April 28, 2010

Peter Beinart asks a question that annoys me even without the thesis I know he's working on: "Put a Mom on the Court."

The question is: "Why should we want more women on the court at all?" Grr. Shut up.

But let's see how deeply he steps in it:
[Why?] For two reasons. First, because female justices, on average, will be more sensitive to the problems women face. Since they will have likely encountered gender bias themselves, they will be more likely to support government action to remedy it. And that firsthand experience of injustice may also sensitize them to the plight of other groups that have historically experienced discrimination. These are crude generalizations, of course, but they have a basis in fact. Just look at the women in Congress, who are far more likely to be pro-choice—and to lean left more broadly—than are the men.
In other words, you want more lefties on the Court, and femaleness is a rough proxy for leftism.
Our government is actually doing a pretty good job of providing role models for the 20 percent of American women who don’t want kids. Where it’s failing is in providing role models for the 80 percent that do.
But there’s a second reason we should want more women on the court. It’s not just that they may alleviate gender injustice through their rulings; they may alleviate it through their example as well. Just as Barack Obama empowers African-American kids to believe that there are no limits to what they can achieve, female Supreme Court justices send the same message to young women. As anyone who has ever watched their daughter eye a Barbie Doll can attest, role models matter.
Oh, for the love of God! As if it's 1975! I was irked in 1985 to be told that I had the role of being a role model. I thought the male law professor who told me that was discriminating against me. The men didn't have that extra dimension to their job — that basis for being valued apart from the strength doing the real work. Frankly, I found it diminishing. So that's me being "be more sensitive to the problems women face." One of the problems is men portraying our success as some kind of Oprahesque self-esteem lesson for the backward.
And that’s why it’s important not just to have lots of women in positions of political power, but to have lots of women with kids. It’s important because otherwise, the message you’re sending young women is that they can achieve professionally, or they can have a family, but they can’t do both. 
Hey, buddy. My career is not your messaging device. My birth canal is not a beacon of light to the unenlightened.
And without quite realizing it, that is the message our government has been sending. According to the Census Bureau, 80 percent of American women over the age of 40 have children. But look at the women who have held Cabinet posts in the last three presidential administrations. Only two of the Clinton administration’s five female Cabinet secretaries had kids.... In the Bush administration, the figure was two of seven. In the Obama administration, so far, it is two of four. And if Obama chooses Elena Kagan for the High Court, the figure there will be one of three.
Let's roll back to Reason #1 for wanting a woman on the Court: to get a bigger leftist. So why are you knocking Kagan? Because she's childless, or because you prefer Diane Wood, the woman with kids who is — so they say — the bigger leftist?

Beinart, I call bullshit.

AND: Consider this NYT article from 1922 (as reacted to by me, pretending to be a blogger of the time):
The NYT contends that the 12 greatest women "are women that have never been heard of outside of their own homes, and seldom appreciated there; who have put aside their own ambitions ... to build careers for which their husbands got credit." But the [National League for Women Voters] is looking for famous women, so the Times names 12 famous women: Geraldine Farrar, Edith Wharton, Carrie Chapman Catt, Molla Mallory, Alice Paul, Ida Tarbell, Jane Addams, Amy Lowell, Minnie Maddern Fiske, M. Carey Thomas, Mary Pickford, and Agnes Repplier. Ah, but "six of the twelve have never married," and the married ones are all childless. "Let those who think it is easy to manage a first-rate career and a first-rate home simultaneously find an explanation for that."

Well, my first attempt at an explanation would be to guess that the NYT composed its list of twelve with an eye toward who was childless. But, yet, it's certainly true that it's not easy to balance career and family. Why can't we factor that in as we select the greatest women? First, you say the really greatest women are the ones who put aside all career ambitions for the sake of the family, and then you present us with a list of great women who are all childless. It's obvious what you want to say. You want to warn women away from careers. Unless we are willing to abandon the hope for a good family, we should forget about having a career. This is a terrible message. Try harder to find good examples of women who have balanced family and work and show us how they have done it — or modern women should toss this reactionary newspaper aside. We deserve better.

70 comments:

Gabriel Hanna said...

I have never understood why feminists, or anyone else, thinks they should be able to "have it all".

Life is short and everyone has to make trade-offs. Time spent on your career is not time spent on your family, just like you can't be at home in Chicago and on vacation in Paris simultaneously.

