Post by rick on Jan 17, 2007 20:12:59 GMT -5
A feminist feud, or just politics?
Boxer remark has people talking
BY JOCELYN NOVECK, Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 01/16/2007 08:39:01 PM PST
NEW YORK - A "leap backward" for feminism, the White House spokesman calls it. Nothing of the sort, feminists reply. Mean-spirited, say some. Perfectly appropriate, say others.
However one interprets Sen. Barbara Boxer's remark last week to Condoleezza Rice that the secretary of state, single and childless, doesn't have a "personal price" to pay in Iraq, the brief exchange still has people debating.
And for some women, it highlights a larger question: Just how do you define "personal price" when talking about your country's war?
Boxer's comment came during a contentious Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, as Rice was grilled on Iraq by mostly skeptical senators. "Who pays the price?" asked Boxer, a California Democrat. "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, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."
The reference to Rice's personal status was an instant catalyst for vigorous chatter on blogs, TV and talk radio, ranging from the conservative Rush Limbaugh (Boxer hit "below the ovaries") to the liberal Joy Behar on ABC's "The View" (Rice "deserved it.")
As for Rice, who assured Boxer she understood the sacrifice of military families, she later had a more pointed response, telling Fox News: "Gee, I thought single women had come further than that." On the same network, White House spokesman Tony Snow called Boxer's remark "a great leap backward for feminism."
Not to the country's most prominent feminist, Gloria Steinem, who said Snow's remark "takes your breath away."
"It had nothing to do with feminism," Steinem told The Associated Press. "It was perfectly reasonable, and it could have come from anyone - a grandfather as well as a grandmother. Sen. Boxer was trying to draw a parallel" between herself and the secretary.
For Christina Hoff Sommers, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Boxer's comments were not so much a "leap backward" as merely "mean-spirited and thoughtless," not to mention "sexist and politically absurd."
"She seems to be saying that an unmarried, childless woman should not be involved in decisions that affect traditional families," Sommers said. "By that standard, Susan B. Anthony would be disqualified. And how about Elizabeth I?"
"But I don't expect to hear much protest (from feminists)," said Sommers, "because their left-wing politics always trump their commitment to the cause of women."
Boxer remark has people talking
BY JOCELYN NOVECK, Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 01/16/2007 08:39:01 PM PST
NEW YORK - A "leap backward" for feminism, the White House spokesman calls it. Nothing of the sort, feminists reply. Mean-spirited, say some. Perfectly appropriate, say others.
However one interprets Sen. Barbara Boxer's remark last week to Condoleezza Rice that the secretary of state, single and childless, doesn't have a "personal price" to pay in Iraq, the brief exchange still has people debating.
And for some women, it highlights a larger question: Just how do you define "personal price" when talking about your country's war?
Boxer's comment came during a contentious Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, as Rice was grilled on Iraq by mostly skeptical senators. "Who pays the price?" asked Boxer, a California Democrat. "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, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."
The reference to Rice's personal status was an instant catalyst for vigorous chatter on blogs, TV and talk radio, ranging from the conservative Rush Limbaugh (Boxer hit "below the ovaries") to the liberal Joy Behar on ABC's "The View" (Rice "deserved it.")
As for Rice, who assured Boxer she understood the sacrifice of military families, she later had a more pointed response, telling Fox News: "Gee, I thought single women had come further than that." On the same network, White House spokesman Tony Snow called Boxer's remark "a great leap backward for feminism."
Not to the country's most prominent feminist, Gloria Steinem, who said Snow's remark "takes your breath away."
"It had nothing to do with feminism," Steinem told The Associated Press. "It was perfectly reasonable, and it could have come from anyone - a grandfather as well as a grandmother. Sen. Boxer was trying to draw a parallel" between herself and the secretary.
For Christina Hoff Sommers, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Boxer's comments were not so much a "leap backward" as merely "mean-spirited and thoughtless," not to mention "sexist and politically absurd."
"She seems to be saying that an unmarried, childless woman should not be involved in decisions that affect traditional families," Sommers said. "By that standard, Susan B. Anthony would be disqualified. And how about Elizabeth I?"
"But I don't expect to hear much protest (from feminists)," said Sommers, "because their left-wing politics always trump their commitment to the cause of women."