That's the new line enunciated by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Left Coast), who suggested that Secretary of State Condi Rice's lack of children meant she lacked standing to support continued military action in Iraq (and, by extension, to help direct war policy generally).
While some see an insinuation of lesbianism in Boxer's attack (heavens, Democrats using homophobia to advance their aims? Who could imagine!), I see it more as yet another round of feminist hypocrisy.
27 Comments for “No Kids, then No Valid Opinions on War?”
posted by Bobby on
What Boxer said is offensive to millions of Americans who don’t have children by choice or circumstance. She’s perpetuating the stereotype that if you don’t have a child, you’re not worth it. Do we the childless not pay taxes that benefit public schools, universities, social services, and all those child centric institutions? Shame on people like her, truth is democrats can do very little to stop the war, they’re just posturing for the next election.
Of course, she’s gonna get away with it, because she’s a democrats and in the eyes of her followers she can do no wrong.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Had one of those white men on The Hill said it, they’d be pilloried for such a misognynistic statement.
But since a WOMAN said it, not only that, a woman from the liberal state I live in, California…Boxer is getting away with her crass and stupid statement.
Where is NOW? Where are all the higly vocal women’s advocates who should be defending Rice?
Rice’s station in life…and that of Oprah Winfrey, for that matter, are causes for celebration.
They may have sacrificed marriage and children for their VERY powerful and influential places in history.
Boxer should be thanking Rice for the sister in such a position, kids or no kids, husband or no husband, that she is.
Boxer should apologize…and IMMEDIATELY.
But perhaps since NOW dropped the ball on this one, she’s not getting spanked enough.
Perhaps because Rice isn’t liberal, or lap dog enough for their tastes.
Which is wrong…and pisses me off.
It’s not like Boxer ever had to survive Jim Crow, and grow up black in the Deep South as Rice did, to achieve her station in life.
So, where fighting SOMETHING is concerned…Rice has Boxer beat.
And may know more than Boxer gives her credit for…about family sacrifice and tenacity towards freedom.
posted by Mason on
As usual, the whining Bush administration is taking a Democrat’s comments out of context and trying to play the victim. Boxer certainly did not attack Rice for being single and childless.
Boxer’s full comment was:
“Who pays the price [for the troop increase]? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young,” Boxer said. “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”
Boxer, pointedly including herself in the example, was noting that it’s only the 20,000 families of military personnel who are going to pay the price for Bush’s troop-increase proposal. The vast majority of Americans, including Boxer and Rice, will feel no effects of any such increase.
So, to Dr. Rice I say: shove it. You’ve spent the last six years working for an administration that’s played the gay boogeyman card every chance it could to make electoral gains. Even if Boxer did what you say she did (which she didn’t) I have no sympathy for you.
posted by raj on
Interesting. Not appellation of the comment.
Is Stevie trying to hide something?
This post is, as expected, quite stupid. More later.
posted by jomicur on
"Of course, she’s gonna get away with it, because she’s a democrats and in the eyes of her followers she can do no wrong," says Bobby, confident that Steve Miller et all will agree. What fascinates me about all the knee-jerk reactionaries on this site is not so much their mindless devotion to an extreme right-wing (not to say crypto-fascist) agenda but their complete cluelessness that their political idols are as bad as the Democrats and actually a lot worse. Very few regulars here have defended Democratic homophobia–far from it. Yet these characters keep harping on it as if somehow the rest of us are missing the point. Wrong.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Do we the childless not pay taxes that benefit public schools, universities, social services, and all those child centric institutions?””””
Technically, the childfree and childless contribute more to those things, since we don’t have children taking it back. People who pay taxes for those and then have their kids use them, they’re essentially paying a membership for their kids to use it, sort of. For the childless to pay it, is like paying for a service you get nothing out of, but we do it anyway, and still get no regard for our contribution because we don’t have kids.
posted by Carl on
Boxer was right. People who don’t have loved ones involved in this fight are going to suffer less than those who do. The only reason that right wingers care is because they’re looking for any distraction from their failed war.
I don’t remember any of these outraged right wingers defending the many politicians who have been attacked if they don’t have spouses and 10 children.
And Stephen, I’m surprised you aren’t bothered by the right wing subtext that saying someone is a lesbian is an attack on them.
posted by Randy on
First, what’s wrong with this website? It’s posting everything weirdly.
