Saturday, January 13, 2007

Women Politicians Strap Yer Boots on This is Nasty Business--UPDATED II

UPDATE II: Oh the delicious wordplay just keeps coming. This time, Mark Steyn says: "Gran'ma got run over by her Reign, Dear" to explain why uber Grandma Pelosi won't have time for her delightful progeny. He continues:

I would wager that, when the young Nancy Pelosi had ''five children in six years,'' a hefty percentage of that parenthood wasn't planned. She is, in that sense, philosophically at odds with her party -- and, indeed, with her congressional district. San Francisco now registers more dogs that it does schoolchildren. Lest you think I'm being my usual homophobic self, I hasten to add that for once I'm not: It speaks well for the Bay Area that they had to embrace the gay life to match the collapsed birth rates European cities have managed to achieve heterosexually. Nonetheless, at a time when fertility rates call into question the survival of Russia, Japan, Germany, Spain and Italy, the new speaker certainly presents an unusual model: She appears to be a rare example of a woman who truly ''has it all.'' She had five kids and then became the first female speaker in human history, an event (according to the media) women have been waiting for since Caveman Ug said, ''Hi, honey, I'm home!'' and clubbed the missus over the head for being late with the saber-toothed meatloaf. It's certainly not the career path feminist orthodoxy has commended these last 30 years, but it seems to have brought Pelosi happiness, and at a time of greater life expectancy it has a certain logic: Have kids in your 20s, go into politics in your 40s, serve as two-term president in your 60s. You can have it all!

I think the GOP should give up trying to demonize Nancy Pelosi. The Botox gags and bug-eyed photos won't work. Tonally, she seems very normal, in ways that, for example, certain presidentially inclined New York senators can never quite manage. But Pelosi's fellow California liberals and those gushing feminist columnists ought to ponder why ''the most powerful woman in America'' is quite so untypical: What does it say when it's the exception that proves the ruler?


Pelosi demonstrates that arranging a feminist life might get you nothing--well, according to Barbara Boxer. Why, a true feminist ends up like Condi Rice.

Betsy Newmark says (and she alerted me to Steyn's piece):
I wonder if traditional feminists are at all uncomfortable with all this celebration of a stay at home mother who now can have it all. And how little mention there is of her very wealthy husband who perhaps made all this motherhood and rise in politics possible. I've seen more mentions of her father politician than her husband. Why is he getting shortchanged? As the San Francisco Chronicle wrote recently, he is deliberately keeping a low profile. I guess having a multimillionaire husband doesn't fit the entire image. There's nothing wrong with having a husband who has made many millions in investments, but it is part of the complete picture and some mention of him should belong in the media profiles.
I am woman, hear me exhale loudly.

UPDATE
: Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred ,wickedly incisive imp that he is, puts a finer point on this tempest in a D-cup:

Barbara Boxer's 'Freudian Slip' is telling. First, she accused Condaleeza Rice of being a flawed decision maker. Then Ms Boxer insinuated that because she has no children, Condaleeza Rice cannot be as empathetic or sympathetic to those Americans who might lose a loved one.

Of course, that would mean Ms Boxer could possibly understand the evil or significance of racism, because she isn't black and thus her positions on race cannot be taken seriously.

Ms Boxer can opine on with some credibility on the matter of corruption. Among other things, she funneled $115,000 to Douglas Boxer & Associates from A PAC for Change, her leadership political action committee.

Douglas Boxer calls the Senator, 'Mommy.'

I wonder if anybody's bottom is smarting.
***********************


Ann Althouse posts again about the Boxer incident:
Heightening sensitivity to implicit insults in statements made about women can serve the interests of the Democrats. They are the ones with an important female presidential candidate. Now that Republicans have had this little huff over Rice, Democrats will have more power to claim offenses to feminism whenever anyone says anything mean about Hillary Clinton.
I'm not in a huff about defending Rice. I'm not sure I'm in a huff at all. What I object to is a person being disparaged for their gender, race, age, etc. when it has no bearing on the argument.

What I object to is a woman who reached her position (because of her husbands money, connections, I know) in part by the Feminism Movement now criticizes a woman who enjoys the benefits, too. I feel like Steve Martin in Father of the Bride, "Why must I always be the only feminist around here?" Wasn't the ideal Feminism shot for: single, career-oriented, sexually liberated, educated and not tied down by children? Let's see.....Maureen Dowd, for example. Marriage is oppression. Childcare slavery.

What I object to is that a Republican white male saying what Boxer said would be tarred, feathered and put out to pasture. Remember Trent Lott? (His hidden racist feelings revealed after all. And don't forget George Allen's macaca incident. I shall quote, "My trust is shot to hell." I agreed with Althouse, by the way, saying, "He's done".)

I get what Althouse is saying, though. Women must be willing to accept criticism in the sphere of politics and ideas. And yes, the Democrats have a candidate and censoring speech is likely to backfire on Republicans. But if the argument is about Hillary's elephant ankles and thick calves rather than her socialist agenda, the speech should backfire. If the argument is that she's a mom, and worries about the war, because she has a child draft age and that gives her moral authority, she should be criticized for stupid argumentation. Like Boxer is being criticized right now.

Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi's motherhood does not make them more qualified to lead the nation and as a woman I find THAT offensive. Margaret Thatcher was not a kick-ass leader because she possessed ovaries and mammary glands and had birthed a child. I'm guessing that without all of these things she would have possessed a fierce intellect and instinctive moral compass pointing to true North. Would we tolerate a man elevating manhood in leadership positions, "It's Daddy-time!" Yuck.

Don't true feminists find this display uncomfortable? I really don't get it. I'm not a feminist. At least I don't think I am. Let's not start that again. I'm proud of my family, no question. But the motherhood stuff rather than actual idea trumpeting and staying "on message" is weird. But to Pelosi and Boxer motherhood seems to be the message.

Motherhood makes you an "absolute moral authority". So that will be the defense of Hillary. You can't criticize her, her child will hear. She's a mother. And I am in a huff over that.

1 comment:

Christy're said...

If motherhood makes one an absolute moral authority, why is it that mothers don't all agree?