When I first saw Ms. Bumiller's latest White House Letter this morning at around 1:30, I laughed. I had just finished posting about her soaring preview of the fabulous Dr. Rice's upcoming challenge facing the 9/11 panel. Also on my mind was Laura Flanders' Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species. I had the thought that someone ought to look into the disturbing relationships that BushCo seems to have with his female associates. Or rather, the disturbing way those associations are characterized by his handlers for public consumption. Instead of that though, we get Ms. Bumiller's story, which is an unbelievably frivolous look at a serious issue for this White House and the voting population: Women's rights.
Ms. Bumiller's big mistake in this column is to try to have it both ways. She wants to give BushCo credit for having women in positions of power in his administration, but doesn't want to talk about what counts, which is his record on Women's rights issues. She tells us that "no other president has had women in such powerful positions in the White House." The first female Secretary of State, back when that position meant something, doesn't count. Neither does the first woman Attorney General. Nor the first woman White House Press Secretary. And we remember what happened when President Clinton appointed his wife to head the healthcare reform effort, even though there was precedent for that decision. Apparently nothing President Clinton did matters, but just for fun, here's his record on the topic. I forgot for a minute that this is a White House Letter, written just to the right of a gaping memory hole that sucks in facts and context and where BushCo is just the awesomest ever.
Ms. Bumiller decides on the image of the Valkyries to represent the women in BushCo's life: Condi, National Mommy, Bar and Waura.
Either way, the president's relationships with his four Valkyries have some similar characteristics. All four, including the seemingly shy former librarian who is in fact his assertive wife, seem to reinforce who he is, rather than "softening" him. All four also know that Mr. Bush considers himself the boss and that he snaps a sharp towel.
Before we get to the towel snapping (ewwww) I should let you know that the "Either way" is Ms. Bumiller's way of dismissing critics of BushCo who say that "he is comfortable with strong-willed women as long as they do not raise uncomfortable questions about other women's lives — like why the president has appointed federal judges opposed to abortion rights and cut millions of dollars in family-planning money overseas?" That is a tricky point but it's one that can't be ignored as long as Ms. Bumiller is going to focus on the sex of the people who are close to the President instead of their qualifications. The other one is the obvious question of the cynicism involved in putting women in such high profile positions in a misogynist administration. But, you know, whatever. And Ms. Bumiller is determined to make this work.
She tells us that these strong women and their co-dependent relationships with BushCo don't soften him, their communal man, their Odin. Instead they reinforce who he is. Ms. Bumiller never develops that idea with any examples of how they do that, rather she goes on to show how BushCo "snaps the towel" with all his warrior women protectors so they know who's boss. In 2000 he admonished National Mommy, Karen Hughes with a sexist comment about shopping when she kept him waiting at an airport while she was meeting with the president of CBS News. He snapped the verbal towel at the fabulous Dr. Rice when she questioned his use of a certain phrase in a speech regarding the UN and Iraq. He makes fun of the original warrior woman, his mother, by attacking her cooking. Can you feel the metaphor crumbling? Because in truth, it had already collapsed when Ms. Bumiller admitted a paragraph earlier that BushCo must save Waura's domestic towel snaps for private times since he's "too agile a politician to do it in public." But no matter. He's the boss, strongest among and despite a devoted coterie of strong, smart women and Ms. Bumiller is sticking to that story, no matter how tortured the idea and the writing that communicates it becomes.
Frankly, I don't understand why, when she chose the image of the Valkyries, it didn't occur to Ms. Bumiller that this whole idea was unsustainable. The image of armoured handmaidens that wreak havoc on behalf of their master is ridiculously over the top. And when it's combined with anecdotes that are supposed to be cute, but instead cast BushCo as impatient and ungrateful, the dissonance starts to ring pretty loudly.
Ms. Bumiller seems worried that BushCo's dependence on these women will make him seem weak. She should be worried that their devotion to him makes them seem nuts. How else can we explain how such strong, smart, brave and willful women allow themselves to be "towel snapped" by this man? Only super women can achieve what they have but once they do, they're cast in the role of handmaidens. (Were Cheney, Rummy or Powell ever characterized in the press as house boys?) And why are such super women serving in an administration that is so obviously opposed to women's rights? The answer, for at least National Mommy and the fabulous Dr. Rice, is that they are professional people with political ideas that jibe with BushCo's. Their agendas simply don't include women's issues. They aren't devoted gal pals or warrior women on a crusade for their man. They don't even belong in the same article with his wife and mother. It's creepy and insulting that they are.
But Ms. Bumiller lumps them all together in her absurd warrior woman BushCo fan club. A woman is a woman is a woman. It's excusable, but gullible to do so in the case of the National Mommy since part of her plan is to get people to believe exactly what Ms. Bumiller spends eight hundred words telling us: that BushCo is comfortable around capable women, that he inspires great devotion in them, but always makes it clear that he's the boss and isn't afraid to rein them in. On the other hand, there is no excuse to do it to Dr. Rice. And when Ms. Bumiller talks about her primarily from the perspective of her sex, without being prepared to tackle all the larger issues that brings up, like why Dr. Rice, Woman, chooses to serve a president that doesn't have the best interests of women at heart, then it's not journalism. It's lazy reguritation of the White House line.
It's as if only super women can achieve what they have but once they do, they're cast in the role of handmaidens.
Well, that's why she's using the Valkyrie metaphor, I think. That's exactly what the Valkyries symbolize, women who are beyond mortal ken but still utterly subservient to Odin. Which I've always found creepy...
Posted by: Elayne Riggs | April 06, 2004 at 09:25 AM
I agree, but I don't think that Ms. Bumiller meant the Valkyrie label to be so apt as to explain why they put up with his cruelty. It's okay for mythical people, but not so good for actual human beings. I think this column got away from her in that respect. I mean otherwise she's got a real problem - these strong, capable women are blinded by their devotion to this bully. The actual bottom line is that they aren't mythically devoted to him at all, but just political creatures who have chosen a side. That's a lot less romantic than the image Ms. Bumiller wants to use. And if I'm wrong, then at least Condi needs to get some therapy. Hughes is getting exactly the press that she wants: the devoted woman beguiled by BushCo's very self. Bar and Waura are a separate story entirely. This really is way too deep a discussion for Ms. Bumiller to have dredged up in an 800-word column that is only prepared to kiss BushCo's butt. For instance, what mythical image explains Powell's devotion to the boss who marginalizes and humiliates him at every turn? Let's have a column about how BushCo slaps Cheney for speaking out of turn. What convenient archetype is there for that relationship? Or does BushCo only treat the women who adore him this way?
Posted by: eRobin | April 06, 2004 at 10:37 AM