Saturday, January 13, 2007

Ain't Condi a Woman?


Well, women, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter.

These feminists over to the left say women who haven't had babies have no business participating in public policymaking decisions. None of them ever helped lift Condi into her position as national security adviser for the United States, or took interest in her becoming the first black female secretary of state, or praised her as a role model for feminists in any Democratic place. And ain't she a woman? Look at her! Look at her! She helped protect the security of our nation after terrorists attacked our mainland on September 11; we haven't had a terrorist attack here since then. She represents the United States internationally and no male world leader doubts her legitimacy to be among them! And ain't she a woman? She works as much as any man -- or woman -- and is as independent as any of them, yet bears the lash of hypocritical partisan feminists who don't recognize her as the type of woman they would champion if only she weren't a Republican.

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it?

< whisper from the liberal feminist audience: "intellect" >

That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or black rights or Condoleeza Rice? What's intellect got to do with public policymaking of any kind?

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now Laylalola ain't got nothing more to say.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this supposed to be some weird white girl riff on Sojourner Truth?

9:44 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

WOW. I assumed no one ever read this blog anymore. It's okay for white women to trash Condi Rice -- former national security adviser, current secretary of state -- as being unqualified to participate in public policymaking regarding decisions about war because she ... is single and childless. That's kewl. That's straight. That's the liberal feminist way. But it's offensive for me to invoke Sojourner Truth and ask Ain't Condi A Woman?

(I have since been informed that the answer to my question is: No, Condi ain't a woman. It's been decided that she's a white man and I would have known this had I attended caucus.)

8:15 AM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

By Barbara Boxer's own reasoning in her dismissal of Condi, the senator cannot possibly take seriously anything Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine A. MacKinnon, or Susan Faludi -- just to throw out an assortment of big-name feminists -- have to say about public policy regarding war (Steinem and MacKinnon, because neither have children), child pornograhy (Dworkin), child care (Faludi), and a whole host of related subjects not enumerated here.

I mean had any Republican senator, male or female, said such a thing to any Democratic single, childless woman we'd have uproar here. We'd have a relaunching of the feminist movement. Hell, the catalyst for Faludi's massive BACKLASH was the widely published statistic that U.S. women past 30 (or middle age or somesuch) had a greater chance of becoming the victim of a terrorist attack than of getting married. Oh the unrelenting pressure on women to get married and not be strong and single and independent! Look, honey, this is the stuff of revolution.

8:23 AM  
Blogger skylanda said...

Layla, did it ever occur to you that the feminist objection to Condi has less to do with her childlesness than her apologist stance on a war that has disproportionately impacted the health (for those who have survived at all) of women of color, albeit of a different color than herself? Or are you too busy being impressed with her as position in the Bush government to notice that several hundred thousand people have died in Iraq in the war that she so vehemently defends?

I also think the stunning silence on the matter from black women - including black feminists - also speaks volumes.

9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Erm. Boxer said: I've got no family who will be serving in the war (too old; too young). YOu've got no kids. Who is paying the price for advocating a ware? Not you and not me.

I think you misread that one, by a looooong shot.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Erm. "...advocating a war..."

1:35 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

Oh give me a break. I've said this at the Phoenix, and at the defunct Ms. boards, before: The only reason Condi wasn't immediately and continuously championed by feminists is because she's Republican. (My past arguments went something like: had she been the first black female CEO of any Fortune 500 company, for example, oh she'd have been on the cover of Ms. You all woulda loved her. Wouldn't matter that she's exactly the same person, politics-wise, that she is today.) And my arguments go further than it being Condi alone. It's about the ridiculous partisan (ie Democrat) first, feminist second way of life for most U.S. liberal feminists. Your identity is not as a feminist first, or even a woman, but as a Democrat first. I mean come on.

(Radical feminists are a bit different, and I originally hailed from that strain of feminism; partisan politics is all part of the system they're ostensibly trying to move away from or redefine in their own ways or provide alternatives to, and so, in other words, radicals tend not to have the same obsession with Republican v Democrat. Further, liberal feminists are all over the board in what kinds of women "qualify" as Feminist. You can be independent, you can think for yourself and make choices for yourself based on your own reasoning, you can be a "First" breaking through this or that ceiling. But God forbid you are a Republican, even if you are the rest of these things. Honestly. It's so stupid. Can't you see how ridiculous liberal feminism has gotten? She ain't one of Feminism's women (and yet she totally is). I mean I've made my case before that this kind of bizarre mental gymnastics where stances and who you support make absolutely no sense -- unless your entire understanding of feminism is based not on feminism at all but on partisan politics. That is, you look first at everything from a Democratic perspective, and then, maybe, usually not, from a feminist perspective, secondhand, after the fact. And it explains why there is so much garbage you just accept and even defend in the likes of certain Democrats, and why you don't act like the robots you otherwise would if Condi Rice were a Democrat or failing that at least a First Black Female CEO or whatever but you didn't necessarily know her partisan political affiliation.)

10:03 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

I mean don't call yourselves feminists anymore, you have no consistency in anything ostensibly "feminist" in your actions and stances and who you support. You're Democrats, period. Didn't the embarassments of the inconsistencies in the 1990s applications of liberal feminism to partisan politics make you think twice about what you're saying and doing and how hypocritical it all is and that it's way past time you redefined yourselves to make your actions/positions/stances at least consistent? Here's your identity: You're Democrats first. That's it. Don't even use the word feminist in trying to rationalize why you're taking this-or-that stance in favor or against anyone or any position anymore, because you'll immediately flip that position depending on whether a Democrat position or Republican/Republican position is at issue.

10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obliged to you for hearing me, and now Laylalola ain't got nothing more to say."

Sweet jeebus if only that were true.

4:44 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home