January 13, 2006

"Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention... Such women are very rough."

Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky on Condoleezza Rice:
Speaking with Pravda this week, Zhirinovsky chastised Rice for calling on Russia to "act responsibly" in supplying natural gas to Ukraine.

The fascistic pol attributed that "coarse anti-Russian statement" to Rice being "a single woman who has no children."

"If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear," Zhirinovsky ranted on. "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied.

"Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention," he added. "Such women are very rough. … They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: 'Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian!'

"Complex-prone women are especially dangerous. They are like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone. Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible. A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though."
You can say he's simply crazy, but do you think there are not plenty of people in this country who think such things?

99 comments:

LarryK said...

Yes - some may even post at Eschaton and say they're being ironic. However, this is nothing new. The Left has been vicious towards Condi Rice for some time, and their hostility is only likely to accelerate as her political star rises.

Steve Donohue said...

Zhirinovsky is a certifiable loon, however. He's previously talked about re-extending the Russian Empire to the Indian Ocean, is close friends with France's pseudo-fascist Jean Marie Le-Pen, and a slew of other oddities.

My favorite, however, was during the 2001 presidential campaign in Russia, when Zhirinovsky ran a commercial showing a couple in bed watching political figures in bed. They had nothing positive to say about his opponents, who were too old or weak-willed. But the appearance of Zhirinovsky made them rather amorous, which is a claim that I must admit has not yet been exploited by the American political establishment: Candidate X will improve your sex life!

Meade said...

Waiting for American self-styled feminists to publicly defend Secretary of State Rice and condemn Zhirinovsky's blatant misogyny...

Simon said...

What you must understand is that Vladimir Zhirinovsky is the Russian equivalent to a Fred Phelps / Jerry Falwell character. I've been aware of him since about 1994, and he is, as Steve said, a "certifiable loon."

On the other hand, I surely can't be the only one mildy interested by the attendant mental picture of Rice "be[ing] taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."

Meade said...

Doesn't "taken to barracks where she would be satisfied" carry implications of rape?

Kimberly Swygert said...

Wait, I thought the lefties and feminists didn't like women who wore too much makeup, had too many kids, or were too feminine. So now they don't like the tough, single cookies either? What does a woman have to do to be accepted by them?

Never mind, I already know the answer to that.

Mark Daniels said...

You're no doubt right, Ann, that many Americans, men and women, in their sexist hearts, have the same feelings about Rice. But unlike Zhirinovsky, they thankfully don't have access to mass media.

But one must wonder what proportion of our feelings toward people in public life is substantive and how much of it is visceral or prejudiced?

How many qualified people are denied our votes or our support because we don't deem them attractive enough, or because they're female, or whatever?

And how often do we, like Zhirinovsky, pounce on irrelevant personal attributes in order to repudiate another person's point of view?

And how often, for that matter, do we jump on somebody's bandwagon just because we like the way the look or talk?

I suppose that if I did an honest self-appraisal, my finger might as likely point to myself as others for thinking that's shallow, prejudiced, or illogical. I can be stash people in my own categories of choice and am apt to keep them there until the Second Coming. I'm not proud of that. But it's the truth.

But people do break free of our stereotypes or visceral and demographic straight-jackets. My brother-in-law, a late-40-something, divorced father, who works in sales and does house restoration on the side, sports a "Condi for President" bumper sticker on his truck. His mother, my mother-in-law, in her late-70s, is horrified at the very sight of the sticker, not because she has something against women in high office, like many women her age that I know. It's just that she's an ardent LibDem. We have interesting conversations sometimes.

Mark Daniels

Goesh said...

I don't know what to say - it hasn't been that long since a pic of Condi in her high, black S&M looking boots was plastered all over....

mcg said...

Zhirinovsky understimates our beloved Condi: a barracks would not be enough. A full symphony of musicians, trained in triathalons, schooled in the classics, and fluent in four languages? Perhaps.

Sour grapes, Comrade. You only wish you had women as powerful as that in Russia!

knoxgirl said...

LOL! That guy is a piece of work.

Poor Condi. I sure do want her to run in '08, but she's going to get it from all sides. I daresay if she ever becomes president, we'll look back at Bush-bashing with fondness.

AJD said...

Actually, Ann, lots of supporters of your boy Alito think these things.

Of course, "conservatives" have such limited courage of their convictions that Sam and his allies have tried to back away from all of his views lately

And you "don't really think that Roe will be overturned" huh?

It will be in your boy Sammy gets his chance. Which he will.

Beware of what you wish for, Ann.

Gerry said...

Depends on the definition of the word "plenty". When you are dealing with millions upon millions of people, more than one or two are going to have deranged views.

If we are talking as a percentage of the population, I do not think there is a significant percentage who ascribe to such thoughts.

Nim said...

"LarryK said...
Yes - some may even post at Eschaton and say they're being ironic.
"

Yep. When women write that they belong in the kitchen, they're being literal. They couldn't possibly mean the -opposite- of what they're saying, in an attempt to make fun of those attitudes.

No, they sincerely believe they belong in the kitchen.

Dishonesty is the new black.

Gerry said...

"Doesn't "taken to barracks where she would be satisfied" carry implications of rape?"

I think that is what he was getting at.

Although, what a barracks full of men could offer Condi that would be satisfying to her would likely be some good debate over goings on in the NFL.

Gerry said...

"The Anti-Sheck said..."

... a bunch of nonsense that makes me wonder who is more insane, The Anti-Sheck or Zhirinovsky.

amba said...

Well, of course, he is crazy. Also, I don't think he counts so much as a "lefty," more as an extreme righty like LePen -- fascist racist nationalist. But then, the ends of the circle meet and join, don't they.

