JBlog Carnival Updates, HH, KCC & JPIX

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Compensating...

Dry Bones brings up a good point.


US's Condoleezza Rice has her finger in too many dangerous stews.

I think it's hormonal. She may be known for her great legs, unlike Madeline Albright, who should have learned how to sit more primly.

Rice's biological clock has long run out, so it's no surprise that she's trying to compensate by being midwife for all sorts of "countries."

12 comments:

Gila said...

On behalf of those of us who are childless, be it through choice, circumstance or bad luck...if you don't have anything to say about a woman apart from making a crack at her childless status, you probably have nothing worth saying.

To disagree with a person's politics or policies is one thing. We all have opinions. To present solid, cogent, well-supported arguments as to WHY you disagree with a person's politics or policies is admirable, interesting and provides food for thought for those who generally think differently than you. To resort to cheap cracks, in lieu of said solid, cogent arguments merely provides evidence for the other side that the writer likes to makes noise, but has nothing intelligent to say.

When it comes to opinions from "the other side" of a debate, it is easy to ignore some screaming harpy who tosses out insults. It is much harder to dismiss a passionate, articulate, educated woman who presents well-reasoned arguments, supported by clear evidence. Is your goal to preach to the choir--to only speak to people who think just like you do...or to get the other side to listen, and to think?

As for whether or not Condaleesa Rice's path in life has been influenced by her childless status. I would not be surprised if this were the case, just as the lack of children no doubt influenced Henrietta Szold and Nehama Leibowitz in their choices. But most people have many, many reasons for the things that they do, the opinions they hold and the paths they are on. It is rarely as simple as "frustrated maternal urges".

I hope you will forgive my writing what is effectively an entire blog post in your comment section. I have a vested interest in changing the general approach to debate and childless women. I am one. I very well may remain one. And I would rather be treated with respect (and not just by those who happen to agree with my political views), than as some pathetic creature desperately seeking some substitute for that which was denied me.

Batya said...

Gila, I sincerely apologize for offending and hurting you.

Rice has said on numerous occasions that she considers being part of the "birth" of the new Arab state to be extremely important to her. The fact that it will endanger the existance of Israel doesn't concern her.

Her extreme identification with the Arabs is very dangerous for Israel.

Gila said...

I apologize as well for grandstanding--again, this is something I feel strongly about. And that I have a distinct vested interest in. :)

Your point about the birth of an Arab state is interesting. Is she really so unconcerned with Israeli security issues? I had gotten the impression that the Bush Administration in general was relatively more cognizant of security issues than other administrations/governments.

Batya said...

Gila, even mothers have times when we have to use our maternal instincts in other ways. B"H, kids grow up.

Rice and Bush have stated that establishing another Arab state, and transferring Jews from their homes is a strong priority/goal for them. Rice is extremely emotionally attached to the Arabs. She thinks that Arabs here are treated like Blacks were in the states. She doesn't see them as terrorists, just as "freedom fighters." Bush patronizes us, saying that we must learn to get along, as if we're little kids fighting, like he and his brothers used to.
It's a very dangerous missreading by Israel that Bush is a friend. He's not. His family is in business with the Arabs.

Anna Winter said...

Perhaps you did not notice that my post, which you linked to, is criticising the very thing you are doing here. Or perhaps my admission that I too am childless meant that you saw no need to actually read my words.

Batya said...

Ms. Winter, I must admit that I didn't read your words and certainly skipped over everything about your personal status.

I linked your article, because I found it in an internet search while looking for an article which mentioned Rice's legs.

Maybe I should just write and not look for links. Or before linking, I ought to read more carefully. I apologize to all that this is just a blog, and a hobby, and don't always have the time to write/research like a paid professional.

Anna Winter said...

I'm not a paid professional, either. I'm just making the point that you argue that women are in politics are uniquely driven by their hormones, then use a post that condemns this as offensive and stupid to try and back up your view.

What exactly do you think is the point of linking, if not to provide evidence or more information for what you are saying? Otherwise, why not link to the Google results page?

On the other hand, it's a nice illustration of just how cheap and shallow it is to believe that everything a childless women does is caused by her childlessness. So well thought out that you didn't even have to read the words you link to.

Batya said...

What can I say?
I admit that, I, like many, am governed in many ways by my hormones or lack of them, family situation etc. We can't erase who and what we are.

Should I erase the link?

Anna Winter said...

No, I don't have a problem with you linking to me. I just wanted to contribute to the debate by pointing out that you are using my post to provide evidence for an argument that I think is wrong.

I find your admission that you didn't actually read it first quite fitting, given how shallow an argument you've made.

I don't know where I've said that hormones don't influence us? But to suggest that a woman who has made it to the level of power that Rice has could be so completely run by hormones and childlessness that it would override her education and intelligence is both dumb and offensive. The fact that you think that she would be able to get away with it, that the countless other politicians, bureaucrats and military officials surrounding her would be unable to prevent Childless Woman (TM) from actually letting her biological clock create US foreign policy just demonstrates how clueless you must be.

Batya said...

I think that her emotional attachment to the policy is a form of compensation, just like when I began my remedial teaching career, the fact that I was teaching children like my own, the same age as my own, with problems like mine had contributed to my success, l'havdil.

Gila said...

If I may contribute something to the debate.... There are plenty of men with similar policies. Are they also all compensating?

Or, to approach from another angle, what if her views were more in line with your own? Would you discount them as automatically suspect(and re-examine your own views)? If the answer is "no", then why not? Why is a person only compensating if they disagree with you?

You appear to hold very strong, and very passionate views. What are you compensating for?

She has certain views. She is childless. The two are not necessarily related, any more than I work with start-ups because it makes up for a lack of children.

If anything, the fact that she does not have children may mean that she has more time to devote to understanding issues, obtaining knowledge etc. It is argueable that a woman or a man with a family would be less qualified, and not more, to do what she is doing. Yes, you live here, but you are not childless. You have kids and a husband and all sorts of other demands on your time. What makes you assume that you have more knowledge of the whole situation (both sides, not just ours) than does Condeleesa Rice?

Please note--I pose these questions as theoreticals--and to encourage thought and NOT as a personal attack!

For my part, I will try to make some time this week to do some more reading on Condoleesa Rice and her attitudes towards Arabs/ terrorists etc. In particular, I am curious to see whether I come to a same conclusions that you have in respect to any emotional attachment.

Batya said...

Gila, actually I have, with a group of like-minded women insisted that we fight for Eretz Yisrael, like "mother lions." And in terms of men, there's the well-known "Napoleon Complex" based on height, or lack of it, and unnecessarily large weapons, compared to.. you know.
I can go on...