January 12, 2007
So which is it, Senator?
Barbara Boxer and her ilk have gotten where they are by pushing a simple mantra: Women are Equal to men. Women should push through the glass ceiling. Women have the right to have a successful career.
Evidently this is no longer good enough: in attacking Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice yesterday, Senator Boxer said,
"Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."Yeah, so because Condi focused her life on a remarkable career and chose to make that a priority over marrying and having children she has no right to ask other people's children to sacrifice themselves for our country? Give me a fucking break.
No wonder American women are conflicted. We now MUST be superwoman. We can't be an important part of the political discourse of this country unless we're wives and mothers, evidently.
Ironic turn of events, no? 100 years ago wives and mothers were thought to be the least fit to have a political opinion. Now, according to Mrs. Boxer, the only women fit to make political decisions are wives and mothers.
And I guess this distinction even includes lesbians, since the democrat agenda is for them to be able to marry legally, and science makes it possible for any woman to have a baby without a man in the picture.
I am disgusted, frankly. Could you tell?
More on this, and far more eloquently from Darleen and Beth MVRWC
Posted by caltechgirl at January 12, 2007 07:37 AM | TrackBack
Some are more equal than others, dear. You'd understand like we mothers do if you had children like a Good Woman™ Should. It IS your responsibility to society!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go take my credentials and apply for a job at the White House!
Posted by: Beth at January 12, 2007 08:25 AMCould the same sentence not apply to a man with no family?
I'm not saying its a valid criticism (it most certainly is not) but there is nothing overt in the comment that singles it out as an attack on Condi being a childless woman, just childless in general.
Kav
Under any circumstance, do you think Babs would have trotted out this moral authority as a breeder with any MALE official?
Posted by: Darleen at January 12, 2007 09:31 AMI'm glad I'm not the only one outraged by her comments!
Darleen is right. Boxer never would have floated this to a man. That dog wouldn't hunt. It is splashy and bitchy, and most unfortunately, not helpful to women.
Basically, it was a last ditch effort. They can't touch her on anything else, so they have to conjure images of the saintly suffering of Cindy Sheehan, the very model of a modern mother. The perfection we should all strive for, as soon as we get Wally and the Beav on the bus, that is...
Posted by: Phoenix at January 12, 2007 09:37 AMI don't know, I know little of Boxer, but based on a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the issue (i.e. hit with anything and hope it sticks) I would not be overly surprised.
Consider the fact that war supporters who have children (whether they be men or women) have been criticised for failing to encourage their kids to sign up (e.g. Bush and his daughters). Boxer's comment comes from the same playbook - smear by suggesting that the war is fine as long as there is no personal investment on the part of the war supporter. It's a variant of the chickenhawk crap.
Posted by: Kav at January 12, 2007 10:09 AMBravo! It a chickenshit thing for her to even imply - let alone say...
Posted by: Richmond at January 12, 2007 01:28 PM
