The first was when, in a hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer said to Secretary of State Rice that because she hadn't been a mother, she might not have compassion for what an overseas war is costing this country. Her implication that we have to be
a parent to know what love is was plain nuts. Would anybody say the same thing to a man? Does Boxer not see that maybe Rice could love someone and therefore understand what loss means without being a mommy?I don't like much of what Rice has done, don't understand how she seems to blindly back Bush, but the problem is not that she wasn't married nor had children. It's total loyalty to a cause (or is it a man). She is a very intellectual woman, does she have any of her own thoughts on this? any doubts? Not that we can tell. I don't see how having children would have changed that.
Then I read Time Goes By about a blogger who posted a photo (not this exact one) of Hillary Clinton that illuminated every wrinkle, sag and line. He had made a crack about not getting older but bet... stopping with that and letting his reader draw the conclusion that Hillary is not a beauty queen.
To me, despite the fact that I am not a fan of Hillary, something is wrong when people put a woman down for looking like she is almost 60 which is what she is. On Hillary's face, you see the life she has led. Why is that bad?
Yes, she does not look twenty, nor does she have that totally line-free, plastic face of some middle-aged celebrities. I am trying to understand why it mattered that a United States senator does not look like a movie star. Do people want their senator spending a lot of time in beauty salons having facials? No wonder women (and men) in leadership sometimes feel forced into Botox or surgically remedying the horrors of looking old. Oh my is there a worse fate?
Is it impossible in our country to see the beauty in a face that shows its age? What is wrong with a face that shows the pain, the laughter, the whole life that the woman has lived? And, does a woman who wants to be in politics have to marry and have children to prove she can do the job as well as a man? How dare a woman be the one to question that! Senator Boxer deserves the negative press that she got from this.
Being gung-ho on this war isn't the exclusive province of those without children. It's possible to even have a child in the war and be a war hawk-- ie John McCain.
18 comments:
I left a comment at Ronni's blog; thanks for mentioning this. I am a Hillary fan, though I think her timing to run for the Presidency is off, but I like her face looking like a beautiful roadmap of her life. I think their daughter Chelsea looks a lot like her mom, and though not beautiful, both women are attractive--and they are unafraid. That's what I like best.
Sometime ago I seemed to have come to a point where I realized that it was not important as to whether you were a man, woman, black, white, young or old. As old an adage as it may be….I never purchased a book because there was something attractive about the cover. Although, from a personal standpoint, I do think Senator Clinton is a handsome woman. But as to what’s between the covers…..to my knowledge my personal opinion of her on any level does not revolve around her wrinkles, lack thereof, or the size of her boobs.
As far as Secretary of State Rice…..I agree she seems to be quite intellectual and informed. But until I can get some sense of what “she thinks” I remain cautious in further speculation of her political ambitions or any personal support I might wave in her direction.
I feel Senator Boxer’s comments were way out of line to call out Secretary of State Rice on the issue of being the mother of a soldier in Iraq. As with any “job”, sometimes we have to make painful choices and so it is with war, whether it touches us personally or not. And are we now to debate who is more the parent….the mother or the father. Being the parent of soldier has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether you are the mother or the father. I do agree that we may all shed tears and feel the pain from the loss of a soldier but I do think that when it is your son or daughter…..there is no comparison to the pain and anguish a parent is left with through that loss. Fact is, I will be sad but for a moment in time but the parents will feel the loss for the rest of their lives. And the soldier….well, they have completely forfeited their lives.
Thousands upon thousands of our sons and daughters have died in war. Their destiny decided but by a few. And looking back I would venture to say….all were men who made those decisions. And as women take their positions in the political realm they will also be more and more a part of those decisions. One in the same…no more or no less.
Women are held to an entirely different standard, and you are absolutely right, Boxer would never have asked that question of a man. I remember reading not too long ago that someone was trying to suggest that Hillary had had a facelift. In her case it will always be, Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It is the epitome of superficiality to see only the surface.
SO much has been said about sexual Harrassment and all Government employees are given classes yearly about what and what not to do/say. Ms. Boxer's comments could be red-lighted!
When are we going to realize as a society that all people are capable of making good decisions, (or bad ones,) all on their own without benefit of hormones male or female.
If good looks is what determines a good Senator, and reelection, then why on earth do the people of Mass continue to re-elect their senators? Neither of them are good looking.
I think that as women move higher into politics there will be some interesting and no doubt unfair comments and comparisons. This one seems odd as it is coming from a woman.
I think my biggest complaint about politics is that the two major parties seem to totally control who is selected to run for office, especially at the presidental level. It is a real example of the good old boy system and that isn't fair to the country. We do not have the opportunity to even vote on the people I feel would be the best options.
