Which is better serving the cause of feminism--appointing a woman to the Supreme Court because (as an essential qualification--not the only qualification) she is a woman, or giving female and male judges equal consideration for the vacant post?
One might argue that women are being best served by having greater representation on the court. Feminism is working.
One might argue that disqualifying other judges just because they are male is somewhat patronizing to women--suggesting that a woman would not have qualified for the post without special treatment. Feminism isn't working.
Which is the greater good?
The same points could pretty much be said about appointing a Hispanic to the court because of being that race.
Are the feminist purists seeing this scenario (and I realize this scenario may not be actually happening now--though reports are that it is) as perhaps less-than-ideal but still an important symbolic step toward gender Utopia, or are some actually upset by it? Are there those among them that see this as quintessential feminism and find no contradiction?
Just wondering.
You might be wondering as well (I'll pretend people still read this blog)...maybe.
3 comments:
It is a person's ideology that influences their decisions. The appointment of a female or a minority with the thought they will vote one specific way is a misconception i.e. C. Thomas, although Black, does not support many traditional "minority" issues. Females and minorities should be appointed on their merit when placed on an equal footing with others, not at an advantage, but not at a disadvantage. On the other hand, without equal opportunity laws, we, those of us who are not male, white, rich, etc. might have never been given some opportunities. So has the time for EEOC laws passed? I don't think so, but I looks forward to the day when this questions would not even be asked. Will that day ever come is an important issue.
Actually, I do read your posts, but I don't know quite how to answer this one. I would like to point out that both Sandra Day O'Conner and Ruth Ginsburg feel it is important that another woman be appointed, and I trust their judgment (hee-hee).
It is always political. I think the question the president asks isn't what is right, but what makes me look good? It is egotistical. I think Obama and his team picked this nomination because no one else has and having a hispanic on the Supreme Court gives them an edge with the hispanic voters. I can't blame them, it is smart, it can help him win the next election, but at the same time it isn't necessarily right, but what Republican is going to risk being called anti-hispanic by not voting for her because of that.
Putting a women on the bench does seem right. In general most women seem to process and debate information differently than I do. Even if we agree a high percentage of the time, it is good to have the different pattern. Gosh is that sexist? You just can't win.
Post a Comment