Gloria Steinems death has become less a moment of national mourning than a mirror reflecting how deeply divided the United States remains over the legacy of modern feminism.
With the passing of the woman widely regarded as the most visible architect of second-wave feminism, the countrys dominant media institutions moved swiftly to canonize a progressive icon and to present her life as an unambiguous triumph.
According to Western Journal, liberal news outlets circled the wagons around Steinems memory, offering wall-to-wall praise that left little room for dissenting voices or for any serious reckoning with the more controversial aspects of her record.
On the right, however, the reaction was markedly different, even if that half of the country found little reflection in establishment coverage.
Conservative commentators and ordinary Americans alike saw in Steinem not simply a trailblazing journalist, but a political activist whose ideas helped reshape culture, law and family life in ways they believe have been profoundly destructive.
The basic contours of Steinems biography are well known, and they form the backbone of the laudatory obituaries now filling the airwaves and opinion pages.
Her 1963 undercover expos on life as a Playboy Club hostess made her a star in the journalistic world, while her role in founding Ms. magazine in 1972 created a platform explicitly devoted to advancing what critics describe as orthodox feminist propaganda.
From that point forward, Steinems public life followed a consistently leftward trajectory, never deviating from progressive politics even when they clashed with the very principles she claimed to champion.
Her decades-long career in activism and Democratic Party politics remained firmly tethered to the cultural left, and her death at 92 has prompted a wave of hagiography that largely ignores those contradictions.
One of the most glaring examples came in 1998, when Steinem notoriously defended then-President Bill Clinton against allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct.
She excused behavior that feminism was ostensibly created to oppose, later conceding that she would not have written the same defense in a different era, a tacit admission that partisan loyalty had trumped principle.
In more recent years, Steinem embraced the transgender movement, aligning herself with activists whose agenda has increasingly collided with the interests of biological women.
Critics argue that this stance undermined the very womens rights Steinem claimed to advance, as policies inspired by gender ideology have begun to erode hard-won protections and opportunities for women in sports, education and public life.
Yet, judging by the establishment medias reaction, the only real debate surrounding Steinems death appears to be just how exalted her status should be.
On the left, the coverage has been almost uniformly reverential, with little appetite for examining the costs of the revolution she helped lead or the cultural wreckage conservatives associate with it.
The Associated Press, reflecting the prevailing tone, described Steinem as a fierce and eloquent advocate for equality.
The New York Times went even further, celebrating her as a feminist champion who personified the modern womens movement and assembling a familiar roster of liberal figures to reinforce that narrative.
Hillary Clinton was among those quoted, though Bill Clintons conspicuous absence from the tributes raised eyebrows among observers who remember Steinems role in defending him during the 1990s scandals.
Joe and Jill Biden were quoted; the parasitical duchess formerly known as Megan Markle was even included, one account noted, adding that Steinem was reportedly a big fan of the almost universally despised Megan, which speaks volumes about Steinems political judgment.
Across the legacy media landscape, the pattern was much the same, with nearly every outlet offering some variation on a single theme.
Steinem, they insisted, had transformed life for women for the better, reshaped society for the better, and, in some tellings, improved the world itself, with little acknowledgment of the millions who dispute that assessment.
Those unquoted voices, however, are numerous, and they have not been silent in the broader public conversation.
They point out that Steinems activism was rooted in her own illegal abortion in the 1950s according to the AP and argue that her relentless advocacy for abortion rights has contributed to the deaths of untold numbers of unborn children.
For these critics, the fierce and eloquent rhetoric of equality cannot be separated from the human cost of a culture that treats nascent life as disposable.
They see in Steinems legacy not liberation, but a moral and demographic crisis that has hollowed out communities, devalued motherhood and normalized the destruction of the most vulnerable.
Many also contend that the brand of feminism Steinem championed has inflicted lasting damage on the family, the foundational institution of any stable society.
By encouraging women to view traditional marriage, childbearing and domestic life with suspicion or contempt, they argue, her movement helped weaken the bonds that hold families together and fostered a culture of atomized individuals dependent on government rather than on one another.
These critics further highlight the excesses that have followed in the wake of the womens liberation movement scare quotes definitely intended and note how those excesses are playing out six decades later.
From declining birth rates and fatherless homes to the rise of radical gender ideology in schools and workplaces, they see a direct line from Steinems ideas to the social disarray now evident across the West.
Such perspectives, by and large, will not be given pride of place in the establishment medias treatment of Steinems passing.
They will not dominate the front pages or the cable news panels in the coming days, even though they represent a substantial portion of the American public.
Nonetheless, these dissenting views remain very much alive in the national debate, serving as sharp reminders of the profound divisions surrounding Steinems legacy.
For millions of Americans, she is not a secular saint but a symbol of a cultural revolution that traded enduring truths for ideological experiments whose consequences are still unfolding.
If the early coverage is any guide, with controversy reduced to vague, euphemistic nods buried deep in glowing appreciations, the media institutions that adored Steinem and the progressive politics she embodied will work hard to blur those divisions out of sight.
Yet the unresolved questions about abortion, family, gender and the proper role of women in society ensure that the debate over her influence will not end with the obituaries, but will continue wherever Americans still value faith, family and the freedoms that flourish best when culture, not government, shapes the moral order.
Login