So, a few minutes ago, my wife told me about a conversation she had with a family friend. That friend, a woman and a therapist, said that Condoleeza Rice should have been the GOP vice presidential pick, but that she was "too tight" and needed to go somewhere and have someone give her a toe-curling orgasm.

I thought it was funny (and I don't necessarily disagree), but something immediately struck me...

Back in 2006, Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirovsky said about Condoleezza Rice that "[She] is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention." He said "Condoleeza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."

While the context in which a world-renowned political leader would make such comments certainly made his more offensive and potentially damaging, I think the content and implication are pretty identical to those of our friend! And, most importantly, I think there's a double standard in that Zhirovsky's comment raised complaints of sexism, but that my wife's friend's comments would not have.

My wife disagrees.

What do you all think?
[Edited 9/5/08 17:34pm]

While the context in which a world-renowned political leader would make such comments certainly made his more offensive and potentially damaging, I think the content and implication are pretty identical to those of our friend! And, most importantly, I think there's a double standard in that Zhirovsky's comment raised complaints of sexism, but that my wife's friend's comments would not have.

So, a few minutes ago, my wife told me about a conversation she had with a family friend. That friend, a woman and a therapist, said that Condoleeza Rice should have been the GOP vice presidential pick, but that she was "too tight" and needed to go somewhere and have someone give her a toe-curling orgasm.

I thought it was funny (and I don't necessarily disagree), but something immediately struck me...

Back in 2006, Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirovsky said about Condoleezza Rice that "[She] is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention." He said "Condoleeza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."

While the context in which a world-renowned political leader would make such comments certainly made his more offensive and potentially damaging, I think the content and implication are pretty identical to those of our friend! And, most importantly, I think there's a double standard in that Zhirovsky's comment raised complaints of sexism, but that my wife's friend's comments would not have.

My wife disagrees.

What do you all think?
[Edited 9/5/08 17:34pm]

I'm winning so far. She owes me gelato tomorrow.
[Edited 9/5/08 18:49pm]

So, a few minutes ago, my wife told me about a conversation she had with a family friend. That friend, a woman and a therapist, said that Condoleeza Rice should have been the GOP vice presidential pick, but that she was "too tight" and needed to go somewhere and have someone give her a toe-curling orgasm.

I thought it was funny (and I don't necessarily disagree), but something immediately struck me...

Back in 2006, Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirovsky said about Condoleezza Rice that "[She] is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention." He said "Condoleeza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."

While the context in which a world-renowned political leader would make such comments certainly made his more offensive and potentially damaging, I think the content and implication are pretty identical to those of our friend! And, most importantly, I think there's a double standard in that Zhirovsky's comment raised complaints of sexism, but that my wife's friend's comments would not have.

My wife disagrees.

What do you all think?
[Edited 9/5/08 17:34pm]

I think Condoleezza Rice presents a bit of an issue for a Western society that tends to have limited views of women, or really, women of color in general. Far smarter people than I have more eloquently talked about overtly sexual pictures of black women in pop culture. If she's not a freak, she's a mammy character (see Oprah).

Western society doesn't know what to make of such a presumably single, allegedly celibate, powerful woman. Especially a black one.

Is it sexist to suggest that Rice is in need of sexual liberation because she comes off as being very businesslike, professional and stiff? Yeah, I'd say it's sexist, especially when the context is of that liberation coming from men "having their way with her." The very concept is all about subjugation: "Yeah, you might be secretary of state, but you won't be 'right' or 'whole' until I ravage you..." Aaron MacGruder's Boondocks strip suggested something similar about her during Bush's first term.




No one suggests President Bush or Dick Cheney's questionable policies would be reformed, if they spent some time being dominated by their wives. It's a sexist model.

But the popular argument is she's frigid. The whole thing is inappropriate to me. The drooling I hear conservative radio hosts do over her is equally so. So, she gets turned into the personification of some frigid wasteland that needs conquering by men. It's a beat away from suggesting a woman who rejects a man is a lesbian.

For all we know, Rice has us all fooled and has a healthy, satisfying sex life. I'm more concerned with her relative failure on the foreign policy front not being acknowledged enough to silence this foolish talk about her being qualified for higher office.
[Edited 9/6/08 8:51am]

Good stuff. And not one, but TWO visual aids!

A lotta free time this weekend, eh?

poor condi. she came to canada and all
anyone could do was muse about whether she
was getting it on with the foreign affairs minister.



she must have a pretty thick skin to it after all these years.
but at least canadians dreamed of a love affair! we're just
big ol' romantics

They're both saying she needs to be fucked so I see little difference except for who is saying them. Of course a world leader will receive more scrutiny, but your wife's friend isn't going to show up on CNN is she?

When you're speaking of a bottom feeding piece of shit like this bitch that supports a murderous regime for her own personal gain, you can say whatever you want about the stupid cunt in my book.

poor condi. she came to canada and all
anyone could do was muse about whether she
was getting it on with the foreign affairs minister.



she must have a pretty thick skin to it after all these years.
but at least canadians dreamed of a love affair! we're just
big ol' romantics

So, a few minutes ago, my wife told me about a conversation she had with a family friend. That friend, a woman and a therapist, said that Condoleeza Rice should have been the GOP vice presidential pick, but that she was "too tight" and needed to go somewhere and have someone give her a toe-curling orgasm.

I thought it was funny (and I don't necessarily disagree), but something immediately struck me...

Back in 2006, Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirovsky said about Condoleezza Rice that "[She] is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention." He said "Condoleeza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."

While the context in which a world-renowned political leader would make such comments certainly made his more offensive and potentially damaging, I think the content and implication are pretty identical to those of our friend! And, most importantly, I think there's a double standard in that Zhirovsky's comment raised complaints of sexism, but that my wife's friend's comments would not have.

My wife disagrees.

What do you all think?
[Edited 9/5/08 17:34pm]

It's always about SEX when it comes to women, as if a woman is somehow OK or accepted if she's being "satisfied" by men. Are these comments said in referral to businessmen? Of course not.

Both comments are rude and uncalled for.

We shouldn't excuse our friends for saying the same thing as someone in power.

Both are nasty, sexist comments and both should be ashamed.
[Edited 9/6/08 1:30am]

Lammastide said:

How do you know how your wife's friend's comments would have been taken? By whom?

purplesweat said:

They are said about businessmen. Guys tell other guys they need to get some also.

So, a few minutes ago, my wife told me about a conversation she had with a family friend. That friend, a woman and a therapist, said that Condoleeza Rice should have been the GOP vice presidential pick, but that she was "too tight" and needed to go somewhere and have someone give her a toe-curling orgasm.

I thought it was funny (and I don't necessarily disagree), but something immediately struck me...

Back in 2006, Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirovsky said about Condoleezza Rice that "[She] is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention." He said "Condoleeza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."

While the context in which a world-renowned political leader would make such comments certainly made his more offensive and potentially damaging, I think the content and implication are pretty identical to those of our friend! And, most importantly, I think there's a double standard in that Zhirovsky's comment raised complaints of sexism, but that my wife's friend's comments would not have.

My wife disagrees.

What do you all think?
[Edited 9/5/08 17:34pm]