“If you want to discredit a group, get one of their own to attack them.” must be a theme whenever it comes to women protesting for their rights. When George W. Bush first became president, he used this “idea” when many women marched on the National Mall pertaining to abortion rights; he had put Karen Hughes in front of the cameras to which she compared the group of women to terrorists. In a similar situation, Texas Governor Rick Perry used the same “idea” when numerous women were present at the capitol bolstering State Senator Wendy Davis’s thirteen hour filibuster and trying to prevent the reduction of abortion and reproductive health rights; just like Hughes, Cathie Adams spoke out about the situation, but this time, she called them as Feminist-Nazis and so forth.
First off, it surprises me how the president and state
governor both used this “idea” pertaining to the group of female protesters. I mean,
getting another female (an authority that is) to speak out negatively to the
group of women? In my opinion, that’s kind of immature. Why not just speak out
to them yourself? I personally believe that everyone has the right to speak
upon what they believe, even if it is just mad talk. Sure, both of the
spokeswomen had their right to say whatever they pleased, but it’s the fact
that the two were seen as a “solution” to the problem. Both of the men should
have resolved the situation themselves instead of having other people do it for
them. I mean, one was the President of the United States, and the other is
Governor of Texas. Need I say more?
Another thing about the article was that comparing the group
of female protesters to terrorists-group is kind of inappropriate. As I stated
before, everyone has the right to an opinion. And in this case, the female
protesters have the right to voice about what they believe in. Sure, others may
strongly disagree but that’s their opinion. No one person is the same as the
next. But when people with similar ideas come together, something is bound to
change.
While I generally agree with your egalitarian sentiments that opinions are equal in value, I can't help but consider circumstances in which some opinions are valued more highly than others. For instance, were I sick, I would have greater regard as to the opinion of a medical practitioner. In the case you present here, the general idea is that women have more authority to speak on women's issues by virtue of their being women. Were a man to speak on the subject, his authority would be suspect simply by virtue of his being the wrong gender. Why is that the case? How effective is this strategy on the part of Bush and Perry? Do you use a similar strategy or share a similar sentiment?
ReplyDelete