After the nomination of Elena Kagan for U.S. Supreme Court, I wandered over to Feministing for the first time in many months just so I could read what they wrote about Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. Their post is called Kagan Sexism Watch: "What about the menz?!" -- their cute, progressive way of insisting that men, as a class, don't have anything to complain about. Ever. Even when they do. Here's their brilliant post, in its entirety:
"And so it begins. Via Media Matters, we see that National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez (who we just lurve at Feministing) is all upset that a whopping two women in a row have been nominated to the Supreme Court.
"Shockingly, a search of Lopez' past tweets and commentary don't indicate any such concern when dude after dude was being nominated..."
It's brilliant, well-written, insightful posts like this that remind me why that blog is so popular.
People like the crowd at Feministing are big on having a Supreme Court that "looks like America," even though the court is not a representative elected body. And even though America's representative elected bodies hardly ever "look like America."
Here's a reality check: if a conservative woman had been nominated, they wouldn't be celebrating. They'd be attacking. In fact, they'd be attacking her worse than if she were a conservative male (anybody remember what they did to Sarah Palin?). They'd be talking about the fact that she doesn't speak for women. Like Feministing does, as we all know.
Having three liberal women on the Court (which is what we'll have shortly) doesn't "look like America," in case anyone is wondering. In 2008, Obama lost married women 47-50 percent. Unmarried women, however, delivered him a whopping 70 percent of their vote.
If you want a court that "looks like America," we'd need at least a couple of married, conservative women. How about a practicing Catholic woman who believes in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception? Does anyone think Feministing would be celebrating that appointment? My guess is they'd be getting all catty on her, giving women a bad name by behaving in that stereotypical way when women go after each other, claws out. That's what they did to Palin.
With Kagan's appointment, for the first time ever, there won't be a protestant on the court. That really "looks like America," doesn't it?
Personally, I don't care if the Court doesn't "looks like America." I want great legal thinkers. There was a day when presidents picked jurists like Cardozo, Holmes, and Brandeis. And, yes, there are great women judges -- I know some. Sadly, nowadays, Supreme Court nominations are crassly political, meant to appease constituents. In the case of the Democratic party, that means appeasing self-anointed victim groups. And Kagan's nomination is sure to please Obama's most faithful group, single, liberal women.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
They're saying she's a moderate, not a liberal -- but is she really the most qualified choice available? She has never even served as a judge!
At first glance, I hardly think that the Dean of Harvard Law School is worthy of sitting on the Supreme Court. Obama probably picked her because he wants a non-controversial choice, and (of course) she has a vagina.
Good article, but can I remind you that the term "liberal" only means scumbag feminist apologist in the US.
In other countries such a term doesn't actually have negative connotations and people who describe themselves as "liberal" generally tend to meet the dictionary definition of the term. I.e. they're actually fairly decent people rather than socialist, anti-male control freaks.
hmmm. well, it's entirely possible that the reason that "the crowd over at feministing" wouldn't be celebratory of a conservative female appointment to the SCOTUS is exactly because the nominee's views on topics important to most feminists (and dare i say, most women, deep down) matter more to them than whether or not they are female. say, the same reason that they eviscerated Palin - those crazy feminist types somehow put together the logical conclusion that a female body does not equal woman-friendly politics. and a quick note to the post's author - kagan IS considered one of the great legal minds of our time that you so wish were on the bench of 9. and a side note - if you bothered to read the full post on the nomination, you would have noticed that as opposed to presenting a brainwashed, feminist monolith, there are both supporters and critics of Kagan's nomination at feministing, her support for the policy of indefinite detention being the chief bone of contention
Anon at 7:14: She's a liberal. That "moderate" talk is to placate middle America.
Anon at 7:35: please don't lump women in with feminists.
". . . kagan IS considered one of the great legal minds of our time." That is bullshit.
I'm watching her CNN video clip now. She talks like someone whose favorite drinking fountain has a little too much lead.
And her face is just scary -- she looks "false accusery."
