Sex And The Sissy

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

D. Spencer Hines - 25 May 2008 05:02 GMT

One of Peggy Noonan's Best Columns.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------------------------------

Peggy NOONAN

The Wall Street Journal

Sex and the Sissy

May 23, 2008

She was born in Russia, fled the pogroms with her family, was raised in
Milwaukee, and worked the counter at her father's general store when she was
8. In early adulthood she made aliyah to Palestine, where she worked on a
kibbutz, picking almonds and chasing chickens. She rose in politics, was the
first woman in the first Israeli cabinet, soldiered on through war and
rumors of war, became the first and so far only woman to be prime minister
of Israel. And she knew what it is to be a woman in the world. "At work, you
think of the children you've left at home. At home you think of the work
you've left unfinished. . . . Your heart is rent." This of course was Golda
Meir.

Another: She was born in a family at war with itself and the reigning power
outside. As a child she carried word from her important father to his fellow
revolutionaries, smuggling the papers in her school bag. War and rumors of
war, arrests, eight months in jail. A rise in politics -- administering
refugee camps, government minister. When war came, she refused to flee an
insecure border area; her stubbornness helped rally a nation. Her rivals
sometimes called her "Dumb Doll," and an American president is said to have
referred to her in private as "the old witch." But the prime minister of
India preferred grounding her foes to dust to complaining about gender bias.
In the end, and in the way of things, she was ground up too. Proud woman,
Indira Gandhi.

And there is Margaret Hilda Roberts. A childhood in the besieged Britain of
World War II -- she told me once of listening to the wireless and being
roused by Churchill. "Westward look, the land is bright," she quoted him;
she knew every stanza of the old poem. Her father, too, was a shopkeeper,
and she grew up in the apartment above the store near the tracks. She went
to Oxford on scholarship, worked as a chemist, entered politics, rose,
became another first and only, succeeding not only in a man's world but in a
class system in which they knew how to take care of ambitious little
grocer's daughters from Grantham. She was to a degree an outsider within her
own party, so she remade it. She lived for ideas as her colleagues lived for
comfort and complaint. The Tories those days managed loss. She wanted to
stop it; she wanted gain. Just before she became prime minister, the
Soviets, thinking they were deftly stigmatizing an upstart, labeled her the
Iron Lady. She seized the insult and wore it like a hat. This was Thatcher,
stupendous Thatcher, now the baroness.

Great women, all different, but great in terms of size, of impact on the
world and of struggles overcome. Struggle was not something they read about
in a book. They did not use guilt to win election -- it comes up zero if you
Google "Thatcher" and "You're just picking on me because I'm a woman."
Instead they used the appeals men used: stronger leadership, better ideas, a
superior philosophy.

* * *

You know where I'm going, for you know where she went. Hillary Clinton
complained again this week that sexism has been a major dynamic in her
unsuccessful bid for political dominance. She is quoted by the Washington
Post's Lois Romano decrying the "sexist" treatment she received during the
campaign, and the "incredible vitriol that has been engendered" by those who
are "nothing but misogynists." The New York Times reported she told
sympathetic bloggers in a conference call that she is saddened by the
"mean-spiritedness and terrible insults" that have been thrown "at you, for
supporting me, and at women in general."

Where to begin? One wants to be sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton at this point,
if for no other reason than to show one's range. But her last weeks have
been, and her next weeks will likely be, one long exercise in summoning
further denunciations. It is something new in politics, the How Else Can I
Offend You Tour. And I suppose it is aimed not at voters -- you don't
persuade anyone by complaining in this way, you only reinforce what your
supporters already think -- but at history, at the way history will tell the
story of the reasons for her loss.

So, to address the charge that sexism did her in:

It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else
this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.

It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood,
both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly
without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.

It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they'd
give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer
suburbs voted for her, men so backward they'd call a woman a lady. And all
of them so naturally courteous that they'd realize, in offering the chair or
addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke
at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got
her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say
thanks.

It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton's supporters are now complaining about the
Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a
woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda
nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as
party favors.

It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking
responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to
say "Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the
leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear
the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls."

And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately,
undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source
were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to
say anything to gain advantage.

