Boxer said absolutely NOTHING wrong. Total BS on the part of Limbaugh and Snow. Say you disagree with her saying it, but don't tag it as something it's not.

I agree that Boxer said nothing wrong. The point she was trying to make is that the people who are making these polices are not affected by them at the same level that some of the American people are. Many of the people who are sitting in Washington are out of touch with the majority of the people who these actions affect. For Rush and Snow to make that comment is typical of them a least for Rush-Bimball. Now if a male made this comment to Rice would they have responded in the same way? Would they have labeled them in the way they have labeled Boxer?

Oh please. That's only offensive if you think that it's actually bad not to have a family. What about when Laura was tacky enough to say that Condi wouldn't want to be President without a husband and family to support her? (I didn't think that was necessarily untrue either, but it was a FAR ruder comment.)

Just in case we needed another reason to loathe these people as intensely as possible, here it is.

Boxer is quoted in the SF Chron today as saying what she meant was that she and Condi won't ever pay the price. Boxers children are too old and her grandchildren are too young and Rice has no children. She was being a uniter, not a divder.

I love the way Boxer is turning the Republican rhetoric around and tossing it right back in their laps. We need more of that. Thanks for doing your part, too.

i dunno i've got to disagree with all of you.

upon reading the quote, it struck me as pretty transparently sexist.

a) nobody would ever say that to a man without a family.

b) you really think if some republican senator had said to a female Democrat that she couldn't fully comprehend some issue because she had no children that we wouldn't all be up in arms?

yeah, it's annoying to have limbaugh and his ilk lecturing on feminism considering their past, but taken on its own, boxer's comment was pretty damn sexist.

Ann, I just wanted to say that I love your posts. They're always completely thorough, well researched and provokative. Cheers. You do such great work here. All of the Feministing women do.

I totally agree! Everyone could see the point Boxer was trying to make.

What a crock of shit. They knew exactly what Boxer meant. Sadly, there are people out there who are naive enough to fall for it.

By the way, I know this is slightly off-topic, but does anyone else ever wonder what Condi thinks of the campaign to promote abstinence among unmarried adults?

http://feministing.com/archives/006029.html#comments

Since she is unmarried, certainly she is chaste. I imagine that when she gets a little ancy, she just looks at the card that ol' Georgie sent her (http://feministing.com/archives/005775.html) and remembers that she's supposed to set an example.

I think what Boxer said had nothing to do with it being right or wrong to have kids.. what I think she was saying was it isn't ok to look at the situation of sending troops or not as a blunt decision, but that these are people we are sending, who are sons, daughters, mothers and fathers, and doing so affects there family, and that is something that Rice wouldn't personally experience and making the point that she personally wouldn't experience it either, but she knew what it meant. Kinda of the "look at it from someone elses viewpoint". I agree with what Boxer said and knowing what she has done in the past, I think she would have said that even if Rice where male in the same situation.

And I find the whole Rice being unmarried without kids and for an administration that doesn't promote birth control/family planning laughable. Does anyone honestly believe Rice is a virgin, has never had a boyfriend or anything like that? I doubt it. I also doubt she's never used contraception herself. I guess to everyone else it is one of those 'see no evil' things.

Either way, go Boxer! (or maybe I am just partial cause she is from California :)

I personally didn't like Boxer's comment at all (I put it in the same category as the digs Kerry and Edwards made about Mary Cheney during the 2004 debates), but I don't think Tony Snow or Rush Limbaugh have any credible place to stand and criticize it.

Cheers,

TH

A quick answer to bschack: Oh, yes, a man could and would receive that question. The question was about direct cost personally and to a family, not about whether someone has children.

This is so classic a case of how Republicans, or at least those in the administration and their defenders, take something written or said by a Democrat/liberal/progressive and harp on a wrong interpretation. It's junior high-ish; it's a desire to be insulted so that the group will close ranks against the other.

Cuvdog, saying Republicans have a desire to be insulted is like saying women have a limited life span. It's true, but you're leaving out half the story.