Second, I think Boxer was alluding to the fact that no one in the adminstration has any children actually serving in this war, and that is quite extraordinary. And frustrating as well. It’s easy to order about 20,000 when you don’t know any of them.
posted by Randy on
Personally, I find this whole exchange galling. On the one side, we have Condi Rice, who lied to the public about the WMD, lied about the link between Iraq and 9/11, lied about the progress of the war, has been totally incompetent in prosecuting this war, alienated our allies in Europe, and has been ineffective in solving any problems at all in the Middle East. On the other hand, we have Boxer, who might have insulted Rice.
Who should do the apologizing here? This feigned outrage is merely a tactic to distract the public from the real problems.
posted by inahandbasket on
So Senator Boxer is being excoriated for her comments and this flies under the radar:
From a (vacuous) People Magazine interview:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20004374_2,00.html
<>
So Laura Bush insinuates that because Ms. Rice is single she has NO support system AT ALL, not even close friends… hmmmmm…. I thought Mrs, Bush was a close friend of Rice’s.
Guess the crickets are chirping loudly wherever Ms. Rice lives. So she has to play the piano to fill her empty personal time. I understand she quite an accomplished pianist – must be because she has NO friends, no family of choice, no one to spend time with, only the 88 keys.
Poor Ms. Rice.
Who’s zoomin’ who?
What’s the REAL reason Condi won’t/can’t run for President? Anyone venture a guess?
posted by inahandbasket on
Not sure why my cut’n’paste didn’t work. Let’s try again: (Laura Bush’s quote re Ms. Rice:
“Mrs. Bush: I agree. But it isn’t easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job. ”
posted by Bobby on
“People who don’t have loved ones involved in this fight are going to suffer less than those who do. ”
—So with that line of thought, we can assume that anyone without children doesn’t care about global warming, poverty, abortion, and a host other issues. No matter where Condie stands politically, nobody has the right ot question her politics on the basis of whether she has or has no children.
I’m sure there’s plenty of childless people in the anti-war movement who are really pissed with Boxer right now.
I’m pissed off because Boxer has used the “you don’t matter if you don’t breed” line of thought. The same line used by some homophobes I know.
“I don’t remember any of these outraged right wingers defending the many politicians who have been attacked if they don’t have spouses and 10 children.”
—Not quite, they defended Mark Foley before the IM fiasco.
Frankly, I don’t care about this war. As long as they don’t raise my taxes or bring back the draft, Bush can do whatever he likes in Iraq. All this military people are volunteers, getting to do things I’m not allowed to do and with my money. So as far as I’m concerned, let the president use them to spread freedom in the world. And if they die, too bad. That’s the price you pay for having an interesting job. After all, cops and firemen die to, and nobody bitches about that.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Tell you what, I can both sides are trying to convince us to stay in this stupidly strategized Iraq situation, with ANOTHER bad strategy….
NOT LIFTING THE BAN!
How you gonna increase an already stretched too thin military presence without the obvious being dealt with?!
Rice could do a lot in recommending a repeal of DADT.
We’ve lost a lot of talent, and can’t afford to lose any more.
But the terms have to be equally applied to gay AND non gay soldiers.
At least, gay soldiers won’t create children in the ranks, and loss be due to pregnancy.
Our President and his staff, have all kinds of distinctly backhanded and destructive policies with regard to homeland security, disaster response, foreign policy and Iraq and Afghanistan.
He’s running this country like A BUSINESS, instead of like a country.
He’s trying to make our borders disappear, and allowing a huge influx of people unvetted as to intent, status and ability to live here without public assistance.
Not only is the military stretched thin, but so are our tax dollars for other needs and services.
This ISN’T a business!
And considering the Bush family’s track record in that regard…be AFRAID…be VERY afraid!
posted by Tim on
“Frankly, I don’t care about this war. As long as they don’t raise my taxes or bring back the draft, Bush can do whatever he likes in Iraq.”
Dude, don’t you think that the 500 – 1000 billion this war is costing isn’t going to have to be paid for somehow with taxes ?
Eventually the Chinese will want their money back plus interest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If one looks at Laura Bush’s quote in detail, you notice something (emphasis mine):
Mrs. Bush: I agree. But it isn’t easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.
In short, Laura Bush is saying that Condi Rice is more than qualified, but that she probably wouldn’t be interested as a result of her family situation.
In contrast, Boxer is saying that Rice is not qualified because of her family situation.
