Connect with us

Arts & Entertainment

The predictable predictability of the Oscars

Favoring middle-of-the-road prestige over edgier fare

Published

2 years ago

on

It’s hard to write a reaction piece about the Oscars when you recognize that the Oscars, by their very nature, are essentially a poll – or perhaps, more aptly, a popularity contest – which reflects an aggregate of personal opinions, and therefore have as much to do with internal Hollywood politics as with rewarding artistic excellence.

I’m not saying that the movies and people being celebrated on the stage at the Dolby Theater in Hollywood Sunday night – all of them, winners and nominees alike – didn’t deserve to be there; on the contrary, 2023 was an outstanding year for cinema, and every one of the contenders could be considered worthy of taking the prize. If that’s the case, however, how can any of these outcomes be determined without the influence of personal taste? Making movies is not like playing sports, where a win results from the highest number of points scored and goals blocked; there is no such handily objective criteria to rely on in picking an actor, a screenwriter, or an entire film to proclaim as the “best” in its respective category, and it’s inevitable that Academy voters will be influenced by personal bias when they make their choices on that final ballot.

While Sunday’s 96th annual Oscar ceremony, which offered the usual snubs and oversights and no real surprises, might have disappointed me or even occasionally sparked a glimmer of outrage, I cannot fairly say that any of the final results were “mistakes.” And though it may be oversimplifying things to say that being offended by the Academy’s final choices is akin to being angry that someone else’s favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate when yours is salted caramel praline, it’s still enough to convince me that my “reaction” piece to the Academy Awards can really only ever be an “opinion” piece,

With that in mind, here we go.

The presentation itself was the usual blend of witty repartee (mostly provided with success by veteran Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel, though attempts at it from the various presenters ran the gamut from delightful to disastrous), musical performances (Billie Eilish and brother Finneas O’Connell’s rendition of “What Was I Made For?”, which went on to win the evening’s only award for “Barbie”, was a particular highlight, alongside the more lavish and deliciously amusing dance production number headed by Supporting Actor nominee Ryan Gosling for “I’m Just Ken” from the same film), uplifting moments (a regal Rita Moreno’s benedictory introduction of “Barbie” Supporting Actress nominee America Ferrera brought tears to my eyes, and I suspect I wasn’t alone), and show-stopping surprises (John Cena’s teasingly faux nudity presenting the Best Costume Design award was a memorable stunt, to put it mildly, as was the combination of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito to do the honors in the Visual Effects and Film Editing categories) – yet it also had more than its fair share of embarrassing gaffes, such as upstaging the “In Memoriam” segment with an overblown production number accompanied by father-and-son operatic crooners Andrea and Matteo Bocelli’s duet of “Con tu partirò”, a move that has fueled perhaps more post-Oscars outrage than anything else from this year’s ceremony.

As for the politics, there were the expected barbs making fun of easy conservative targets, but most of the speeches avoided invoking too much progressive fury. The one overtly political moment came with the win of UK director Jonathan Glazer’s “The Zone of Interest” for Best International Feature, when he read, in prayerlike monotone, a pre-prepared statement warning against the dehumanizing hate depicted in his slice-of-Nazi-life historical drama and calling for empathy for the targets of such hate on both sides of the current crisis in Gaza. It was met with backlash, of course, especially after a partial quote in Variety omitted key elements of the speech and led many to believe the Jewish filmmaker was refuting his own religion.

As for the winners of the awards themselves (you can find the full list on the Oscar website) the evening’s choices fell more or less in line with my predictions – though not necessarily my preferences. 

The domination of “Oppenheimer” in most of the major categories in which it competed was, for anyone following the pre-ceremony buzz, a foregone conclusion. Few doubted that Cillian Murphy would handily claim the Best Actor prize – thwarting nominee Colman Domingo (“Rustin”) from becoming the first queer actor to win for playing a queer character in the process – or that Christopher Nolan would take the Best Director category, and from there the win for Best Picture felt as inevitable as anything can be at the Oscars.