A follow up and link: Senator Webb brought up children and grandchildren while questioning a man:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/13/51651/6104

also to bschac:

That is a common question to women AND men in government. It is often noted that only a handful of members of congress and the senate have children the military. Furthermore, I think it's quite obvious that Boxer and Rice were pointing out that they are not personally paying the price with their own family members. (We let the poor do that.)

And I find the whole Rice being unmarried without kids and for an administration that doesn't promote birth control/family planning laughable. Does anyone honestly believe Rice is a virgin, has never had a boyfriend or anything like that? I doubt it. I also doubt she's never used contraception herself. I guess to everyone else it is one of those 'see no evil' things.

Not to rumor-monger or anything, but I have heard that she was quite close to the football coach when she was at Stanford. We know she likes football, so this seems plausible to me.

Either way, it breaks down as, "My kids are too old, and as far as I know, you don't have any, so our kids aren't going to die over there."

I personally didn't like Boxer's comment at all (I put it in the same category as the digs Kerry and Edwards made about Mary Cheney during the 2004 debates)

It's funny you say that, since I was about to make the point that, like the Mary Cheney comments, these are only offensive comments if you assume that being a lesbian, or a single childless woman, is something to somehow be ashamed of.

Boxer didn't even SAY "child" to Rice. She doesn't have sisters or brothers (or nephews or nieces), either, of military age, unlike many others - does this mean Boxer is criticizing Rice for being an only child?

A follow up and link: Senator Webb brought up children and grandchildren while questioning a man:

If you read the link, it was Lindsey Graham who brought up children and grandchildren (of servicemembers, as to why there's a relatively high reenlistment rate).

In any event, Webb's son is in Iraq.

I think Snow and Limbaugh and Rice are protesting too much. Boxer mentioned Rice's "immediate family" only. I don't have kids, but I do have immediate family in the military, and if there were a draft, it's likely I would be eligible.

Rice and Boxer both are over draft age and neither have immediate family of draft age. They have no one to personally sacrifice. And what Boxer didn't say, but probably should have, is that very few of the draft-age relatives of the party supporting this war are in the military -- so they're not sacrificing much, either.

Stupid question of the day: but why does it matter if the supporters of the war have kids overseas? I know that that they are risking the worst grief possible, but really, "kids" is a misnomer. If you're old enough to serve in the military, you're old enough to be legally emancipated and have signed up yourself. Long gone are the days when children are assets to be used for political, economic, or social gain.

True enough, oenophile, but when the people who talk about how much Americans have to sacrifice for the war won't even *ask* their relatives to go, you have to wonder how serious they are.

I mean, it's nice to play war with other people's children, but if you're not willing to ask your own to go, maybe you should rethink your support.

I'm not convinced it matters in any given individual case, but I do think it matters in the aggregate, because it highlights fairly clearly the way that the decision-makers in our society are not the same group that suffers the consequences of the decisions made. That is, saying "Sure, let's put thousands of people in harm's way," is very different than saying "Hmm, I guess it is necessary to send my daughter into harm's way."

"Kids" isn't really a misnomer. I've never met a parent who stops thinking of their offspring as their kids just because they've turned 16 or 18 or 21. Hell, my mom and stepdad still call me a "kid," and I'm quite a few years older than that.

That's my issue. "Asking" your children to go to war? They might have 1/2 your DNA, but they aren't, after the age of majority, yours to control. IMO, asking your children to go to war for political gain is every bit as noxious as supporting the war but demanding they stay home. Perhaps I'm a little too independent, but if my parents were politicians, I wouldn't give a flying fig what they thought about me and war.

Yeah, parents think of their offspring as their "kids" forever, but these aren't elementary schoolers who aren't going on field trips.

I just find it weird that the only way for a politican to support war is to FORCE his adult children to enlist. That, to me, is creepy, because I don't like drafts, of any form.

I should have been clearer. It's not that the politician in question should be "asking" his/her kids to sign up; it's that the kids who are already in the military are not the children of the wealthy or powerful. So the people being "asked" (and probably it would be better to say "forced") to take the most harrowing personal consequences of war are, at this point, almost never the people who decide whether or not we go to war.

I mean, obviously, no parent can force his/her children to enlist, but I think it's fair to note that the fact that politician's kids generally don't provides the politicians with a level of distance and privilege.