Scott said...

I don't have my glasses on. When I first saw the headline, it registered as, "Put a Moron on the Court."

That would be novel.

wv: examprow. The most dreaded ritual of graduating from the Webb Institute of Naval Architecture.

SteveR said...

I can sum this up: In order to stop bias we need to be biased.

Gabriel Hanna said...

it registered as, "Put a Moron on the Court."

Who represents the interests of the bottom quintile of the bell curve?

Where are their role models?

Dr.D said...

We have long since lost confidence in the idea that anyone can decide a case based on the law and simply using their brain. It is now understood that biology (ethnicity, gender, etc.) govern and the idea of just using the brain to work through something fairly, logically, rationally, is considered simply irrational. Is that clear to everyone?

rhhardin said...

Channelling Marge Piercy's "Right to Life.".

David said...

Grr. Shut up.

But let's see how deeply he steps in it:


Who says lawyer writing is dull and pedantic?

rhhardin said...

It's women voting that I have an issue with.

Women holding office is fine.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My career is not your messaging device. My birth canal is not a beacon of light to the unenlightened.


While this made me LOL...especially the image of a beacon of light coming out of your birth canal like the headlight light of a train in a tunnel (no offense) ....I agree 100%.

Why is it that we have a man telling us what our lives need to mean, should mean and what kind of role models we women should be, as if it were some sort of gender duty, to other women to be a role model? My life and career is my own and if someone wants to take it as a model (misguided soul) then that is their problem. I don't care if I'm a role model or not.

In fact....I would hazard the guess that women who have the logical minds to reach the position where they might be considered for the Supreme Court, might not really be all that 'sensitive to the problems that women face'.

On a personal level, I find most women's issues as posed by the media and the left, completely annoying, trivial, stupid and totally irrelevant to my experiences. There are REAL life and death issues out there, but they don't want to really address them.

I actually find many women annoying and much prefer to work with men who are much easier to deal with and deal with less drama.

Gabriel Hanna said...

We have long since lost confidence in the idea that anyone can decide a case based on the law and simply using their brain. It is now understood that biology (ethnicity, gender, etc.) govern and the idea of just using the brain to work through something fairly, logically, rationally, is considered simply irrational. Is that clear to everyone?

Dionysius of Syracuse demonstrated the principle long ago. When asked how to govern a state, he walked into the grain fields, and with his cane, he knocked the top off every stalk higher than its neighbors.

When laws are enforced against the "strong" to benefit the "weak", that is not justice, but tyranny perpetuating itself.

ricpic said...

You can't be in Chicago and Paris simultaneously.
You can bring a french poodle to Wrigley Field.
But you'll take home a rag.

raf said...

To do this right, we need to appoint a Womyn's Studies woman to the court. Only a "professional woman" (not to be confused with a woman practicing a profession) can legitimately represent women's issues on the court.

wv: cultion. A charged particle with weird religious beliefs?

Quayle said...

Why don't we put a felon on the court who would be sympathetic to the plight of criminals when they face the judiciary?

And we need a kid - a 14 year old on the court, because we all believe that children are our future; give them a SCOTUS seat and let them lead the way.

Should I stop now or keep going?

It's post-modern idiocy to argue that nobody can understand, judge, or have compassion on anyone in some other broad color/gender category.

Palladian said...

Hey, why not make EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court??!!?

Since apparently law and reason don't actually exist, and there are apparently no meaningful qualifications other than demographics, why not appoint all of us to the court! That way the court will truly "look like America"!

Synova said...

All I can say is...

Welcome to the dark side.

madawaskan said...

You're for proportional representation, and
here's where you end up-annoyed at where it leads.

Peter Beinhart is simply going down that road that you've been shoveling.

Palladian said...

Question: Do people like Peter Beinart write these sorts of articles because they think it will get them some pussy?

Like back in the 70s, when heterosexual men tried to join ERA marches and bought Dan Hill albums for the same purpose?

Because if there isn't an ulterior motive behind writing revolting nonsense like this, I might just give up on America's chances for the future.

madawaskan said...

Let's consider every potential justice by their abilities and performance.

Instead of recruiting for: Protestants,sexuality, and you know- Moms.

Kirstin said...

I remember the discussion when David Souter was nominated. How could this solitary man understand the plight of a welfare mother? Weren't his life experiences too limited? And so on .... He ended up being a disappointment, but not because he wasn't a father (or better yet, a mother).

