Right-wing pundit’s sexist attack on Pelosi.
By on Jan 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Right-wing pundit’s sexist attack on Pelosi.
“No woman in the history of politics has used her womb like Nancy Pelosi. … [Pelosi] could breastfeed on the speaker’s podium and receive the plaudits of the mainstream media.” (HT: Shakespeare’s Sister)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes, with the ascendance of Speaker Pelosi, uterine envy is at an all-time high.
–punkass Marc
Fantastic!
Read the whole blog entry, it’s great!
January 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pmjust imagine what the right-wing pundits would say if she was the secretary of defense and said, “I would confess I’m no expert on Iraq.â€
January 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pmHow about Boxer’s sexist attack on Rice accusing her of being not capable because she has never had children. Double standard much?
January 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pmHow about Boxer’s sexist attack on Rice accusing her of being not capable because she has never had children. Double standard much?
Comment by Roger_Roger
Link?
January 12th, 2007 at 12:38 pmbut according to robert novak, the state department is “a mess” under condi…doesn’t sound very capable to me. so isn’t boxer right?
January 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pmAll these Limbaugh-style comments about wombs and breastfeeding serve only to make the commenter sound ridiculous and do nothing to smear Pelosi.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:48 pmHow about Boxer’s sexist attack on Rice accusing her of being not capable because she has never had children.
Typical wingnut strawman nonsense.
Boxer to Rice – neither you or I have children of fighting age, so neither of us are making any real sacrifice in Iraq.
Does Boxer have a point? If you focus on the point about sacrifice, perhaps. Was she attacking Rice for not having children? Only on Planet Wingnut, where every day morons like Roger buy insecurity in exchange for commonsense.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pmpgw sez:
Careful! Reality has a well-known liberal bias!
January 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pm#3…Roger Dodger never has a link. Like all neocons, he makes outrageous statements with no facts to back them up and tries to pass them off as topics of intelligent debate.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pm“All these Limbaugh-style comments about wombs and breastfeeding serve only to make the commenter sound ridiculous and do nothing to smear Pelosi.”
i think the point is that these comments wouldn’t ever be made about a man, even if some men in congress could use a ‘bro’ [or mannsier.] dennis hastert, i’m looking at you.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pmFrom Ben Shapiro’s idiotic rant:
Hmm…the phrase ‘Snowflake babies’ comes rather strongly to mind here…
January 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pmI realize what the point is, but again, they are doing only damage to those who make the comments. I can’t see anyone taking the comments seriously at all. Who knows though.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pmThey are very afraid.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm1) What about that jewish chick some 2000 years ago… got all famous for being virginal and giving birth anyway. Didn’t the Catholics make her a saint or something? I think Ms. Pelosi has a ways to go to compete with that.
2) And anybody remember whose kids Mrs. Cheney paraded around in 2004 at Halloween saying that they were dressed up as Kerry’s Health Plan? Shortly after saying that her (lesbian) daughter should be left out of the political spectrum?
January 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pmJake sez:
That’s only because you’re capable of rational thought.
If you spend too much time here, associating with fellow rationals, you might (understandably) forget that rationality isn’t as universal a trait as you might hope.
These comments are directed squarely at the mouth-breathers, and yes, they do take them seriously.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pm#6 Jake
Limpballs and others like him make such sexual references because they don’t get any. They are just a bunch of shrivelled-dicks.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pmSome Harvard student said it. No big deal.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pmDarwin’s theory does not say that all will evolve simultaneously. There are definitely some knuckle-draggers left, and many of them sport suits and reside in Washington.
But not for long.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThis is really nuts! Does Family Security Matters have any audience beyond the whacko faithful (I don’t know the answer)?
January 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pmIf such nonsense is published in an extremist forum with limited appeal, I question the wisdom of acknowledging it and giving it wider circulation.
Ben Shapiro’s piece is nothing short of bizarre. I have the suspicion he feels very threatened by strong, successful women. The whole opinion column can be summarised as: I know you are a woman, please don’t remind me of that fact.
Mr. Shapiro also has an issue with children, and he aptly forgets the customary use of children in photo ops by Republicans too (does anyone remember Justice Roberts’ confirmation hearings, swear-in ceremony?).