Auguste writes:
It's funny you say that, since I was about to make the point that, like the Mary Cheney comments, these are only offensive comments if you assume that being a lesbian, or a single childless woman, is something to somehow be ashamed of.

Putting aside for a moment the issue of Barbara Boxer's comment, because I can't speak to her intent, let me explain why, on general principle, I found the Mary Cheney comment offensive. And I say this, by the way, as someone with two lesbian mothers.

Let's say that you were one of two political candidates having a debate in rural Mississippi, 1965-ish. Both you and your opponent, being Mississippi politicians of the era, are not integrationists, but your opponent uses more race-baiting tactics than you do. You happen to know that his brother married a black woman.

So if you stand in front of the crowd and say "By the way, Billy, I'm glad you brought up the Civil Rights Act because I have it on good authority that your brother married a black woman..."

I, personally, think it'd be reprehensible to do that. Does this mean that it's wrong to be black? To marry someone of a different ethnic background? Hell, no. But appealing to base prejudice in that way, to my mind, is wrong.

In the case of Kerry and Edwards, look at the audience. They were obviously not trying to please gay-friendly voters by assuring them that Cheney had family in the family, so to speak--that wouldn't have helped their campaign. So whatever audience they were thinking of when they repeatedly brought this up, it was obviously an audience that would be less supportive of the Bush/Cheney ticket if reminded of this fact.

In other words, Kerry and Edwards cheerfully exploited homophobia to get votes. It doesn't matter if the homophobes happened to belong to the other party. It was still wrong.

Now, did Barbara Boxer--who is certainly no antifeminist--bring this up as a similar kind of thing, where she was winking at the other person's constituents and exploiting regressive sentiments? I don't know. I like Barbara Boxer, so I'd rather not believe that she did. But I fail to see how her comment makes sense in any other context. Nobody in the Senate, with the exception of Webb, has a son or daughter serving in Iraq, so there's no reason to single out Rice unless she's reminding people, once more, that the woman has no kids. Which doesn't matter to progressives, but--shades of 2004--might subtly remind social conservatives that Rice is a child-free career woman.

Effective politicians don't do very much by accident, and Barbara Boxer is a highly effective politician.

Cheers,

TH

I heard the Boxer's comment (but not Rice's response or any of the media reaction until just now) and like some of the others here, I was taken aback. Without defending Rice, the pundits, or the administration, I'll say this: it causes my feminist self to bristle when I see a woman tell another woman she lacks credibility on a position in any part because she doesn't have children. Boxer's done a lot of great things for women, and Rice frankly has not, but I think that's irrelevant to whether it's ever appropriate to discredit a woman's views on the basis of whether she has children. Most of us on this board are feminists, and we often note that sometimes feminists say or do things that aren't very feminist. I think we can observe that there may have been a better way for Boxer to make her point without agreeing with Rush's twisted interpretation or endorsing the administration.

Without defending Rice, the pundits, or the administration, I'll say this: it causes my feminist self to bristle when I see a woman tell another woman she lacks credibility on a position in any part because she doesn't have children.

But where are you getting that? She pointed out that neither of them had immediate family who were eligible for military service, so neither of them had a personal stake in a war that the administration is asking other people to fight and which Congress is making funding decisions for.

If anything, Boxer was saying that people who don't have immediate family of drafting age aren't directly affected by this war, which is a fact. She clearly displayed how it doesn't matter whether or not one has children. Her point is that even though a person may not be directly affected by the war, it doesn't mean they should be apathetic about it and irresponsible when it comes to funding it.

It's Faux News' job to either spin a story or simply ignore a story, even if it's the Iraq War, when it doesn't show conservatives in the best light. I'm surprised ol' Rupert hasn't blacked out that station yet.

isfa writes:
Without defending Rice, the pundits, or the administration, I'll say this: it causes my feminist self to bristle when I see a woman tell another woman she lacks credibility on a position in any part because she doesn't have children.

And I suppose that's another large part of it for me. One of my best friends/allies in the community is a career woman who is constantly attacked by local conservatives with the label "childless. " Since she has no kids, the argument goes, she has no right to comment about public schools, decency and morality, family issues, the future of the city, and so forth. When we say it's okay to make an issue out of the fact that a woman doesn't have kids, we are giving our imprimatur to a line of attack that runs counter to everything else we believe in.

