९ नोव्हेंबर, २०२१

"Maybe because it’s hard to write a drama in which the villain hasn’t done anything terrible yet, Greenhouse makes an uncharacteristic misstep in a brief excursus that compares the new justice to the late Phyllis Schlafly."

"To be sure, Schlafly was an important figure in the early anti-abortion movement. But her anti-feminist crusade against women in the workplace sits oddly with Barrett’s lifelong pursuit of a full-time career as a law professor and judge while raising seven (no, that’s not a typo) children. The only motivation for the invocation of Schlafly seems to be that, as Greenhouse notes, she was the subject of a television mini-series in 2020, and that both were lawyers with large families. 'Forty years later, more than a few people looked at Amy Coney Barrett and saw Phyllis Schlafly,' Greenhouse writes, with no indication of who those people were. 'And how could they not, given the similarity in the two women’s biographies?' This isn’t even guilt by association. It’s guilt by free association. "


I haven't read Linda Greenhouse's book — nor will I — but it sounds like she indulged in a style of writing that Maureen Dowd uses so much lately. She's watching TV shows and movies and they come up in her stream of consciousness thoughts about current events, and if you let that flow into you're writing, it feels interesting and conversational. 

Ironically, it is not unrelated to the way Donald Trump talks at his rallies. 

४० टिप्पण्या:

rehajm म्हणाले...

When society is collapsing all around you there is always the comfort and safety of nostalgia for RBG and free flowing abortions.

rehajm म्हणाले...

There’s an African bird with a name that translates to ‘babbling woman’. This mental meandering should be named for that bird…

"Ironically, it not unrelated to the way Donald Trump talks at his rallies."

…another feminine critique of the feminine Trump.

David Begley म्हणाले...

Remember when Linda Greenhouse tried to defend herself in the comments here? Now, that was funny.

Temujin म्हणाले...

Seems almost predictable that someone on the left would look for that one known characterization of a Conservative woman- Phyllis Schlafly (who also happened to be pretty brilliant). The left's knowledge of Conservatives- who we are and how we think- is so limited one wonders if they've ever actually spoken to or read any Conservative. It's as if we're a rarity among the populace. Which, if you look at Manhattan or DC, that might be true. But it's a large country with a long history. Some of these folks should poke their heads out of their bottoms from time to time to take a look.

PS- the Supreme Court should be a conservative bastion. It is there to reflect the existing laws of the land. It is not there as a blender to spin out new laws (or interpretations) with each successive 5 years of passing time. It's not TikTok.

Lloyd W. Robertson म्हणाले...

Very good. Schlafly seems to have had a full-time career, if not even more than full-time, advocating for a life in which women are at home with their children. Maybe the mirror image of Betty Friedan: it's wrong for women to be stuck with the cooking, the cleaning, and the diapers. But Betty: you've never done any of those things.

"Progress" generally means an improvement in living conditions for the poor, the weak, and the middle class. The rich can take care of themselves, but they're very good at lobbying to get gifts from the welfare state, partly on the grounds that they are the job-creators and so on. Our intellectuals are watchdogs, on the lookout for anyone who questions or opposes progress. Greenhouse probably thinks it's clever to say to boomers: if you remember hating Schlafly, then you should also hate Barrett. I prefer actual debate on this or that aspect of public policy, and shrill people on both sides don't help.

By the way, I wonder what Barrett thinks about women in the military, and/or women and the draft?

daskol म्हणाले...

Greenhouse appears to be epitomizing rhhardin’s point.

Jamie म्हणाले...

Trump isn't trying to be taken as an intellectual.

tim maguire म्हणाले...

This isn’t even guilt by association. It’s guilt by free association.

That's a great line, I'm going to steal it.

Howard म्हणाले...

One would be inclined to believe sex was Amy's religion, the evidence being seven offspring

Uncle Pavian म्हणाले...

Phyllis Schlafly? De mortuis, nil nisi bonum.
That said, I remember her as being death on vocational-technical training in high schools and had no use for people volunteering for military service unless it was at West Point or something. An angry woman.

Uncle Pavian म्हणाले...

Phyllis Schlafly? De mortuis, nil nisi bonum.
That said, I remember her as being death on vocational-technical training in high schools and as having no use for people who volunteered for military service unless it was at West Point or something. An angry woman.

Howard म्हणाले...

Stop emitting Greenhouse gas

Maynard म्हणाले...

Acquiring Greenhouse's approval used to be important for newly appointed SCOTUS Justices. Not so much any more.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

"Remember when Linda Greenhouse tried to defend herself in the comments here? Now, that was funny."

She was plainly shown to be wrong but wouldn't admit it. She was THERE in the courtroom when the opinion was announced, so she had memory as a first-hand witness. But I had the recording of the event, and she was just wrong.

Sebastian म्हणाले...

"It’s guilt by free association."

The best and most useful kind of guilt. As in, whites are guilty of white supremacy and systemic racism.

"if you let that flow into your writing, it feels interesting and conversational."

Interesting to whom? Soap opera liberal women?

The free-associating style and free-associating guilt tripping together show the left ain't got nothin.'

Joe Smith म्हणाले...

So far Greenhouse has nothing to worry about.

Coney Barrett has done little lately to show that she's a conservative.

Mike Sylwester म्हणाले...

... her anti-feminist crusade against women in the workplace ...

Phyllis Shlafly did not "crusade against women in the workplace".

Gahrie म्हणाले...