There may be people here who are thinking thoughts like that about Condi and other powerful women, but they are thinking them from a position of powerlessness, and post-facto panic at faits already accompli, so who cares?

Simon said...

Doesn't "taken to barracks where she would be satisfied" carry implications of rape?

Certainly not the way I read it, but if that is the implication of the statement, I would disassociate myself from my previous remark on the matter.

I think, however, that the concepts of "satisfaction" and "rape" are not only antithetical, but mutually exclusive when used together in a sentence. I read the statement as inescapably implying consensual activity, because I don't see how one could talk about gang rape, as others have inferred, as "satisfying" Rice.

Kurt said...

I'm sure you'll be waiting a long time for those American self-styled feminists to come to her defense, Meade. A few months ago I heard a left-wing activist and writer, a single woman in her 50s, speaking ill of Condi and saying that she looked like "the saddest girl in the world." And I thought to myself, "if she looks like the saddest girl in the world, what do you think you look like?"

Hamsun56 said...

Often, the best course of action with someone like Zhirinovsky is to ignore them. He says and does outrageous things to get media attention. The Daily News and other papers running this story are, in one sense, Zhirinovsky's accomplices. They're running the story not because it is a serious story, (Zhirinovsky is too marginal to be a serious) but for a catchy headline or a good laugh.

That said, Lettermen made a joke a few months back that I laughed at, and it went something like this: Bush just announced that we will try to land a man on Mars by 2009. After that they plan to land a man on Condi Rice by 2012.

However, whatever the reason was that made me laugh at that joke will not negatively influence my opinion of Condi Rice.

Simon said...

"I don't think [Zhirinovsky] counts so much as a "lefty," more as an extreme righty like LePen -- fascist racist nationalist."

This is completely correct - I don't think anyone could accuse Zhirinovsky as being a "lefty", not least because he himself has loudly and repeatedly comdemned the Communist Party. A more appropriate analog is indeed, LePen - Zhirinovsky is an extreme nationalist who seeks to restore not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire, prefereably with himself as the Tsar. And presumably Condi as Tsarina.

Mark Daniels said...

Without checking for mistakes, I dashed off my comments on this post earlier. Since then, I've noticed several grammatical and spelling errors, including "straight jacket" instead of "strait jacket." That sort of stuff makes me nuts! The comment has turned into a slightly expanded post on my site, hopefully corrected: http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2006/01/of-demographic-strait-jackets.html.

(I know that this stuff doesn't matter so much to others. But I hate to see spelling errors, which can be so easily corrected with spell-checkers, and grammatical mistakes, which look so ignorant! Errors like this make everything a person says suspect. At least, that's the impact they have on me. Condi Rice would never let mistake-laden draft emanate from her computer.)

Mark Daniels

Simon said...

"However, whatever the reason was that made me laugh at that joke will not negatively influence my opinion of Condi Rice."

I don't think it's necessarily out of bounds to comment on a public figure being sexually attractive (for example, I'm sure that Sens. Feingold and Clinton are well aware that their telegenic looks give them an advantage over other contestants for the '08 nomination), as long is its always kept in mind that such commentary is irrelevant once the dicourse turns to serious matters. I've commented previously, in what I think were appropriate contexts, that I think both Condi Rice and Judge Sykes are very attractive women, but at the same time, when the discussion has actually been about substantive matters of importance, the discussion appropriately excluded those matters.

Put in terms to capture the zeitgeist, I don't think that, just because Article III Groupie wrote the highly informal, inappropriate and frothy Underneath Their Robes, David Latt would be in any way less than appropriate and substantive should he be required to argue a case before the supreme court.

On the other hand, I think such discussion should still be offered under the rubric of "if you can't say anything nice"; it is one thing to offer compliments on our Fearless Leader's youthfull good looks, but perhaps less appropriate to make comments about Our Hero's appearence.

Meade said...

Without putting too fine a point on it, Simon, when Zhirinovsky rants, "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied," I don't think, by taken to, he means invited to.

reader_iam said...

I see Amba etc. got there first in terms of correctly placing Z. along the political spectrum. Also that he's a complete and utter loon.

Re "complex-prone":

That one sort of got--the word's not laugh exactly--an exasperated guffaw, maybe, out of me.

Because it can be read in a couple of ways: complex-prone, which is what I think he meant, and complex-prone, which is what I think is his real problem with Condi.

She just doesn't conform to his concept of the ideal woman: one who's "simple" and one-dimensional enough that even someone with his pea-sized brain and even smaller imagination can "understand." And keep under control, presumably.

[start OT] Mark: I know lots of people whose opinions I value and respect who are prone either to typos or outright mistakes. When I do it myself (especially in comments), it's very annoying, but in others not so much so. I'll bet a lot of people write straight into blogger etc. and due to their OS don't have access to a spellchecker etc. Comments strike me as more like "speech," where the standard is lower than in formal writing. Maybe that's the wrong attitude to take, but I'm sticking to it. [end OT]

Wouldn't it be great if there really were html tags to indicate OT comments? Heh.

pdq332 said...

I guess this means that Zhirinovsky reads "The Boondocks".

sonicfrog said...

Zhirinovsky sounds like the perfect Bush selection for the next Supreme Court vacancy. He could probably make Ted Kennedys wife, or one of his mistresses, cry.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Actually, Ann, lots of supporters of your boy Alito think these things.

Wow. That's offensive, irrational, and insulting on so many levels I think it might just have set a record. Someone notify Guinness/

Citizen Grim said...

Did someone say Guinness? Brilliant!

Charles said...

Still waiting for any of the "enlightened" European or Muslim countries to speak out against this hate speech (ethnic and gender based). Or the NOW group. Or Hollywood?