* * *

It is probably truer that being a woman helped Mrs. Clinton. She was the
front-runner anyway and had all the money, power, Beltway backers. But the
fact that she was a woman helped give her supporters the special oomph to be
gotten from making history. They were by definition involved in something
historic. And they were on the right side, connected to the one making the
breakthrough, shattering the glass. They were going to be part of breaking
it into a million little pieces that could rain down softly during the
balloon drop at the historic convention, each of them catching the glow of
the lights. Some network reporter was going to say, "They look like pieces
of the glass ceiling that has finally been shattered."

I know: Barf. But also: Fine. Politics should be fun.

Meir and Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher suffered through the political downside of
their sex and made the most of the upside. Fair enough. As for this week's
Clinton complaints, I imagine Mrs. Thatcher would bop her on the head with
her purse. Mrs. Gandhi would say "That is no way to play it." Mrs. Meir?
"They said I was the only woman in the cabinet and the only one with --
well, you know. I loved it."

Reply to this Message

ebe - 25 May 2008 05:45 GMT

> One of Peggy Noonan's Best Columns.
>
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> "They said I was the only woman in the cabinet and the only one with --
> well, you know. I loved it."

Hi,

The most important aspect of the next president is going to be
leadership. The problem of increasing oil prices has shown the premise
of the movie "Three Days of the Condor" to be correct. So, people are
going to be more concerned with results, not perceived toughness.

Reply to this Message

Nebulous - 26 May 2008 00:10 GMT

"ebe" <miniskirt7a@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bcef929d-a38c-4649-8976-

5, 25 January, Holyrood, Colloquium
Additional Record
25 January 1285
[A1285/1]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding]

Letters: resignation and regrant
To all who see or hear these letters, to Giles Cornet son and heir of of the
late John Cornet, eternal greeting in the Lord. Know that on the day of the
conversion of St Paul [25 January] in the year of grace 1284 in the church
of Holyrood in Edinburgh, at the king's colloquium, in the presence of
trustworthy men, namely in the presence of Sir Malise, then earl of
Strathearn, Sir John Comyn, Sir William de Soules, then justiciar of
Lothian, Sir John Comyn of Buchan, Sir William Comyn of Kirkintilloch, Sir
Hugh de Perisby, Sir John de Stirling, and many other king's men, I vacated,
quitclaimed and resigned by rod and staff for me and my heirs in perpetuity,
all my right and claim which I had, have or may be able to have hereafter in
the lands of Mylis, with the pertinents, which were the said late Sir Miles
Cornet's, or any reservation, into the hand of Alexander Comyn, earl of
Buchan, then the constable and justiciar of Scotland, for infefting William
Preston, my kinsman, with the proviso that neither I nor my heirs nor anyone
of our name may henceforth exact or sell right or claim in the said lands.
In testimony of which I have appended my seal to this letter of resignation
and quitclaim. Witnesses written [above].

[Tag in 'patent' style. Seal gone.]

Reply to this Message

William Black - 25 May 2008 12:09 GMT

> And there is Margaret Hilda Roberts. A childhood in the besieged Britain
> of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Thatcher,
> stupendous Thatcher, now the baroness.

That is so misleading as to be almost criminal.

Thatcher's dad wasn't a shopkeeper who lived in an apartment over the shop.
he had,. at one stage, five shops and lived in a large five bedroomed
house with a shop on the front which he had built to his own design.

She went to Oxford and was president of the Conservative Association there,
which is as direct a route to the levers of power within the Tory party that
you could find. That she then spent ten years finding out she was a crap
chemist, marrying a millionaire, taking up the law and was subsequently
given a safe seat within ten years of leaving university.

In other words she was treated in a preferential manner by the Tories
because of her background.

I'm interested in the 'scholarship' to Oxford. If she had the requisite
qualifications (and entry to the all the Oxbridge colleges is competitive)
why did she need a scholarship?

It can't have been money, her dad was a successful businessman who'd been a
alderman in Grantham for many years.

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Reply to this Message

James Hogg - 25 May 2008 12:56 GMT

>> And there is Margaret Hilda Roberts. A childhood in the besieged Britain
>> of
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>qualifications (and entry to the all the Oxbridge colleges is competitive)
>why did she need a scholarship?