He also gets his basic facts wrong: he says Rep Pelosi “doesn’t believe that we’re currently engaged in a war on Islamism”. Islamism? I thought it was a “war on terrorism”. Who knew!?
Ben Shapiro finally says: “I love motherhood as much as the next fellow”. No, he obviously doesn’t. The article would be entirely different if he really did. What a creepy fellow.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pmThey can’t handle a woman in this position of power. I love every minute of it. Her bright red shawl thingy stood out among all the black suits on the news yesterday. She looked great. Go Nancy.
(Yes I am a heterosexual man).
January 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pmI’m still waitng for RrOoGgEeRr RrHhEeTtOORrIiCcSs Rebuttal.
I’m guessing it will be something like, “Well thats what Limbaugh, Or Coulter, said, not me.”
Yo, RR, you really should learn to use ‘the tubes’ and ‘the google’ before you open your pie hole.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pmhttp://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0
Hope that link works. This is about how Boxer was completely rude and sexist to Rice. Anyways, looks like the Right uses radio talk show hosts while the Left uses congress women for there sexist remarks.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pmSeeing as some Greek militants recently attacked the US embassy, he will probably start spewing grecofascism or some other such nonsense.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pmSorry Roger,
Your whole outlook completely changes when you have children. It does make a difference.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pmLet’s not forget the rightie Peggy Noonan who claimed Nancy Peolosi was not a serious person and then proceeded to criticize her for her clothing choices. LOL
Women with power are always going to get slammed by someone either for their fashion sense or their maternal status. But it’s important to call sexism when it rears it’s ugly head and I’m glad TP linked to the Punkass blog critiquing the deluded young Ben Shapiro. What are they teaching these kids in college, anyway.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm#24-Roger_Roger,
Ms. Boxer pointing out to Ms. Rice that Ms. Rice has “no skin in the game” was entirely appropriate and on point. Especially in the context of how cold (one might say “frigid”) Ms. Rice is when she discusses military and civilian casualties.
However, yours and Mr. Murdoch’s attempt at twisting it into a “sexist” comment is hilarious.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#26 So anyone that doesn’t have Children should not be aloud to so anything bad about Iraq. I am cool with that. There are many congress men and women that would now have to keep there mouth shut!
January 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pmThis is about how Boxer was completely rude and sexist to Rice.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 12, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
This comment is ridiculous. Sen Boxer cannot be sexist to another woman as she is a woman herself.
The article you linked to is a huge spin of what Sen Boxer said; she didn’t attack Sec Rice for being childless nor did she imply Rice is unfit for the position because of that. Sen Boxer’s point is/was very simple: Condolezza Rice doesn’t have family to lose in the occupation of Iraq, and it is the reason why she is so casual in her support for the occupation.
Coincidentally, it is the very same point critics of the war been making about Pres Bush’s cabinet and the Republican members of Congress who, even when they have children and grandchildren, do not have immediate family members serving in the military.
Why would anyone be polite to someone who advocates sending people to kill and die in an occupation that didn’t need to be?
January 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pmFrom RR’s link;
What is sexist here Roger? The enlisted pay the price, as well as their families. It could be male or female.
This has nothing to do with Condi being chidless Roger. As always in war the enlisted pay the price.
BTW that was one horribly written article, if you can call that inflammatory, accusatory style of writing an article.
I’ve seen better written soap operas.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pmComment by Rebel In CA #16
Yep!
…once they (CONNED’self-servative misogynists, pedophiles and hypocritical closet homosexuals) can no longer rape, molest and pay for it…
…they get religion and become right wing fanatics…
…the thing they REALLY hate about Pelosi is…
…she can still get wet…
…and THEY (Limballs et al) can’t do anything about it…
January 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pmSo anyone that doesn’t have Children should not be aloud to so anything bad about Iraq.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 12, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
With this total lack of logical reasoning, I have to wonder how you managed to graduate from high school.
Your comment is absolutely bizarre. And it’s “allowed”.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pmWhy do people like reading that kind of inflammatory hetoric Roger?
