Weapons of mass distraction
By now most everyone's heard about the patently ridiculous argument, attributed to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has no immediate family (not only does she not have children, she's one of those wanton genetic castaways whose parents not only denied her siblings, but then had the gall to go and die on her), she somehow does not understand the sacrifice relatives of U.S. soldiers make to fight the war in Iraq.
While questioning her during a Senate hearing Jan. 11, Boxer said to Rice, "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 ..."
Now, everyone can see the point Boxer was making with that comment. But are any of the myriad of incensed commentators using this as an opportunity to talk about the greater moral issues of this war, of the pre-emptive doctrine, of how a few people are being asked to sacrifice everything for its continuance while the rest of us merely shake our heads at the headlines, of what to do next?
No, we're all caught up in the notion of a political cat-fight between a senator who has a family and a "Feminazi" secretary of state who -- gasp -- does not, tossing around the ludicrous premise that having children is a pre-requisite for sound judgment as if it were actually worthy of debate:
Though I was thoroughly disgusted by the spate of new-year, new-Congress articles marveling at the fact that, like, OMG, the MOST GURLZ EVER!!!1!! were elected to the new freshman class, I held back. But now that the articles about how Obama isn't being treated like a "black candidate" by voters -- who also don't really seem to care that Hillary Clinton is a woman -- have begun, I just can't help myself.
Not that these articles mark unsavory trends; au contrairie. But a lot of good it does when the generation directing the discourse is still stuck on the fact that it's NEWS -- it's novel, it's shocking, it's something you should pay attention to -- that people don't give a rip about race or gender in selecting their leaders, all the while invoking and reinforcing the very prejudices the authors are trying to argue are disappearing.
One of the striking things I've noticed in this town is the number of ambitious, optimistic younger people working in politics who flat-out say they're basically just waiting for the current generation in power to "die out," so ours can dispense with all this nonsense and move on with matters we consider important.
The chamber nestled deep within my cold and whithered heart that fluttered today when I heard of Obama's '08 exploratory committee announcement (Yes, I'll admit it, for the moment I'm riding the Obama bandwagon, because I'm tired of walking and nothing else has passed by -- but I am a single, childless woman, after all, so don't be alarmed, I'm liable to jump off at any moment. Vilsack's logo is awful pretty.) still wants to think this persistent demographic frame is a generational remnant, that maybe, just maybe, my cohort might be the one to judge female leaders more on the benevolence (or malevolence) of their ideologies and actions than on their habitation arrangements or uterine productivity -- but, as usual, I'm having a real hard time.
Condoleezza Rice is one of the architects of what could very well be the pre-eminent foreign policy train wreck of the era. She's stuck it out with the Bush administration for its entire tenure, as the likes of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Rove fell by the wayside, all the while managing to keep her poise and confidence and even a serviceable sense of style. What more do you people want?
What does a woman have to do in this country to be good enough, authentic enough and accomplished enough if she isn't attached and doesn't have kids? For better or worse, no one could argue Rice would have had more influence on contemporary thought and world events if she'd dropped out of politics after a few years to marry someone more powerful and spend her days perfecting her apple pie recipe and ferrying the kids between their Terror Scout meetings and Begin to Obfuscate classes.
Why is this culture so threatened by single, capable women? And why do intelligent, influential people continually insist on marking newsmakers whose gender, race or household is not the all-American norm? Is it to pat themselves on the back for being so conspicuously open-minded and progressive, or is it a convenient way to avoid considering the complicated, nuanced factors that might actually be relevant to electing leaders and evaluating options?
But the vintage elite among us might do well to update their stock (or not -- note the cat picture): Unmarried women are now the majority.
You know, at least until the right men come along to change our immature minds and rescue us from our own misguided autonomy and deluded senses of purpose and fulfillment.
While questioning her during a Senate hearing Jan. 11, Boxer said to Rice, "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 ..."