Equally inevitable was the evening’s most easily predicted “Oppenheimer” win, as veteran Hollywood player Robert Downey, Jr. ebulliently swaggered onstage amid the enthusiastic familial cheers of his peers to claim the Best Supporting Actor prize; his acceptance speech, in which he self-deprecatingly recalled the legal and professional obstacles arising from the substance abuse that nearly derailed his early career, became a testament to overcoming personal setbacks to achieve an even higher success, something that resonated in the words of several other of the evening’s winners.

In the categories where “Oppenheimer” didn’t win, the odds were already in favor of the eventual victors, such as first-time filmmaker Cord Jefferson, whose “American Fiction” earned him the Best Adapted Screenplay Award over fellow front runners like “Barbie” and “Poor Things,” and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, whose winning Supporting Actress turn in “The Holdovers” had been a juggernaut throughout the award season.

Many Oscar fans, though most accepted the predestination of “Oppenheimer” as the year’s big winner, might rather have seen a different candidate come out on top (my own choice, for what it’s worth, would have been “Barbie,” with “Poor Things” and “Zone of Interest” coming up close behind); but even if Nolan’s weighty and technically dazzling biopic was unquestionably a fine film, exploring a deeply disturbing slice of not-too-distant history that still casts a long existential shadow over our world today, it’s impossible for me not to see in its multiple wins an all-too-familiar pattern of “safe” choices.

While “Oppenheimer” might pique ethical discussions over its title character’s choice to build the atomic bomb, few would find controversy in the idea that the destruction unleashed on the world by that choice is a reason for concern. Its most viable competitors, “Barbie” and “Poor Things” – both of which touched on many of the same existential themes, albeit from a markedly different direction and in a more absurdist style – each stirred divisive opinions around (among other things) a perceived feminist agenda; other highly-acclaimed titles in the running, like the non-English language entries “Zone”, “Past Lives”, and “Anatomy of a Fall”, fell outside the comfortable domestic audience mainstream where Oscar’s favorite picks are usually a little too deeply-rooted to allow much opportunity for a dark horse upset. While not many expected Bradley Cooper’s ambitious Bernstein biopic “Maestro” to take home any awards, it was considerably more noteworthy that Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” nominated for 10 Awards and widely lauded as one of the year’s most essential films, failed to score a single one of them – though I can’t help also noting that it deals with one of most shameful threads in our American past, inevitably making it a controversial movie for an era marked by deeply divided ideologies around that subject.

It’s perhaps for that reason that “Flower Moon” was not considered a front runner in most of its categories, but there was one in which it was seen as a heavy favorite. With Lily Gladstone poised to become the first Indigenous performer to win the Best Actress trophy, the odds leading up to Sunday’s presentation seemed to position them as the front runner; in the end, however, it was Emma Stone’s tour-de-force in “Poor Things” – in which she appeared in virtually every scene, in contrast to Gladstone’s relatively limited screen – that took it instead. Though it wasn’t quite a surprise, given the number of wins Stone has garnered already for the film, which also took home the prizes for Best Makeup and Hairstyling and Best Production Design, it nevertheless felt – to me, at least – like another example of Oscar’s predictable reluctance to court controversy with its choices.

Ironically, but not surprisingly, this conservative approach often just ends up causing a controversy of its own, and this case is no exception. Though I had championed Stone’s brilliant performance as the obvious winner, when her name was announced I found myself feeling disappointment over Goldstone’s loss, even as I was thrilled for Stone’s well-earned victory. After all, in a contest where the outcome is entirely subjective, Academy voters could have chosen to amplify the excellence of someone from within a marginalized community. Stone, who seemed as surprised at her win as anyone else, did remarkable work, but so did Gladstone; though it truly is “an honor just to be nominated,” it was an opportunity for Oscar to take a step toward correcting a long-ignored injustice at a time when doing so could make a demonstrably constructive impact on our culture and our society at a time when doing so would have a tremendous cultural impact, and it didn’t happen. It was a moment that struck me with an odd sense of disappointment even as I cheered for Stone; a bit of the sour within the sweet.

