Is there a feminist issue in this?

[spooky3]

I'm amazed to see some DUers making statements such as these (in GD politics):

a) Sandra Day O'Connor is being selfish rather than concerned about the country in retiring. The facts that she is 75, a cancer survivor, and that her husband is very ill with Alzheimer's matter nothing; therefore (go to c) unless you also think b))

b) (some go even further to use the following bizarre logic) She was a (insert negative adjective(s) here) justice because she did X or Y (e.g., voted with Scalia and friends in Gore vs. Bush--by the way, I agree she was wrong on that, and I think she's too conservative overall; that's not the issue), therefore

c) She should be criticized for retiring.

I can't recall conversations when previous justices stepped down, but I can't imagine that anyone would question a male justice's desire to retire under these circumstances. If Rehnquist had decided to step down, would we see the same type of comment? I can certainly understand criticism of legal decisions, but why would that be coming out now in the context of a retirement decision?

[Bunny]

1. You may have a point, but I think much of the animosity toward Justice

O'Conner stems from her critical role in Selection 2000. She alone COULD have stopped the installation of Bush, and she chose not to. She was the ONE vote that put that idiot in office. I'm not sure that it's a feminist issue, so much as it's a "you put this asshole in office, don't you DARE retire until he's gone" issue. You made your bed, lie in it, I guess.

Remember on Election Night 2000, Sandy was overheard saying "oh no!" when one of the networks called the election for Gore? She had wanted to retire at that time, but knew she wouldn't be able to if Gore got to pick her replacement. So she would be stuck for the next four years. But lo and behold, she got to install Bush anyway. I really think she waited another four years for him to get "re-elected", so she could try to salvage some of her reputation before retiring.

We're expecting Rehnquist to retire, so that's not going to be a surprise.

Having said that, I think she is entitled to retire if she chooses.

[spooky3]

2. But that's not quite it. Either she or Rehnquist could have

switched their votes--so their situations are quite similar, except that Rehnquist was a little more reliably a part of the right-leaning coalition. Any justice in the 5 of a 5-4 vote is "the one vote" that put * in office. And if someone doesn't like what she did, then why wouldn't s/he WANT her to retire rather than say she is being selfish to retire? Criticizing the retirement decision is what makes no sense. If she stayed on, couldn't we expect her to make some additional bad decisions like Bush v. Gore, which I am sure she thinks is the right decision? Surely she doesn't see that as a mistake for which she must atone any more than Rehnquist would.

I'm not trying to explain the animosity re: Bush vs. Gore; I'm trying to figure out whether there is an element of sexism in expecting her to continue to serve rather than simply accepting that at age 75 anyone might want to step down, particularly give the health issues. And I am trying to point out that it is completely illogical to criticize her for bad judicial decisions AND then say she somehow should continue to serve. A person who thought she was awful ought to be pleased that she's retiring, or should not criticize her retiring.


Hope this is a little clearer than my original post.

[trotsky]

3. I think it also may have to do with her reputation as a "moderate."

She did vote in favor of abortion rights, and has sided with the majority in many liberal decisions. If Rehnquist retires, big deal, * swaps one right wingnut for another.

But with O'Connor leaving, we lose a moderate-conservative and gain another potential Scalia/Thomas. We lose someone who votes in our favor 35-40% of the time and get someone who votes against us 99% of the time.

I don't see sexism as having much, if anything, to do with it.

[spooky3]

7. but I'm still not seeing an answer as to why a few people

feel they can criticize her decision to retire. Her being a moderate (which she is not), liberal, conservative, crazy, sane, tall, or short--NONE of these things has anything to do with whether she has a right to make such a decision and have it respected. It's nobody's damn business but hers, and even if it were--all indications are that she has extremely compelling personal reasons that many men would use to make a similar decision.

That is the angle I am trying to get addressed. What is the evidence that we would attack a man's decision given the facts RELEVANT TO A RETIREMENT DECISION? That is the feminist question that I am asking.

[Warpy]

9. She was always blamed for being the swing vote

no matter how the case was decided. I think that unless she manages to find time to write her memoirs and confirms that impression, we'll never really know for sure.

What we do know is that her record sometimes seemed to contradict itself, wildly conservative on one case, seemingly liberal in another.

However, putting the entire burden onto her shoulders for a lot of the really terrible decisions that have come down 5-4 seems just a wee bit unfair.

To be honest, I expected her to retire 4 years ago, after Bush was installed.

[BlueIris]

4. I agree that the criticisms are appalling, but I think it's more a

"she's betraying liberals" thing, not a "she's a woman and betraying liberals" thing. I think David Souter would get the same pile of crap thrown at him. But those are just based on the comments I've seen. I confess, I felt a teeny shred of "goddamnit, couldn't she have held out just a little longer," until I remembered that a) I don't think this is quite as horrible as many believe and b) what did I expect her to do, die in her robe? Not to mention c) she did hold out a little longer (she was set to retire after the 2000-01 session, and reportedly may have reconsidered in light of the changing climate of the nation. I heard she changed her mind because of the changes in judicial climate post-9/11 rather than post-Bush Admin's reaction to 9/11, but my sources may not be the same as those her harshest critics are using.

