<p>Feminism: to be, or not to be pc?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009519[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009519</a></p>
<ol>
<li><p>Stupid shot on Boxer’s part. She probably didn’t think much before she said it.</p></li>
<li><p>But where does your commentator get from “You don’t have children” to “You are not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government”? After all, Boxer had just said that none of her kids or grandchildren would be affected directly by this. So does that mean Boxer was saying that neither she nor Rice was qualified? Of course not. She was making the gratuitous point that neither of them has a personal dog in the hunt, but she (Boxer) was thinking of those who do, was Rice? Still dumb, but hardly an attack on Rice’s womanhood.</p></li>
<li><p>Boxer probably DOES say stuff like that to male officials all the time. (Except for gay ones.) The only excuse for saying it to Rice is that she says something like it to everyone except the small number of officials who have 17-22 year-old kids when they are testifying.</p></li>
<li><p>And how do you get from “why hasn’t the President sent his daughters to Iraq?” to infantilizing American servicement? Does it infantilize Al Gore to know that his father told him, “You’re not getting out of it, you’re going into the Army?” Does it infantilize George W. to know that he would have gone to Vietnam had George H.W. not protected him? (Yes, it does, but that’s irrelevant to this conversation.)</p></li>
<li><p>This is a great example of standard conservative rhetoric: draw an absurd inference from a casual statement, then attack it viciously.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hey-- maybe she was making a veiled accusation of lesbianism!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only thing standing between Barbara Boxer and the title “stupidest Senator” is Patty Murray.</p>
<p>Boxer released a statement Friday to FOXNews.com through her spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, saying:</p>
<p>“I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation. My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this Administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq.”</p>
<p>The really funny part is Tony Snow calling the exchange “OUTRAGEOUS!” As if that’s THE outrageous thing about Rice’s performance yesterday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. </p>
<p>Poor Washington. It’s ugly when you have to get real.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, I’d say that the junior senator from California apparently believes that a person such has herself or Secretary Rice who have no close family members in harm’s way in Iraq or even of military age, cannot personally feel the effects of the Government’s broken Iraq policy as keenly as one who does.</p>
<p>One has to be a woman to understand the hurt Boxer’s words might have caused Condi. </p>
<p>Boxer: “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.” . . ."</p>
<p>In one salvo, Boxer reminded Condi that she (Boxer) had children AND grandchildren, and that Condi did not (and might never will).</p>
<p>“Part of the reason this is shocking, of course, is because it breaches feminist etiquette.”</p>
<p>OMG; breaching feminist etiquette!!! Apparently Mr. Taranto is very easily shocked. Perhaps a nice warm cup of coco will sooth his jangled nerves. </p>
<p>Personally, I have a very strong dislike for political correctness. If you have something to say, or in this case point out, get it out there. I particularly expect this of our representatives.</p>
<p>And the issue isn’t one of Ms. Rice being a single, childless women; it’s one of the perspective gained from having a close family member involved in a botched conflict and whether or not our participation in that conflict is to continue. I would imagine that only the most myopic feminist would fall for Mr. Taranto’s argument, and that would likely be a very small audience indeed.</p>
<p>I’m no Boxer fan but for crying out loud, all she said was that Condi didn’t have kids. What is the big deal? She DOESN’T have kids. </p>
<p>Pfft.</p>
<p>She doesn’t have kids and thus, she has no one to lose in this escalating conflict.</p>
<p>This is quite contrary to all of us with teenaged sons. Our fear is real.</p>
<p>She’s not qualified, because she lies, cheats, and deceives, and, more importantly, isn’t very good at it. (It was interesting to see Republican Senators say as much.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How utterly insulting of Boxer not only to Rice, but to so many others. She’s almost a caricature of a Democrat. She was equally embarrassing at the Alieto Supreme Court hearings.</p>
<p>I am embarrassed. I was thinking of Diane Feinstein at the Alito hearings. :o I guess they form a sort of blur to me.</p>
<p>Until you wear the shoes…only a draft will level the playing field, and until the children of the priveleged in this country are required to serve, you will never see legislation that is egalitarian. To suggest that the majority of 18 year old “adults” join the military due to patriotism and maturity rather than economic need is ludicrous.</p>
<p>Prunes, help eliminate the radioactive isotopes from the body.</p>
<p>“To suggest that the majority of 18 year old “adults” join the military due to patriotism and maturity rather than economic need is ludicrous.”</p>
<p>With my eighteen year old son in the Army, and having met many of his fellow soldiers, I couldn’t disagree with you more. And before you even think of saying that “a disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most priv*ileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.” perhaps you should read, "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11 by Tim Kane, Ph.D. Here’s the link:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm[/url]”>http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm</a></p>
<p>Now that’s not the same thing as saying they have a choice in the current conflict, and are either the cause of, or responsible for, the mismanagement of the Iraq war; that rests on narrower shoulders.</p>
<p>
You do realize that we have an all-volunteer force don’t you? And why do you think that no kids of the ‘priviledged’ are serving in the miltary when many are? Shades of Kerry…</p>
<p>This is what the commentator wants us to think about, instead of the issues? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.</p>
<p>^ “This is what the commentator wants us to think about, instead of the issues?”</p>
<p>Bingo. </p>
<p>But, too bad for the righties. That dog ain’t huntin’ anymore.</p>