PatrickDiego said...

This isn't fair. To read Zhirinovsky, you must understand Zhirinovsky and his culture. Zhirinovsky was in fact sired by a company of soldiers. This is quite common in his family where many many anonymous, usually low ranking, members of the army or those who cater to it contributed to his family tree. He carries on a long tradition of pleasuring soldiering himself. And in fact his mother wore army boots. Zhirinovsky feels deeply about having a woman by his side and pays great sums for this pleasure (for reasons not under his control). So, stop criticizing him. You must understand he means no insult. When a dog barks, you don't bark back at the dog, do you???

Ann Althouse said...

Simon: The implication is definitely gang rape.

flory said...

Yes - some may even post at Eschaton and say they're being ironic. However, this is nothing new. The Left has been vicious towards Condi Rice for some time, and their hostility is only likely to accelerate as her political star rises.

And of course its only the left that engages in these kinds of comments, right?

Betty Freidan, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinham -- no one ever said they'd be happier if they could get laid. Uh, uh...never.

Wait -- let me think a minute..who was it just said "I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement?" I'm sure that was penned by some loony lefty.

For chrissakes -- you people thought nothing about going after Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton on their looks -- CHILDREN!!

Don't dump this shit on the left.

ex-democrat said...

flory - you need to spend a morning reading Michelle Malkin's hate mail. And then, you need to spend the afternoon contemplating what other opinions you hold because you've always held them rather than because they are correct.

sonia said...

Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a stupid clown who is probably impotent and sterile. He fully deserves this punishment for his idiotic statement.

Meade said...

Flory: Scroll up and reread amba's comment where she asks, There may be people here who are thinking thoughts like that about Condi and other powerful women, but they are thinking them from a position of powerlessness, and post-facto panic at faits already accompli, so who cares?

Do you care?

Sonia: If that is a picture of you, may I please ask you a personal question? As a child, were you ever abused, traumatized or abandoned?

njoriole said...

Simon-
A misogynist pig like Zhirinovsky believes that a gang-rape of a strong woman like Condi Rice would "satisfy" her, as all she needs is a good stiff one. Think before you post!

Coco said...

"Still waiting for any of the "enlightened" European or Muslim countries to speak out against this hate speech (ethnic and gender based). Or the NOW group. Or Hollywood?"

Charles - the way you post this makes it seem as if these are the only folks/groups who should be offended by such comments.

Also, in my opinion, no one should respond to this kind of junk - it should just be ignored (similar to Pat Robertson - to provide an American example). What's the purpose of publicly condemning every nutter butter statement by vicious crazy folks all across the globe?

By the way, if you spend considerable time with 19 year old males in an all male environment frequently you'd hear statements akin to this (usually not in a Condoleeza RIce context though!) far more than one would think and like.

Cosmo said...

andrew is right:

"Zhirinovsky is too marginal to be serious"

So is Pat Robertson. But I'm sure Czar Z's inane comment (or any similarly-irrelevant apology) won't be mentioned in every top-of-the-hour news update for the next 36 hours, as was the case ealier this week with Robertson's latest burst of intellectual flatulence.

DEC said...

If he doesn't like Rice, he might find himself on the floor after a punch from Uncle Ben.

Condi for President!

sonia said...

Dear Meade,

'Sonia: If that is a picture of you, may I please ask you a personal question? As a child, were you ever abused, traumatized or abandoned?'.

Yes, a little, you can read this to find out...

Simon said...

Ann Althouse said..."Simon: The implication is definitely gang rape."
njoriole said..."Think before you post!"

I didn't read the passage to imply that, and I think that one could only conclude that the implication was "definitely" gang rape if one can operate under (or at least, comprehend) the presumptions of someone who thinks in that manner. I make no bones about - and feel no shame in - finding a viewpoint that conflates rape and satisfaction as incomprehensible.

In any instance, when it became clear that I had misread (or possibly just missed) the inference other posters saw clearly, I posted a clarification disassociating myself from this interpretation, which I think is about as much as I can do. I suppose that's what I get for making a flippant comment about the Secretary of State being an attractive woman.

Meade said...

Thank you, Sonia. I guessed as much. I'm very sorry for your suffering.

sonia said...

Thank you, Meade,

It's all right. My weird blog is a great form of therapy for me...

Meade said...

I doubt it, Sonia, but then I'm not really qualified to say, so I'll just say - best wishes.

flory said...

ex-democrat:
What does Michelle Malkin's hate mail have to do with my comment? Does the fact she gets hate mail negate what O'Bierne wrote in her book?

meade:
Do I care? Yes -- I care that the host of this blog can celebrate a rightwing author who disprespects liberal women on the basis of their sexuality -- or percieved lack thereof; and then turns around and feigns disgust when someone does it to a conservative woman.

Do you care about the...inconsistency...of that?

Raging Red said...

Waiting for American self-styled feminists to publicly defend Secretary of State Rice and condemn Zhirinovsky's blatant misogyny...

I'm sure you'll be waiting a long time for those American self-styled feminists to come to her defense, Meade.

Still waiting for any of the "enlightened" European or Muslim countries to speak out against this hate speech (ethnic and gender based). Or the NOW group. Or Hollywood?

Why don't you people do a little checking before you make such presumptuous comments? I first read about this story last night on a lefty/feminist blog that I frequent. But I suppose it's easier to just be smug than to actually base your opinions on any evidence.

Ann Althouse said...

flory: "Do I care? Yes -- I care that the host of this blog can celebrate a rightwing author who disprespects liberal women on the basis of their sexuality..."

What on earth does that refer to? I can't even think of a rightwing author I celebrated.

Faithful Progressive said...