Anon at 8:40: I'm ashamed to admit I laughed out loud at "she looks like false accusery." Not nice, but, wow! Clever!
I wonder if she has ever claimed to have been raped. I realize that you can't judge a book (or book a judge?) by its cover, but she just has that... look.
That overly sweet, moist-eyed, melodramatic look... the look of a woman who gets what she wants by being melodramatic, and who thrives on the approval of the strangers she's duped.
Or am I looking at her through my MRA binocs?
"Here's a reality check: if a conservative woman had been nominated, they wouldn't be celebrating... They'd be attacking. They'd be talking about the fact that she doesn't speak for women."
Just like Clarence Thomas wasn't really black.
The neo Femi-nazi "construction" is not so much about "liberateing women" as it is about the "construction for the justification" of oppressing the underclass males.
Feministing "forgets" the whole point of appointing a woman, any woman: the one-way ratchet. Once confirmed, the media howl should a man be appointed to replace her will be deafening.
her support for the policy of indefinite detention being the chief bone of contention
In my view that's the most trivial point of contention. Much more worrisome is that Kagan has argued in amicus briefs that prosecutors who manufacture evidence that leads to the conviction of an innocent person should not be subject to lawsuits (Pottawatomie vs. McGhee), that the Constitution's Confrontation Clause doesn't protect the right to cross examine forensic experts (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts), and that states should not be required to grant post-conviction DNA testing even when doing so could show factual innocence (Alaska, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne). She's a civil rights nightmare.
I only ever read Feministing for light comic relief. It reads like a crappy undergraduate newspaper. The target audience appears to be naive young women who have never had an independent thought in their lives that did not emanate from some ultra PC liberal arts course, and simply need an outlet to flatter their conceit that they are really intellectual astute after all.
I do get a good laugh out of these posturing hormonal women!
In my view that's the most trivial point of contention. Much more worrisome is that Kagan has argued in amicus briefs that prosecutors who manufacture evidence that leads to the conviction of an innocent person should not be subject to lawsuits (Pottawatomie vs. McGhee), that the Constitution's Confrontation Clause doesn't protect the right to cross examine forensic experts (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts), and that states should not be required to grant post-conviction DNA testing even when doing so could show factual innocence (Alaska, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne). She's a civil rights nightmare.
****
Apparently the new definition of a "moderate" is a liberal who is against civil liberties. Kind of like Obama.
Here is an article about what a nightmare for civil liberties Kagan will be: http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2010/05/10/obama-drops-the-ball-on-civil-liberties-with-elana-kagan/
They don't want institutions that look like America, they want institutions that look like themselves.
Anything else is lies, and they know it.
Apparently the new definition of a "moderate" is a liberal who is against civil liberties. Kind of like Obama
No, they're just redefining 'moderate" to mean "would be at home in Soviet Russia". Then again, totalitarian control has always been the goal of Marxists, no matter how much they deny it.
Randian, thanks very much for your insights. Excellent.
"Shockingly, a search of Lopez' past tweets and commentary don't indicate any such concern when dude after dude was being nominated..."
Er, shockingly, this is because of the basic reality that men and women tend to have different skills and priorities which often lead to much different proportions of each gender being represented in different occupations.
To reverse the genders: if an employer started a pattern of hiring male applicants for a certain job that tends to be female-dominated many would just as likely see that as odd, noteworthy, or perhaps evidence of discrimination over merit.
What else would you expect with an all (three) female "short-list"?
It wasn't a matter of A WOMAN, it was a matter of WHICH women he would choose...
TMOTS
"Shockingly, a search of Lopez' past tweets and commentary don't indicate any such concern when dude after dude was being nominated..."
****
Why should it? Until very recently that was the norm going back for hundreds of years. Back then the choice was usually made based on qualifications, not based on having a vagina.
This whole "equality" thing is very recent, and is still an unproven social experiment. Many of the results of this have been extremely negative so far.
Post a Comment