further their goal. They are thinkers and speakers. I don't understand what Gloria was supposed to do, follow Linda and whoever else around for the rest of her life seeing that her every need was attended to? Leaders and speakers for movements need to change, find new info all the time, think, present new ideas in new ways. She has given very generously of her time and everything else over the years, I think it's very narrow to criticize her for her treatment of Linda or her marriage. it's kind of like saying MLK, Jr.'s work was for naught, just cause he had affairs. IMO, it's a little ridiculous. I always enjoy hearing people's diverse opinions and knowledge, though. , so thank you, Diss.
Amber

And for many years she sacrificed her personal life for the movement (like many leaders), so I hope the marriage is bringing her the kind of happiness she lacked in earlier days.

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

Feel free to show me where Lovelace said that nothing Gloria said or did in the '70s mattered because Gloria got married.
I know Linda wrote four autobiographies whose facts are seen as dubious at best, so I don't know that I would trust everything she said in an interview. And Gloria wrote the introduction for the fourth book. If I remember, Linda's health was already poor at the time.

- Jake

You're putting words in my mouth,

I was speaking about my own personal opinion when it came to Gloria Steinem and her actions, way before Linda Lovelace became the main topic of conversation. As I stated before, I agree with some of the things Steinem did and said, but for the the most part, I think she hindered the point she was trying to make more than she helped advance it. She used other women to advance her goals, however admirable those goals were, and became another one of the boys in doing so. Those were my thoughts when I took womens studies classes, those are my thoughts now. It shouldn't be construed as badmouthing the womens movement or the like, it should be seen as my having reservations about Mrs. Gloria Steinem.

As for Linda, my semester project when I took my first womens studies class was on her. Her first two books were just advertisements for her "sexuality," the last two were about her "ordeals." The one that was written in '80 ("Ordeal," which was co-authored by a scam artist) was the one that detailed her supposed years of abuse at the hands of her husband and in the porn business, the one from '86 ("Out of Bondage") detailed her life after the publication of "Ordeal." Gloria Steinem wrote the introduction to the '86, which just so happened to conveniently occur while Lovelace was still testifying in government proceedings, proceedings that Steinem urged her to take part in. Once her testimony was finally finished, the women who "helped" her disappeared altogether at the onset of her health problems. In '87, she went in for a double masectomy because of silicone injections she had in the '70s and it was discovered that her liver was failing. She finally got a liver about a year later and had to have anti-rejection injections every month, which she could not pay for. Her husbands drywall business dried up, they went on welfare, she kept getting fired from every job; my question is the same as hers: Where were the feminists who claimed to love her and wanted to help her?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

Gloria was a spokesperson for a movement to change peoples minds. I think she was an excellent one, and very brave, smart, pioneering. Leaders of movements to change people's minds about something important often use the best examples they have at hand, wherever they come from, to further their goal. They are thinkers and speakers. I don't understand what Gloria was supposed to do, follow Linda and whoever else around for the rest of her life seeing that her every need was attended to? Leaders and speakers for movements need to change, find new info all the time, think, present new ideas in new ways. She has given very generously of her time and everything else over the years, I think it's very narrow to criticize her for her treatment of Linda or her marriage. it's kind of like saying MLK, Jr.'s work was for naught, just cause he had affairs. IMO, it's a little ridiculous. I always enjoy hearing people's diverse opinions and knowledge, though. , so thank you, Diss.
Amber

How is it like saying MLK Jr's work is naught because he had affairs? The civil rights movement had nothing to do with affairs, so that point is naught.

I am not denying that Steinem dedicated her life to womens lib, that's obvious. It's how she chose to do so. Again ( ), I agree with her on a lot of things, but the way she went about accomplishing her goals is a rather big turn-off.

No one is saying that she should have followed Lovelace "around for the rest of her life seeing that her every need was attended to." But when someone advances your cause as much as Lovelace did, you don't throw them out like trash because the goal you wanted accomplished was accomplished. It's simple as that and it's called human decency. The "she's a leader" argument doesn't fly, if anything, it should be the complete opposite and she should give a ****. But Gloria Steinem used a lot of people and I understand now that caring about the people who helped her wasn't always in the cards. I think it's a tad cruel, but that's just me.