Seven Machos said...

Nice dress down. And well deserved.

For a certain segment of the left and even The New Republic when things start looking dim, it's always 1975.

TheThinMan said...

Ann, you're the best! You tore him a new one, and he can pretend it's his virginia. Don't liberals always say, Be the change you want to happen?

Ann, you the... woman!

Ann Althouse said...

"Who represents the interests of the bottom quintile of the bell curve? Where are their role models?"


"In defense against charges that [Nixon Supreme Court nominee G. Harold] Carswell was 'mediocre,' U.S. Senator Roman Hruska (Republican, Nebraska) stated, 'Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?' That remark is believed to have backfired and damaged Carswell's cause."

TheThinMan said...

But wait, wouldn't it be nice to have a jurist who could make everyone baloney sandwiches when they get hungry? And if it's raining outside, who's going to make sure they all put on galoshes?

Paul Zrimsek said...

"The struggle that began in the 1960s -- which put questions of racial, sexual and religious identity at the forefront of American politics -- may be ending. Palin is the end of the line." -- Peter Beinart

"Nothing's over till we say it is!" -- Bluto Blutarsky

josil said...

I'm all for more women on the SC providing they are all named Margaret Thatcher. The Intellectual Left seem to assume that all court-eligible women would be pro-choice and anti-defense.

Moira Breen said...

Our government is actually doing a pretty good job of providing role models for the 20 percent of American women who don’t want kids. Where it’s failing is in providing role models for the 80 percent that do.

Yea, because when my heart loseth the path, and I am sore vexed with doubt about the manner in which a woman such as I should live - nay, not a woman only but verily a mother - I rise up and gaze to the east, to DeeCee, and seek for a sign, and meditate upon the wisdom therefrom, and the counsel that shineth forth from that Holy City, and the sages of the temples of the Holy City bestow upon me a role model, and my heart is at rest and my path clear again.

Twat.


Palladian @4/28/10 7:34 PM: Excellent comment.


wv: lessess. Low-cal largess.

Tina said...

LOL@ "As if it's 1975!" The progressives really are stuck in a time warp, aren't they? It's like they go back and forth within that twenty year period when they were young and they were every day together.

Bob Ellison said...

I am very tired of this stuff. Where is the check-out counter?

Rialby said...

Do people like Peter Beinart write these sorts of articles because they think it will get them some pussy?

Does anyone think he wants any?

former law student said...

I was irked in 1985 to be told that I had the role of being a role model. I thought the male law professor who told me that was discriminating against me..

Think of your sisters, professor. A little anachronistic, but it wasn't that many years earlier when female lawyers would have been judged by the pioneers' performance. ("Well, we hired one once, but she didn't work out.") Women lawyers in the 70s and before were somewhat of a novelty, but a novelty that was wearing off.

But people old enough to be considered for the USSC should be at least semi-retired from parenthood -- youngest kid applying to colleges, that sort of thing. I can't picture a mom young enough for her kids still to take pb and j sandwiches for lunch ready for the highest court in the land.

Rialby said...

Beinart - why don't they just put someone with a delicate feminine side on the court??

Subtext from Beinert: Right here! Right here! I'll do it!! I'll do it!!

Synova said...

Or how about we find good examples of men who have balanced family and work?

If one looks at the famous men of the past they were often horrendous husbands and fathers. Sometimes they left their children hungry in pursuit of art or music or religion. Or else they took off and traveled around the world on their desperately important tasks.

This really is little different at all than women who either didn't have children to worry about or who chose not to marry. It only looks different because men avoid the physical incapacity of child-bearing.

Look at what it takes for men to reach the highest ranks in science or anything else. Part of the reason that my sister didn't pursue research was the traditional system of multiple internships. She refused to do that to her husband.

The idea that "put aside their own ambitions ... to build careers for which their husbands got credit" is anything but an honest assessment of what it took for men to reach those highest ranks, essentially having a wife who carried her husband so he could dedicate the time and energy necessary to *exceed* what other men could do...

Where does some notion of "balance" come into that?

Balance is certainly better for people, for us in our lives and our families and our feelings of efficacy. But it doesn't produce stars at a national or international level. Something has to give. Either a person has a spouse who is willing to concentrate on the other person's career, or family size is limited severely.

