Thursday, 22 September 2005
|1150 - If I do it to you, it's discrimination; if you do it to me, it's feminism|
Senator Dianne Feinstein just announced she will vote no on John Robert's nomination for Chief Justice because he didn't talk enough about what kind of husband and father he is.
No, I am not making this up.
If the men on the Judiciary Committee had asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg what kind of wife and mother she was, the feminists would have howled in indignation. Where are the howls now?
current mood: cynical
current music: Creedence Clearwater Revival - Down on the Corner
Like it freaking matters what kind of husband and father he is?
Sorry. Just being succinct today.
How do people like her manage to keep getting elected,
I dont care about his home life, that is His,
I want to knwo if he will overrule that stupid
make America Communist Emminent Domain thing
That came up during his confirmation hearings...he said that Congress had the power to limit how eminent domain could be used.
And of course, it's got nothing at all with Dianne Feinstein digging around in her couch cushions for reasons to vote no.
Still, bloody appaling that it's considered acceptable.
You make it sound as if you were opposed to feminism. I don't *think* you are, so, um... why spin it that way?
I'm not opposed to feminism. I am opposed to feminists who think it's acceptable to act the same way towards men as they fight against people acting towards women.
So, you're opposed to hypocrisy. So am I. But why even bring up feminism in the first place?
What it sounds like he's opposed to is hypocrisy.
Uh, how is he spinning it that way?
By even bringing feminism up in the first place.
Senator Dianne Feinstein brought it up, just not by name. All Jay did was call attention to the implied cover she was using, showing that it was being misused. That's hardly anti-feminist sentiment. Too often alleged feminists have had the message "Feminism is the belief that women are people." with the message that somehow men are sub-human. Equality isn't a problem, it's the trade of one inequality for another inequality and trying to pass it off as progress that is the problem.
*shrug* I just take issue with Jay's "where are the howls of indignation" verbiage. People who use that phrase tend to be opposed to whoever they're talking about.
Had it been the opposite, there would have been howls, and rightly so. But the double standard is alive and well here, hence the question. I've not heard those opposed to something point out the hypocrisy, even with those words. What I have heard is people who point out the hypocrisy get painted as opposing things. How dare they criticize the approach! They must be evil and in opposition to everything good! Which is, of course, complete and utter nonsense.
Let's try this from another angle. Jay asks, where are the howls of indignation about Sen. Feinstein. Well, how hard has he looked?
This sorta reminds me of some columnist (I forget who) asking, why haven't Muslim clerics denounced the actions of the 9-11 terrorists? Well, guess what? They did. Many of them. The fact that their comments weren't printed on the front page of every newspaper in the country, or whatever would satisfy Mr. Columnist there, proves nothing.
I'm poking around now, looking for what The Feminists Themselves might have to say about all this. I'm looking at now.org, and, hmm, they're deeply concerned about John Roberts' opposition to women's rights, reproductive freedom, and civil rights. Very deeply concerned. They do NOT want him on the Supreme Court. I'm guessing they figure Roberts may do a lot more damage to the women's movement than Feinstein's silly comment.
So, because to some it's a relatively minor thing, it should just be ignored? Ignoring a small problem only lets it fester and grow into a bigger problem. And while that happens, credibility is eroded.
Poking around some more, I found this, Sen. Feinstein's own words about why she's voting no:http://www.emilyslist.org/happening/20050922_feinsteinremarks.html
She's voting no because Roberts has been refusing to say, well, pretty much anything that would indicate he'd serve fairly as a Supreme Court Justice. Characterizing her reason as "because he didn't talk enough about what kind of husband and father he is" strikes me as disingenuous and just way off base.
I see nothing here for feminists to criticize Feinstein for.
Rather than talking to me as a son, a husband, a father – which I specifically requested that he do.
Perhaps it would better to say, "one of" but I don't know what Jay had as a source.
As far as Roberts goes, he's been avoiding obvious traps -- from Democrats and Republicans -- where there are emotional issues posed rather than legal ones. I see more fear of the unknown as he isn't following in a pre-ordained path they like more than anything else.
These "Power Line" people seem to leave a lot of things out in order to support their position. I guess they're hoping people don't notice?