That, aside from a sense of missed opportunity over the evening’s consistent pattern of favoring the middle-of-the-road prestige represented by “Oppenheimer” over the edgier, more confrontational material presented by some of the other titles on the slate, was my biggest takeaway from the Academy Awards. Though I can’t say that any of the winners were unworthy, I can’t help thinking that their victories were somewhat tainted by the virtual shutout of “Barbie”, (which still feels to me like a message for female filmmakers to “stay in their lane”) and relatively low showing for “Poor Things” (which took only 3 of the 11 awards for which it was nominated), and that their underappreciation for such films was for me proof that many of the professionals working within the industry are afraid of material that pushes the medium too far outside its traditional boundaries, that dares to imagine stories and ideas which give voice to “outsider” concerns beyond the level of lip service, or that stretches the accepted limits of narrative entertainment.

More concerning, perhaps, is the minimal change that has come in the wake of the Academy’s much-publicized retooling to promote greater diversity and inclusion among the nominees. While it’s heartening to see people of color and queer people being brought into the mix more consistently than ever before, it’s also all the more painful when we see them passed over or relegated to the status of “also ran” most of the time. As a queer writer working for a queer publication, it’s impossible for me not to be impatient when films with strong LGBTQ content are lauded alongside mainstream titles only to consistently be passed over when it comes to the final victory. While queer subject matter, in varying degrees, was part of movies like “Rustin”, “Nyad”, and even “Barbie,” only two wins in the “major” categories went to films that included significant queer themes – “American Fiction” and “Anatomy of a Fall”, both of which won for their screenplays.

And while it’s now old news, the Academy’s complete omission of Andrew Haigh’s melancholy gay ghost story “All of Us Strangers,” a queer UK film overwhelmingly embraced by other major awards bodies across the world and in America itself and considered a major contender before failing to earn a single Oscar nomination, and female filmmaker Emerald Fennell’s “Saltburn,” which hinged – at least ostensibly – on a queer attraction between stars Barry Keoghan and Jacob Elordi, speaks volumes about the comfort level surrounding queer content within mainstream Hollywood. Even “May December,” a high-profile film directed by queer indie pioneer Todd Haynes but featuring only presumably heterosexual characters, received only a single nod (for Best Original Screenplay) for “May December,” despite being widely considered a front-runner for several acting awards. While inclusivity doesn’t mean considering every queer-relevant movie a shoo-in for the competition, it’s telling when the Academy all but ignores queer titles that have been contenders and even winners at all the other major film award ceremonies, and frankly, it’s extremely annoying. While I can’t speak for women, those in the Black community, or other groups with a history of being dismissed by Oscar, I can only assume that their sentiments must resemble my own.

Yet as I reach the end of my observations about the latest installment of the Academy Awards, I find myself falling short of blaming the Academy itself, at least as an organization. While it has had a problematic history of dragging its feet when it comes to evolving toward a more all-embracing approach to bestowing honors, undeniable progress has been made. That this progress is infuriatingly slow is less a reflection on the awards than it is on Hollywood as a whole; after all, despite Academy efforts to ensure greater diversity among its nominees, it’s the individual choices of its voters that determines the final results – and if those results fail to accomplish more than the occasional token victory for the non-white-heterosexual contenders, it’s a symptom of the fact that those voices are underrepresented within the industry at large.

If we want to see an Academy Awards ceremony that truly accomplishes the kind of all-inclusive spirit for which it has so palpable a potential, we must continue to pressure the Hollywood industry at large to build a more diverse and inclusive creative environment. Otherwise, no matter how much they promise to do better, they will always fall short.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Movies

‘Here the Whole Time’ delivers queer coming-of-age comedy

A feel-good journey toward self-discovery

Published

3 hours ago

on

September 6, 2026

By

Miguel Lallo and Diego Lira in ‘Here the Whole Time.’ (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

There are a lot of queer coming-of-age movies about how hard coming of age can be when you’re queer – and that’s because, for far too many queer young people, coming of age is a very difficult experience.