Because if that's not done, all it means is that someone else is more competitive and beats you.

former law student said...

We have long since lost confidence in the idea that anyone can decide a case based on the law and simply using their brain. It is now understood that biology (ethnicity, gender, etc.) govern and the idea of just using the brain to work through something fairly, logically, rationally, is considered simply irrational. Is that clear to everyone?

"The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. "
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law

We all are influenced by our experiences and prejudices more than we realize when we sit down to think about things.

Synova said...

Being a "mom" is a relationship and nothing more. All it takes is unprotected sex.

But if we're going to go with a "mom" I want one with more children than she's got hands to hold them or it's off. That's my minimum requirement. She's got to have more kids than hands and they've got to have been all kids at the same time. I want her to have had to control her children in the absence of adequate hands.

That's a simple enough metric to meet.

"I gave birth" isn't going to do it.

SMGalbraith said...

We all are influenced by our experiences and prejudices more than we realize when we sit down to think about things.

Sure, judges are humans and humans are not robots. We can't escape our skin.

But that shouldn't mean we just surrender to those prejudices. Or does it?

Apparently, Beinart believes that judicial review is little more than legislating and since the entire enterprise is fraught with subjectivity, why not completely surrender to it?

If that happens then everything comes down to power. Any thought of people agreeing to rules, to principles, to facts, to a common view of the world ends.

With that ending comes the end of liberal democracy. A system built upon the belief that humans could engage in self-government.

Who really are those giving up on the country? The Tea Partiers? Or people advocating Beinart's view of America?

Peter V. Bella said...

Let's just stop all the bullshit. Put a damned illegal alien Mexican lawyer on the court and be done with it.

John said...

Gabriel asks who represents the lower quintile of our population in response to the comment "put a moron on the court"

In a hearing for one of LBJ's (Nixon's?) Supreme court nominees the objection was raised the nominee was mediocre.

A Senator Hruska (probably in the lower quintile himself) said, on the floor of the Senate "So what? We need Justices to represent the mediocre too."

(Quote from memory)

John Henry

former law student said...

But that shouldn't mean we just surrender to those prejudices. Or does it?

If conservative white Christian men can free themselves from their biases when they decide the holding of a case, why not everybody?

John said...

(Repeating 100 times)

Always trust Althouse

Always trust Althouse

etc

Anne beat me to it remembering Hruska. She also did it with more detail.

I am going to sleep under the bed tonight.

John Henry

WV: Hymen

Really? I've commented that many of the WVs look almost like words. I think this is the first actual word I've seen.

And, since we are talking about a woman who definitely does not have one, a mother, very apropos

Chase said...

Excuse me, but when it comes to determining whether a law passes Constitutional and Bill of Rights muster or not - the job description for Supreme Court Justices - why should even one single American give a fucking shit about whether or not a Justice is "sensitive to the plight" of anyone?

Typical - actually, foundational - liberal bullshit mindset. I swear, these people are convinced they will talk their way out of eternal damnation on the day of the Great White Throne Judgment (come to think of it, I believe that has already been addressed).

Hey - Maybe that's why they prefer to think of God as female.

YoungHegelian said...

"My birth canal is not a beacon of light to the unenlightened."

Reminds me of that way too graphic line from a Roman Catholic Marian antiphon:

"O blessed portal, through which first shown the light of the world".

Say What!?

Medieval monks with the visual imaginations of 13 yr old boys if you ask me.

Synova said...

"If conservative white Christian men can free themselves from their biases when they decide the holding of a case, why not everybody?"

Indeed, why not?

But the whole deal here is about abandoning even the ideal of reason and dispassion.

We aren't having a discussion about who to exclude because they aren't adequately rational. We're having a discussion of who to include, having given up on reason.

Calypso Facto said...

C'mon Beinart, just come out and say what you really mean: Palin for SCOTUS! Ha!

SMGalbraith said...

If conservative white Christian men can free themselves from their biases when they decide the holding of a case, why not everybody?

But Beinart, and the left, says they - and everybody else - can't.

Or can't sufficiently to ignore other qualities such as race, sex, et cetera.

Since we're all flawed humans who bring our biases with us, why not select judges based on race or ethnicity or other factors?

Surrender to our prejudices.

The exercise of judicial review is so subjective (words are indeterminate) and humans so flawed (we can't escape our skin) - then why not select judges based on race and ethnicity and other factors?