Yes, there are someone modern jackasses around who would agree--on left and right.

I also agree with much of your Alito coverage--especially on the job done by Kohl vs. Feingold. (Kohl, whom I otherwise like, was sometimes painful to watch...Feingold was feisty, informed and engaged.)

I haven't seen you address the key aspect of the CAP episode--doesn't it bother you at all that Judge Alito conveniently claims to forget why he joined this extremist group, when it as one of only 2 on his resume? Why not just admit--I was a bit of a hot-head 20 years ago? Also, whatever one's views, it's pretty lame to claim he can't address whether Roe is settled law. No?

Finally, nice job on radio. You and Rich Lowry do conservatives proud.

FP

ex-democrat said...

flory - does anything "negate" the fact that leftists feel at liberty to hurl violently bigoted insults at Malkin simply because she's a conservative?
just asking.

ex-democrat said...

faithful - ask any litigator: "settled law" is law that supports the argument you happen to be making at the time.

Gerry said...

There is one part of this whole CAP bruhaha that I find absolutely annoying.

It is taken as a given that CAP was an extremist group, since Alito chose to say that he doesn't recall anything about them.

It would have been nice if some people decided to see if the group actually was extremist.

I do not see opposing affirmative action as being extremist. I see it as a mainstream, and perhaps even majoritarian, view. And it certainly does not infer racial animous. I oppose affirmative action, and I am not a racist-- in fact, I abhor racists.

I do not see an alumni group pushing for more admissions of alumni's children as being anything but a "duh" type of consideration. Of course they would want their kin looked upon favorably.

Dinesh D'Souza was an editor. Laura Ingraham was up there too. Are we to take at face value that they are racists and bigots and anti-women?

I would sure love to see some evidence that the group was extremist beyond a single article of satire and, perhaps, another article or two over the entire existence of the organization. Surely if this is some big extremist group at a top level Ivy League school, then the top leaders of this group have gone on to become top leaders of racist or bigotted organizations subsequently? Let's see names. Who are these raving bigots, and what has become of them?

This irks me because in this whole spiel, people like Laura Ingraham are being implicitly told that they belonged to a racist, anti-women organization. And unless it is a substantive charge and not just one made for political expedience and one that isn't being refuted simply because the nominee does not even remember being involved, it is absolutely reprehensible that it is becoming accepted at face value. Lots of people, presumably, were CAP members, and all of them are being tarred as reprehensible people by this--- and from my eyes on the flimsiest of evidence.

Y.H.N. said...

I initially did not read the comment as implying rape either ...

That said ... those poor soliders will they need counseling afterwards?

PatCA said...

The last refuge of a scoundrel: she just needs to get l***.

You're so right, knoxgirl. I guess the vestiges of chivalry and politesse make attacks against women really distasteful. And I would extend this to people like Hillary as well. If she's running for office, why do media comment on what she's wearing or her latest hairdo?

Aspasia M. said...

CAP was upset that an all-white male school was changing to let women and non-whites into the school. Not quite a simple debate about "affirmative action."

I'm still waiting for the Right to condemn Rush Limbaugh for calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog" when she was twelve years old. I'm with Flory. Don't pretend that this type of offensive crap hasn't been said by right-wing Americans like Limbaugh.

(I would also note that Zhirinovsky is not an American. Why would NOW note offensive statements of Zhirinovsky, as oppossed to anti-feminist nuts in Pakistan, or anti-feminist politicians who populate the rest of the world. NOW would spend all of its time researching and then writing press-releases that condemn anti-feminist nut-job politicians. There is not a paucity of crazy anti-feminist politicians in the world community. For example, look at the horrible things Musharraf said about rape in Pakistan.)

Simon said...

"I do not see opposing affirmative action as being extremist. I see it as a mainstream, and perhaps even majoritarian, view. And it certainly does not infer racial animous. I oppose affirmative action, and I am not a racist-- in fact, I abhor racists."

Quite the contrary - it seems to me that, under the common definition of "racism" ("discrimination or prejudice based on race"), a person who supports affirmative action is more apt to accusations of being racist than one who advocates color-blindness.

Simon said...

"That said ... those poor soliders will they need counseling afterwards?"

I don't know about that. A cup of gatorade and a cigarette, certainly, though.

Eli Blake said...

Zhirinovsky (who also once said that in WWII, Russians should have fought alongside Hitler's army against the West, and has also said that Russia should go to war against the United States to reclaim Alaska) is the candidate of the 'Drinks too much Vodka' party. But keeping in mind that he got 7% of the vote the last time he ran for President, he does indeed represent the views of millions in Russia.

And in Europe generally. We've seen it not only with Le Pen, but with Jorg Haider and others who sometimes get elected and embarrass their countries. Nazism showed what happened when the racist, over-nationalistic, xenophobic undercurrent that has always existed in Europe gains power over a country.

Whatever sins of bigotry we have to answer for in the United States (and the people who claim that there is no longer a race problem in the U.S. are wrong), we have never been as bad as Europe was, and if you could look into the hearts of millions of people, largely still is.

And coco: The ENLIGHTENED leaders in Europe have always spoken out against this kind of stuff. They know they have it in their country, and in Europe, WWII is not just something that you learn about in history books. They live with the survivors, all of them, on every side, every day. The reason Europe is as liberal as it is now is a direct result of the revulsion that people felt and recoiled from, once the crimes of the extreme right were exposed.

The evolution of modern European politics in light of both its recent and not at all recent history is a fascinating topic, but one that can't be addressed in a blog post.

Simon said...

Geoduck2 said...
"I'm still waiting for the Right to condemn Rush Limbaugh for calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog" when she was twelve years old."