I once read that the selection of the president will eventually come down to a national lottery and that the looser will be stuck with the job. Maybe that will happen.
Rain my dear...that is not what Boxer said, at all...that may be an interpretation of what she said, but what she actually said was not that. And in fact she spoke of herself not paying the price of this war because her children were too old and her grandchildrenm were to young...she then said to Rice that she Rice, wouldn't pay the price either.
I don't know if there is a transcript of this exchange but the clip I saw made no mention of Rice being unmarried with no children, persay...
As to Hillary...I don't know what she really feels about anything....She has to be more forthcoming for me, and she is not, unfortuneatly.
As womens' roles in politics, business, religion, and the broader culture expand, so too does the criticism, the mockery, and the xenophobia. In politics, of course, a portion of that derives from the traditional D vs. R divide. But in politics, as well as inall other endeavors, the loudest and most vicious attacks will come from those who are the most threatened. A loud complainer is most often a weak performer in their own right and know of no way to improve their own image except by trying to make others looks smaller.
Already, some of the racial barbs have been showing up, even though Obama has not yet declared publically to run for President.
Though I was a Clinton supporter, I cannot take Hillary. It has nothing to do with her politics or womanhood or physical looks. She just has an arrogant air about her that I do not want to breathe.
At the celebrity, public eye level, we have become a very shallow people, full of spite, arrogance, and self-centeredness. Those fine qualities have replaced reverence, respect, honesty, loyalty with an every-man for himself, anything-goes mien.
thanks for your addition to this topic, old lady of the hills and I went looking for an exact transcript. I still don't like what Boxer said but you are right, she was tempering it vs what the papers printed.
I still do not believe that anybody, having had kids or not had kids, can't feel empathy for the ones dying over there. I doubt it'd matter to Rice if she had a relative over there though I could be wrong.
Our whole country is paying a price for this war in terms of debt, not just the national one but also the one on those who are coming back horrendous wounds both emotional and physical. That is a debt that will be a long time taking care of if it can even be paid. I realize Boxer was using rhetoric but I still didn't like it. I think it misses the point that we can be against the war or for it based on something other than whether our family is there.
I think like others have said here that it takes a long time for women to be judged as men are... and as Winston remarked, we have this issue of race that will now show up a lot of subtle bigotries that people have not faced up to.
The more I hear on Obama, the more interesting he seems to me as an option because I don't like the idea of the Democratic candidate being Hillary. Her stand on Iraq hasn't pleased me either, nor her connection to Bill which I guess I am like the ones who just want a change and that might be Edwards or maybe it'll be Obama.
Next election I can't imagine voting for any of the Republicans most likely to get the nomination; so if it is Hillary, I'd be voting for her and holding my nose. As Dick voiced, we don't usually get the best of the best when it comes time to elect a president. Or that is how it seems to me.
If a male secretary of state was asked if he would have a different stand on the war in Iraq if he had an only son fighting in Iraq, there would not be any hub bub about this question being improper.
It is a stupid question, however, because of course an unmarried childless secretary of state has likely given up family for public service and in good faith wants to do well for people who do have children. Their actions on the behalf of whoever could be selfless or selfish, misguided or the best that can be.
Well because of Old Lady in the Hills addition to this, it has added an interesting element to the original thought I had regarding women in government and since a woman is likel to be running for president, it enhances the importance of it. I tend to believe as Alan mentioned earlier that women and men have to leave behind their gender if they want to be in leadership and yet we have inherent differences that seem to be somewhat ingrained in most women-- taking issues to the personal element is a female tendency. Here is what Boxer said:
"Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact."
And I think to be a leader, in government or in business, women can't personalize it. You'd never fire workers when you decided you needed to cut costs if you thought at the cost to them and certainly no one would go to war if we thought of the horrible cost to individuals.
It will be more heated as Hillary runs and some have already said they will be looking at Nancy Pelosi to see how a woman handles leadership. Can she go beyond being a woman and look at the bigger issues and leave behind the personal end? Some would say nobody should leave it behind but I think to serve in leadership, you have to go beyond that to what is at stake. It should be interesting in the next two years for how this plays out as Hillary treads this ground.
I think this is an interesting debate. You are correct that if Obama becomes a serious contender you will see some hidden bigotries come out, but having people of color in positions of power also can show that white males do not have a corner on the market when it comes to racism. Watch what black people say when they express their feelings about Hispanics taking over this country. It is not much different than the things Italians and Irish said about each other 100 years ago in this country. Personally I would love to see a colorblind America. I like it when I see my son’s friends of mixed race because it shows me that eventually we are all going to be light brown and it will be difficult to be prejudiced.