I mean, that looked like something that I have seen written over at free republic. It’s like a contest to see who can write the most inane inflammatory crap possible and then try to pass it off as having some type of basis in fact when the basis is nothing more than mental masturbation. Stop eating the paste Roger, it’s bad for you.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:09 pmGregor, it’s usually home schooling which produces this kind of thinking.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:13 pmhe will probably start spewing grecofascism or some other such nonsense.
Comment by Zep Tepi — January 12, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Yeah, like greco-orthodox-fundamentalism. Although it probably has eight more syllables than the Great (mis)Leader and his followers can muster ;-)
January 12th, 2007 at 2:16 pm‘Allowed’
Many people do not have children and speak negatively of Iraq as well as positively.
Sheehans son died over there, for US, yet you MAY think that she should not be allowed to speak negatively about Iraq?
Hypocrite.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:16 pmBluedog49,
Ah, yes. Homeshooling would indeed explain many things about our Roger^2.
Some in my family-in-law are determined to homeshool their children. I fear for the little ones.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:20 pm“Islamofacisms”, “radical extremists”, “dead-enders”, “non-secular terrorists”, it’s all Greek to me. (heh, heh, heh).
January 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pmEach and every one of RogerRoger’s posts is a boiled down right-wingnut talking point. RogerRoger is a paid stooge on the republican payroll and not to be taken seriously, except for when his kind are rooted out and tried for being traitors to the United States.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pmA comment from that blog:
I agree with this approach. Women should only sleep with us liberals. =]
January 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pm#41 Man I wish I got paid to aruge with you all. Please let someone know to pay be. I would appreciate it!!
January 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm#44: Please quit “aruge”ing. Your employer is certainly not getting its money-worth from your “aruge”ments.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pmRoger_Rhetoric sez:
As this latest statement from him clearly illustrates, Earthling, Roger_Rhetoric can’t make the cut for professional blithering idiot.
Roger Rhetoric isn’t a paid shill, Earthling…he’s even more pathetic. He’s an unpaid shill, who’s drunk so deeply of the neocon Kool-Aid that he’s happy to regurgitate all the administration’s weak-ass talking points free of charge.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pmTMMonkey — An UNPAID shill — now that’s pathetic!
January 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIllustrating just how republicans “fear” the female. If they had their way they would bind all women by chain and force them to bear something to resemble their children. And no females allowed.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pmah, good. the left is now really concerned about sexists attacks. i’m looking for the post on the outrage over Baba Boxer’s shameful sexists attacks on Condi yesterday. still looking for that post…still looking…looking…
…this is like waiting for an Iraq strategy from the donkeys…nah, their focus is on self-indulgent political football.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pmMan I wish I got paid to aruge with you all.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 12, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
I don’t even know why I give you the benefit of the doubt, as you have shown no ability to understand what you read, but here I go nonetheless:
If you read carefully, all the replies to you said basically the same thing. Now that your nonsense regarding Boxer’s so-called sexist comment has been debunked, how about you tell us what you think of Shapiro’s tripe and try to stay on topic for a change? Can you stay on topic, or share something that is tangentially relevant?
January 12th, 2007 at 3:18 pmhippie with a pistol,
You are too late to the party. That talking point has been debunked and dismissed.
Better luck next time.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:19 pm#50 I think Shaprio’s comment is just as low and wrong as Boxer’s. Both should apoligize. It is disgraceful that we have congress women that talk like that and it is wrong that the repugs let one of there own talk like that. Both sides should be ashamed.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pmI love the fact that we have a woman Speaker. (yes, I would have preferred a Republican Speaker, but still a positive step for the country). Pelosi may bring some of it on herself the more she highlights the fact that she is a women. (Bringing the kids on the podium with her to stress that she is a mother and grandmother is one example) I would be thrilled if we could be gender blind when it comes to jobs in this country, but you can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want your gender to be an issue, don’t raise it as an issue yourself. There are plenty of regressives that will do that for you, somehow believing it has some pertinence to you doing your job.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pmAh, my fellow conservatives make me proud. You all demanding that Dems always apologize for things they didn’t say! Great way to keep them off balance, while we rape, pillage and destroy the very framework of the democracy! My uncle Adolph would be proud of you paul and Roger_Roger. You make the brownshirts in my family proud!!!