I wasn't aware he had said that. If he did, he should retract those comments and apologize, and I hereby condemn Rush in the roundest terms for the inappropriate conferring of sexual characteristics upon a child.

Obviously - while getting a little fatter these days - I do not personally constitute the entirety of the right, and lack any kind of authority to speak for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (or as it's now known, "the Federal Government"), hopefully you'll accept a condemnation simply from someone who is on the right.

Simon said...

Geoduck2 also said...
"I would also note that Zhirinovsky is not an American. Why would NOW note offensive statements of Zhirinovsky, as oppossed to anti-feminist nuts in Pakistan, or anti-feminist politicians who populate the rest of the world."

Given NOW's legendary judgement of character - "STOP SOUTER OR WOMEN WILL DIE" - I'm not sure that a condemnation from them amounts to a whole hill of beans anyway. Where NOW is concerned, as Alison Krauss adequately formulated it, "[they] say it best when [they] say nothing at all."

Elizabeth said...

Red, be careful, you're knocking down the rightwing commenters' little strawmen! I read this first on the same feminist blog you cite, but I think these guys here are expecting a feminist (dunno WHAT they mean by "self-styled") to actually call them up, as they clearly can't be bothered to go looking on their own!

Since when is some fascist Russion lunatic "The Left"? Another idiotic rightwing mantra.

I don't admire Rice's record, but I am in awe of her rise to power.

Elizabeth said...

Gee, Simon, you must have that Stop Souter thing on a hotkey. It's the second time you've posted it this week.

Keith Whitley wrote, and first recorded those lines, by the way. Krauss' version is lovely, though.

Diane Silver said...

I have to hand it to the Russian. He did the impossible and actually got me to think positively about Condi Rice. The man is a sexist fool,and I agree, Ann, that many people in this country might well believe the same.

And to all those folks who are taking this opportunity to slam feminists, I have to admit to being baffled. The Russian made a very sexist comment, and I am perfectly happy to defend Rice and be outraged about the comment.

I have no problem with the way our secretary of state looks. I am thrilled that a woman is secretary of state. My problem and anger and upset is with her policies and her support of George W. And yes, I am a feminist and, oh my gosh, I'm even a dreaded lesbian

reader_iam said...

Why would NOW note offensive statements of Zhirinovsky, as oppossed to anti-feminist nuts in Pakistan, or anti-feminist politicians who populate the rest of the world.

Um, because it's directed at an extremely powerful woman who also happens to be at the highest levels of our government?

You mean, NOW's not concerned anymore about how women in high places are treated, and how that reality might discourage other women from reaching that high?

Uh-uh. I don't buy it. It's because we're talking Condi here and not any number of other women involved in high levels of government, but on a different side.

Fenrisulven said...

The Russian is just whining b/c Condi kicked his ass.

37383938393839383938383 said...

How is it misogynistic to say that a specific woman is emotionally colder than sufficient to hold the position of a superpower's top diplomat? Diplomacy essentially requires people-skills. If Rice's emotional intelligence is so low that she is more concerned with her own public image (see the NY Times article on her calculated PR moves) than effectuating the policies of her nation and securing alliances with former superpowers with bruised egos because of it, then she shouldn't be in the position. This guy, while intemperate, is making a valid critique: the means he uses to do so may be over the top, but someone who is emotionally empty, has low emotional intelligence, and puts everything into her job because she has no life is not a balanced person who should be making decisions on behalf of all of us who do live ordinary lives, have ordinary concerns, and are other-directed toward our dependents. Rice is not a "powerful woman" as someone put it here, she is a public servant: the only reason public servants have power is to serve the interests of the public. Rice's power is not for her own self-centered use.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust a pediatrician who didn't have any children.

Aspasia M. said...

Sigh. Well, then alert the local chapter and ask for an condemnation. Of course any feminist or rogressive group would support a condemnation of Zhirinovsky. (In fact, really any group that is not certifiable will condemn Zhirinovsky - he's a loon.)

While Zhirinovsky really is a nut job, perhaps we should discuss the source of his crazy insults. He was attacking Rice because she criticized what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine's oil supply. What Russia is trying to do to Ukraine is appalling, and I hope Rice succeeds in stopping the Kremlin's attempted oppression of Ukraine.

Elizabeth said...

How is it misogynistic to say that a specific woman is emotionally colder than sufficient to hold the position of a superpower's top diplomat?

He blames this "coldness" on her unmarried status, for one.

What specific critiques of Rice's performance do you have, other than your list of "ifs"?

Your pediatrician analogy is silly. Are you actually arguing that a young person choosing a specialization in Med School should wait then until they'd reproduced to go into pediatrics? Would you not trust a psychiatrist who hadn't experienced a psychotic break? An oncologist who hadn't had cancer? I guess male gynecologists are untrustworthy, too.

amba said...

Andrew's Letterman joke made me laugh too, and I'd be happy to have Condi as President.

flory said...

Ann:
What on earth does that refer to? I can't even think of a rightwing author I celebrated.

Odd...I could have sworn I read something here in which you praised Kate O'Bierne's new book. I can't find it now so perhaps I was wrong. If so, and if you are as condemnatory of O'Biernes obnoxious comments regarding feminists as you are towards Zhirinovsky's obnoxious comments, then I apologize.

flory said...

flory - does anything "negate" the fact that leftists feel at liberty to hurl violently bigoted insults at Malkin simply because she's a conservative?
just asking.


My comment concerned whether or not conservatives are as guilty of disrespecting women based on their looks and/or sexuality as Larry beleives Eschatonians are.

What the hell does Malkin have to do with that?

WhatsAPundit said...