[BlueIris]

5. Here's a WashPo editorial on feminist opinions of O'Connor:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201290.html?nav=rss_nation

[BlueIris]

6. And here's a WashPo editorial declaring her simply "a great judge":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070200995.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

[spooky3]

8. But my point is, it is no one's business but hers. David Souter is not

age 75 and he has not fought cancer, nor does he have a spouse who is very ill. Those are the factors that are relevant to a retirement decision, not his or her judicial votes. So comparing their situations and saying that people would give him crap too is not quite a good test, since she has far better (apparent) reasons for retiring than he does.

I see lots of evidence in society that people feel they have a right to make decisions for women where they feel they have no business commenting on men's decisions.

And by the way, as a WaPo subscriber, I was appalled to see the article on feminists' comments on the retirement placed in the STYLE section, for heaven's sake, which is the section of gossip, fashion and advice columns. I like to read those columns, but feminists' commentary should appear either in the serious news section or on the editorial pages, not in the "fluff section."

[Hello_Kitty]

10. Was it in the Style section?

Well, of course. That's where all the girly stuff belongs. :sarcasm:

I think the publishers believe that's the only section women read.

[BlueIris]

12. Maybe it was in the Style section because WP's demographics

indicate that the largest number of female readers, including those who are feminists, read the Style section? No, I don't know if this was the motivation of the editor or editors who stuck it there. Maybe it's kind of shitty that putting it in the Style section may have meant the paper thought only women were interested in reading about O'Connor in a feminist context? Shouldn't male readers also care about that? Maybe they ran it there because the other places it could have gone were full and would be full for the rest of the next week/half week. Frankly, considering the content of the WP over the past year, I'm impressed they bothered to print anything about O'Connor with the word "feminism" in it.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Male readers SHOULD care about it

Not that I'm assuming men don't read Style, but it's a safe bet that most don't. So an article about the feminist implications of a SC Justice retiring is relegated to the makeup and home decor section. Typical. Is it any wonder then that so many men get their ideas of what a feminist is from Rush?

But yeah, I guess we should be glad that they printed it at all.

[BlueIris]

14. Also, in a perverse sense, I can't say I'm too upset about an article

evaluating the Supreme Court and focusing on feminism running in an arguably less well read section of the W.P. On the op/ed page or in another section, the big, scary "f-word" might have kicked the drive among truly misogynist Republicans to keep anyone who appears even remotely pro-choice or pro-woman away from cosideration into an even higher gear. God knows, a lot of feminist issues are going to get trashed in the upcoming nomination fight, and I'd love it if feminism as a concept was somehow less of an easy target for the neocons during the whole mess.

[BlueIris]

15. Also, of course male readers should care. Everyone should.

I didn't intend to leave my post worded to suggest that they shouldn't. Yes, I mean about feminism and O'Connor and not just O'Connor, her impact or her departure. One of the things that disturbs me the most is how many men I've met who consider the preservation of civil and human rights for women a "women's problem" they have no obligation to get or stay informed about. As if the lives, health and civil liberties of women somehow only affect women.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Oh yeah, I know what you meant

Nothing wrong with the way your post was worded. I'm from DC originally and grew up reading the Post. Topics pertaining to women were always found in the Style section, no matter how important they were. It's like that's our little section and the rest of the paper is for truly weighty (read: of more interest to males) issues. That, and a big-ass sports section to cover games played nearly exclusively by men.

That was over 20 years ago and it doesn't look like much has changed. Not that any other paper is any different, either.

[BlueIris]

11. The point of my posting those articles was to add information

to this discussion, in this case from the popular media, in hopes that it might contribute to your topic, the question of whether Justice O'Connor's retirement has been greeted with a sexist response and how it has been spoken and written about in the context of feminism. I don't think the presence of the article on O'Connor and feminism in the Style section of the WashPo invalidates the content of the story.

You're right: wondering whether Justice Souter would be criticized in a manner similar to the way O'Connor is being criticized by some, would not necessarily answer the question of whether posters criticizing O'Connor for retiring are being sexist. Because Souter isn't retiring. I gave the Souter example after stating that I believe the bulk of people criticizing O'Connor (from among those I have heard from and read comments posted by) are doing so because they are disgruntled about the way her departure is impacting liberals, perhaps because she has seemed sympathetic to liberal ideologies. I can't really say that I think the declaration of any criticism of O'Connor's decision to resign her appointment, even though she is a woman, is inherently sexist, or that the people making the negative comments are motivated by sexism. Has anyone copped to a sexist motivation? I haven't seen it happen on this site yet. As to whether or not there's something inherently inappropriate about the expression of those criticisms, because it is, in fact, her business, well, maybe. But right now, I'm wondering if people offended by the criticisms of O'Connor would be so insorcelled if Souter was retiring, for whatever reason, and taking heat for that choice, arguably no one's place to question.