KKKeep up the good work!!!
January 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pm“If you don’t want your gender to be an issue, don’t raise it as an issue yourself. There are plenty of regressives that will do that for you, somehow believing it has some pertinence to you doing your job. Comment by paul — January 12, 2007 @ 3:26 pm”
Yet here you are *pissing* and *moaning* just like my *husband* and every other man. We women piss and moan about gender, because you fat a$$ed stupid republican men are such sexist morons!
January 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pmhippie with a pistol sez:
It’s hard to believe anyone is this stupid. How exactly are Boxer’s comments sexist, hippie, when she’s the same gender as Condi?
Let’s look at Boxer’s comments in detail, shall we?
It’s clear to anyone capable of walking without the aid of their knuckles that Boxer was pointing out that the soldiers are the ones who pay the price for our invasion of Iraq. Only a mindless neocon kool-aid swiller could possibly twist this sentiment into an attack on Condi for failing to be fruitful and multiply.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pmPelosi may bring some of it on herself the more she highlights the fact that she is a women. (Bringing the kids on the podium with her to stress that she is a mother and grandmother is one example)
I can remember when Judge Alito brought his children with him, I can remember George having his children with him when he was sworn in.
Pelosi is not stressing that she is a grandmother any more than George was stressing that he was a father.
I dont remember Pelosi starring in any specials.
Like this ‘first twin’ special.
A&E TV is having a 2 hour look at the lives of all the first children from George Washington to George W. Bush. …
http://www.thefirsttwins.com/
Your logic is biased Paul.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThe reactionary imflammatory punditry is ridiculous and people whom watch, and parrot, their opinion are just a sridiculous.
You are arguing RR, we are only pointing out that you have no argument.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWhat I didn’t understand was why Pelosi said that her being Speaker is such a big deal for women everywhere. Really? Name a woman whose prospects improved the minute she took over(other than hers).
Nope, this is just empty rhetoric designed to appease the NOW crowd. There is no glass (or marble) cieling — despite what the whining classes say.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:51 pmAnyone smell fried Rice?
January 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pmDisphit with a pistol…did you watch any of the congressional hearings with Rice? She talks like her mouth is full of turds. This is our Sec. of State? Aren’t diplomats supposed to be able to speak?
Good for Boxer. Good for Pelosi.
It’s time to start calling a spade a spade. Long past time.
By the way, Pelosi is beautiful. Rice always looks constipated. I guess that’s bound to happen when one’s full of crap.
“What I didn’t understand was why Pelosi said that her being Speaker is such a big deal for women everywhere. Really? Name a woman whose prospects improved the minute she took over(other than hers). Comment by Cynicon Implant — January 12, 2007 @ 3:51 pm”
Well you know those darned *libruls* will say millions of americans prospects improved from minimum wage, and a role model for young girls on leadership. Me personally, my role models have *schlongs* of which I hope to have once my *angry-inch* is extended in thailand. Who needs effective female leaders, I’m quite happy joining the crowd of *angry* and *shrill* right wing b!tches. We’re happy to trade in our *vaginas* for the opportunity to bend you dumba$$ republican men over the tables with our *angry-inches*! And you *love* it, that’s the best part!
“Nope, this is just empty rhetoric designed to appease the NOW crowd. There is no glass (or marble) cieling — despite what the whining classes say. Comment by Cynicon Implant — January 12, 2007 @ 3:51 pm”
Yeah, it’s so not true, that women didn’t have the right to vote till a matter of decades ago, and have never held this position of power in over 200 years since we were founded as a government. I just *adore* my fellow dumba$$ republican men. You’re as blind as a bat, and as stupid as my morning *unload* in the john. It’s a good thing we all *run* your lives from the background. Without Laura and Barbara, the Bush men would be bigger losers than they already are! You conservative men are just a bunch of stupid pansies – and that’s why we love you! Keep up the good work, while we yank your dumba$$ chains from the sidelines! *fool*
January 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm#24 – Rogerx2
Hey, thanks for the link. I’m still looking for the sexist part and the accusation part. Oh well….