And this is hard for me to swallow, too, because Boxer stands for everything I believe in and Rice so doesn't. But if the situation were reversed, I think we all know where we would stand. The only thing that makes this unique is that a feminist woman said something un-feminist to an antifeminist woman.

And I reiterate, as per isfa, that by this I don't mean that I think the administration or the pundits are being honest in their reaction to all this. Truth is that they openly attack women for being childless all the time, and enact policies that punish women for not going quiverfull. But I think that we, as a culture, need to a declare a moratorium on ever making an issue out of a woman's decision not to have children. Period. It's just too easily--and frequently--abused.

Cheers,

TH

I definitely see what you're saying, Tom, but didn't Boxer ask Rice because that's who she was talking to at the time? I wasn't there, obviously, so I only know about it through all the spin.

Try as I might, I just can’t see what makes it so much an un-feminist remark more than anything else – I feel like we’re rising to the bait because the white house and faux news called it such. The conversation took place between two women. It could have just as easily have been John Kerry and George Bush having the conversation. Boxer didn’t say “gosh, you just don’t get it because you don’t have children and that's bad� and no one should be reacting as if she did. No one should be analyzing whether it’s good or bad or anything that Rice doesn’t have children, it wasn’t the point of what Boxer said.

What Boxer did say was “you and I aren’t paying the same price that other people in this country are paying because you and I don’t have family members in the military fighting this war.� It’s a very important point that no one in charge has been making. Short of Prince Harry, it’s not like we’re sending rich and powerful people’s family members off to war. There’s actual people affected by this decision, it’s not just a waste of resources, money , and other countries’ goodwill.

obviously the dudes on fox have absolutely no right throwing feminism back at us. however, in this overly-media-saturated society, no politician should ever say anything in public (or maybe even in private) without thinking about it A LOT first. ugh.

I don't have kids, but I do have immediate family in the military, and if there were a draft, it's likely I would be eligible.

Only if the US were involved in World War Three. Rangel's draft bill would only affect males between 18 and 26, if I'm not mistaken. The only time countries ever extend drafts to women your age is when they're fighting a total war. But then even Rice and Boxer could be eligible - in World War Two, Germany ended up drafting all males between 16 and 65 toward the end.

prairielily writes:
I definitely see what you're saying, Tom, but didn't Boxer ask Rice because that's who she was talking to at the time? I wasn't there, obviously, so I only know about it through all the spin.

That's a good point, and you may be right; I haven't had a chance to look at the clip in context. But I can't get past the fact that this is a case where a woman's opinion is being devalued because she didn't make the decision to be a mother. Whatever her intent, I would have expected Boxer to see the problems with this line of rhetoric and choose a different approach. I mean, much more interesting to me is the fact that many supporters of the war do have children who are of the right age but will never see combat (see also Bush, Jenna).

I think part of this for me is that I just don't see the potency of Boxer's line of argument here--okay, Rice has no kids, exactly how is this relevant; are the legislators who do have kids sending them off to Iraq?--and so the only meaning I really pick up from the remark is the negative one.

somethingorother writes:
I feel like we’re rising to the bait because the white house and faux news called it such.

On the contrary, I think many of us are being more skeptical of this than we otherwise would be because the White House and FOX News have made a cause celebre out of it. And that's entirely appropriate. We have an administration and a right-wing media that lies to us, and frankly it's unsightly to agree with their professed opinions on something like this, particularly when we know that they are all about gender oppression and would see nothing wrong with the comment if it weren't something they could exploit for their own purposes.

But the remark still bothers me. That's all I'm saying.

Cheers,

TH

I think it was meant metaphorically, as none of the Bush Co members have children serving in Iraq. They are twisted and corrupt, but not stupid. I'm glad someone is hammering through this point. Where are Cheney's kids, or Rumsfeld's? I think it was FDR that had all of his children serving on WWII.

If the Bush twins were actually serving in Iraq, even behind a desk, it would give Bush a lot more credibility - but of course, he is not as stupid to send his kids to their deaths.