Can't quite bear to read all the contents, so pardon me if someone has already pointed out that Z. sounds like one intimidated Russian.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

For chrissakes -- you people thought nothing about going after Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton on their looks -- CHILDREN!!

I always thought Chelsea Clinton was kind of cute.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Coco: Charles - the way you post this makes it seem as if these are the only folks/groups who should be offended by such comments.

Sorry, no, posting that X offends me doesn't imply that it exhausts the set of things that offend me.

Nice try, though. Don Pardo will tell you about your lovely consolation prize.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

CAP was upset that an all-white male school was changing to let women and non-whites into the school. Not quite a simple debate about "affirmative action."

Which is why Laura Ingraham and Dinsh D'Souza got jobs with them.

Jeez, at least try to make sense.

Jamie said...

Could Zhirinovsky be entirely unschooled about Rice's background? criticalobserver, on what basis do you infer that Rice "puts everything into her job because she has no life [and] is not a balanced person"? First, I'd argue that a person with such varied talents and interests as Rice is arguably not putting everything into her job, and second, her status as a single person frees her to put an inordinate - to a married person with children - amount of time and energy into that job, don't you think? If she were a wife and/or a mother, I feel certain, based on her pure-D devotion to and mastery of pretty much everything she's done, she'd be as conscientious in her performance of the attendant duties as she is in her work life.

Elizabeth said...

Charlie,

Do you mean cute in a sugar and spice and everything nice way, or a John Derbyshire kind of way?

pst314 said...

"For chrissakes -- you people thought nothing about going after Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton on their looks"

Us people? Gee, thanks for lumping us all together.

I've known conservatives and liberals, and although I sometimes heard nasty comments and jokes from conservatives they were *nothing* compared to the foam-at-the-mouth hate and paranoia I've heard from liberals.

pst314 said...

"...and, oh my gosh, I'm even a dreaded lesbian"

You say that as if you think we will be horrified.

pst314 said...

"taken to barracks where she would be satisfied"

That reminds me of a Palestinian film that included the gang-rape of a female Israeli soldier in order to "make a woman of her." Perhaps that was what caused the local progressives to write such respectful reviews. /snark

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Zhirinovsky is crude. To approach seeing him as a 'leftie, no rightie' begins analysis in a fumbling but correct tool set way. Kuenhelt-Leddihn in his book 'Leftism: From deSade..to Hitler..' says that leftism from the French revolution to communism amd nazism is an 'identitarian' demand. You must be part of the identified correct group or you are nothing, to be sadistically treated. Condi Rice is different from 'Z,' so different as, by this, to threaten him; thus his comments which both express the wish to subdue her, glorifying his identity, and accept her if she enjoys this (not).

As to her not being like the trusted pediatrician with children, her early memories as a child in Birmingham where her little friends were killed in a bombing supporting an identitarianism might have made the point to her that to 'have children' does not mean you 'have' them unless there is a political structure which allows some different to 'have.' Thus the importance of exemplifying and supporting this political right is impressed on her and she becomes an Esther, who is mother to more than her own.

Eli Blake said...

pst314:

Must be a fictional film then, because I am not aware of any female Israeli soldier having been captured by Palestinians. The Israelis do an extraordinary job of preventing the capture of their soldiers, and when they are captured (mainly airmen who are shot down over, for example, Lebanon) they go to great lengths to get them back.

As for female Israeli soldiers (Israel is the only nation that has compulsory military service for women), that was originally due to their being hugely outnumbered by their enemies. However there was an incident in the 1967 (six day) war when they proved their value-- the Israeli men had been called up, and were fighting in the opening phases of the war in Sinai (they got up north a couple of days later), and a Syrian attack targetted a couple of Kibbutzes (collective farms) in Galilee. The defenders were a batallion of female reserve troops, plus a handful of old men. Anyway they held off a whole division of Syrian troops for almost a whole day until a regular army unit arrived and drove the Syrians back.

Steven said...

CriticalOberver:

Where did you get your ideas on what makes an effective diplomat? You sure don't seem to be describing Richelieu, Talleyrand, Bismarck, or any of the other diplomatic greats of history. Rice's job is to serve the interests of her country, not make foreign leaders feel good about themselves. A good diplomat is never unintentionally offensive, but one also never unintentionally takes offense; in both cases, it's a tactical matter.

knoxgirl said...

Silver said: "And yes, I am a feminist and, oh my gosh, I'm even a dreaded lesbian"

you don't read this blog too often do you?

reader_iam said...

CriticalObserver: There's so much off about your comment of 5:40 p.m. last evening that I don't even know where to begin.

So many assumptions, so much pseudopsychological analysis ... and the conclusions! Wow. I wouldn't trust someone who thinks like that to ... well, never mind.

The pediatrician comment was hilarious, though, given the realities of med school. How's that timing supposed to work, such that every pediatrician has children before launching his or her practice? Do they start in another area of medicine and move into pediatrics only after they've had children?

Or, are they supposed to make sure they have their kids during med school, internship and residency, when would-be pediatricians have copious time and resources to devote to his or her offspring?

There's a little thing called imagination, you know. Combine it with intelligence and education and it's possible to know about all sorts of things not personally experienced.

I'll bet Condi excels at that.

pst314 said...

Eli Blake said: Yes, the film was fictional, and I saw it about 20 years ago in a small theater that catered to "intellectuals" and "progressives". And just to be perfectly clear, the rapists were Palestinians. (But of course; otherwise the reviewers wouldn't have liked the film so much and the intellectuals would not have come to see it.)

Gerry said...

"CAP was upset that an all-white male school was changing to let women and non-whites into the school."

I understand that this is the assertion. However, and assertion is not proof, and should not be accepted at face value.

I was not at Princeton, nor was I one who paid much attention to Princeton, so it is very possible that I do not know what the 'real deal' was.