An angry woman.

Yeah! I mean it's not like anyone could call Abzug, Dworkin, Friedan or Steinem angry.

Gahrie म्हणाले...

One would be inclined to believe sex was Amy's religion, the evidence being seven offspring

My grandmothers had 5 kids a piece. Two of my great grandmothers had eleven a piece. You calling them sluts too?

Mike Sylwester म्हणाले...

Uncle Pavian at 7:42 AM
I remember her as being death on vocational-technical training in high schools and had no use for people volunteering for military service unless it was at West Point or something

Those memories of yours are rather odd.

Original Mike म्हणाले...

Blogger Joe Smith said..."So far Greenhouse has nothing to worry about.
Coney Barrett has done little lately to show that she's a conservative."


Like that matters to what Greenhouse writes?

Marty म्हणाले...

". . . if you let that flow into you're writing, it feels interesting and conversational"--more fun with pronouns?

Joe Smith म्हणाले...

'One would be inclined to believe sex was Amy's religion, the evidence being seven offspring'

Google is your friend...they are not all her 'offspring.'

MikeR म्हणाले...

The author of the review takes for granted that Ginsburg had an obligation to make sure that her point of view is protected in the Court, by arranging that the next appointment is like her.
As a political activist, sure. As a Justice, really?

Big Mike म्हणाले...

She was THERE in the courtroom when the opinion was announced, so she had memory as a first-hand witness.

Says something about the value of eyewitness testimony, doesn’t it?

gspencer म्हणाले...

"I haven't read Linda Greenhouse's book"

There's never a reason to read anything written by Greenhouse. It's all so, so predictable.

Uncle Pavian म्हणाले...

"Those memories of yours are rather odd."
Noted.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

""I haven't read Linda Greenhouse's book" There's never a reason to read anything written by Greenhouse. It's all so, so predictable."

Notice that I added "nor will I."

I'll read articles by her — just as I read articles by law professors — because there's potential for blogging. But I find law books terribly unworthy as reading material. I'm not going to devote myself to uncovering flaws. That's a mug's game.

tim maguire म्हणाले...

Howard said...One would be inclined to believe sex was Amy's religion, the evidence being seven offspring

I know this is Howard, but still...two things:

1) Do you actually believe that there is a connection between how much sex a person has and how many children they have? That's pretty dumb, even for you.

2) My mother had 9 children, which was not that unusual in our community at the time.

Enough with the sexist slut-shaming. Grow up.

BarrySanders20 म्हणाले...

"'More than a few people looked at Amy Coney Barrett and saw Phyllis Schlafly,' Greenhouse writes"

More than a few people looked at Linda Greenhouse and saw Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery,

Leora म्हणाले...

My memory of Phyliss Schafley is that I saw her on CSpan debating Kate Michelman (the head of NARAL at the time) and I realized that I would rather have her as a neighbor than Michelman. Part of my journey from Kennedy Democrat to DeSantis Republican.

rehajm म्हणाले...

Greenhouse appears to be epitomizing rhhardin’s point.

_________ appears to be epitomizing rhhardin's point works well around here, too...

Sarah from VA म्हणाले...

I always find people commenting on the sex lives of people with large families to be funny (and dumb). News Flash: Married people have sex! Having sex at least every other year for 10-14 years in order to create a large family is not a lot of sex. I would hope everybody who wants sex and is in a committed relationship is having at least that much sex and hopefully a lot more. And parents of large families are probably having a lot of non-procreative sex, too! Good for them!

Signed,

One of seven children who's heard far too many people ponder out loud that her parents must have had a lot of sex (I mean, I'm sure they did, except that scheduling it gets tricky when there are always all these other people around)

Critter म्हणाले...

Sounds like she is having a flashback of TDS. This is the kind of discourse that passes as intellectual these days. We have a generation of mediocre thinkers who try to pass themselves off as elite. Barack Obama is another of this ilk.

Drago म्हणाले...

Howard: "One would be inclined to believe sex was Amy's religion, the evidence being seven offspring"

Just gonna let that one sit right there.

Yancey Ward म्हणाले...

It is wise to avoid Greenhouse gases of this type.

Chris Lopes म्हणाले...

"Howard: "One would be inclined to believe sex was Amy's religion, the evidence being seven offspring"


And one would be an idiot. Even if she had given birth to all 7 (spoiler alert, she didn't), it would just mean she didn't practice effective birth control. Doing the math, 7 children means a minimum of 7 acts of intimacy. Over the course of an average marriage, that isn't exactly Hugh Hefner territory.

Or were you just trying to be a snarky ass?

Paul A. Mapes म्हणाले...

Has anybody given any consideration to the many similarities between Linda Greenhouse and Lillian Hellman? First, they were both well-known writers, and it just goes on from there...

gadfly म्हणाले...

"I haven't read Linda Greenhouse's book — nor will I — but it sounds like she indulged in a style of writing that Maureen Dowd uses so much lately . . . it feels interesting and conversational.

Ironically, it not unrelated to the way Donald Trump talks at his rallies."

I pass on the missing word, but find it inconceivable that anyone could listen to two-plus-hours of Donald Trump lying about the same things such as "locking up" Hillary after five years and "winning" the last election and still judge his usual stream-of-consciousness nonsense to be anything close to interesting, let alone conversational.

Big Mike म्हणाले...

There was a typo. It should have read “characteristic” instead of “uncharacteristic.”