In my day (1970s) an Oxbridge scholarship meant that you did well in
the entrance exam and won an annual sum of money. After the abolition
of tuition fees, this was a nominal sum, 60 quid a year - just enough
to pay your college bar bill at the end of the year. A lesser award
was an exhibition, worth 40 quid.

In Maggie's day I suppose it meant more, financially, to win a
scholarship to Oxford.

An interesting detail is that she won a full scholarship despite
opposition from her headmaster.

James

Reply to this Message

William Black - 25 May 2008 13:09 GMT

> An interesting detail is that she won a full scholarship despite
> opposition from her headmaster.

That's almost certainly fallout from her father's political career.

Headmasterships in British state grammar schools are given by the board of
governors of the school, and the board of governors were, at that time,
dominated by political appointees.

These days, with 'parental governors' and 'elective places' it's all a bit
different but many school governors are still political appointments.

Signature

Reply to this Message

kronecker@yahoo.co.uk - 25 May 2008 19:49 GMT

On May 25, 11:09 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> > And there is Margaret Hilda Roberts. A childhood in the besieged Britain
> > of
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

Scholarships are not kust for the money, but to show that you are one
of the best. You get your own special room at college and it goes down
on your cv.

K.

Reply to this Message

Nebulous - 26 May 2008 00:12 GMT

<kronecker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:476481e6-e869-4a6b-940a-

1291, 12 July - 1292, 13 October, Berwick, 'Parliaments'
Additional Record
12 July 1291 - 13 October 1292
[A1292/6/1]*[print] [email] [cite] [following]

Non-parliamentary record
The terminology used by Edward I with regard to the assemblies that
constituted the fora for the Great Cause is confused. On receiving varying
petitions for the kingship of Scotland on 12 July and 3 August 1291, Edward
appointed 2 June 1292 at Berwick 'in proximo parliamento suo' to give
judgement, which could imply he considered the 12 July and/or 3 August
assemblies also to be 'parliaments' (Foedera, i, 774, 777). On 2 June 1292,
however, the process on a petition from Eric, king of Norway, undertaken by
Edward I at Berwick (and described as a proceeding of parliament in
Stevenson, Documents, i, 312-17 (original TNA (PRO), C66/111/1, translated
in CPR, 1281-1292, 501-2) in fact states it was made before Edward I's
council in his role as superior lord of Scotland, and does not use the word
'parliamentum'. Letters of Alexander of Argyll and Alexander and Donald of
the Isles, on 29 December 1291 promised to keep the peace between them in
their lands until the next 'parlement' at Berwick in September 1292.
Nevertheless, the full narration of the meetings of the Great Cause does not
use the phrase 'parliamentum' at any point, but rather speaks of the persons
'convenientibus' (Foedera, i, 762-8). The term 'parliamentum' or 'parlement'
is therefore used only in records that refer to the assemblies, rather than
in the official documents which record the assemblies' transactions, and
where greater care, perhaps, was taken with terminology. The case for
calling these meetings 'parliaments', therefore, appears less certain that
Richardson, Sayles, and Stevenson believed (Richardson and Sayles, 'Scottish
parliaments of Edward I', 307-8, SHR, xxv (1928); Stevenson, Documents, i,
312).

Reply to this Message

Nebulous - 26 May 2008 00:11 GMT

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:g1bhc2

Margaret: Translation
1290, 14 March, Birgham, 'Parliament'?
Parliamentary Records
14 March 1290
[1290/3/1]*[print] [email] [cite] [following]