Yet as difficult as it may be, imagine how much more so it is for queer kids who are also struggling with other factors that make them a potential target for bullying and social stigma. When your awakening sexuality is complicated by fears and self-esteem issues that can cause you to feel ostracized even by the other queer kids, it’s pretty hard to find a place where you fit in. Unfortunately, there are far fewer movies that address that kind of “double whammy” scenario, and even fewer whose leading characters don’t look like model-perfect “influencers,” complete with chiseled abs, perfect hair, and flawless skin – which makes it all the more welcome when a movie like that actually does come along.

That’s why the arrival on Netflix of “Here the Whole Time” – a Brazilian teen romcom from director Daniel Lieff – feels a bit like a surprise gift.

Its central character – Felipe (Miguel Lallo), a teenager who lives with his single mom Rita (Débora Falabella) – is already out as gay, but that’s not the only reason that his life at school is torturous; as he informs us through his own narration, he’s always been the butt of cruel jokes and public bullying because he’s always been (in his own words) “fat.” He’s teased in the classroom, humiliated in the hallways, and victimized at dodgeball in his gym class; so when his eagerly awaited summer break arrives, he’s looking forward to weeks of freedom in which he never has to interact with anyone except his mother.

His blissful dreams of isolating himself in his room are shattered, however, by a rude awakening in the form of Caio (Diego Lira), a neighbor boy and former childhood friend, whose mother and father have left him to stay with Rita while they are away on a trip. Athletic, handsome, and popular, he’s everything Felipe is not, and despite any previous bond of companionship they may have had, Felipe has no intention of playing the gracious host.

Yet as the days go by, the two boys begin to resuscitate their friendship; rather than being the bully Felipe expects, Caio is mostly respectful and exceedingly polite in trying to negotiate their temporary co-habitation. Forced to spend time together, the two gradually warm to each other, opening the door to a renewed friendship; they begin to “hang out” together, expanding the usually isolated Felipe’s social circle to include Caio’s BFF Beca (Mika Soiero) and her girlfriend Melissa (Bel Moreira) — leading to a revelation that turns his newfound friendly feelings for Caio into something more of a crush.

Is the feeling mutual? Can Felipe set aside his insecurities enough to even find out? We did describe the movie as a “romcom, so you can draw your own conclusions from that, but it’s a wild ride of a story, and half the fun is watching it unfold through each new development, so we won’t give any of those surprises away.

It won’t be a spoiler, however, to discuss the way “Here the Whole Time” undercuts the sentiment of its predictably “sweet” formula with its presentation of Felipe as something of an anti-hero, a strident “rebel with a cause” who disdains and distrusts everyone around him except for his mother and sees his therapy (or at least pretends to) as just an extension of school — complete with the unwanted inconvenience of homework. 

He’s also, ironically, something of a bully himself, initially responding to the presence of Caio — who is no happier about their temporary living arrangement than he is — with willful and deliberate contempt, and levying his position as host (or as son of the hostess, at least) to assert his circumstantial power and dominance over an unwanted guest. Of course, we can see all along where it comes from, the habitual offense-as-defense tactic that has helped him survive and gain what little self-confidence he has, but that doesn’t make it any less rude.

Still, we don’t dislike him for it; a lifetime of body-shaming can do that to a person. Besides, it makes the transformation that comes in him — after learning to stand up for others like he stands up for himself, and other valuable life lessons he undergoes along the way — feel much more like an uplift. And if his insecurities win out once in a while (as they do, to dramatic effect, in the film’s penultimate chapters), who can blame him?

Caio, too, is portrayed against expectation. His self-assured swagger, like Felipe’s misanthropic hostility, comes from a young lifetime of self-protective compensation, but it’s just as easy for us to see through, and as the tenderness inside is revealed, he’s a far cry from “popular jock” stereotype that Felipe — and the audience — assume him to be,

It’s the dynamic between these two eminently likable characters that makes the film work, granting each of them their own dovetailing journeys toward self-discovery and allowing the feel-good sentiment of the story to emerge as something authentic, rather than just another trope-driven fantasy.