Now, everyone can see the point Boxer was making with that comment. But are any of the myriad of incensed commentators using this as an opportunity to talk about the greater moral issues of this war, of the pre-emptive doctrine, of how a few people are being asked to sacrifice everything for its continuance while the rest of us merely shake our heads at the headlines, of what to do next?
No, we're all caught up in the notion of a political cat-fight between a senator who has a family and a "Feminazi" secretary of state who -- gasp -- does not, tossing around the ludicrous premise that having children is a pre-requisite for sound judgment as if it were actually worthy of debate:
At Rice's 1/13 appearance in Jerusalem with Israeli Foreign Min. Tzipi Livni, NBC's Mitchell asked: "As two single women, do you think that being without children in any way hinders your ability to understand the sacrifices of American families losing their children in war?" Rice "paused, heaved a sigh and turned back to the cameras, a pained expression on her face." Rice: "No. And I also think that being a single woman does not in any way make me incapable of understanding not just those sacrifices, but that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice" (Fang, ChicagoTribune.com, 1/16).Yes, take notes, budding young reporters, this is what top journalists ask the U.S. secretary of state when she's traveling in the Middle East attempting to salvage the disintegrating war her administration devised and applied.
Though I was thoroughly disgusted by the spate of new-year, new-Congress articles marveling at the fact that, like, OMG, the MOST GURLZ EVER!!!1!! were elected to the new freshman class, I held back. But now that the articles about how Obama isn't being treated like a "black candidate" by voters -- who also don't really seem to care that Hillary Clinton is a woman -- have begun, I just can't help myself.
Not that these articles mark unsavory trends; au contrairie. But a lot of good it does when the generation directing the discourse is still stuck on the fact that it's NEWS -- it's novel, it's shocking, it's something you should pay attention to -- that people don't give a rip about race or gender in selecting their leaders, all the while invoking and reinforcing the very prejudices the authors are trying to argue are disappearing.
One of the striking things I've noticed in this town is the number of ambitious, optimistic younger people working in politics who flat-out say they're basically just waiting for the current generation in power to "die out," so ours can dispense with all this nonsense and move on with matters we consider important.
The chamber nestled deep within my cold and whithered heart that fluttered today when I heard of Obama's '08 exploratory committee announcement (Yes, I'll admit it, for the moment I'm riding the Obama bandwagon, because I'm tired of walking and nothing else has passed by -- but I am a single, childless woman, after all, so don't be alarmed, I'm liable to jump off at any moment. Vilsack's logo is awful pretty.) still wants to think this persistent demographic frame is a generational remnant, that maybe, just maybe, my cohort might be the one to judge female leaders more on the benevolence (or malevolence) of their ideologies and actions than on their habitation arrangements or uterine productivity -- but, as usual, I'm having a real hard time.
Condoleezza Rice is one of the architects of what could very well be the pre-eminent foreign policy train wreck of the era. She's stuck it out with the Bush administration for its entire tenure, as the likes of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Rove fell by the wayside, all the while managing to keep her poise and confidence and even a serviceable sense of style. What more do you people want?
What does a woman have to do in this country to be good enough, authentic enough and accomplished enough if she isn't attached and doesn't have kids? For better or worse, no one could argue Rice would have had more influence on contemporary thought and world events if she'd dropped out of politics after a few years to marry someone more powerful and spend her days perfecting her apple pie recipe and ferrying the kids between their Terror Scout meetings and Begin to Obfuscate classes.
Why is this culture so threatened by single, capable women? And why do intelligent, influential people continually insist on marking newsmakers whose gender, race or household is not the all-American norm? Is it to pat themselves on the back for being so conspicuously open-minded and progressive, or is it a convenient way to avoid considering the complicated, nuanced factors that might actually be relevant to electing leaders and evaluating options?
But the vintage elite among us might do well to update their stock (or not -- note the cat picture): Unmarried women are now the majority.
You know, at least until the right men come along to change our immature minds and rescue us from our own misguided autonomy and deluded senses of purpose and fulfillment.
posted by Holly at 12:47 AM
<< Home