tigereye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 06:49 PM
Original message |
Harriet Miers - the anti Steinem? |
|
It is interesting to think about the latest SCOTUS nominee in the context of her being a trailblazer in the law at a time when women were uncommon in law schools and in the bar. And a baby-boomer, when the other female SCOTUS justices are not.
It is very interesting to think about how different she is from a Justice O'Connor (who had some very similar experiences) and a Justice Bader-Ginsburg, whom I suspect is not from that first "feminist" generation, but also had to cope with a lot of bias when she first entered the legal profession.
It is so strange to me to think of a "conservative and evangelical" woman trailblazer - that is something I am having trouble grasping. For some reason when I look at Ms. Miers I think, Phyllis Schlafly, because she has that Stepford kind of look. When I think about Steinem or Hillary Clinton, or Barbara Boxer or liberal women trailblazers I admire, I have trouble putting Miers in that same context, although she is a product in some ways of the same kind of feminist process.
Anyone else intrigued by this paradox?
|
HockeyMom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Unmarried and childless? |
|
Not to disparage any woman who is that, but is that what the Evangelical movement is preaching? Get married as young as possible, have as many babies as god gives you, and stay home and take care of them. Miers isn't exactly meeting ANY of their criteria.
To me it seems like sour grapes. I couldn't, so YOU MUST. Just like the people who cannot have their own kids (like DeLay) who are the most adamant in trying to prevent others from choosing not to have kids (birth control and abortion).
Just my opinion.
|
tigereye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. kind of like Dr. Laura |
|
do as I say, not as I do. I think though, that some women of that generation felt that they had no choice between kids and career... Condi seems like an example of that, but I suspect there are plenty of women in the Clinton cabinet who made that kind of choice as well.
I am just stunned by how different the experiences of women of that generation can be... I really know very little about the conservative, "high-powered" women, the female versions of D'nesh D'SOuza and what have you.
|
nvliberal
(618 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 08:32 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Technically Miers is NOT a baby boomer. |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 08:34 PM by nvliberal
She was born in 1945, and the baby boom is considered to be the years 1946-1964.
I fail to understand this post. Schlafly certainly doesn't have ANY kind of "Stepford" look, and she had a glittering career as a right-wing activist and writer as well as raising six kids (while at the same time advocating women go back to the kitchen) and getting a law degree in midlife.
In fact, Schlafly precedes any of the others because she's much older than the others (she's 81).
I seriously doubt Miers is even in that category with Schlafly, and she probably has more in common with Steinem than posters perhaps realize.
BOTH are nonconformists, and while Steinem married late, she was widowed shortly thereafter (married just three years).
Some people's views are certainly colored by religion.
|
tigereye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. you are quibbling with the dates -she's close enough |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 09:45 AM by tigereye
I think you are missing my point.
What confused me about Miers is that she emerged from a very similarly developing feminist world ( that is what they have in common) - and that she took a very different IDEOLOGICAL path, not necessarily a career path. In fact, she is similar to many other women of that time in the career choices that she made. It is just ironic to me that her path led her to a very different ideological direction than Steinem or HIllary, etc. THAT is what is ironic to me.
Schlafly came to the public eye at about the same time as Steinem and others did, despite her being older, and was quite hypocritical as a woman who was a non-conformist in some ways, in that she insisted that other women NOT do as she did. The Stepford sobriquet is the one typically applied to women who are in ideological lock-step with a view not really beneficial to them, in my view. You aren't defending her, are you? ;)
I don't think religion has much to do with it. I suspect that many boomer/feminist women have strong religious views... I guess I just don't believe that religion and politcs should be so intertwined.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:04 AM
Response to Original message |