I did think it was really nice of whoever wrote that editorial to let you know how you ought to feel about that particular exchange. None of that pesky thinking for yourself stuff.
I thought it was rather sexist that the author of that editorial (and you) didn’t happen to mention that everyone — even the men! — were all over Mizz Condi yesterday. Hmmmmm…..
Double standard much?
January 12th, 2007 at 4:37 pmNothing much is being made of the pundits sexist attack on Pelosi, but a lot is being miscontrued of Boxer’s remarks to Rice – double standard by the right wing.
I watched the hearing on C-Span last night and this is the direct quote:
Boxer: “Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price? My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.â€
“You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.â€
Tell me how that was a personal attack on Rice being childless. It was an assertion that Rice has no intimately personal risk in this war, just like Boxer, herself.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pmPelosi is the first Female Speaker of the House in 220 years. Out of 100 Senators, 16 are female. Females earn, on the average, 70% than men do for doing the same jobs. There has never been a woman President, even though women make up half of our population. There has never been a woman Vice President. There has never been a woman Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only two women have sat on the court in it’s entire history. Women are twice as likely as men to live below the poverty line….
Cynicon: “Nope, this is just empty rhetoric designed to appease the NOW crowd. There is no glass (or marble) cieling — despite what the whining classes say.”
That’s why we like to hear from Bush cultists. They’re so reality-based.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:49 pmIf you are concerned about the sterotype that women belong in the kitchen raising the kids and unable to do serious work like be the Speaker of the House, don’t start out by highlighting the fact that you are a mother and grandmother. It would be like Kennedy after the 1960 election (when some were very concerned that he was Catholic, having the Pope standing with him during the inauguration). I’m glad we have a female Speaker. I have an open mind and believe that Nancy Pelosi can do a good job. I don’t think it important to placate those that want to attack Pelosi’s sex, but if you are concern about it, I think Pelosi highlighting the fact that she was a woman, contributed to the attacks. (For clarity, I believe the attacks are ignorant, and should be treated accordingly).
January 12th, 2007 at 7:27 pmSomeday, we will all know when the right wing punditry of the United States of America has decided to grow up. That day will come when writing garbage(personal attacks) becomes so abhorrent that the writer is made a pariah of society.
January 12th, 2007 at 7:55 pmI_am_mighty_aphrodite_and_a_zionist_fool. If anyone is reading you posts, I doubt they understand what you are trying to say. I’ll bet you have something significant to add if you quit the nazi redneck shtick. But it is obviously a free country, post away.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:06 pmThis is from Hannity’s site. What Boxer noted was Rice has no children of her own to lose overseas. “Who pays the price?” Boxer repeatedly demanded. “You’re not going to pay a particular price,” she told Rice, because the secretary has no “immediate family” at risk.
How is this sexist? This is a very valid question.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:41 pmDoes it take womb to be a hypocrite? Speaker Pelosi is already pulling the wool over the American peoples eyes . She has already doled out political paybacks on a grand scale. Is this what we can expect from the Dims in the first 100 days. The same old corruption and double talk?
January 13th, 2007 at 1:33 amhttp://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm
If you are concerned about the sterotype that women belong in the kitchen raising the kids and unable to do serious work like be the Speaker of the House, don’t start out by highlighting the fact that you are a mother and grandmother.
So, Paul, all mothers and grandmothers by definition “belong in the kitchen raising the kids” and are “unable to do serious work like be the Speaker of the House”? By your logic, women who want to do “men’s” work, like being the Speaker, should either not be mothers or grandmothers, and/or should never acknowledge it if they are?
Careful, your sexism is showing.