Really, a big underlying problem is that Boxer isn’t used to black people, especially black women, who talk back to her, or who surpass her in terms of education, accomplishment, and achievement.
posted by Tim on
She was a disaster of a Nation Security Advisor “no one though they’d use planes as weapsons !” and she’s a disaster of a Secretary of State.
She is going to resign within 6 months.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
She was a disaster of a Nation Security Advisor “no one though they’d use planes as weapsons !” and she’s a disaster of a Secretary of State.
Really, Tim?
That logic hinges on Clinton administration officials claiming that “they knew” that Osama bin Laden was planning to use planes as weapons years before 9/11 came along.
What it leaves out, though, is that if THEY knew Osama bin Laden was planning to use planes as weapons years in advance, why didn’t they make changes to prevent it — when they were still in power?
Hindsight is always 20/20. In order to counter threats, one must think outside the box, and no one, Democrat or Republican, was doing that prior to 9/11. No one thought about the possibility that Osama bin Laden and his ilk had studied how we were then reacting to hijackings — negotiate, give them what they want, base your logic on their being unwilling to kill themselves — and created a simple, but effective countermeasure of suicide attacks.
The Iraq invasion is an excellent example of that sort of out-of-the-box thinking. Saddam Hussein did not have the conventional methods of which we all think — long range missiles, bombers, etc. — by which he could attack the United States. However, he did have chemical and biological capability, he did have strong, established links to external terrorism, and he did have a deep desire to strike back at the United States — and worse, no one had any idea of his exact capabilities or what he was doing.
posted by Tim on
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,565974,00.html
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
For the childless to pay it, is like paying for a service you get nothing out of, but we do it anyway, and still get no regard for our contribution because we don’t have kids.
Yes and no … the argument for public education, as is true with most social-welfare programs, is that in the long run it buys off crime.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
Eventually the Chinese will want their money back plus interest.
Actually, Tim, it’s not the Chinese who hold the vast majority of our national debt — it’s the American people. So get off the “yellow peril” bandwagon, before it takes you someplace you don’t want to go.
posted by kittynboi on
Damn commie red yelows.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Tim H: “it’s not the Chinese who hold the vast majority of our national debt — it’s the American people.”
Care to back that statement up with some references and/or facts?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If I may, Mr. Hulsey…….
Or, just in case they don’t like that source, I have here the GAO’s own report; on page 8, we see that international investors don’t even hold a majority of the publicly-held debt, which is only a portion of the combined total. When you include the debt the government holds in its own programs (page 10), you begin to see very quickly that foreign investment in our debt is among the lesser of our worries.
posted by Dave in LA on
How ANYONE, even gay Republicans, can support Ms. Rice or ANY member of the Bush regime (and yeah, I used that word on purpose) is BEYOND ME. Boxer’s comment, presented as it is in the Miller’s original posting, WOULD have been WRONG. Since that’s not what she SAID, let’s move on to more important things. This is why we don’t make the progress we should as a people, because politics keeps us more focused on the politicians than the ISSUES.
posted by Bobby on
“Dude, don’t you think that the 500 – 1000 billion this war is costing isn’t going to have to be paid for somehow with taxes ?”
—No, for the following reasons.
1. Nobody wants to pay more taxes because we all know the government is just gonna waste it with programs such as bridges to nowhere in Alaska.
2. The state already collects enough taxes to pay for this on the long term.
3. The chinese need our economy to do business. If America boycotted China the way they boycott Cuba, the chinese would be screwed.
“How you gonna increase an already stretched too thin military presence without the obvious being dealt with?!”
—That’s their problem. They have the planes, the bombs and the tanks, it’s up to them to choose how to use them. Israel has won many wars with relatively small armies, I’m sure our generals can figure out how to win this war without sending more people.
I’m sick of hearing that there aren’t enough soldiers on the ground, maybe Bush can get his 20,000 more, but that’s it. This cannot turn into another Vietnam.
posted by ETJB on
(1) How are the comments hommophobic?
(2) The major two Iraqi militias are a part of the Iraqi government. Sending in more troops is not going to solve this problem.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If the worst thing that Condi encounters as a result of her illegal war, based on lies, is getting told she has no right to call for “national sacrifice” when she herself sacrificed nothing, she got off easily.
Last I checked, perjury in front of Congress and the Senate was a criminal act — one that Ms. Rice, George W. Bush and Colin Powell all committed in the runup to this war. Pity poor Condi for transforming the fact that she lied and thousands died into a stroppy conniption fit about “homophobia” and feminism.
70% of Americans are playing the world’s smallest violin.