However, I do know that CAP had, as senior editors, Dinesh D'Souza, who is not white, and Laura Ingraham, who is a woman. As such, the assertion you made seems very hard to square with that.

What do you have to back up your assertion, beyond assertions other are making, and beyond the single article that Kennedy quoted as a serious article when it was, in fact, a satire?

Gerry said...

"I'm still waiting for the Right to condemn Rush Limbaugh for calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog" when she was twelve years old."

OK, here, let me provide you what you want.

Rush Limbaugh was being a contemptable pig when he said such things. Further, Sen. John McCain made jokes about her appearance as well, which is one of the many reasons that he will never be a candidate with significant appeal to me.

Anything else I can do for you? Now, how about some of the proof of your assertions re:CAP that I requested? Thanks!

ex-democrat said...

flory - who cares? my question is about you and the difficulty you clearly have in responding in a straightforward way to a straighforward question.

LizardAbroad said...

The problem is, is that this is a guy who's made a career out of saying what a very large number of Russians think. These are the New Soviet Men that communism built. It is a hopeless country chock full of idiots.

Theo Boehm said...

George Bush has said, “Condi Rice is one of the finest human beings I’ve known,” and, “The United States is lucky to have her service.” There are many things about which I differ with the President. From what I know of Dr. Rice, however, I couldn't agree more.

We can have a discussion of a political figure’s personal life and what that says about him or her. We can also debate the traditional need for politicians to be married and whether that is an anachronism. We might look at the various double standards as they apply to female politicians. We could even consider whether a potential President of the United States has sufficient personal emotional support in his or her life to withstand the stress of the office.

To use the occasion of Zhirinovsky’s vile remarks about Secretary Rice to engage in any meaningful discussion of these issues is, in my opinion, complete humbug.

Zhirinovsky is not simply a “whackjob,” a “loon,” a “nutcase,” or any other such dismissive term. This is also not a matter of his being "right" or "left." We should see him for what he is and for what his words truly mean. He is evil.

For anyone, much less a public figure, to say such things in the modern world is sickening. The fact that the object of Zhirinovsky’s bile is a powerful, accomplished and talented woman makes it no less contemptible than if it had been directed at someone weak, helpless and foolish.

God help us all.

surfbum said...

Perhaps old Vald is more than a little afraid that this spawn of the hated America will upstage their beloved and infamous, ‘Catherine the Great’ or perhaps it is an inadvertent admission of awe and respect that he claims she has similar tastes and strengths to the former Russian Empress.

As to who did the raping would surely be in doubt when it is revealed “ Ms Rice momentarily eludes her captors to lock the barracks door – from the inside”. The poor fools didn’t they see the photo of her in ‘those boots.’

Ahh Condi the great, whether against man or beast – always on top!

Ohh shower time!

Aspasia M. said...

I've been working today, so I'm sorry that this post is late. I can't keep up with blogs!

Gerry quoted me...

"CAP was upset that an all-white male school was changing to let women and non-whites into the school."

And Gerry asked:

"What do you have to back up your assertion, beyond assertions other are making, and beyond the single article that Kennedy quoted as a serious article when it was, in fact, a satire?"

If you're interested, there are some relevant articles at the Daily Princtonian.com.

See, in particular, a article on November 22, 2005 by Stephen R. Dujack. Dujack was the ASsociate editor of the Princeton ALumni Weekly from 1976 -80. In 1973 CAP's member magazine quoted a co-founder of CAP, Shelby Cullom Davis, as writing that he could not "envisage" a future student body of 40 percent women and minorities.

Also see an article from the Daily Princetonian.com by Chanakya Sethi. Again, the writer quotes statements by Shelby Collum Davis, a co-chair of CAP. Collum Davis also founded _Prospect_ the member magazine of CAP in October of 1972.

There is also a bit of discussion of Frist and Bill Bradley both denouncing CAP.

Anyways, sorry for diverting the thread. I know that this is not the main topic of conversation. But I wanted to put down the references in case anyone wanted to read the sources.

(By the way, why is this thread taking the Condi v. Hillary match-up so seriously? I believe Condi when she says she doesn't want to run.

You'd think that Morris's book was some sort of work of genius.)

esmense said...

What a minute. Doesn't this sound amazingly like some of the ugly blatherings from the Right about Hilary Clinton?

And isn't it conservative Kate O'Beirne who has been going around recently claiming that liberal women who see the issues differently than she does do so because they weren't "invited to the prom?"

The simple fact is that women who step out on the public stage, especially if they do so in any genuinely effective way, become targets for this kind of stupidity.

The reasons for that don't, I believe, have anything to do with political ideology. They go deeper than that.

Personally, I find it most disturbing when, as with O'Beirne, public women work to undermine respect for other public women.

They never seem to realize that in doing so they are undermining themselves, as well as respect for women in general.

Theo Boehm said...

While there have been very nasty remarks made by people on the political right about liberal female political figures, I personally have never seen anything so vile as Zhirinovsky's statements. Kate O'Beirne goes after Hillary Clinton hammer and tong, but her partisan attacks are more or less what one has come to expect in political life.

Kate O'Beirne denies that there are specifically "women's" issues on which women should, as a matter of course, agree. She maintains that many women have differing opinions on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, etc., and that female politicians who purport to represent women as a group cannot in any honesty make such a claim. She delights in pointing out what she maintains is the hypocrisy and humbug of Sens. Clinton, Feinstein, et al., and, yes, she attempts to undermine respect for them. She wants people to vote them out of office.

Speaking of humbug, I hasten to add that much of what Kate O'Beirne writes falls in that category. She overstates. She distorts. She engages in every conceivable rhetorical trick to sell her point of view. I find her distasteful, like many another one-dimensional, stupid partisan writer.