Rangel's draft bill would only affect males between 18 and 26

Oh, no! One version of the draft bill affects BOTH men and women, between the ages of 18 and 42. Those who could not serve in the military would be assigned to civilian duties, such as working in hospitals.

(I once had a link to it, but yahoo.com moved it. Story broke around 20/21 November.) It was the older (2003) version of the draft bill that only had men between 18 and 26.

obviously the dudes on fox have absolutely no right throwing feminism back at us. however, in this overly-media-saturated society, no politician should ever say anything in public (or maybe even in private) without thinking about it A LOT first. ugh.

True, but when I first saw this story elsewhere and how many comments were generated, I didn't know what the fuss was about until I started reading responses. My reaction was, "What?!" and went back to reread the quote a few times. I still didn't see why it was such an issue. I guess if I was a member of Congress, it would never occur to me this kind of quote would be forbidden. You never know how the other side can take something seemingly innocent out of context.

Full transcript of the exchange here.

I resent the fact that conservatives are playing feminist police ...

Granted they're playing a game although I'm unconvinced that the name of that game should be 'feminist police'. Indeed the idea of 'feminist police' is used by 'centrist' Dems and republicans alike.
The thing that amazes me is that anyone would consider Tony Snow or Condi's or any republicans (or 'centrist' Democrat's) pronouncements about feminism to be newsworthy, these are men and women who have spent their careers *at best* enforcing the status quo.

One version of the draft bill affects BOTH men and women, between the ages of 18 and 42.

Well, that's even more insane than having a normal draft. In World War Two Britain only drafted men from 18 to 41 (though later it extended the draft age to 51). Rangel's bill is only halfway sane if the US gets dragged into a shooting war with China or something.

Alon, I think the reason for the increase in age for a proposed draft is the fact that the war has become such a huge clusterfuck since Rangel first proposed the bill that the Army's raised its maximum age for enlistment to 42 or 43 because they can't get anyone. Also, I think there was criticism of it being a male-only draft.

Boxer's comments bothered me, too. The fact that they don't have military eligible family members is only part of the reason why they won't be directly impacted by the choices they make. These people are part of a wealthy overclass that would be protected from the war no matter what. If Rice had a 21-year-old son, he would never see combat. So pointing out that Rice is childless is disengenous at best.

As a practical matter, I'm opposed to ANY draft. First of all, if a war is not popular enough with the public, and that manifests itself in too few soldiers, the solution is to not fight the war. During times of war, people vote not via ballot, but via enlistment. Second, drafts reduce the morale of those who genuinely want to fight in the war. The current all-volunteer army does not have to contend with people who are forced to be there. Each soldier knows that he has the support of his comrades. Third, contrary to popular(?) belief, the army is socioeconomically diverse. Finally, a draft would cost a fortune, both in terms of enforcement against dodgers and benefits programmes for veterans (GI, health, education, etc).

Just a drop back in, not that anybody will read this. Judging from this discussion, it looks like the old ways work: instead of accepting what Boxer was trying to say (who pays the price?), arguments were created over whether she should have said it, whether she should have said it to Rice, whether it's appropriate for any woman to question another woman in any way about being a woman, etc., etc. Game, set, match to the administration.

Just a drop back in, not that anybody will read this. Judging from this discussion, it looks like the old ways work: instead of accepting what Boxer was trying to say (who pays the price?), arguments were created over whether she should have said it, whether she should have said it to Rice, whether it's appropriate for any woman to question another woman in any way about being a woman, etc., etc. Game, set, match to the administration.

Just a drop back in, not that anybody will read this. Judging from this discussion, it looks like the old ways work: instead of accepting what Boxer was trying to say (who pays the price?), arguments were created over whether she should have said it, whether she should have said it to Rice, whether it's appropriate for any woman to question another woman in any way about being a woman, etc., etc. Game, set, match to the administration.

Boxer's comments bothered me, too. The fact that they don't have military eligible family members is only part of the reason why they won't be directly impacted by the choices they make. These people are part of a wealthy overclass that would be protected from the war no matter what. If Rice had a 21-year-old son, he would never see combat. So pointing out that Rice is childless is disengenous at best.