Much of this is thanks to the two young leads, who fully commit to their roles and strike a winning chemistry that makes us want them both to find their way through the amusing — but no less traumatic — growing pains they experience, both together and apart. They succeed in building an onscreen world in which we can believe, with them, in the possibility of rising above the obstacles thrown in their path, and it leaves us feeling not just uplifted, but maybe even a little joyful. 

Kudos also go out to Falabella, whose performance as the quintessential “cool mom” makes her stand out as the film’s adult MVP; likewise, director Leiff handles the material with a superb sense of balance between over-the-top absurdity and quietly joyful moments of truth.  In the end, though, it’s screenwriters Ray Tavares and Victor Brandt — adapting from a book by Vitor Martins — that’s truly responsible for crafting a charming coming-of-age story that allows itself to reach for the unlikely happy ending instead of sticking with the tried-and-true bittersweetness that usually arrives to provide an extra dash of unrequited yearning.

Of course, more jaded viewers — especially if they’re adults — might find the overall effect of “Here the Whole Time” less of than convincing. But for most of us — and hopefully it’s target audience, especially — it’s a charming reminder that “coming of age” isn’t just about sex or compromising with disillusionment. More than anything else, it’s about learning to let go of our disappointed assumptions to blossom into the life we truly deserve. 

As a refreshingly upbeat entry into a genre that somehow holds a key position in our compromised adult lives, it’s definitely a ride worth taking,

Continue Reading

Calendar

Calendar: September 4-10

LGBTQ events in the days to come

Published

2 days ago

on

September 4, 2026

By

Friday, September 4

Go Gay DC will host “LGBTQ+ Community Happy Hour” at 7 p.m. at Freddie’s Beach Bar and Restaurant.This is a chance to relax, make new friends, and enjoy happy hour specials at this classic retro venue. Attendance is free and more details are available on Eventbrite. 

Saturday, September 5

Go Gay DC will host “LGBTQ+ Community Brunch” at 11 a.m. at Freddie’s Beach Bar & Restaurant. This fun weekly event brings the DMV area LGBTQ+ community, including allies, together for delicious food and conversation.  Attendance is free and more details are available on Eventbrite.

Sunday, September 6

“Nellie’s DC Drag Brunch” will be at 12 p.m. at Nellie’s Sports Bar. Come get served like a queen by a queen. Join Sapphire Blue, Deja Diamond and their team of amazing drag performers for the most fun you’ll have all weekend. Tickets cost $58.51 and are available on Eventbrite. 

Monday, September 7

Go Gay DC will host “Out in Rosslyn LGBTQ+ Community Social” at 6 p.m. at Hyatt Centric Arlington. We have been invited to visit Hyatt Centric Arlington, where we will gather in a reserved section of their lounge. Attendees will be greeted by members of the Go Gay DC Leadership Team & receive a name tag upon arrival. This event is ideal for meeting new folks, making new friends, community-building, or just to unwind and enjoy the atmosphere. Casual attire is perfectly fine. More details are available on Eventbrite. 

Tuesday, September 8

Coming Out Discussion Group will be at 7 p.m. on Zoom. This is a safe space to share experiences about coming out and discuss topics as it relates to doing so — by sharing struggles and victories the group allows those newly coming out and who have been out for a while to learn from others. For more details, visit the group’s Facebook. 

Trans Discussion Group will be at 7 p.m. on Zoom. This event is intended to provide an emotionally and physically safe space for trans people and those who may be questioning their gender identity/expression to join together in community and learn from one another. For more details, email [email protected]. 

Wednesday, September 9

Job Club will be at 6 p.m. on Zoom upon request. This is a weekly job support program to help job entrants and seekers, including the long-term unemployed, improve self-confidence, motivation, resilience and productivity for effective job searches and networking — allowing participants to move away from being merely “applicants” toward being “candidates.” For more information, email [email protected] or visit thedccenter.org/careers.