That said, the fact that she attacks women politicians with whom she disagrees does not mean she is anti-woman. If women enter the political arena, they should find that they will, and ought as a matter of course, be criticized. The columns of Kate O'Beirne that I've read have all been in the rock-'em sock-'em tradition of American politics. I've read a thousand articles along the lines of Ms. O'Beirn's work attacking everyone from George Washington to George Bush. It seems to me that if male politicians have been obliged to take such abuse in our democracy female ones should too.

There remains, however, a huge moral chasm between spirited or even mean-spirited partisan attack and the suggestion of gang rape. The one may be distasteful and unfortunate, but the other is sickening and vile. I do hope we can see the difference.

esmense said...

Theo --

You don't find the ocean of crude, pornographic sexual speculation about Clinton, the non-stop personal sexual disparagement, the claims that Chelsea could only have been conceived by rape, etc., etc. that has been a mainstay on the Right for YEARS "sickening and vile?" You actually think these intimate sexual attacks are only "unfortunate?" And somehow a legitimate part of political debate?

Partisanship sure does make one blind, doesn't it?

I consider these kind of verbal sexual assaults against public women vile no matter where the woman may stand on the political spectrum. As a woman I understand that they are meant not only to harm the women they are aimed at, but to discourage ALL women from participation in the public arena.

The reasons for such intimate and sexual attacks against public women are two-fold; 1) to humiliate them and undermine their moral and intellectual authority, 2)to warn off other women (who are not in agreement with or supporters of the attacker) with the threat of public humiliation.

Shirinovsky's attack, however colorfully expressed or translated, that Ms. Rice only seeks public power because she is deficient in sexual power and attraction, is the same one made over and over and over again against women in public life. One that is, in fact, made over and over again on an almost daily basis in the braying reaches of conservative media.

Theo Boehm said...

The point of my comment was that ANY such attack as was launched against Secretary Rice is morally wrong and reprehensible. That such bile was directed against liberal political women in the past, and may be in the future, does not diminsh the point. The subject of this post is Dr. Rice. If it were Mrs. Clinton or "someone weak, helpless and foolish," I would say the same thing.

It is an error to confuse legitimate POLITICAL attacks, such as the Kate O'Beirne piece linked to in my previous comment, with the hideous personal insults exemplified by Zhirinovsky's comments. I tried to say that an excess of POLITICAL zeal is "unfortunate," but fantasizing about gang rape in public is VILE. There is a difference. A political woman should not be excused from controversy but should never be the subject of this venom.

What crosses a line between the political and the morally reprehensible? That is a subject we're not going to address adequately with one-liners in a blog comment. For me, Zhirinovsky's remarks are beyond the pale. I'm sure we can find many other examples about which we may or may not agree, but I think a bright line has been crossed in this case.

I have tried to present this in a non-partisan way. That may be a novelty for some, especially in the blog world, but nonpartisanship is one of the charms of this blog. I've tried to comment in that spirit. If people want to read the usual "left" or "right" categories into what I say, then that is very much their issue.

esmense said...

Theo --

Kate O'Beine, with her prom remark, made the point much, much more mildly -- but she was still engaging in the same behavior and making the very same point as this Russian loon. She was denigrating her political opponents sexually as a way of denigrating and humiliating them politically.

There is no moral distinction between her debased mode of argument and that of Zhirinovsky. He is only cruder.

And, of course, if we were able to challenge him directly on his rape remark he would provide exactly the same defense as O'Beirn would use for her remark; that it was only humor.

His his idea of humor cruder and more offensive than O'Beirn's? Yes. But his idea of what constitutes appropiate political argument isn't much different.

37383938393839383938383 said...

1. I never claimed that all aspiring pediatricians must have children before they become full-fledged pediatricians. That's a straw-man. Let me be clear: Given that there are many pediatricians in the market, if I had to choose between a pediatrician with children and a pediatrician without, I would send my children to a pediatrician with children. If you cannot understand why, I suspect that you do not have children.

2. Someone here supposed that Condi Rice offended this Russian minister on purpose. Perhaps. Or perhaps she offended him because she is a bad diplomat. Maybe if she had a higher emotional intelligence, she would not have offended him. After all, this is the person who advised the President to go hard on the Chinese after our spy plane landed in Chinese territory, and we ended up having to apologize publicly to the Chinese for their own pilot's ineptitude.

3. As for the "single people can do jobs just as well" argument, I never claimed that Condi Rice lacked the skills to do the job. I defended the Russian public minister's argument. Though he may be a whack-job, not every argument he makes is invalid. It is not a ridiculous claim to make that someone with low emotional intelligence and an aberrant lifestyle may pursue policies that a more in-the-mainstream person sensitive to the concerns of ordinary Americans would not. Indeed, many Americans vote for President explicitly on that basis: if the candidate seems too cold and stiff, they vote for the more affable person. If one candidate seems comfortable talking about God and the other seems to be a strict rationalist, they vote for the former. The reasoning is inductive, or based on one's assessment of what is likely to be true. Because it is not deductive reasoning, trying to invalidate it like a syllogism -- as many of you have tried unsuccessfully to do -- is pointless.

4. Your inability to interpret reasonably the argument made only confirms the point: single, lonely people think bizarrely and are likelier to use power that is the public's for their own aberrant ends.

Laura B. said...

I'm a left-wing, bleeding heart liberal, and I'd be the first to help Condi out of her jam with the company of soldiers...I'll give her a condom so she doesn't get pregnant...and if that doesn't work I'll be right there defending her right to abort any fetuses so unfortunate to have her as a mother.