It's a dangerous - albeit somewhat accurate - view of human beings.

traditionalguy said...

The awesome power of the Good Old Boy's Network to use up every talented woman continues...Frankly they do noy give a damn if you have a child since you belong to them anyway. And Moslems like Obama are the worst ones to be used by.

Alex said...

FLS - go fuck yourself with a rusty dildo.

Kirk Parker said...

No, Beinart is really onto something. Please join him, and me, in welcoming Justice Schlafly!!!

What's that? You say she's a little old?

Hmmmmm..... [google ... wikipedia ....] ...

Ah! Says right here that Janice Rogers Brown is a Mom, too! OK!!!!



WV: jighoot. No, I'm not, not, NOT going to try for a definition on this one...

Pogo said...

Why the pretense?
Why perist in the fiction of blind justice?
Wise Latina, mom, gay, [fill in preferred class here.]

Just make an algorithm based on the desireable class characteristics, with weighted scores (e.g. minus 15 points for non-gay white males) and decide all cases therefrom.

Get it over with.

Maguro said...

Beinart, I call bullshit.


Ha ha, spot on. It's just a transparent and insincere plea for Diana Wood. He doesn't mean a word of it and never would have written it if the less liberal candidate had been the one with kids.

Methadras said...

How many times must it be said that leftards are some of the dumbest people on earth. They don't have a modicum of the tiniest understanding of what they even believe in. So this pussyman wants a woman on the court because of the social injustice that women face and in that reflection she would be sensitive to womens issues? This is emotion trumping reason. This man has no testosterone left in his body. I wonder if the welcome mat on the front of his door says, "Welcome to estrogenville"

Revenant said...

If conservative white Christian men can free themselves from their biases when they decide the holding of a case, why not everybody?

Presumably women are just as capable of freeing themselves as anyone else.

But Beinart's argument is based on the assumption that a woman wouldn't do that -- that she would let her biases determine her rulings. We can argue over how possible it is to suppress one's biases, but *celebrating* judicial bias is pretty contemptible.

HDHouse said...

ahh bullshit

Men can and do balance careers and family..well some do and some don't...but we make no distinction between those who spend real times with their kids and those who spend 80 hour weeks at their jobs...men seem to be just men.

suddenly you put on the plus or minus of choices and sacrifice on women. If a woman is a great legal mind that is a +1. If she is a great legal mind and manages to be also a great mother that is another +1 and that makes a plus 2.

If you are going to saddle her with the (inherent) responsibility - and that isn't sexist..that's just the way things seem to be - then you have to give her extra credit for doing both.

The truly outstanding woman is a mother just as the truly outstanding man is a father. The giften lawyer or legal type mind is that and more. Give the devil his due.

HDHouse said...

gifted not giften. sorry

rdkraus said...

My birth canal is not a beacon of light to the unenlightened.

Calling Chip. Your services are needed here.

shoutingthomas said...

This blog would be greatly improved if posts about feminism were eliminated.

40 years of listening to this crap... enough!

Ann, you got the benefit of the quota system... nice job with tenure, big paycheck, plenty of time to goof off.

I've been stiffed behind the quota hire for 40 years because I'm white, male and hetero.

I don't begrudge you your quota spoils. But, could you please stop rubbing it in.

You've got yours.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I agree with what Althouse and most everyone else said, not a beacon of light, belittles me to expect me to be a role model, etc.

But,

One of the reasons that Sarah Palin really caught my attention was that she was, basically, a dad who was a woman. She was able to have kids, but her husband put his career aside to care for them while she put the effort into hers and made it flourish. This, in my opinion, is what a family who has children needs to do- it is simply not possible for both parents to have the amount of career orientation required to reach high levels of success and still be great parents.

Great men have always known that; they usually have women who are home-minded (which is great, BTW. I'm all for women or men staying at home and raising the kids), or have no children or very troubled children. But acheivement oriented women are, generally in my experience, encouraged and expected to mate with high acheiving men, leaving no realistic room for involved parenting. I don't like that. I want more moms at high levels of success, with their husbands at home raising the kids. I want to be, and plan to be, one of those moms.

