Our Supreme Court: Representation Trumps Policy
May 7, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|The New Agenda is advancing a notion that is somewhat revolutionary to many women and men in this country: that representation of women in positions of power is more important to the advancement of women than desirable policies.
You know, the argument you hear from your friends. I vote for the “best” candidate – even if a woman is running. That some male candidates can be better supporters of women’s issues than female candidates. Is this true? Many studies suggest the opposite: that the advancement is most impacted by representation.
For example, this past Fall we highlighted a report published by UNIFEM titled: Who Answers to Women: Gender and Accountability. The conclusion was that countries with the highest representation of women in government had proportionately more women’s issues addressed. The conclusion of the report included these recommendations (my emphasis added):
- Women are participants in all oversight processes: Gender-responsive accountability institutions must ensure that decision-makers answer to the women who are most affected by their decisions. This means that women must be entitled to ask for explanations and justifications – they must be full participants in public debates and power-delegation processes.
- Accountability systems must make the advancement of gender equality and women’s rights one of the standards against which the performance of officials is assessed Power holders must answer for their performance in advancing women’s rights. The standards of due diligence and probity in holding the public trust must include gender equality as a goal of public action.
In case you were curious about how the United States fared in the UNIFEM study – not well. In the measure of how women were represented in their governments around the world, we came in 69th place with our paltry 17% representation.
Justice Ginsburg
Yesterday a story came out in the USA Today featuring an interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg titled Ginsburg: Court needs another woman. Justice Ginsburg spells out brilliantly (that’s why she is on the Supreme Court I suppose) the argument for representation. First, she describes her own experience:
Ginsburg, 76, a former women’s rights advocate whom President Bill Clinton named to the high court in 1993, recalled that as a young, female lawyer her voice often was ignored by male peers. “I don’t know how many meetings I attended in the ’60s and the ’70s, where I would say something, and I thought it was a pretty good idea. … Then somebody else would say exactly what I said. Then people would become alert to it, respond to it.”
Even after 16 years as a justice, she said, that still sometimes occurs. “It can happen even in the conferences in the court. When I will say something — and I don’t think I’m a confused speaker — and it isn’t until somebody else says it that everyone will focus on the point.”
And why it is essential to have women represented in our decision making and policy bodies (my emphasis added):
Ginsburg dominated oral arguments in an important case involving alleged discrimination related to pregnancy leaves. She was openly frustrated that some of her male colleagues, in her view, might not have understood the discrimination women face on the job.
…Oral arguments in the pregnancy case were “just, for me, Ledbetter repeated,” Ginsburg told USA TODAY, adding that her colleagues showed “a certain lack of understanding” of the bias a woman can face on the job….It’s a subtle influence. We can be sensitive to things that are said in draft opinions that (male justices) are not aware can be offensive.”
And how we rank and the message we are sending:
Ginsburg said having just one woman on the Supreme Court sends a disheartening message to Americans about women’s roles in society. She stressed the contrast between the Supreme Court and international courts, many of which have higher percentages of women.
The nine-member Supreme Court of Canada, for example, has four women justices, including the chief justice. Ginsburg also pointed to state courts in the USA, where, according to the National Center for State Courts, 20 top state benches, including those in Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin, are led by female chief justices.
The “worst part,” Ginsburg said, is the image a single woman at the high court projects, particularly to young people visiting the court: “Young women are going to think, ‘Can I really aspire to that kind of post?’ “
And Justice Ginsburg’s recommendation:
Ginsburg said the court needs another woman. “Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. I don’t say (the split) should be 50-50,” Ginsburg said. “It could be 60% men, 40% women, or the other way around. It shouldn’t be that women are the exception.”
Quick nitpicking comment: ad nauseum. Latin. It means “to the point of nausea.”
Another big problem that the one-woman thing causes is backstabbing among women. Ambitious women figure that there’s only going ot be one woman, and by God, it’s going to be here, and she’ll tank any other WOMAN who gets in her way. Men, she’ll suck up to. Women, she’ll destroy.
Which of course suits men just fine.
good point – i’ll fix!