Letters: confirmation of the treaty of Salisbury
To all those who see or hear this letter, William [Fraser], bishop of St
Andrews, and Robert [Wishart], bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn and James the
Steward of Scotland, guardians of the kingdom of Scotland, Matthew [de
Crambeth], bishop of Dunkeld, Archibald, bishop of Moray, Henry [Cheyne],
bishop of Aberdeen, William, bishop of Dunblane, Mark, bishop of Man [or the
Isles], Henry, bishop of Galloway, William [Comyn], bishop of Brechin, Alan
[de St Edmund], bishop of Caithness, Robert [de Fyvie], bishop of Ross, and
Laurence [de Argyll], bishop of Argyll, Malise, earl of Strathearn, Patrick
[de Dunbar], earl of Dunbar [or March], John Comyn, earl of Buchan, Donald,
earl of Mar, Gilbert [de Umfraville], earl of Angus, John [de Strathbogie],
earl of Atholl, Walter [Comyn], earl of Menteith, Robert [Bruce], earl of
Carrick, William, earl of Sutherland, John, earl of Caithness, [Richard],
abbot of Kelso, [Patrick de Selkirk], abbot of Melrose, [Radulph de
Greenlaw], abbot of Dunfermline, [Henry], abbot of Arbroath, the abbot of
Holyrood,? [John], abbot of Cambuskenneth, [Andrew de Buchan], abbot of
Coupar Angus, the abbot of Dryburgh,? the abbot of Newbattle,? the abbot of
Paisley,? [John Morel], abbot of Jedburgh, [John], abbot of Lindores,
[Thomas], abbot of Balmerino, the abbot of Glenluce, the abbot of
Kilwinning, [Hugh], abbot of Inchaffray, the abbot of Culross, the abbot of
Dundrennan, the abbot of 'Darnounguille', the abbot of Kinloss, the abbot of
Deer,? the abbot of Iona, [Alexander], abbot of Tongland, [John de
Haddington], prior of St Andrews, [Henry de Horncastre], prior of
Coldingham, the prior of Lesmahagow, the prior of Pluscarden,? the prior of
Beauly, the prior of 'Hurwarde' [?Urquhart], the prior of Whithorn,? the
prior of Restenneth, the prior of May, the prior of Canonbie, the prior of
Blantyre, Robert de Bruce, lord of Annandale, William de Moray, William de
Soules, Alexander de Argyll, Alexander de Balliol de Cavers, Geoffrey de
Mowbray, Nicholas de Graham, Nicholas de Biggar, Ingeram de Balliol, Richard
Siward, Herbert de Maxwell, David the Marischal, Ingeram de Gynes, Thomas
Randolph, William Comyn de Kirkintilloch, Simon Fraser, Bernard Cheyne, the
father, Ranald Cheyne, the son, Andrew de Moray, John de Soules, Nicholas de
le Hay, William de Hay of Loquhariot, Robert Cameron of Balgligiruauthe,
William de Sinclair, Patrick de Graham, John Stirling de le Cars, John of
Callander, John de Melville, John Stewart, John de Glenesk, Alexander de
Boncle, Bertram de Cardveres, Donald 'le fiz Con', Magnus de Fothrif, Robert
Fleming, William de Moray de Drumsergard, David de Beaton, William de
Douglas, Alexander de Lindsay, Alexander Menteith, Alexander de Menzies,
William de Muhaut, Thomas de Somerville, John Inchmartin, John de Vaus, John
de Moray, Malcolm de Ferendrauthe and John de Garnihauche, barons, greeting
in our eternal Lord. Know us to have affirmed and established the thing
treated and accorded not long ago at Salisbury concerning the arrangement of
the standing of our dear lady Madam Margaret queen and heiress of Scotland,
and of her kingdom, in the presence of the noble prince my lord Edward, by
the grace of God king of England, in the form written below, which is such:

When the noble prince Eric [II], king of Norway and Margaret, and his
daughter, lady queen heiress of Scotland, had asked by solemn messengers
(that is to say Sir Terri de Champs de Jeu,? Piers Algod and Guthorn de
Aseleye) the noble prince Sir Edward, the king of England, that he appoint,
aid and counsel how the aforesaid queen, his niece should obey as lady,
queen and heiress of her kingdom of Scotland, and so she can rule and enjoy
[it] as other kings do in their kingdoms, the aforesaid king of England, for
the good and peace of the kingdom of Scotland, and for addressing the estate
of his aforesaid niece, sent his letters to the guardians of Scotland that
they should send certain named persons, who had power for themselves and
others for treating in any form for amending the realm of Scotland and
addressing the estate of the aforesaid queen. Which guardians, at the
request of the said king of England, sent, in the manner that they were
requested, the honourable fathers the bishop of St Andrews and the bishop of
Glasgow, and the noble men Sir Robert de Bruce, lord of Annandale, and Sir
John Comyn, who came to Salisbury at the month of St Michael [Michaelmas, 29
September] last passed. To which place the said king of England sent the
honourable fathers [John of Pontoise] bishop of Winchester and [Anthony Bek]
bishop of Durham, and the noble men William de Valence, earl of Pembroke,
and John [de Warenne] earl of Warenne, who came to the same place of parley
for treating between the aforesaid messengers of the king of Norway and his
daughter and the aforenamed persons of Scotland, who, after much discussion
and great debate, submitted in this way:

That the aforesaid lady, queen and heiress, come to the kingdom of England
or Scotland before next All Saints' Day [1 November 1290], quit and free of
all contract of marriage and espousal, which thing the aforesaid messengers
of Norway have promised to procure in good faith, in so far as they can,
during the aforesaid term, if she does not have a reasonable and allowable
excuse in this part.

And the aforesaid king of England has promised in good faith that if the
aforesaid lady comes, quit and free of all contract of marriage and espousal
in her hand or in her custody, that when the kingdom of Scotland is in good
and secure peace, with the proviso that she can come and stay there safely
then, he is to be required by the good men of Scotland to send her to the
kingdom of Scotland also quit and delivered of all contract of marriage
(concerning which it is spoken above), as he received her, with the proviso
that the good people of Scotland have made good and sufficient surety for
receiving her to the king of England that they will not marry her without
his ordinance, desire and counsel, and by the assent of the king of Norway,
her father.

And also those [men sent]? from Scotland have promised in good faith for
themselves and for the other people of Scotland that they, before she comes,
shall secure the land, and shall make surety there that she can come safely
into her kingdom, and safely remain there, as the true lady, queen and
heiress; and that concerning this they shall make all the sureties which the
messengers of Norway say they are able to make, and which are reasonable.

And if perchance any one or more of the guardians or ministers of the
kingdom of Scotland shall be suspect to them, or not profitable to their
lady, that they be removed, and others of the realm of Scotland be put in
their place, according to need, at the consideration and by the agreement of
the good men of Scotland and Norway, and of those that the king of England
sends there.

And if those of Scotland and Norway are not able to agree by the aid and
counsel of the men? of the king of England, then the matter shall be taken
in the way which the men of the king of England agree. And they are to
attend also concerning all the debates that shall be between them there,
concerning the things that touch the reformation of the estate of the
Scottish kingdom; which estate of the kingdom, it pleases the parties,
should be reported to the king of England and also the king of Norway.

And moreover, the parties agree that at mid Lent? next the men of Scotland
shall come to Roxburgh, or the parts thereabouts, and the men whom the king
of Scotland shall send, at the request of those of Scotland or Norway, shall
be in the parts of Wark or Carham on the same day. At which day those of
Scotland have promised in good faith to affirm and accomplish the things
said before, and also well establish the sureties, with the other things
that touch the amendment of the kingdom of Scotland, in the presence of
those who the king of England has sent there at the day and place named
before, so they can see that these things are accomplished in good form.

And in testimony of the things written above the aforesaid procurators of
the king of Norway and the envoys of Scotland have set their seals to this
chirograph? writing in three pieces, of which two are in French provided to
the king of England and the men of Scotland, and the third, translated into
Latin, to the procurators of Norway. And, at the request of the aforesaid
procurators of Norway and the envoys of Scotland, the bishops of Winchester
and Durham, and the earls of Pembroke and Warenne, as written above, have
also set their seals to this writing in testimony of the things written
above.

Given at Salisbury, the Sunday in the feast of St Leonard [6 November], AD
1289.

And for the greater surety and firmness of the things written above, we have
put these our seals to these letters. Given at Brigham, on the first Tuesday
after the feast of St Gregory, AD 1289 [14 March 1290]

Reply to this Message

Nebulous - 26 May 2008 00:09 GMT

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:ly5_j.1007$

65, after March 5, Scone, 'Parliament'
Additional Record
After 5 March 1265
[A1265/1]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]

Non-parliamentary record: correspondence of Henry III
Letter of Henry III to the prior of Durham, commanding him and other envoys
to attend Alexander III's 'parliament' at Scone, to encourage the Scottish
king to embark on negotiations for the release of Scottish hostages (CDS, i,
no. 2379).

Reply to this Message

History Forum / General / British History / May 2008

Sex And The Sissy