Letters to the Editor
-
To Diane on pg. 1
n the right wing world, not having children is a very bad thing. A childless woman is, at the very least, a subject of pity. A conservative childless woman is a victim of either poor choices or tragedy. Commenting on the barrenness of a childless woman is cruel to the point of being vicious. (Emphasis mine)
You're so right. I was listening to the McLaughlin Group (hey--I can often use the laugh) when wingnut sock puppet Tony Blankley said, rather indignantly, that Sen. Boxer "reminded" everyone that Dr. Rice is childfree.
Telling choice of words, no? Was it a state secret?
Personally, I think they'd rather emphasize this to have something to be "outraged" about--don't want people thinking about just who's dying in this war.
-
Woodviolet, grow up
This isn't an encounter group. This is a war. People get killed in wars. They suffer horribly. They are maimed. Blood spills. A LOT of blood spills.
What Condi Rice feels about it personally doesn't matter at all. Her entire job is to not let her personal feelings influence her decisions.
Everyone wants to turn this into Oprah. It isn't. If you aren't personally comfortable with the responsibility for getting thousands of people killed if you think it's the most effective course to take, then you have no right to make decisions about a war.
I am so sick of women bleating about their sacred feelings, as if for some reason they mattered more than anything else. The soldiers on the ground, most of whom are male, and thousands of whom are now dead, could not care less about your feelings. They also don't care about Bush's feelings, or anyone else's. This situation is about being right, being smart, being effective. Go feel all over someone else.
The worst are letters, like yours, which announce something completely irrelevant like "I am 41, childless and blah ..." So WHAT? Who CARES? How is that relevant? Does it give you some special tactical insight? Everyone has feelings, and the big kids have learned that there is a time and a place for them. This is neither the time nor the place. Can we please focus on the issue at hand -- what to do about this war? -- and stop whining?
-
This feminist feminacentric future...
A salient fact which seems to have escaped much notice or mention: 98% of the US deaths in Iraq have been MEN.
It's not a feminist issue, it's a masculist issue because men are the disposable, second-class sex, the ones doing the dieing.
Does anyone else see the absurdity of two (or more) women arguing over this?
-
Interesting point MartianBachelor
"A salient fact which seems to have escaped much notice or mention: 98% of the US deaths in Iraq have been MEN.
It's not a feminist issue, it's a masculist issue because men are the disposable, second-class sex, the ones doing the dieing.
Does anyone else see the absurdity of two (or more) women arguing over this?" (MartianBachelor)
Interesting point although I'm not sure that entirely precludes them from having a worthwhile opinion, but interesting nevertheless. One that I've often overlooked.
-
To:Diane "Point of View Scandal"?
I find it very hypocritical that you try and place all conservatives in a box. Private lives of certain politicians seem to suit the Dems when it is relevant to their cause, yet they have never been willing to buck up and condemn their own. There are many examples, but the most recent is Clinton. Even though this man, who historically is without morals, and history has proven it, you people still love and adore him. What I find reprehensible, is the fact that you and significant portion of women in the US give no support to this woman who is not only our Secretary of State but the first black woman to achieve this post. Make no mistake, Boxer knew exactly what she was doing. If the current Sec. of State would have been a man, she never would have said what she did. If the tables were reversed, and a male Republican senator said that to a democratic woman who happened to be Sec. of State, you would be up in arms. This would be all over the media, and there would be hell to pay. This is exactly why the feminist movement died. American women now have freedom, supposedly to think and make their own decisions, yet there is a great deal of you who refuse to see the other side of anything.
-
Steph
I think there would be something wrong with us if all feminists automatically supported any woman regardless of her actions. I don't support Rice; if she were to run for president, I wouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman. I also would not vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman. I disagree with the actions of the administration Rice works for. She doesn't get a free pass because she's a woman.
Also, regarding discussing the private lives of politicians: Clinton was an adulterer. If Clinton had spent a great deal of his time condemning adulterers and trying to get laws passed against them, and then it turned out he was one, then he should be ridiculed for being a hypocrite. The Republicans have made themselves the party of "values". They have spent a lot of time condemning gays and trying to legislate against them. So, when a prominent conservative leader, say, turns out to have been hiring gay escorts, or hitting on young men, they are being outed as hypocrites. If they didn't try to use this as a issue to attract voters then it would be off-limits. If they didn't use the fact that they are the party of "values" as a campaign tactics, then their personal values would be irrelevant. But when they preach about values left and right, and condemn liberals for our lack of values, and then their personal actions show that they don't actually live by those so-called values, that's noteworthy.
I'm not crazy about the prominence motherhood has been given by female politicians lately-- Pelosi surrounded by all those kids when she became Speaker of the House, for example. But it is so hypocritical of the right to be up in arms about this when Laura Bush made the same point about Rice not too long ago and got no response. Making an issue out of it is nothing more than a distraction from the very real troubles this country faces-- they could care less about the rights of single, childless women, except when it is convenient so maybe we won't notice the mess they've created.