Gender and the Judge: Sotomayor Encounters a Familiar Bias
I've been following the Sotomayor hearings, and I've come to some conclusions.
Her "wise Latina" comment was just an observation about the importance of life experience.
It's impossible to say whether it was the white or black New Haven firemen who suffered discrimination.
And...
Gender bias is alive and well.
The direct questioning has been (mostly) civil and (mostly) relevant to the job of serving on the highest court in the land. But it is the flanking actions that say volumes about the realities of women, work and bias.
It started early, even before her nomination, with George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen's article in the New Republic. Quoting from anonymous comments the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary and from individuals, he wrote that she was a "bully," "domineering" and a "terror" on the bench. The eruption of blog commentary that followed cast her as irrational, temperamental and overly emotional.
Never mind the numerous defenders who have argued in her court who say she is even-tempered, cordial and unfailingly fair. Never mind that her opinions show her to be consistent and far from extreme.
Never mind that it is the job of any judge to be forceful, direct and skeptical.
Never mind that any lawyer who argues before the Supreme Court knows that he or she is going to be interrupted early and often - and that dealing with that is like earning a campaign ribbon in battle.
Never mind Justice Antonin Scalia's frequent temperamental outbursts, or CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen labeling him "justice nasty" when he humiliated a student in a public gathering for a question about cameras in the court room. The world shrugs off his frequent outbursts (including angry letters to newspapers that criticize him) as simply a facet of his forceful personality and passion.
Never mind all of that.
What interests me - and what says volumes about the modern day realities of women in the workplace - is how quickly the argument flew to her temperament.
It is one more reminder - as if any woman leader needs reminding - that females in high positions must walk heel to toe along a fine line that is invisible for men. Too aggressive, and you're a bitch. Too accommodating, and you're passive. Universal? No. True? Ask any woman who has been there.
The binary bitch-pushover conundrum is only one of many destructive stereotypes. Men negotiate; women placate. Women nurture; men take charge. Women ask questions; men make statements. Women take it personally; men shrug it off. And on it goes.
The standard comeback: quit whining (like a woman) and get on with the job. Results trump everything. But the fact is that leadership is about perception. And as long as perception is complicated by assumption, it is tremendously destructive to a woman's ability to achieve those results.
The "wise Latina" and New Haven firemen lines of attack sidelined temperament for a time. But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and (as day follows night) Fox News have kept it alive. Sen. Graham recited all the charges from the anonymous reviews - "bully," "nasty" and "terror" - and asked directly: "Do you think you have a temperament problem?"
Judge Sotomayor handled it all with a calm confidence that says she has played it before, and is well versed in the rules. Until women are in leadership positions approaching the numbers of men; until organizations truly figure out how to move diversity from keeping score to creating advantage - for women leaders, gender issues will be an unwritten part of the job description.
This line of primarily white "first responders" makes for a vivid non-verbal argument that Sonia is stepping up to the high court on the backs of these white heroes.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
These hearings were undoubtedly filled with sexist questions and remarks, it's quite obvious.
Others have cited Justice Scalia's famous temper, and how HIS confirmation hearings didn't place nearly as much (or any at all) importance on this as an 'issue'; his temper has been proven many times, and yet, they everyone's wasted time by asking Judge Sotomayor about her supposed temper, while the only evidence they had to support such a 'temper' were anonymous remarks. Now, in regards to temper, there's a good chance there was racism involved as well ('Fiery Latina'), but I think this was more sexist. They were simply feeding off of the outdated stereotypes that women inherently have anger issues, that they are unstable and unable to keep their emotions in check like the stereotypical 'in control' man.
For me personally, the most cringe-worthy and disgusting moment came when Sen. Graham asked Judge Sotomayor if she though she had a temper. How utterly disrespectful and out of line! I doubt he would have asked a man that same question when presented with the same 'evidence'. What is she supposed to say, 'Yeah, I have an awful temper that totally impairs on my ability to judge'? Of course she'd say no; so when you know what the answer to a question like this is going to be, why ask it at these hearings? Graham asked it because he wasn't thinking, and failed to catch his sexism before it could condescendingly fall out of his mouth.
You folks who aren't understanding sexism and racism need to get over your defensive rationalizations and thoughtfully, deeply consider what this author and those responding are saying. Listen! Listen! Listen! You don't know what you are talking about and have a lot to learn.
A bunch of silly Repugnatists trying to play alpha male and bring down the wise, respected, high ranking female.
Yes sexism is alive and well in America--just listen to what G. Gordon Liddy had to say about Judge Sonia Sotomayor on his radio show May 28th:
“Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.”
How clever to reduce smart women to hysterical and untrustworthy for a quarter of their life.
It was an ignorant statement on so many levels. Sonia Sotomayor is 55 years old. It is doubtful that she is still menstruating at all.
Last night the Daily Show played the disgusting Senators calling Judge Sotomayer a racist, demand she kiss up for giving a speech several times using a term they didn't like - and even though in context it was hardly racist, ill-advised perhaps but she wasn't addressing the entire free world just a specific group (mostly women, many Latina). In the next minute Stewart replayed Graham/Sessions almost in tears that Alito had been called a racist, they woud not sully the man's ears with even asking if he was a racist, whoever hinted at it was sub-human -- I swear Graham was near tears. OK, I understand politically there is a difference but why does it always seem that a Republican cannot truly find a good reason to oppose so they throw dirt and wipe their dirty hands pretending they are still lily white. As a woman I am outraged at this double standard, as a white woman I am deeply ashamed and will work to get these bigots out of government office.