Thursday, September 10

The DC LGBTQ+ Community Center’s Fresh Produce Program will be held all day at the DC LGBTQ+ Community Center. People will be informed on Wednesday at 5 p.m. if they are picked to receive a produce box. No proof of residency or income is required. For more information, email [email protected] or call 202-682-2245. 

Virtual Yoga Class will be at 7 p.m. on Zoom. This free weekly class is a combination of yoga, breathwork and meditation that allows LGBTQ+ community members to continue their healing journey with somatic and mindfulness practices. For more details, visit the DC LGBTQ+ Community Center’s website.  

Continue Reading

Celebrity News

Gloria Steinem dies at 92

Feminist icon championed LGBTQ rights

Published

3 days ago

on

September 3, 2026

By

Gloria Steinem speaks at the 2013 Human Rights Campaign National Dinner in D.C. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Gloria Steinem, writer, activist, and a leading voice of the feminist movement in the 1970s, died on Wednesday in Manhattan. Her death was announced on Instagram by her official foundation, Gloria’s Foundation, which shared that Steinem “passed away peacefully at her home, surrounded by some of the many who loved her.” She was 92.

A leading figure and spokesperson for the second-wave feminist movement, running from the 1960s through the ’80s — the earlier women’s rights suffrage movement being considered the first — Gloria Steinem campaigned for workplace equality, equality in the home and reproductive freedom, seeing those struggles as inseparable from the wider causes of social and racial equality.

She also championed LGBTQ rights, supporting lesbian visibility within the larger women’s liberation movement, and standing in opposition to the idea that lesbians posed a “lavender menace” to the cause of feminism.

In her vision of the future, marriage equality was a given: “Lesbians or homosexuals will no longer be denied legally binding marriages, complete with mutual-support agreements and inheritance rights.”

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement following Steinem’s death: “Gloria Steinem was a trailblazing titan of civil rights whose vision for liberation bridged the movements for gender equality, bodily autonomy, and LGBTQ rights. She recognized that feminist progress is incomplete without full inclusion and stood as an ally to transgender people’s fight for equality. Gloria rejected rigid binaries, choosing instead to build bridges of empathy and coalition across all marginalized identities. Gloria’s life was a masterclass in coalition-building, courage, and unconditional empathy.”

Among her many trailblazing milestones, Steinem was widely known for co-founding the National Women’s Political Caucus in 1971 alongside foundational feminist figures Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Fannie Lou Hamer, LaDonna Harris, Mildred Jeffrey, and Jill Ruckelshaus.

The mandate: get women into political office and positions of power — “women who are committed to the causes of other women — not women who are going to just imitate the male politics as it has been practiced all these years complete with elitism, racism and prejudice against women,” she said, “but women who really care about their sisters and will work for social reform.”

“This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution.”

Liz Abzug, daughter of Bella Abzug, remembers Steinem as “a lifelong activist and a humanist with lots of love to give,” as well as “a very, very close and dear friend of my mother’s,” as the two “worked side by side to change the American landscape for women.”

“It’s hard for me and all of her other supporters and admirers to imagine a world without Gloria leading the charge and fighting for women’s rights and full gender equality,” Abzug shared.

Indeed, there was much about that American landscape in need of change. Steinem came up during a time when discrimination against women was the legal and societal norm.

A married woman, for instance, often required her husband’s signature to obtain a credit card, a form of gender discrimination remedied in 1974 with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Women were often unable to get jobs. Life turned Steinem down, saying “We don’t want a pretty girl, we want a writer. Get out of here.” If women did land a job, in 1973, they would have likely made 56.6 cents to every dollar that men earned.

The law’s failure to support women’s autonomy was especially visible on the matter of reproductive rights.

For many women in America, legal abortion remained unavailable until 1973, when Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion nationwide. Steinem spent years speaking out for women’s safety, and promoted the idea that “decision-making power over our own physical selves” was intertwined with equal regard for women as citizens.

