|
|
January 12, 2007Boxer and the sonless presidentsWhen I read this story my first thought was: “only super-evangelical freakshows like the Jim Phelps crew turn on a woman for not having children….” Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer. “Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.” Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.” Breathtaking. For those keeping “moral authority” score - Mo Dowd said Cindy Sheehan, having lost a son in Iraq has “absolute moral authority,” as concerns her demands for withdrawal. Mothers of dead sons and daughters who SUPPORT the action in Iraq, do not appear, at least by Dowd’s lights, to have the same moral authority. Now, according to Boxer, if you have not had children - or if your children are not of an age to serve in the military - than you have no moral authority to wage war or defend a war. Harry Truman only had daughter, Margaret - she couldn’t be drafted to fight in Europe or the Pacific, so he had no risk of losing a child at war…how the hell did he have the moral authority to drop a bomb? Lyndon Johnson had only daughters, no sons to draft or put into harm’s way. I guess he had no business trying to deal with the Vietnam war that started on John F. Kennedy’s watch. Kennedy, of course, had two small children not at risk of war. As near as I can tell, if a President Hillary (with undraftable daughter who is disinterested in military service) were defending the war - as she did clear up until just a few months ago - no one would be wondering if she had the right to do so. Feminist Boxer, aside from making a deplorable personal observation regarding Dr. Rice, is doing one of those “flipping double standards” that had so much to do with me leaving the left. Condi rather “embodies” the whole feminist ideal, doesn’t she? Educate yourself and work and put your personal life aside to achieve, achieve, achieve…for decades the feminists carried on that having children did not make one a successful woman, that too often children held one back and that motherhood was not the measure of a woman. In fact, I remember when I announced I would not be returning to work after the birth of my first child, having to endure a feminist lecture by a woman from the next office who was miffed at me. In her harangue against stay-at-home moms, she veered off and started to carry on about how much she resented poeple who said things like, “only a mother would understand….” “A woman does not have to be a mother to understand any human concept,” she scolded me angrily, even though I was just taking a lunch break in the sun and had not said a word to her about the wisdom of motherhood. Now, suddenly, if you don’t have children you are not fit to talk and you have no moral authority. If you have no children, prepare to have that fact flung in your face by feminists, if they find it politically expediant to do so. Only a 21st Century so-called liberal would say such a rotten thing to Condi. Only a 21st Century so-called liberal would get away with it, too. I see no hue and cry from the feminists, of course, and not much coverage byn the press, of course. Can you imagine how this would be wall-to-wall covered if a Republican had dared to say such a thing to an unmarried, childless Democrat? And you know damn well - we all do - that if Condi were to run for president, the first thing the dems would do is play the gay card…”well, she’s not married…she has no kids…we’re just saying…and you know, there’s nothing wrong with being gay…unless you’re the wrong sort of gay. Ms Boxer has just demonstrated how the feminists and the double-standard left got me stepping rightward. Hot Air has the video. Kim at Wizbang, who lost a family member in Iraq in November, (so I hereby confer upon her “absolute moral authority”) says Boxer should apologize to Rice. And Townhall, Lorie Byrd writes a piece that is somewhat related in that she wonders when the Democrats “support” will mean more than just “sympathy.” She also has further thoughts and a great closer, here: what does Boxer’s comment say about all those who think Oprah would be the best president ever? Why is it that only liberal women who choose the feminist ideal lifestyle get any praise for it? Liberals evidently want to keep conservative women barefoot and pregnant. AJ has more thoughts on Boxer and the difference between “paying the price” and “sacrificing.” Fausta says, now childlessness is an issue? Varifrank has a visual aid for BoxerPolitical Pit Bull says he doesn’t think Boxer was dissing Condi, just bringing up and old and weak argument. The Political Pit Bull says he doesn’t think Boxer was dissing Condi so much as making a stupid, tired argument. Maybe she was doing both? Ed Driscoll has the irresistable header I wish I’d thought of! More: http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/01/12/boxer/trackback/ 18 Responses to “Boxer and the sonless presidents” |
January 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
[...] The Anchoress seems to be on the same page as this ol’ Okie: Now, suddenly, if you don’t have children you are not fit to talk and you have no moral authority. If you have no children, prepare to have that fact flung in your face by feminists, if they find it politically expediant to do so. [...]
