Women on the Court
July 1, 2010
by Kaitlyn Murphy
|The New Agenda welcomes our viewers to share your thoughts and ideas by writing a blog piece on any women’s issues. Please send your submission along to blog@thenewagenda.net. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
Heading toward the close of Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination hearings, it is becoming more and more inevitable that she will be joining the Supreme Court when hearings resume this fall. If Kagan is confirmed, the shifting demographics of the Court will be a groundbreaking for women. The 2010 term will mark the first time that full third of the Courts nine seats are filled by women. It will be a substantial given that for almost 200 years, there was not a single woman on the Court. But women are not all the same. And where does the diversity within the three women on the Court take us?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, confirmed in 1993, is married with two grown children. But the two more recent female nominees—Kagan and Sotomayor—are unmarried, without a long-term partner, or children. There is certainly nothing wrong with choosing not to live with a single partner or choosing not to become a mother, but it is an interesting question of parity on the Court, where all of the remaining six male judges are married with children.
Being a Supreme Court Justice is the golden goal of most law students. And women going into the law know (or will soon learn) that gender roles are just as strong as ever in the legal profession. So what are the recent Court nominations teaching young lawyers? For men, if you study hard, you can have a wife, kids, and your dream job. But for women, you are going to have to choose—are you going to have a family or a successful career? That is an implicit and dangerous difference in the men and women on the Court.
But the emerging presence women on the Court who choose to live without a long-term partner or children can also be empowering for women. For better or worse, public perception plays a strong role in who is and who is not considered for a seat on the highest Court in the nation. Knowing that young women do not have to conform to “typical’ female behavior to win public approval is a strike for female independence. Sandra Day O’Connor is a brilliant, talented and brave woman, but it is no longer the case that in addition to all of those attributes, women on the Court have to care for a husband and children as she did to be an acceptable nominee.
It is wonderful for the nation to see women being appointed to the Supreme Court, but we should also be careful to ensure that we avoid the trap of seeing “female” as an all-encompassing category. While women have some shared interests, they are not all identical and it is important for us to examine the differences in perspectives among women when looking at those in positions of power.
We’re so far from parity it isn’t even funny. It’s great to finally see women breaking through these ceilings, but the playing field is still incredibly uneven.
I am all for women not having children, for investing their time and energy in other pursuits. I think that’s a fabulous choice. However, I think mothers would bring a perspective that is unique and important. The hurdle of having to chose between work or family is not something many men have had to deal with. It’s still exceedingly unfair that women must be overly qualified and have invested 150% of their time and energy into their careers just to be considered “equal.” These women aren’t equal, they are so far above their male counter-points it isn’t even funny.
However, the fact that you don’t have to have a husband of children just to be viewed as “normal” is a good thing. I remember just 20 yrs ago when people would look at a woman like that as if she were a freak. On some levels we still do, people act like there must be something “wrong” with her, but there has been an incredible shift in the last few years. I read a study not long ago that said just a couple of decades ago, only one in ten women were deciding to remain childless. It’s now up to one in five. Does anybody remember the population explosion worries, the zero population nuts? A pox on them! As I’ve said all along, give women opportunities and choice and the population will decrease to sustainable levels naturally and gently. No need for bizarre population controls or State mandates and interference.
Kagan and Sotomayor model other versions of female lives. Do we really care if these women are happy – or is that a pretext for veiled criticism, which I suspect (not here, of course). It’s a triumph that any woman emerges with vitality and confidence after decades in patriarchy. Inquiries into female satisfaction are a waste of time – just give us total freedom, and we’ll take it from there.
I think it is a plus to show accomplished women with and without children and husbands. For many years women were assumed to have marriage as a goal and we know how many divorces there are. We all need to let people who choose to be single feel like that is a choice society supports. It is good to have more people who are content with their lives.
Briefly, I have no disagreement with any of the above (article and comments).
But, I have problems with Ms. Kagan on at least a half-dozen issues and associations such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqdKKKRrrg
Interesting. I for one do not assume that a woman who is married with children is necessarily happier than one who is unmarried. We all know married women who live lives of quiet or not so quiet desperation.
Society tells us that women should desire being married and having kids, and that this will bring them happiness. Happiness comes from inside. Studies have shown I believe that if a person isn’t happy before marriage, they are probably not going to be happy long-term once they’re married.
Something a lot of women need to figure out still:
http://mulattodiaries.files.wo.....ission.jpg
Kaitlyn,
Great insight! I certainly believe women can be as happy married and unmarried. As long as it is a true choice. As you mention, oftentimes women are forced into either or alternatives. The workplace is so unfriendly to women with families, let’s not even talk about success and getting to the upper echelons.
Unfortunately, it is not only men; many women think and act upon other women as if family/professional success is an either or proposition. Not only are women who have families are professionally undermined ( anyone remember how Palin was derided for not taking care of her 4 children instead of running for VP?, but also women who dedicate their lives to raise their families are totally undervalued (even by themselves). When you ask a woman who is raising a family where do you work, they often say “I don’t work”. I always tell them that they should not say they don’t work, as it sounds as if they were sitting doing nothing. They work very hard trying to raise the next generation that will be productive and will sustain us, whether we have children or not.
Valentina, this is so true that women don’t appreciate their work raising children appropriately. just met a middle aged woman with two adult kids in an early intervention workshop for unemployed people who blamed herself for her situation saying that she really had not worked and built a career for a long time.
my impression is that it is getting harder and harder to combine raising children and having a career. Agree with Kaitlin’s observation.
you all aren’t seriously supporting her just because she’s a woman, are you? She is an awful pick. She is not supportive of our military, she is a muslim sympathizer, she believes that women should be given unfettered access to tax-payer funded abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and she believes that the bill of rights is in the way of progress.
A female on the SCOTUS would be great, but given the choice between this one and a man who will interpret the law and not practice judicial activism and run roughshod over our constitution, I would pick him, hands down.
Please be careful what you wish for. All of our freedoms are on the chopping block and the wrong SCOTUS picks will drop the hammer.
“All of our freedoms are on the chopping block … ”
And the reason they are is because women are constantly looking for excuses to not support other women that they would never in a million years employ to withhold support from a man. Women constantly act like they are just dying the support the “right” woman, and funny enough, there is always something that causes them to withhold. Every single time. When was the last woman you supported for anything?
And don’t forget — the conservative Reagan-appointed O’Connor was the deciding vote to uphold Roe. I don’t care how liberal your mythic knight-in-shining-armor perfect man is, he’s NOT going to be there for women’s issues. Ever. I will pick the woman every single time. Playing this “yes-but” game for twenty years is what’s got us to this point. Plainly, continuing to play by those rules isn’t the solution.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
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
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
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...