Posted on 10/23/2005 10:18:21 AM PDT by Crackingham
It doesn’t involve cigars or a stained dress. But the nomination of Harriet Miers has created a woman problem on the Right every bit as big as that which faced feminists during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
For years, conservative women’s groups such as the Independent Women’s Forum have opposed feminist visions of female equality. We opposed affirmative action in the workplace, believing women had to be held to the same standards as men. We rallied against quotas, with the reasoning that if there were fewer female firefighters than male, this was because women didn’t wish to take these jobs, and not because of discriminatory hiring practices by the fire department. We recoiled from the theories of Catharine McKinnon and other so-called “difference feminists” that women deserved special breaks because their personalities were said to be innately more intuitive and sensitive than men’s, and that the female sex is incapable of reasoning logically the way men do. We were disgusted with feminist groups when they stood by Bill Clinton through all his women troubles — when the National Organization for Women, for example, jettisoned all its previously stated principles on sexual harassment in order to retain political power.
Now conservative women face a similar dilemma with Harriet: President Bush has asked us to stand by a woman who is unqualified for the Court because he knows what’s in her “heart” — not in her head.
We are asked to stand by her because, simply, she is a woman — a “pioneer,” a “glass-ceiling breaker” — even while other more qualified women were rejected for the position (and interestingly, rejected by Harriet herself, who headed the “search” committee).
That her pioneering had nothing to do with gathering expertise in constitutional law — well, no biggie. We must swallow the idea that quotas and affirmative action are justifiable policies for the highest Court in the land.
We are asked, further, to stand hypocritically by this decision as Patricia Ireland did when she stood by Bill Clinton — going so far as to sign letters with other "accomplished” women saying we believe Harriet Miers is qualified for the Court. Whatever our principles, we must jettison them in order to retain political power.
The president’s insistence on pushing ahead with this nomination is dragging conservatives down many legal avenues they don’t wish to go. But it is also setting back the arguments conservative women have been waging against feminists for more than a decade.
Why take any of us here — including, most damagingly, Harriet herself?
Oh really?
Name them, Frau Crittenden.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Oh good, another hit piece from NRO.
(We aren't asked to stand by Miers because she's a woman, but because she is the President's handpicked choice.)
(Saying there are better 'more qualified women' after bitching about the President picking a woman at all, only proves it is an issue for pundits.)
I resent the stoking of the gender issue. But I especially resent the insinuation that only people who agree with Crittenden are standing by principle - very self-absorbed and myopic.
I agree with her in principle (not nominating a woman to fill a supposed quota), but I'm willing to give Ms. Meirs the benefit of the doubt for now. I don't like the piling on.
President Bush has the right to nominate who he chooses ... that's how the game is played.
In one breath they insist that gender shouldn't have played any role, and in the next breath they wish the President had picked a better woman.
Michelle Malkin seems to have taken being labeled an elitist VERY personally, as she has now made defending being one, part of her daily vocabulary. The more she protests, the more attention she calls to herself and her fellow elitists.
As a Republican, I'm glad, because it only helps the GOP know who is with us or against us. I would love to see the Malkins and Coulters and Morgans (speaking of success!)of the world unite to form something like Pundits United Party of Elitists (PUPE!) and support a third-party and candidate. Let the stinkers from PUPE make their money by selling their wares to the fringers instead of the mainstream.
Carolyn
This is silly. There is no doubt that Harriet Miers is not just a woman...she is a highly accomplished woman.
We can argue about just how accomplished...but there's no doubt that Harriet Miers has other qualities than being "just a woman".
Saying that people opposed to Harriet Miers are opposed to women is like saying NRA is opposed to Laplanders - it makes no sense!!!
If there is anyone out there who can't figure out why Conservatives are opposed to Miers...well, that's just another reason we need vouchers as an alternative to public schools.
I agree.
Slightly off topic, but, you'd better be careful. You'd get run out of here for suggesting vouchers for public schools.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)
and we have the right to agree or disagree, make our views on the matter known both to the public and to our elected representatives - including the confirmation committee AND the President.
that is also how "the game" is "played".
His handpicked woman quota choice to replace a woman. Laura insisted. Bush thought it was a peachy idea. No men were considered. None.
Have you been sleeping through all this?
eh?
In a professional sense, she is a slightly accomplished woman.
Managing partner of a law firm? Give me a break. I know 20 lawyers in my small city who are equally or more accomplished if that is the criterion.
President of a state bar association? Vapid stuff, an honorific position not far removed from being elected high school student body president.
In a political, friend-of-Bush sense? EXTRAORDINARILY accomplished!
You aren't worth the effort it would take to respond, and you prove it by misinterpreting what was said and then trying to argue the point.
Apples and oranges, fruit.
And contrary to what you may think and how cute you may think the analogy, President of the Texas Bar is a bit more than being high school body president in most people's view.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)
I think National Review has lost its way.
It is OBVIOUS the woman status is mere puffery and not substantive. That is it is obvious to everyone with a single brain cell outside the beltway.
The National Review should be standing and EXPLAING their position why we should be supporting some other beltway insider who is from the judicial monestary.
I think this nomination is a "fickle finger of friendship" to the snobs of the senate.
If they don't get their act together I predict the next nominee will not even be a laywer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.