“The vast majority of women support safe and legal abortion. My response is if those legislators were half women, this wouldn’t happen,” she said in a 2022 interview with Katie Couric. “If we actually had a democracy, if those legislators looked like the country from a gender, racial, and class perspective, this probably would not be happening…”

Gloria Marie Steinem was born on March 25, 1934, in Toledo, Ohio, the daughter of Leo and Ruth (Nuneviller) Steinem. Her father was an antiques salesman; her mother had worked for a newspaper before she got married, but suffered what was called at the time a “nervous breakdown” and spent time in an institution. Following a divorce, her mother was left largely in the care of 11-year-old Gloria Steinem in a house that has been described as infested by vermin.

“I didn’t go to school a full year until I was 11 or 12, so I lived in books. I really was an observer of life,” Steinem said in a 2011 interview.

After moving to D.C. to live with her older sister, Susanne, Steinem graduated from Western High School in 1952. She followed Susanne to Smith College where she studied government and wrote for the student newspaper, graduating in 1956.

Upon moving to New York in 1960, she worked for Help! magazine and wrote freelance for publications that included Life, Esquire, and Glamour. According to Smith College Libraries, she co-founded New York magazine in 1968 and served as political columnist until 1972. In the 1960s and ’70s, Steinem was active in causes that included United Farmworkers, Vietnam War Tax Protest, and Committee for the Legal Defense of Angela Davis. She also participated in the political campaigns of Adlai Stevenson, Robert Kennedy, Shirley Chisholm, and others.

Steinem is said to have found her way to the Women’s Movement in 1969, following an abortion “speak-out” meeting of the Redstockings. She was inspired to begin speaking to audiences across the country, alongside activist Dorothy Pitman Hughes, and later Florynce Kennedy and Margaret Sloan.

Among Steinem’s most enduring legacies, and still in publication today, is Ms. magazine, which she co-founded. Widely considered the first national American feminist magazine (and owned, operated, and written by women!), it first appeared as a preview insert in New York Magazine in December 1971 with a tagline, “The New Magazine for Women.” Ms. earned status as a full-on publication in July 1972 with a cover image depicting a modern pregnant Hindu goddess Kali holding a clock, skillet, typewriter, rake, mirror, telephone, steering wheel, and an iron.

Ms. is credited with raising cultural awareness on policy issues, like the Equal Rights Amendment, taking on taboo topics and putting women’s issues front and center.

Steinem’s long list of published work includes the 1983 bestselling book Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, a collection of her Ms. articles and other pieces. The book includes the feminist’s essay on her undercover exposé of the Playboy Club, for which she donned bunny ears, collar, and bow to covertly report on working conditions for women.

In 1986, she published “Marilyn: Norma Jeane,” which explored the life of Marilyn Monroe and the idea of women as vulnerable and at the disposal of society — men in particular.

Steinem also wrote “Revolution from Within” (1992); “Moving Beyond Words” (1994); and “Doing Sixty & Seventy” (2006). She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013 by President Barack Obama.

Steinem’s relationships over the years included Ted Sorensen, counselor to President John F. Kennedy; Stanley Pottinger, a Justice Department official; and publisher and real-estate businessman Mort Zuckerman. In 2000, she married South African businessman David Bale, who died in 2003.

Steinem was predeceased by her mother and her sister, Susanne Steinem Patch, who died in 2007. On multiple occasions, she spoke of a community that extended beyond birth family — people whom she chose, and who chose her.

“[Feminism is] about friends and sisters and community,” Steinem said in an interview with bell hooks. “The good part and the great part is that it’s about chosen family. We have each other’s backs and that is so precious.

In announcing Steinem’s passing, her foundation offered this reflection: “Gloria’s greatest gift was her ability to listen to others, to make others feel seen and heard. Her words, actions, and example gave people permission to be their truest selves. Gloria lived true to her independent spirit, always with curiosity and a great sense of humor.

“She spent her recent years doing the two things she loved most: being in community with others and writing … Gloria loved the tradition of lighting signal fires on hills to light the way to the other side of the mountain.”

Continue Reading

Popular