I still think she was just trying to point out to Rice that her unconditional support of the war woudn't affect either of them directly, so why not err on the side of caution? It's not unlike pro-choice men. While they themselves won't get pregnant, I can still appreciate the ones who support the right to decisions affecting my own body.

I do think it's unfair to assume a 21-year-old daugher or son of Boxer's would definitely NOT be affected. As it stands, we currently do not have a draft, so who are we to say that her offspring in this day and age might not choose the military voluntarily?

Don't get me wrong - I'm actually very sensitive to women who try to act as if their opinions outweigh mine because they've chosen to reproduce. I just didn't see that element in this context.

Jenny writes:
Boxer's comments bothered me, too. The fact that they don't have military eligible family members is only part of the reason why they won't be directly impacted by the choices they make. These people are part of a wealthy overclass that would be protected from the war no matter what. If Rice had a 21-year-old son, he would never see combat. So pointing out that Rice is childless is disengenous at best.

Agreed. I think this is what bothers me most about Boxer's comment--if it wasn't a slam on the fact that Rice had chosen not to have children, what was it? It's not like it makes much sense outside of that context.

Cheers,

TH

cuvdog writes:
Game, set, match to the administration.

...except that this isn't friggin' tennis. I mean, conservatives say that if I level some of the same criticisms against U.S. foreign policy that al-Qaeda does, then that's "game, set, match" for the terrorists. Is it? Are we really going to pick sides, and then say that whatever our side does is right and whatever the other side does is wrong? Because we're not going to make any moral progress that way.

Cheers,

TH

Unbelievable, the conservatives will do practially anything to evade the main argument. They've suddenly become the supposed people they hate becuase Senator Boxer came up with a few good points?! Their making much ado about nothing.

^Always follow the money/policy and ignore what people say.

no please God don't let them call me back to duty! I have been Anti-War since we invaded Iraq, and everyone in my National Guard unit knew it (which is probably why the leaped at the chance to hardship discharge me). The draft scares me. The very concept of my friends being forced to go over there and die in the name of oil terrifies me.

I'm on the fence about Boxer's comment. I can see how she meant it in a way that suggests since Condi and her don't have family serving now, they're not directly affected by the cost, a.k.a. deaths, that the poor (like myself when I served) are faced with every day this war continues.
However, I can see that berating Condi for having a career and not having children seems un-feminist. But Boxer really wasn't berating her, or at least I don't think she was. I can see all the hypocrisies that the very figure of Condi represent in her serving of an Anti-woman administration.

I honestly think Boxer was trying to remind Condi that mothers are losing their sons and daughters, brothers are losing their brothers and sisters, children are losing their parents to support a war that was based on lies just to fuel the greed for oil.

I don't think it was necessarily an attack on the fact Condi doesn't have any immediate family. Just a very blunt way of informing her that the Administration has blundered the whole thing to gross inefficiency.

As far as Rush goes, with his history, I'm surprised anybody (like my dad) wastes their time listening to him. He's lucky there's an amendment that protects him (freedom of speech), no matter how much he abuses it. And, methinks, he takes it very much for granted. And since he is so anti-woman he would naturally comment on an issue like this, twisting it so he profit from it.

Boxer's comment didn't have anything to do with the fact that Condi doesn't have children. Her comment was that neither of them had a personal connection to the war. Anyone who quote mines just her sentence "YOU don't have any immediate family in the military" while excluding the sentence just before that saying that "I" don't have a stake in it is being disingenuous. Sure, it would have been clearer if she had combined them into a single sentence of "Neither you nor I", but she would have had to anticipate such a twisted misinterpretation of her comments first.

Besides, last time I checked, "immediate family" wasn't restricted to just your own children. It could refer to a spouse, parent, or sibling.

What Carlie said. I find it fascinating that people can read "immediate family" as "your children" and than claim that someone else is devaluing the variety and validity of women's choices.

Boxer said not a word about children, let alone having vs. not having them.

"Are we really going to pick sides, and then say that whatever our side does is right and whatever the other side does is wrong?"

Judging by the polls, there's about 60% of the population (30% on the left, and 30% on the right) that say pretty much exactly that.