For my money Rudy Giuliani is going to be the next US president or maybe even Romney from Massachusetts. They are both moderate republicans that would kick Hillary’s or Obama’s but in a national election.
As for Boxer even making a statement like that. Did anyone ask Madeleine Albright what price her children or grandchildren would pay in Bosnia? It is a stupid question that any man in politics would be crucified for asking but Boxer and her hatred of anything republican or military gets to ask away.
All of this was so very true. Based on Boxer's statement....it only makes me more convinced of something I've felt for years....women are their own worst enemies! Very seldom do you see a "sisterhood" where females stick together, stop bashing each other and overlook the pettiness. The statement of Boxer was the epitome of stupidity.
RE: Hillary. Over the past year, I lost any support I had for her. And I have to agree....when it comes to a female, unfortunately, she's FIRST judged by her looks....certainly NOT her ability or her intelligence. Hard to believe that in 2007 this is still the way it is, but........
"We've come a long way, baby" still has volumes to go.
Good Point Terri. This is true because there can only be one queen bee. I have seen it many times with women in traditionally male jobs. At my ex-father in laws fire station they had one woman for years and as soon as they got two they tried to kill each other off. One would try to get the guys to like her more and tried to divide the station against the other. In the Field Construction office in the next town the same thing, they had one woman no problem they got two and it was like a bomb going off with shrapnel getting everyone not just the two women. I ended up getting one of the women working in my office where she got along fine with the guys. I have tried to keep it so she is the only woman other than seasonal or student helpers.
Even in the world of today, female leaders are rare. In my lifetime, there have been Golda Meier, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher. I don't think it's that women can't but maybe that, in the world we live, masculine qualities are equated with strength.
In my opinion, to be in leadership (business, religious or government) the best leaders should actually, as Alan stated, combine both and use the strongest qualities of female and male, but it is not how it's been-- especially in this country.
We've often ended up buying images not reality. When the majority, in the last two elections favored a swagger over proven real strength, when they bought an image of a hero instead of what the real thing looks like, you got a problem. For now the media is the one most interpreting what we see for image. They can hide the goofs or shove them right in the viewer's face.
So when people want a John Wayne leading them, an image Ronald Reagan projected quite well and still has those who worship at his feet for it, how do you get a woman in leadership? Does she swagger? Does she try to hide her femininity?
As women we have had a tendency to personalize what happens, to see the human cost. That's not totally bad as a part of the package but it can't be all of it. Men should recognize the human cost also but in the end, you have to have the big picture in your mind to lead.
Some of our male leaders give lip service to kinder and gentler (remember 'compassiate conservative,' think of recent tears of a president supposedly honoring a war hero in tears, who knows inspired by what, but it made the papers.
Right now I'd say most male leadership in this country has failed and it's time for us as a people to begin looking for new characteristics in our leaders and in saying that, I see how someone like Barack Obama or John Edwards who are strong looking individuals but have that compassionate image might be the new wave for the future. Perhaps the swagger is on its way out except in movies where it belongs... oh yeah and in dreams. :) But in the end, what these people are projecting is still an image. We need to think long and hard before next election about what kind of 'real' leadership we want and be sure whoever gets in has it and not just projects it!
btw Mitt Romney is no moderate. He's anti gay, anti abortion and religious conservative to the nth as a practicing Mormon. Give me a break. Yes, Guiliani is a moderate but he's unlikely to get the republican nomination because of that.
I didn't interpert Senator Boxer's remarks the same way. She said that she herself would no suffer personally from this war, as her children are too old and her grandchild too young and that Secretary of State Rice has no children to lose, so she won't either. I didn't see that as a poke at Rice's unmarried state, nor as an implication that she can't understand the grief of parents, but a statement that neither of them had as much to lose as the parents of soldiers.
I especially wanted to tnank all who posted such thoughtful comments this time. For me, this debate on women in politics was more interesting than my original blog. It is something that we will all be talking more about in the coming year as Hillary likely makes the first serious run for the presidency by a woman.
It is especially nice when we can debate something like this, disagree with each other, and keep it to the issues being discussed without insults or turning it personal. It's been tough the last few years with how nasty politics has become, where people insult each other to stop meaningful dialogue, but it does not have to be that way.
I think Romney is more moderate than you give him credit for. He is Morman which scares me, but he did get elected in Massachusetts so he cant be that conservative. He seems to be on the fence as far as abortion goes and he is not anti-gay but he is against same sex marriage which over 70% of Americans are also against. He also passed some healthcare reform in Mass. that he caught flack from conservatives and libertarians on so he can negotiate with the left. To me his best thing was he took over as CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics when it was over $300 million in the hole and turned it into a $100 million profit. So he has strong leadership abilities. He sounds more moderate than any of the Dems that are running.
Post a Comment