Kagan Sexism Watch!
May 12, 2010
by The New Agenda
|
The New Agenda commends President Obama for his nomination of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Stephens.
If Kagan is confirmed, our country will be taking an important step towards parity – with 3 of 9 – or 33% of the Supreme Court composed of women. Dramatically higher than our legislative branch (corrected) where only 17% of our federal elected officials are women!
After witnessing the questions of intellect, temperament and other sexist slurs thrown at Justice Sotomayor after her nomination, we must all be vigilant and prepared!
We are asking our viewers to be alert. Please report sexism to The New Agenda and we will speak out. Send us your message to: editor@thenewagenda.net
Together we’ll call it out and say “never again” to being silent on sexism!
With Sotomayor it was shocking to see how the intentions of her “wise Latina woman” comment got twisted and turned around. It was such an innocuous comment and perfectly suitable for her audience. So far the criticism that I’ve heard of Kagan is that she’s too liberal or too conservative which I can handle. But let’s see what happens….
Well, it sure didn’t take them long. The tempest brewing around Kagan’s sexual orientation is so offensive it’s hard to know where to start — homophobic, sexist, and anti-single women. It is so sickening that an accomplished, brilliant legal mind who has reached the level of success she has, has to have friends and colleagues from high school on up vouch for her “straightness” and assure all of us that she has dated men. I didn’t mind the debate about whether she was liberal enough, or conservative enough — that’s democracy. This is an attack on women, gay & straight.
I have to admit, though, that I’m confused as to why the sexual orientation thing has come up as an issue with Kagan. All I’ve seen is Gibbs responding to question in a press conference. Who exactly is attacking her, i.e. which side? Can someone post some links?
I think Obama supporters would very much like Kagan to be a lesbian so when the President goes on to not support gays and lesbians, they can spin his SC nomination as proof that he’s really just a wonderful guy. I think they are the ones attempting to spread the rumors.
I think it’s appalling that the “evidence” of her being a lesbian seems to amount to a photo of her playing soft ball. It’s outrageous but kind of funny too. She plays sports and has short hair and is single. Well then, she must be a lesbian because any woman that would not immediately avail herself of a husband, must be a lesbian. There can be no other reasonable explanation as to why she would not find the roll of wife exclusively and immediately fulfilling.
And why do we support girls playing sports? So they will invest some time and energy into something other then boys and perhaps grow up to be a supreme court justice?
It would be quite fabulous to have someone gay or lesbian on the supreme court, I just think the way the whole issue is being framed is very sexist and stereotypical.
If Kagan is a lesbian or even if they think she might be, then she will be protected from offensive questioning because only heterosexual women are liberal mockery targets. A gay woman would be protected by societal taboos against trash talking against gays. But if she is a hetero woman then degradation of her is a bonding issue for media and liberal Democrats.
See the rule seems to be with the ruling elitists, that hetero women can not have a voice in media or politics. We can have hetero men talk for us, we can have gay men talk for us, we can have lesbian women talking, but hetero women can’t have a voice or talk for themselves. That seems to offend them on some level so they break out the mockery and degradation and start making up outrageous quotes and attributing them to the hetero women.
I think it’s worth pointing out that when Obama was inaugurated Ruth Ginsberg had been toiling as the only female Justice for 3 years because Bush could by his lights find no other qualified woman than his failed nominee and political crony Harriet Miers to replace Sandra O’Conner. Would McCain a year and a half have not only restored the pre-Bush complement of 2 women Justices but bettered it with his next pick?
Well, I am definitely confused because the Hillbuzz gang et al are scratching their heads over this one. (http://hillbuzz.org/2010/05/12.....ent-192997) There’s probably more about it in that comment thread but that’s the one that caught my attention and where I replied.
It’s not about whether she is or she isn’t. It’s about the two-step thing the White House is doing over the entire issue. She’s already been through a confirmation process where this either never came up or didn’t matter. In any way.
Now it does? To the White House and the left? Or somebody? What?!?
I won’t even get into the softball picture thing. Can anyone imagine the eye-roll that one is going to get out of Palin? Oye.
Correction re women’s representation:
executive branch 0%
legislative branch 17%
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...