Madeleine Albright: My Undiplomatic Moment
'I HAVE spent much of my career as a diplomat. It is an occupation in which words and context matter a great deal. So one might assume I know better than to tell a large number of women to go to hell.
But last Saturday, in the excitement of a campaign event for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, that is essentially what I did, when I delivered a line I have uttered a thousand times to applause, nodding heads and laughter: Theres a special place in hell for women who dont help each other. It is a phrase I first used almost 25 years ago, when I was the United States ambassador to the United Nations and worked closely with the six other female U.N. ambassadors. But this time, to my surprise, it went viral.
I absolutely believe what I said, that women should help one another, but this was the wrong context and the wrong time to use that line. I did not mean to argue that women should support a particular candidate based solely on gender. But I understand that I came across as condemning those who disagree with my political preferences. If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied.'>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/madeleine-albright-my-undiplomatic-moment.html?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)People who got all shrieky and offended didn't know the context in which she has said it in the past. She took for granted that the audience would know it was almost a catchphrase, not to be taken literally. I'm glad she issued this statement.
6chars
(3,967 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)While she's distancing herself from literal damnation, she's still saying women have to vote for Clinton because she's a woman.
She's also still treating young women like they are idiots.
Demit
(11,238 posts)It sounds different to this woman, jeff.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The context of this whole situation is Clinton's campaign. Exactly what "help" are women obligated to give Clinton, if not a vote?
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)why clarify now ?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)I understand how she got tangled in this. I hate to pile on. But 500,000 kids dying is pretty damn harsh.
She'll survive, and continue to live quite well.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)If that's your walk-back after receiving a ton of shit from us hustings in response to your thoughtless remarks, you might consider what actions would REALLY help women...
1) Policies that permit the family unit to stay together when an employed woman delivers her babies...
2) A livable wage for all workers to keep the family unit afloat economically...
3) Pay equity to recognize fair labor practice/each labor position, regardless of gender.
4) The kind of job AND economic growth when we invest in education, sustainable energy technology sector and the filling of long-needed skilled labor positions in re-building our crumbling infrastructure!