Then Comes the Marriage Question

[TomCADem]

Source: NY Times

For the second time in a year, a childless, unmarried woman in her 50s has been nominated to be a justice on the Supreme Court and the critics have come out swinging. This time Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard’s law school, who is now solicitor general, has been described as having sacrificed a home and personal life in her quest for a brilliant legal career.

It all sounds eerily like when Sonia Sotomayor, who is 55 and single after a brief marriage when she was younger, was appointed to the Supreme Court last August and had to deflect suggestions that she treated colleagues and close friends like an extended family because she had no children of her own. Deborah Rhode, director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford Law School, said such stereotypes are unfair but common given society’s double standard when it comes to single women and work.

She said she got a phone call last week from a reporter questioning whether Ms. Kagan was equipped to rule on workplace issues considering that she had never had children. “I didn’t think you needed to actually be a mother to appreciate the challenges facing working mothers,” Ms. Rhode said she told the reporter. “I do think it is a step back if we start to penalize women for not making the conventional choice.”

Besides, Ms. Rhode added: “I resist the notion that the only way to be happy in the world is you have to be married. We want a world where people can make a variety of choices and be happy.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/fashion/16noticed.html

---

I am surprised that the NY Times, rather than Fox News, is coming out with this line of attack on Elena Kagan. According to the corporate media, she is either a spinster or a lesbian. The ominious thing about the line of attack is that it disqualifies anyone who does not have an Ozzie and Harriet type of household.

[babylonsister]

1. I'm not surprised. NYT, WaPo,McClatchy, AP, depending on who

is reporting, they can be hideous. The editors are the ones that let them fly, and they all have.

[bemildred]

2. Well, let's face it, the media is shallow.

Shallow shallow shallow. So you get babble like this because none of them are up to anything better.

[UpInArms]

3. motherhood =

a committed relationship
many years before committing to 10 months of physical incapacitation
a lifetime of sacrifice for the welfare of the child

repeat for every child

-

fatherhood =

letting the woman take the above sacrifice

[daleo]

4. I wish I had known how easy fatherhood was before now

I wouldn't have bothered putting all the time, energy, love and money into it for the past 25 years.

[Tunkamerica]

5. wow.

hateful.

perhaps this is a common view. i never knew that fathers who leave their families weren't actually doing anything wrong. perhaps this whole child support thing needs to be reevaluated.

and i'm sure there is no data to the contrary. why would you make such a statement if it had been shown time and again that a male role model is important to a child?

[Tumbulu]

10. You hit the nail on the head

it is not hateful, it is true for the majority of parents that I see. The odd thing is that the dad's really believe that they are doing all these things for their wives and children......and the mom's....we all just roll our eyes....it is a complete disconnect. That said there really are more dad's who actually take on the "mothering" role. But it is still less than 10% of the dad's.

Being single and child free allows a woman to really devote herself to her work. I know, I did it into my 40's.

[nodehopper]

16. and because it was true for you, it must be true for everyone...

oh I am sorry, it is "true for the majority of parents that see." Fortunately it is not true for the majority of parents that I see, myself included.

[nodehopper]

17. by the way, I had my son when I was 28

since then I've gotten my PhD, and am doing very well career-wise, even in this tough academic job market. If anything, having a child helped me work better and procrastinate less. People are different.

[Iowa]

13. That was a disgusting post. You should be ashamed. eom

[nodehopper]

15. whoa normative much?

plenty of mothers I know didn't have "years of commitment" before getting pregnant, do not consider pregnancy (between 9 and 10 months) physical incapacitation--seriously--do you only know pregnant Victorian ladies? When I was pregnant I certainly didn't feel incapacitated, and worked and exercised until basically the last week--and do not view motherhood as "sacrifice" but rather joyfully build a life together with the child.

your stereotypes about fatherhood are differently, but equally mind-boggling.

[Better Today]

19. Exactly. How many of us mothers watched as our husband's careers

and incomes skyrocketed while we stagnated because of motherhood duties. AND isn't that one of the main reasons given for the lesser pay for and advancement for women? Seems just recently I remember reading that women are more likely to be the one's to take time off to care for children and husband's issues, whereas a man doesn't take time off. A mother is more likely to need to get home on time, a father more stay at work late because he doesn't see being home on time as a need because mother is already home doing her stuff.

Anyone that thinks your post is garbage isn't living in the real world.

[Prophet 451]

20. it's still sexism when you're insulting men n/t

[cali]

22. bullshit generalizations suck. they really do.

[Zoeisright]

6. How unbelievably narrow-minded and paternalistic.

The NYT, that is. Shame on them.