Also, you can be sexist toward women if you are a woman. Just read anything by Phyllis Schlafly.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:23 amtinfoil hattie. It is possible I haven’t communicated my point well. You may not believe this, but although I am a man, I am also a feminist. I have a career and so does my wife. When she is at work, I do all the domestic duties around the house to include homeschooling a 7 year old and caring for a 2 year old. The work I do at home (as a parent) is much more challenging then my job as an airline pilot. My wife also feels that her work as a mother is more challenging than her work as a computer programmer. I guarantee you, that I have as much respect for motherhood as you do. I was trying to make the point that Pelosi has become Speaker of the House, and her attempt to emphasis her motherhood might have inflamed those that don’t respect motherhood as you much as you and I. I could care less what these people think, but it is the topic of the post. I’m sorry if my efforts to communicate my point here has failed. Sincerely.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pmtinfoil hattie. I read my post (#66). I seems that I am implying that mothers or housewifes aren’t capable of “serious work” (in the first sentence). That is not how I feel. It was not communicated well. I hope you understand. I’ll try to proof my posts better in the future.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pmIt’s clear to anyone capable of walking without the aid of their knuckles…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey #56
…I’m Lovin’ it!
Go get ‘em Trip…
January 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#30 This comment is ridiculous. Sen Boxer cannot be sexist to another woman as she is a woman herself.
special pleading from the left, now Boxer’s sexists insults are exempt being called what they are. Boxer, in her typical condenscending style, launched into a barrage of insults. obvioulsy no one here saw it. instead of insulting condi and making political points she should learn what changed in baghdad in feb 2005.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:37 pm…should read feb 2006
January 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWell, Paul, I see that my response came out less “tongue in cheek” and more “chiding” than I intended. Sorry. You couldn’t see my eye-roll & sarcastic face as I was writing. Another flaw of the internet. :-)
I just wanted to point out that we should not be discouraging mothers & grandmothers from admitting that they are mothers & grandmothers. If we want to defeat this kind of thinking, we should adopt more of a haughty in-your-face, “Yeah, I’m a mother (father). And a grandmother (grandfather). You wanna make something of it?” tone. I’m tired of being expected to apologize for dedicating a lot of my time to raising the next generation of decent human beings while also bringing in some money to my family. I spent 10 years not working for pay, and now I’m back in the work force, and I never hesitate to talk about my kids and where they fit in my life. Some of us have kids, some of us don’t. All of us have valuable things to offer from both ends of the kid/non kid spectrum.
Feh on the party of “family values,” I say.
Sorry I came off so nasty. I’ll be more careful too. I just hate the whole faux “mommy wars” thing, and people criticizing Pelosi for having her grandchildren on the podium pushed my buttons on that score! I really apologize for offending you. Thank you for writing so nicely and bringing this to my attention.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pmtinfoil hattie. I didn’t think you were nasty. And I wasn’t offended. But I appreciate your reply. You’re cool. See you around.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pmPelosi may bring some of it on herself the more she highlights the fact that she is a women. (Bringing the kids on the podium with her to stress that she is a mother and grandmother is one example)
Comment by paul
BULLSH*T, every freakin’ dumbass politician surrounds themselves with their family during photo-ops, numb-nuts, so having her kids on the podium is NOT AN ATTEMPT to stress her motherhood.
You wouldn’t even MENTION IT if you didn’t feel marginalized by a woman in power (like a sexist moron.)
January 14th, 2007 at 1:36 amJake #6 and Dumb_Fox #7, you clearly listened and understand the issues. Thanks for your comments. Two Thumbs up for you two. No need to repeat your comments, you have said what I was thinking. Thank you.
J
January 14th, 2007 at 5:11 amBen Shapiro is insane and delusional. Perhaps if we didn’t have so much overblown testosterone in the White House, we would not have gone off half-cocked (literally) into the Iraq mess we now find ourselves.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:12 amFunny the right wing didn’t say boo when Laura Bush said this about Condi: “Dr. Rice who I think would be a really good candidate is not interested, probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.” Boxer didn’t point out what Laura so cuttingly did, she just said Condi wouldn’t pay a personal price in Iraq, either. The GOP don’t say anything when one of their own is catty, just when the Democrats make a legitimate point.
Lesbian Sex Lesbian Anime Teenage Lesbian
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 3:53 amLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Sex Videos Lesbian Sex Videos
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pmLesbians Black Lesbian Sex Lesbian Girls Licking
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 10:03 pmPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 6:21 amLesbians Girls Lesbians Teen Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 6:56 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 10:21 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 amLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Porn Blonde Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 amKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 8:24 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 8:28 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 4:27 amYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:58 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 1:54 amLesbians Lesbian 69 Indian Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 8:27 am