Can childless women make decisions on war?
Posted by Ellee on Jan 16, 2007 in Uncategorized | 16 comments
It’s absurd and very below the belt to 
suggest that as a childless woman, Condoleezza Rice did not understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
She was told bluntly by Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer during a hostile Senate hearing:
“You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within your immediate family. Who will pay the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, my grandchild is too young. So who pays the price? Not me, not you.”
The same could be said about our Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who is also childless, and making decisions about our soldier’s fate in Iraq. Although I am no fan of Beckett, I would not support a tasteless swipe like that.
I do admire Condi’s skills and strength of character, her response later said it all:
“Gee, I thought single women had come further than that.â€?
And hopefully, they have.
Meanwhile, America is waiting for Senator Boxer to apologise, but it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. Do you feel she should apologise, or do you agree with her views? Couldn’t the same be said about childless men in equally influential positions?
These people are our representatives and should not be influenced by immediate family…hypothetically, but such distinction is far beyond human.
The same can be said about childless men! The only time I have a problem with any childless gender is when they try to preach what parents should do or have done. Example is Oprah — not a politician, but an influencer.
Surely, people are missing the other half of Sen Boxer’s statement. She said that her family will also not be paying the price because her children aren’t serving. As such, it is an attempt to deflect attention from the actual issue of the war by focussing on whether Sen Boxer was criticising childless women. After all, she was also criticising women like herself whose children aren’t in the forces and/or are too young/old to serve.
Ellee, I agree that she certainly has something about her which is demure without being submissive. It makes her single status even more mysterious. I suppose that inevitably makes her more interesting- cerainly she is rather unique in the world of politics.
Some saw Margaret Thatcher as been attractive in that way, but whilst I would defend her on some points, I never quite saw her in that way- or could.
I suppose it is that combination of confidence, intelligence and power- as well as looking stunning that marks Condoleeza apart. She has done it all on her own terms.
Maybe she is the ideal model for women in the twenty first century- If she is, I’m all for Feminism!!
Joe,
Condi is very intelligent and powerful – those alone are very aphrodisical attributes. For me, intelligence in a man is very sexy, she has that in abundance. So I understand exactly what you say. She also has that “untouched” look about her, don’t you think?
I would like to see Condoleeza Rice as Republican candidate in the next Presidential elections. Maybe it’s too early to see a black president- let alone a black female president, but I do really believe she has the qualities it takes.
I also admit that for some reason I find her incredibly sexy- but that’s beside the point.
She has been an outstanding member of a much maligned administration- which has nevertheless done far more good than British observers give it credit for on the domestic front- and has acheived a tremendous amount in her personal career and been a far better inspiration for women then Madeleine Albright or Hilary Clinton, and a better inspiration for black americans than Jesse Jackson.
I have seen Boxer- A California Senator I think- interviewed before and thought her a Hilaryclone. Not a patch on Condoleeza. I’ll stand up for Condoleeza any day!!
OnyxStone, I always maintain that bringing up children is the most demanding job, raising them up to be healthy, well adjusted and able to stand on their own too feet with confidence, to know the difference between right and wrong. It cannot be underestimated.
I hope the qualities of motherhood and multi-tasking are raised on a CV, having to prove yourself ten times over.
In spite of that, Rice has many admirable qualities, I’m sure she would have made a great mother too. I do not believe the fact that she is childless clouds her judgement in any way.
This is a very interesting question, and I think there is some depth to explore.
First, I don’t think the current vogue for demanding apologies does any good. It always strikes me as a form of bullying.
Second, I think there is some validity to suggest that those who have raised children have a perspective which they would not otherwise have gained. (Though not as a cheap political shot.)
The biblical standard (I Timothy 3) that leaders should be the husbands of one wife and with a reputation for well raised children is not empty. It is also not without exception (Abraham had no children for a long time, David had too many wives, Deborah was not a husband and Jesus himself was a notable exception).
I think the significance of raising a coherent family is somewhat undervalued. To me it speaks volumes on a CV. It demonstrates great endurance, versatility and competence. This is not to say that those without families do not have these qualities.
And personally, I’d rather have Rice than Boxer running the show.
Anne, I’m so glad your son returned home safely. I know I would constantly be on tenterhooks and too afraid to watch the news if I had a son serving in Iraq.
No way should they be making remarks as childless women….they don’t know how it feels to be told “Mum I’m off to war”…my son has been to Iraq and thankfully he came home safely.
Welshcakes, I agree, Condi has a lot of self-restraint and dignity which has to be admired. At the same time, I would like to get to know her when she is off-duty and lets her hair down.
It’s the character of the woman that is important, not whether she has a family.
I think it was an incredibly crass and tasteless remark. I’m a childless woman but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about lives lost everywhere, in wars I don’t agree with. I agree with you that it’s an insult to childless men, too. I’m no fan of Rice’s policies but at least she conducts herself with dignity.
I agree with all the commenters so far- Boxer was an idiot.
But I don’t see this as incredibly significant compared to the actual Iraq strategy- the story to me of the last week was the way that Rice’s strategy was absolutely condemned by both Republican and Democrat senators. I don’t really know enough about Iraq to comment but the strategy does seem flawed- less troops than even the endorsers of surge wanted and I wonder whether this comment by Boxer is being hyped up because it allows the administration and its followers to stop discussing the real issue which is the strategy.
Boxer of course isn’t helping by not apologising which she should but the core issue seems to me to be what happens now in Iraq and not whether a senator was an idiot to Condoleeza Rice. Of course Rice can hold opinions and I am sure she feels bad like the rest of us do about people dieing- but lets get back to the issue which isn’t what she feels but what she thinks.
And Sen. Boxer understands? By her own “logic” she disqualifies herself from having an opinion.
But I’m not waiting for anyone to apologize to anyone else. It’s too much to expect in our poisoned climate.
And 2008 is already beginning…..
I completely disagree with Boxer here. Current US foreign policy is a hideous failure on its own terms, not because of anyone who may or may not have kids. Or even because of who did or didn’t serve in the military (and in the vast majority of Team Bush of course, didn’t is the operative word).
But this is all a ridiculous distraction by Boxer. Focussing on the who (i.e. personalities) takes the heat out of the what (i.e. the failure in Iraq). And if you’re a Democrat, you’d think you’d want to talk about the what as much as possible.
This was a crass emotional question. To follow the logic, gay men should not vote on or make schools policy?
It is just typical of the way deomcrats seek to emotionalise issues that actually need dispassionate consideration.
Luckily most people can see them and this is no way to win votes or support.