Posted on 10/25/2005 5:50:18 PM PDT by CareyRoberts
The First Lady recently weighed in on the faltering support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Asked on NBC’s Today show if sexism might be at the root of the criticisms of Miers’ legal qualifications, Mrs. Bush coyly replied, “I think that’s possible.”
Excuse me, but somehow that remark struck a nerve. Because every time a woman hits a hiccup in the long march for female emancipation, it seems that someone trots out the specter of knuckle-dragging males trying to send their womenfolk back to the Cuissinart.
If male sexism is rampant throughout the hinterlands, then why did the CWA -- the Concerned Women for America -- come out expressing wonderment that a woman who has never written a single article on constitutional law is now being considered for the high court? [www.cwfa.org/articles/9148/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm] Are the CWA members male cross-dressers who have failed to connect with their inner feminine?
But now that Laura Bush has raised the issue of sexism, maybe it’s time to turn the spotlight in the other direction.
Don’t get me wrong, Mrs. Bush. I have a great love for books and a high regard for teachers and librarians.
But during last year’s Presidential campaign, you seemed to revel in jokes at your husband’s expense. Remember that story about George stretching out his feet on the living room table, and Barbara ordered him to put them down? That one brought down the house -- but somehow I can’t imagine Bill regaling audiences about the time he ordered Hillary to remove her panty-house from the shower stall.
And then at last April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, it seems you ordered the Commander-in-Chief to sit down so you could crack crude jokes about you and other well-appointed ladies waving greenbacks at male strippers.
Sexist? Probably not, but certainly in bad taste.
Then there were your high-profile efforts to promote the rights of women in Afghanistan. Of course that’s important and good. But when you paid that visit to the Women's Teacher Training Institute in Kabul, were you mindful of the arrests, torture, and executions that the Taliban had visited on many thousands of innocent civilian men?
Somehow it doesn’t make sense to call attention to the right of girls to get an education, but ignore the right of defenseless men to not be pulled out of their homes in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again.
This past July you gave a speech in South Africa that decried violence against women. [www.state.gov/g/wi/50199.htm] But what about violence against men? Surely one of your advisors warned you that the domestic violence issue has become distorted by the rad-fems whose aim is to convince women that they live under the constant threat of being brutalized by their husbands and boyfriends. [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0629roberts.html]
Then there’s your gender health initiative.
As you know, the health of men is in pretty sad shape these days. Men die an average of five years before women. As a result, elderly widows soon end up in a nursing home, left to wonder how things might have turned out differently.
When they find out those facts, most women I know say, “What can I do to improve the health of men, and especially the men in my life?”
But instead, you opted to promote your Women’s Health and Wellness Initiative. [www.whitehouse.gov/firstlady/women.html]
Even more mind-boggling is your endorsement of the Heart Truth, the women’s heart disease awareness program that features fashion queens in showy red dresses. [www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/hearttruth/index.htm]
It’s well-known that men have a far higher risk of dying from heart disease than women. [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0202roberts.html] Just last week I heard about a local man – a husband, a breadwinner, and father of three -- in his 40s who just had a triple coronary bypass operation.
But you don’t hear about women that age with life-threatening heart disease. That’s because heart disease is a disease that affects older women.
Although no doubt well-intentioned, your women’s health program carries a message that is demeaning to fair-minded men and women alike: men’s medical necessities command less social priority than women’s fashion statements.
Maybe your flirtation with radical feminism wouldn’t be so bad, Mrs. Bush, except for the fact that you showcase these programs as examples of Enlightened Womanhood. Caring and intelligent women everywhere happen to think otherwise.
But having the wife running off on speeches while the husband does the same thing..it's just too reminiscent of us having our own semi-royalty. They don't get receive the same salary, they don't occupy the office for life, but in action, one could very easily say it's not much different than British royal families running off in different directions on press junkets.
What makes you think that there is anything sinister in Laura's actually saying what she thinks, or that there is a dark side to her answering questions asked of her with honesty?
What should she do when asked, "Do you think there is sexism in the negative response to Harriet Miers?" if she DOES think that it's a possibility (not a definite, but a possibility).
Should she lie? Or should she answer the question? And if you think she shouldn't say what she thinks, why does she not have that fundamental right as an American citizen?
I would like to see this poster banned due to the hit/run nature of every single one of his/her posts. Self promotion is not what this place is for.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. This has to do with the pedestal we have put our politicians, most namely the President and his family on over the years. It's been going on for decades. As if I care what the First Lady's position is on anything. And in effect her positioning has limited the valid criticism of Meirs. Because to criticize Meirs now you may be considered sexist.
I thought the entire idea of FR was to defend your own words, FGS.
Evidently this poster doesn't believe what she's posting.
You say that she has the same rights as anyone, but you also say that she shouldn't be stating her opinions on certain things. Anyone who is asked to appear on TV, regardless of the reason why, must be given the right to honestly state an opinion, otherwise you are denying that person the right that everyone else has.
Many people are interviewed for their opinions far more than Laura Bush is, and you don't object to their stating their opinions, but you do object to her doing so.
Practically speaking, what is she supposed to do? She's married to the leader of the free world, for heaven's sake. Why you object to having people ask her her opinion is a mystery. And why you think she shouldn't have the right to answer the questions she's asked is even odder.
I've seen Ann and Franklin Graham asked their opinions repeatedly, and all they are are preacher's kids. Are they on a pedestal too, and royalty? Or are people just interested in what they think about things? What's the difference?
I'd like to reply to the many persons who reacted to my article on Laura Bush.
Some wondered why I don't respond to all questions -- I guess it's a matter of survival. I receive tons of e-mails in response to my articles. I read them all, but admit don't have time to answer each and every one.
Many expressed sharp exception to the article, although I was often unclear of the logical reason why. I try to provide URLs for the key points in all my articles, and invite readers to verify the references.
The point I was trying to make in the article is, the First Lady now has a significant impact on federal policy, both through her public statements and her high-profile initiatives in gender health and other areas.
So should Laura Bush escape scrutiny and accountability simply because she is the First Lady?
Carey Roberts
PS, I am not related to Cokie Roberts. (And even if I was, I would be loathe to admit it.)
You loaded up your article with half truths and total fabrications.
If you want your opinions to be taken seriously..........which no serious person does........then get your facts straight.
This article is a piece of garbage.
Someone's got to much time on their hands.
Look who showed up. The phantom author.
The elusive MS Roberts has re-appeared...........just thought you'd like to know. :)
Well it depends...
if the scrutiny is well warranted that is one thing.
But your article was CHILDISH.
Now you are attacking Laura? Give me a break.
Too busy with tons of email from her Public, as it turns out. Must be a trial.
We should be understanding of her plight......
Uhm, if it makes any difference, Carey is a him.
I think you did a fine job of refuting his assertions.
Thanks for the ping.
Uh, what? This is the first and only time you have EVER responded.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.