Friday, January 12, 2007
Hey, Ladies!
Where are all you Women's Libbers who stand up at any provocation?

Where are you?

Why aren't you outraged about this?

As some of you may be aware, Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice testified before the Senate yesterday to answer questions about the shift in strategy that President Bush outlined on prime time television on Wednesday night. As was to be expected by even the most casual of political observers, the Democrats took the opportunity to snipe at a popular Republican figure and trot out the same ol' song we've all seen and heard so many times before (like all those wishfuls on American Idol who sing the same Whitney Houston songs). One, in particular, was a particularly vicious attack and women everywhere should be mad as hell.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California seemed to suggest that the Sec. of State didn't have a personal stake in Iraq and was therefore somehow ineligible to comment:
"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."

Look, Sec. Rice's resume speaks for itself. She is a highly respected, very learned woman. The Cindy Sheehanesque argument from Boxer is an act of a traitor.

Boxer is a woman. Rice is a woman. Yet Boxer stands in judgement of Rice and finds her wanting because she is childless and therefore not fit to make decisions or be a diplomat for the United States of America? I think the President of the United States (2 Presidents in fact) might argue otherwise.

The fact that a woman hasn't given birth is not a defining characteristic when it comes to Global Diplomacy. Boxer damn well ought to know this. I have had a child, but this doesn't make me eligible for Rice's job in and of itself. Boxer's suggestion is merely a polished version of Cindy Sheehan's old saw about sending our children off to die.

Let's set that straight right now: America's troops serve by choice. They are all adults and have free will. They entered into their own obligations. This is the truth no matter what the Democratic party, Democratic Underground, or Cindy Sheehan's talking points might say. The only people I'm aware of that knowingly send their children to die are the freakin' Palestinians who use their children as walking bombs. Those people literally send their children to die. Saddam used to pay the parents to do it.

But Boxer's suggestion is so anti-woman's rights it is amazing that the ol' bitch can get elected in what is arguably the most liberal state in the union (I said arguably).

Boxer suggests that Rice is less of a woman and this is pure unadulterated crap. Whether Rice is childless by choice or by a cruelty of biology doesn't matter. A great many women choose to be childless. Another great set of many women are unable to have children. This does not make them somehow lesser or inadequate or ineligible or undesirable.

They, too, have free choice. Boxer seems to suggest that it is the duty of all women to have children first. Next thing you know, she'll have us give up our places in the workforce and demand we start performing more knee-based tasks. Boxer's words are a betrayal to women everywhere. And I, for one, am mad as hell that she seems intent on taking us back to the days when women weren't educated, couldn't vote, and served merely as the playthings of men and the vessels that carried their progeny. And I say that as a working mother who has very good friends who are childless by choice.

I am sure that Rice took it with grace because she's a classy lady and a leader. Boxer doesn't hold herself to those ideals, apparently. Some will expect Boxer to apologize to Rice. I say, SCREW THAT!

She should apologize to all women. Either that or give up her esteemed position and put on an apron. Grandma has some cookies to bake.

So I ask again: Where's the damn outrage?

Labels: ,

posted by Phoenix | 10:29 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home


Popular Posts:





fighting 101s