All of that has pretty much nothing to do with who would make a good SCOTUS justice. I completely agree that Beinart's thesis is stupid and biased. But I would like to see more high acheiving moms out there, whose children still get the same amount of parenting they would had the high acheiver been the dad.
- Lyssa

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Oh, re: my above comment- the onus is on the women to plan their careers and parenting accordingly, including working these plans out with their potential husband before the fact. I don't want to sound like I am calling for anyone else to make these things happen, just that I would like more women to make these things happen for themselves.

roesch-voltaire said...

Perhaps that beacon of light could shine of some of the structural inequalities that enabled Larry Summers to point out why so few women entered the STEM fields?

Shanna said...

Even if you could "have it all" it might be very stressfull and require too many commitments on your time, too much guilt for time away from children...Maybe that's the reason that some people make the choice to commit to either a career or children, but not both.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

roesch, I wasn't offended by what Larry Summers said (though I'm embarassed by some of the reactions to it- remember that one woman who talked about how she had to leave the room because it upset her delicate constitution so?)

Do you deny that male and female brains, although far more similar than different, and with wide variations between individuals, have generalized sex-dependent differences?
- Lyssa

TMink said...

The courts are not about empathy, they are about the law. And don't put a moron on the court, we have quite enough of them there already.

Trey

former law student said...

I've been stiffed behind the quota hire for 40 years because I'm white, male and hetero.


Quotas merely get you on the ladder -- talent moves you ahead. No business can afford to put mediocrities in positions of real power -- the business is unlikely to stick around if so. Sorry if your career got stuck in first gear.

BJK said...

And that’s why it’s important not just to have lots of women in positions of political power, but to have lots of women with kids. It’s important because otherwise, the message you’re sending young women is that they can achieve professionally, or they can have a family, but they can’t do both.

...unless they're Sarah Palin.

(Note: Not suggesting Palin should be a candidate for Supreme Court Justice - I think a law degree is a pretty important qualifier. Beinart's statement is about people in positions of political power in general.)

holdfast said...

If conservative white Christian men can free themselves from their biases when they decide the holding of a case, why not everybody?

I am sure there are women that can, but Beinart wants to pick one specifically because of her presumed biases.

Speaking of Peter, isn't this just another case of a gay lefty writer expounding his views of the alien species known as "females" - I mean seriously, does this guy know any women who don't work at TNR? He seems to be at least condescendingly well-disposed to them, so unlike his predecessor at TNR, Excitable Andy, he probably got on well with his own mother.

Oh - and why are so many cabinet officers not mothers/ (1) Because it takes a lot of work and dedication to your career to get there, and that often does not fit with having kids, and (2) because Clinton and Obama had/have a predilection for appointing bull dykes and/or really ugly chicks (not always clear which is which) - I mean seriously Janet Reno, Janet Incompatento, Elena Kagan - what dude would want to hit that (assuming they'd be permitted to)?

Oh, and Bush is a feminist hero for hiring all those women.

VW = turgi. Add a "d" and it describes the writing at TNR.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Shanna, I agree that you (and by you, I mean women) can't have it all, if "it all" includes either a successful husband or a traditional mother-like relationship with children.

However, I do think that women can have it all, in the sense that stereotypical dads have, as long as they marry a man who supports that and wishes to be the dedicated dad so that she can be the career-oriented mom.

Of course, for men, if career is important to you and you want children, you should seek out a woman who would support that and be a dedicated stay home mom, as well. That's what I would call equality.

- Lyssa

Shanna said...

However, I do think that women can have it all, in the sense that stereotypical dads have, as long as they marry a man who supports that and wishes to be the dedicated dad so that she can be the career-oriented mom.

I definately agree with this and your Sarah Palin example!

I mainly think there's no reason getting upset over what is basically a choice by certain women to pursue a career rather than family life. There is nothing about doing both that makes someone morally superior.

shana said...

The one thing I learned from the 2008 election is that a woman can do anything except be President of the United States. And people like Peter Beinart made that happen.

Thanks, Pete!

Revenant said...

Quotas merely get you on the ladder

By bumping other, better-qualified people off the ladder.

SMGalbraith said...

Speaking of Peter, isn't this just another case of a gay lefty writer expounding his views of the alien species known as "females

Peter Beinart's not gay. He got married, I believe, last year.

To a woman.

He's very smart, writes very well and is a good advocate for his side.

But this is not a good example of those qualities, I think. He's really drawing caricatures of human beings.

former law student said...

By bumping other, better-qualified people off the ladder.

How were they better qualified? People are selected for the first rung based on their potential.