Politico Editor Laments Lack of Men in Movie About Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Life

[Soph0571]

But let’s turn away from politics. The essay goes on to pan “On the Basis of Sex”—a movie about gender discrimination—by complaining it didn’t give enough screen time to her husband Martin, played by Armie Hammer. Canellos uses the word “extraordinary” once in the piece, and I’ll let you guess for yourself whether it modifies a man who “enjoyed cooking and parenting,” or a woman born in the 1930s who rose to the Supreme Court.

And he can’t exactly let Ruth have that, either! “Marty shrewdly campaigned for her Supreme Court nomination at a time when others felt that, at 60, she was too old for the appointment,” he writes. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s own personal history as a barrier-breaking civil rights lawyer and 13 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on the other hand, apparently had very little to do with her nomination.

There is also the incredible complaint that the film should have focused more on the all-male panel of 10th Circuit judges who were even open to Ginsburg’s persuasion that gender discrimination is bad. Canellos writes:

There’s a further irony to the emergence of RBG as a political icon: She would never have succeeded in rooting out some of the double standards in American law had she not argued before some fair-minded, apolitical judges. In “On the Basis of Sex,” the male professors, law-firm partners and Justice Department attorneys are all irredeemably sexist and connive to preserve their privileges; the male federal judges, however, are not and do not. Though they’re lower-court judges, they’re portrayed by character actors resembling Earl Warren and William Brennan and other Republican appointees who turned out to be attuned to social change. When, at an appeals-court hearing, Ginsburg launches into a speech about the evils of sexism, the camera pans over their thoughtfully creased faces, absorbing her words like kindly grandfathers, while oboe music reminiscent of Aaron Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man” plays on the soundtrack. The judges are so clearly moved by Ginsburg’s arguments that her team is tearful with joy even before they issue their ruling.

[link:https://splinternews.com/politico-editor-laments-lack-of-men-in-movie-about-ruth-1831320056|

Wah Wah Wah screams yet another male pale and stale privileged eejit in another classic example of whataboutery 101

[Lotusflower70]

1. It's always something

Seriously? There is always something to whine about? But he clearly doesn't get it or doesn't care? It's about Ruth's experience and perception not his. And of course there are going to be those looking to tear it down. We know there are some good men as well as some assholes and some women who are opposition too. That's inevitable. But instead of acknowledging this, he is looking to redirect and deflect. Regardless, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is undeniably one of the greatest women role models of all time. No matter what he says, he cannot strip away her ability to inspire and move people forward.

[Sherman A1]

2. Haven't seen the film yet, but I would lament

the Editor's comments.

[Soxfan58]

3. How do you add characters

To a Biography

[UpInArms]

4. Am reminded of that Ann Richards quote

“After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.”

[DonaldsRump]

5. "male pale and stale"

Great phrase! First time I've heard that one (I don't get out too much)...