January 12th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Video: Boxer gets personal with Condi at Senate hearing
Boxer’s Low Blow January 12, 2007 — Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza
January 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
How come statements like Boxer’s weren’t directed at Madeleine Albright during the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo? After all, she had grown daughters at the time who didn’t serve. What about President Clinton, too? Chelsea could have skipped college at Stanford to serve, right? And, if in Boxer’s mind, the only people who can make decisions about war are those who have children or spouses between the ages of 18 and, say, 30, then how can she question anyone either - by her own admission her children are too old?
Little did the feminists know that one of their own would put a glass ceiling over all childless women who aspire to be Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense or President since they can’t make decisions about war. Not that they’ll complain; they’ll just act like nothing happened.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
My senator is an idiot
It’s no secret I despise Senator Barbara Boxer (D - Moron). Time and again she has demonstrated for all to see just how petty and small a person she is. From her challenge of the Ohio electoral votes in the
January 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Barbara Boxers Box is Just for You
Barbara Boxer just dissed Condoleezza Rice for not having kids. There was a time when feminists argued against kids. In fact, some people think that feminists prefer aborted babies to live ones. So in honor of Barbara Boxers newfound and highly une…
January 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
[...] The Anchoress: Only a 21st Century so-called liberal would say such a rotten thing to Condi. Only a 21st Century so-called liberal would get away with it, too. I see no hue and cry from the feminists, of course, and not much coverage byn the press, of course. Can you imagine how this would be wall-to-wall covered if a Republican had dared to say such a thing to an unmarried, childless Democrat? [...]
January 12th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Acutally, I get that attitude from anti feminists than feminists-always figured it was because I haven’t had kids. My siblings, who all have kids, get the other version- so it depends on what you’re lacking, I guess. Since she was essentially saying she had no skin in the fight, herself, I think it was just an akward way of saying they were in the same boat. And I do think it’s true that it’s more abstract if it can’t affect you personally- doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion, but either way it goes doesn’t have the same impact.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Barbara Boxer: Political Hack N’ Flack
Senator Barbara Boxer of California is in a safe seat and feels at liberty to unleash any manner of personal attack on Condoleeza Rice. Boxer has reduced herself to the status of political slime, and it is unfortunate that her comments will not be more…
January 12th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
[...] Remember, Progressives are those people who think that all family choices are equally valid. [...]
January 12th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
[...] “Boxer and the Sonless Presidents” [...]
January 13th, 2007 at 8:41 am
What’s really wrong with Barbara Boxer’s clueless attack on Dr. Rice is the nerve to suggest that a gal — especially one like Condi, who lost a childhood friend to a white supremacist bomb in the Sixties — who hasn’t given birth to a child cannot possibly understand human suffering. Like so many Democrat demagogues, Boxer is not a serious person.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Sen Boxer WAS taking a personal shot at Sec Rice. Sen Boxer will never have immediate family in the fight. Her family members WILL NOT voluntarily join the US Military, and the is no draft (which has only been offered by a democrat). So, she will pay no personal price. Unlike Sec Rice, who has been in the middle east and will return, and is always in danger of paying a PERSONAL PRICE.
January 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Boxer To Rice: Begone, Barren Woman!
This one is disgustingly low, even for a bitch like Barbara Boxer. Condoleezza Rice came under a shocking Democratic attack yesterday - as a childless woman who cant understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq. In…
January 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Barbara Boxer versus Condoleeza Rice - Round 1
I haven’t written anything about Barbara Boxer’s outrageous, disrespectful and sexists remarks to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
The liberal senator from California stated to Secretary R…
January 13th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
[...] More posts on this issue on Hot Air , The Anchroress, Wizbang, Bills Bites [...]
January 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
“Blessed are the barren”
Feminism is nothing if not opportunistic — allowing women the latitude to work, to not have children, to have children, to raise children, to insist that society helps them raise their children, to use their motherhood as a brickbat to sway others, or…
January 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
The Tactless Barbara Boxer
Behold the class of perpetually angry California Senator Barbara Boxer: “Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price?” Mrs. Boxer said to Miss Rice during a Senate Armed Services hearing Thursday. “I’m not going to pay…
March 5th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Barbara Boxer bon mots
Having spent the day in boring busy work, I’ve had the chance to ruminate about the many, many things wrong with Barbara Boxer’s attack on Condi Rice. To refresh your recollection, here’s what happened (courtesy of the New York Post,…