[elleng]

7. In the Fashion and Style section of nyt.

So much for them (Tant Pis)

:thumbsdown:

[JDPriestly]

8. The assumption is that every woman has the choice to marry.

That simply is not true. Many successful women scare men away.

Many men prefer bimbos. And the number of men who prefer bimbos seems to be increasing.

That is my observation as a woman older yet than either Sotomayor or Kagan. Some of the most intelligent, hard-working women don't fit the Hollywood image of the sexy, thin, subservient woman. And I say good for those who do not.

Men are missing out. These strong woman make wonderful partners. You won't really have much of a life with a whimpering idiot at your side no matter how mighty and powerful she may make you feel. But then, that's the voice of experience.

[Missy Vixen]

9. I worked with kids all through my twenties

Let's just say I knew enough about infant/toddler care by that point to know I never wanted kids of my own.

One does not need to give birth to empathize with someone else's situation.

In the meantime, if that's the new standard, perhaps the men on the court should STFU when reproductive choice issues come before them. After all, they'll never get pregnant, either, will they?

:eyes:

[orion007]

11. Liz Cheney is married with 5 kids, enough said...

[No Elephants]

14. Excellent point. The again, she is a Republican. And a Vader. So, we can't play the gay card

with her the way that the right can play the gay card with Kagan, Napolitano and maybe Sotomayor.

It wouldn't be right.

It would be left.

And therefore a whole different set of rules applies. It's in the Bible.

[SoCalDem]

23. Money changes everything

does anyone believe that she ever had to worry about how she would find the money for the electric bill? or to wonder just how sick the baby had to be before she spent the grocery money for a trip to the doctor?

WWM (women with money) have many options that other women do not have..

[No Elephants]

12. The NYT's glory days are long over. BUT, let me try to understand:

When Sotomayor said (rightly or wrongly--doesn't matter for this purpose) that a wise Latina might bring something to the table because of the experiences to which a Hispanic female is exposed, the media and the right stomped on her. How dare she suggest that the specific types of experiences an Anglo male never has disables him from making as good a decision as anyone else?

And now that same media and right is saying that an unmarried woman with no children does not have the specific experiences that would enable her to make as good a decision as a woman who is married and has children? Suddenly, it's okay (again?) to base decisions on specific kinds of life experience?

Is it Opposite Day again already?

White male, married woman with kids. Hmmmm. Everyone in America, just freeze at 1919 C.E. so the media and the right can feel totally comfortable again at long last. Except, you know, y'all consume a lot more than most people did in 1919.

No, not Back to the Future.

Forward to the Past (But Greedier).

Yeayyyyyyy!!!!

[Igel]

21. I read the article in the opposite way.

There were those attacking Kagan for being aging, female, and single with no offspring.

The rebuttal is simple: "I didn’t think you needed to actually be a mother to appreciate the challenges facing working mothers."

This is taken as fairly conclusive. You simply don't have to be a member of a group to feel proper empathy for members of that group. You don't. To allege otherwise is simply wrong.

The same could be said of Scalia or Roberts, with a trivially slight change: "I didn't think you needed to actually be a woman to appreciate the challenges facing working mothers." The response, of course, is diametrically the oppose of the "working women" version: "Well, this is absolutely sexist. You simply have to be a member of a group to feel proper empathy for members of that group. It's a must. To allege otherwise is simply wrong."

As with many things, the asymmetry is telling. It's important for her to feel empathy. But in practice, that means empathy for the right kinds of person. Why? Because the "bad" judges don't lack empathy--however much people say they do; they simply have the wrong kind of empathy, they empathize with the wrong kind of person. In a nation of laws, who makes the decision and who benefits is more important than the law, it would seem. In both cases, what's asserted isn't what's believed to be right.

Sotomayor's "wise Latina," however characteristically boastful for a certain segment of the educated populace, is neither here nor there.

[OKNancy]

18. Explain how this article is an attack

This article is a good one and not an attack. Is any article that brings up an unpleasant fact considered negative?

In fact this article in every paragraph quotes those who are supportive of Kagan's choices.

"It all sounds eerily like when Sonia Sotomayor," - eerily
Same paragraph:
Deborah Rhode, director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford Law School, said such stereotypes are unfair but common given society’s double standard when it comes to single women and work.

Next paragraph, again supportive quote: “I didn’t think you needed to actually be a mother to appreciate the challenges facing working mothers,” Ms. Rhode said she told the reporter. “I do think it is a step back if we start to penalize women for not making the conventional choice.”

I could quote the whole article but that might give DU some copyright issues. However, the whole article points out how dumb the stereotype is and is in no way an attack.