Friday, January 12, 2007

Barbara Boxer: Single Women Should Keep Their Opinions to Themselves--Update

No matter if you're straight or gay, Democrat or Republican, pacifist or hawk, young or old, black or white, educated or severely mentally retarded, if you're a single woman you may not express an opinion about the War in Iraq, or more generally any political and/or military action that might affect future generations. Same goes for anyone who doesn't have a child.

If you never have had children, you can't possibly have a valid opinion. You don't have any skin in life's game and should shut up. So says Barbara Boxer.

She specifically insulted Condoleeza Rice, but if you take her lame-brained logic to it's conclusion, nearly 50% of voters wouldn't be allowed to participate in the politcal process because, well, what do they care, they're going to die anyway of natural causes because the war doesn't affect them? Don't believe it? Here's what she said:

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."

Boxer was attempting to use a modified Chickenhawk argument--if you're not willing to strap on Kevlar you can't have an opinion. Er go, if your cousin, niece, nephew, child isn't a soldier you have no expertise to offer the war fight. The logic is so inherently flawed and outrageously misogynist that it amazes. Can you imagine the same being said to her? She doesn't have to pay a price either, by her own admission. Will Boxer shut up about the war now?

The bigger picture, as the New York Post editors note is this:
The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.
The next two years will be marked by the anger and aggression displayed by toddlers who have just enough power to be dangerous, but are too impotent to control things the way they want. There will be more tantrums to come.

Update:

The Anchoress says this:
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.
****

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.

Unless you flow like the wind and become as shapeless as a Democrat and change your view and perfectly reflect whatever whoever is saying at the time, you aren't the right kind of anything. The right kind of "liberal" questions nothing and mindlessly defends whatever their leadership says--no matter how offensive, ignorant or insane.

5 comments:

David said...

Well, let's see. On the average, "progressives" have fewer children than conservatives. So by Boxer's logic, their opinions on the war should be weighted much less than the conservative views.

Really, I think the Senator's last name is an insult to the noble breed of boxers (the dog, that is)

carol said...

Well, I'm childless...but all the same, this is why in the distant past office holders, especially presidents, had *better* have their sons in uniform. The Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Gores, the Bushes. Or you just didn't have anything to say about it.

It's politics. And Rice is vulnerable on it. It's one reason why she can't be prez.

Anonymous said...

Doc, with this new set of Our Enlightened Betters, how long do you figure before this blog gets shut down as Bushist/Goldsteinist Hate Speech?

And it's not called "anger and aggression of toddlers", it's "The Concern and Compassion (TM) of The Enlightened (TM)."
As in "War is Peace",
"Freedom is Slavery",
"Ignorance is Strength",
and "2 + 2 = 5."

Dr. Melissa said...

Well during the Deb Frisch thing, I did have a DoS attack. Hasn't happened since, thankfully. For a while, my blog just vanished.

Anyway, in that worldview, there is no true dissenting opinion--it's Leftist group think or no think.

Dr. Melissa said...

Carol,

The world and society has changed for the better thanks to Feminism, right? We can't have those Patriarchal norms foisted on the new generation of anyone--Presidential nominees included.

So, for the Left, divorce and remarriage, gayness, singleness, femaleness, browness, childlessness, any trait that may have disqualified a candidate in the unequal past should be left out of criticism, don't you think?