But you see, the fact that she even had to say "wise latino woman" ... places her in a category of having to compare herself to short fat white men or whoever... We women are constantly underestimating ourselves, we don't need to tell people we are wise or better than or even equal. Just like men, if we assume we are then we are. http://newsy1.wordpress.com
As a woman who works in a professional niche that is still almost entirely male, I am very cognizant of the "too aggressive"/"too passive" criteria by which women are judged -- I've managed to be called both on job reviews, sometimes simultaneously, which is a feat, and for me a sign I must be walking the tightrope somewhat successfully.
Female assertiveness is still such a touchy point in the male world, and it is refreshing to see it acknowledged in print. I wish Judge Sotomayor the best.
Just a thought:
All girl nominees for the SCOTUS should be automatically approved. It's unfair to make them undergo the grilling that boy nominees have to endure.
A swing and a miss. (And possibly a huge chip on your shoulder...)
If you say so, doll.
Sotomayor deserves to be confirmed, and will be.
But to claim that, because of one's race and gender, one will make judgements superior to those made by another race or gender....well, that is by definition both a racist and sexist comment.
The fact that she made a sincere apology for those repeated comments indicates that she realizes, if only now, that they were inappropriate and offensive.
Since only two women and two African-Americans have sat on the Supreme Court during its entire history, an awful lot of people apparently thought/think that white males would "make judgments suprior to those made by another race or gender." Why is that different?
Oops! WHAT is the difference>
I found the Republicans' tone to be extremely demeaning. They never would have spoken to Holder that way.
Granted Sotomayor was a little too humble as she was just trying to get through the hearing as quickly as possible, but the Republicans were talking down to her like she was in middle school.
Meanwhile she's smarter than they are, has a better education than they have, and will attain a higher office than they will.
Their white male bigotry was on full display in my opinion.
What was "white male " bigotted about it? I thought women wanted to be treated just like men. The bad comes with the good. It's a modern reality that nominees get a grilling, regardless of how qualified they are.
Geez, talk about bias. She's smarter? Better educated? Higher office? Those are cute opinions but nothing more. Apples and oranges. Senator and SCOTUS justice are both admirable titles and most of the people in that hearing are well educated and have professional degrees.
Huh? Women want to be treated with respect, not be subject to racist, sexist claptrap.
There's a difference between "grilling" and the nonsense that were these hearings. Notice how it took Senator Franken to actually start asking questions about judicial functions rather than trying to get her to have a "meldown."
You are right about those other people, but it does not make an argument for her if she is just as abusive.
That's off point. Often what men consider "abusive" in a woman shows "competitiveness and ambition" in a man — positive qualities in the male pecking order hierarchy. Just look at Scalia and Thomas. They were known to be nasty and abusive before they were elected to the Supreme Court, but that wasn't an issue raised by either political party.
Whenever I hear "temperamental" and "bitchy" used by men about competent and ambitious women, I feel a visceral blow and a disheartening sense of women continuing to lose in our war for equality.
Thank you for finally shining the light on the sexism involved in Sotomayor's confirmation. Much has been made of the racism thrown her way. Sexism remains the most pervasive and invisible prejudice. A male candidate would have never been treated with the disrespect this remarkable woman has so artfully handled.
I couldn't tell if the "temperment" discussion regarded her gender or her ethnicity. Either way, it pissed me off. I always enjoy your writing Peggy.
I think it was mainly gender. If it had been ethnicity (especially black) you would have seen these other terms: "arrogance," "angry" and "militant." Remember Obama was "arrogant" and Michelle Obama was "arrogant, angry and militant."
The white men club is trying to intimidate her ..I am sure she has dealt with this before..It worked with clarence thomas, he fell right in line .................I dont think it will work with this little lady..
What little lady? I have not seen any little lady answering questions calmly, steadfastly and wisely at this hearing.
It's rather hard for Sotomayor to escape that cause of the Fireman and Affirmative Action. It was very blatanly racist against those fireman, when they threw out those test. Cnn asked the question this morning, Is Affirmative Action still needed? I agree with John Roberts, It will be good when it's no longer needed. It was was needed way back then, but it's probably time to end it. Lyndon Johnson worked hard to for Equal Rights, mostly because of his Black Houskeeper, who had so many problems with it.
WAAH...I knew someone would try to inject sexism into what has been a pretty smooth process so far.
You say the world shrugs off Scalia's foul personality as being 'forceful'...IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH YOU SAY A CBS REPORTER LABELED HIM "JUSTICE NASTY"???!!!
The only evidenciary condescending/sexist comments you cite are "bully," "domineering" and a "terror", and they were from one OLD article. None of those comments have intrinsic gender bias whatsoever, and they pale in comparison to what's been said about losers like Thomas & Scalia.
If you want & expect reverential, kid-glove treatment from the opposition, then it is you who's manipulating gender to your advantage. And next time you might want to dig up some...gee...actual & CURRENT examples of sexist language before you go off on a diatribe like this.
You okay? Okay, good. Cuz...you're completely wrong.
duh???? did you even watch the hearings???
they had pages of like remarks they read over and over...........
sexism at its worst............
Exactly. Some women want to be treated like men and then complain about being treated like men.
Except she wasn't being treated like a man.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