And another minor annoying comment from me: Representation doesn’t Trump Policy. Representation IS POLICY. Ultimately, for women, in a statistical sense.
Amy:
The USA Today interview you’re citing was not posted today, the 7th. Part of the interview’s link “…05-05…” reflects the date.
I quoted from it, gave the author’s name– Joan Biskupic– and linked to it, in my comment yesterday in MadamaB’s “What Will President Obama Do…?” thread here at TNA:
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/0.....ment-15625
The correct date usually does matter. More importantly, the author’s name matters, especially to those of us who are writers and/or editors. Though I am not a journalist per se, I can’t help but see an odd irony in your omission of a simple mention of Joan Biskupic, who has earned her own byline in a paper and industry where women’s voices/views still are being suppressed, as so many threads and projects here at TNA have reminded us!
Of course, I agree with you on the major points you’ve raised above. I just wish you had brought more of your ideas and experience to the topic, as you have done in other threads. By filling this article with no fewer than five separate quotes, most of which are 2 or 3 paragraphs, your low ratio of original new content leaves me wondering, why so little of Amy’s own unique voice?
Good links and cites are essential, sure, but not enough: too much of a good thing can take a full article down to the level of a comment. After all, what should be the difference between the two kinds of posts?
You’ve got space here at TNA. You’ve got people’s attention. Use it! Break (more) new ground, Amy. Put something (better) on the line.
T.I.,
The simple answer to your question is this: we are working around the clock on our infrastructure. In the next day or so, we will be posting an invitation to this organization’s first fundraiser. We have a venue and date selected,as well as several sponsors. I have also been meeting with folks to fundraise This takes considerable time and effort.
Also, we are in the process of reviewing and selecting a branding firm, temporarily updating our website (including FINALLY credit card capabilities) and writing up the paperwork to file our license for both a 501c3 and a 501c4….
SO, while my mind is awash with ideas as always, the hours in the day aren’t there as they were prior. That’s why we sent the letter to our members and viewers to explain about May. TNA is humming along like never before and after a bit you will see a whole new organization (with the same principals of course) as we grow to become an organization with 100,000s of members.
Hope this explains T.I. I’m doing about everything BUT sleeping. I will update the date of the article.
Yes, I noticed you revised the date reference from today to yesterday.
Yes, I noticed you revised the date reference from today to yesterday.
But a baffling and ironic omission still remains in your post: why won’t you also make an equally easy mention of the name of the woman who authored the interview (as I included in my quick comment yesterday in the related TNA thread)?
Here’s another way to say it….
Your post refers to representation by women being crucial for support of important issues etcetera. Hmmm. Joan Biskupic represents a minority– Women!– at USA Today and the MSM in general. She took time to interview CJ Ginsburg. And Ginsburg really opened up. Their rapport probably had little to do with the USA Today brand name and publishers; it was more likely an example of two women supporting each other, each in her own way.
A quick and easy mention of Biskupic, by name, would help to reflect that.
I’m so sorry. A few lines were accidentally deleted from the top of my follow-up.
–
Amy:
I appreciate the prompt and informative reply.
I’ve been in the position of heading a large organization and having to wear many hats e.g. managing a website, editing, outreach, legal decisions, you name it. I learned a lesson from one such experience: find good people and trust them, as well as yourself, enough to delegate to them.
Yes, I noticed you revised the date….
Clarence Thomas is proof that just because a person on the court is member of a group, doesn’t mean they won’t work doggedly against that group. Both representation and policy are vitally important.
That said, it seems clear from all reports that President Obama is going to appoint a woman to Scotus. And I’m convinced it will be a woman with pro-woman policies.
Excellent article. Ginsburg proves our point beautifully- that putting women first and ideology second is in our best interest.
Another great example of women from different political parties coming together to support women is the success of bill S.614 honoring the WWII female aviators. This bill was introduced recently by Kay Bailey Hutchison and Barbara Mikulski , with the full support of all the female Senators. There are still some “liberal” male senators that have failed to sponsor it!
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...