Ladies, think with your uteri!
Ruth Marcus thinks the female SCOTUS justices do. And she thinks that’s a good thing:
How did the Supreme Court manage to agree unanimously that police must obtain a warrant before searching cellphones, yet split on whether employers must offer contraception as part of their health care plans?
My explanation, slightly crude but perhaps compelling: All the justices, presumably, have cellphones. Only three have uteruses, and you know which way they voted.
This is hardly an isolated thought. It was inherent in Sotomayor’s statements about the superior judgment of a “wise Latina“:
And [Sotomayor] often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach.
The line was almost identical every time:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”
That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase “than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.
A similar idea about the superiority and importance of membership in a minority or other group officially designated as oppressed was strongly suggested in an execrable comment by Harry Reid (is there any other kind?) in connection with Hobby Lobby, about which I wrote:
More reaction from the left…My favorite (and I mean that in a sarcastic sense) is from none other than Harry Reid, our illustrious Majority Leader: “It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.”
I’ve got a idea! Let’s pack the Court, and have an equal number of men and women on it, and then have the men decide cases that affect men and the women decide cases that affect women. What could go wrong?
I am almost sure that the left would applaud—except they’d probably add that although an all-woman judiciary for cases involving women made sense, cases involving men need the participation of women to make them fair.
And although this case doesn’t seem to be so closely related, nevertheless there is a connection. The young woman involved is, after all, only following the example of her elders, and if she goes them one better in how overt she makes it—well, that’s what young people do. They build on the work of those who have gone before them. If Peterson saw her task as student-body president as representing her own special interest groups to the detriment of others—well, why wouldn’t she see it that way at this point?:
The most expensive prep school in the country, the Lawrenceville School, spent much of its spring semester mired in racial tensions as its first black student-body president was forced to step down for “mocking” white male students on Instagram…
“I understand why I hurt people’s feelings, but I didn’t become president to make sure rich white guys had more representation on campus,” [Maya] Peterson told BuzzFeed, which reported the story on Monday. “Let’s be honest. They’re not the ones that feel uncomfortable here.” Peterson graduated from Lawrenceville, a private school near Princeton, N.J., in June…
…[T]he Lawrenceville School ”” where annual tuition is around $53,000 and the student body is 55 percent white, 21 percent Asian, and 16 percent black/Hispanic ”” would not comment directly…
Peterson…told BuzzFeed that the controversy over her leadership started long before the Instagram photo, with cries from some students suggesting that the election she’d won had been fixed. She also notes that some of her initiatives as president ”” to institute a “diversity representative” on the student council board, and to create gender-neutral bathrooms, for example ”” were not well-received. She caught flak later in the year, she explains, for raising her fist in a “black power” salute along with several other students for a yearbook photo. But Peterson, a lesbian, says it was always her aim to reach out to minorities who often felt overlooked on campus. “The younger kids told me they felt comfortable opening up to me in a way they didn’t with other people,” she tells Buzzfeed…
“I’m not saying what I did was right,” Peterson told BuzzFeed. “But it wasn’t racist. I was just calling those guys exactly what they are. And Lawrenceville is the type of place where those kids are idolized.”
Kudos to Lawrenceville for recognizing this as racism, whether Maya Peterson knows it is or not. And she may not know it, even now, because so many of her elders have modeled this sort of behavior and told her it’s not only acceptable, it’s desirable.
[NOTE: I must say I’d never even been aware of the existence of Lawrenceville before reading that article. But in an odd coincidence, I ran across the name of the school again today. I was looking at a biographical sketch of Thornton Wilder, and found that he was a young French teacher there when he wrote his classic The Bridge of San Luis Rey.]
Lawrenceville is right down the road from Princeton, where people divide themselve on whether they shop at Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and Wegmans or at Walmart.
They not only want us to think with our uterus, it seems to be the only part of us they’re interested in discussing.
We’re going through another campaign cycle where all Sen. Mark Udall wants to talk about is what he can do to safeguard my reproductive parts – birth control, abortion, etc. With the current bad state of so many things in America, such as the economy, unemployment, border security, and threats from a ME on fire, you’d think he would find time to tell voters what he plans on doing about all that. Sadly, no.
Incredibly insulting to be treated by the Democrats & MSM as nothing more than a walking, talking vagina looking to score without consequences.
Lizzy:
Well, the uterus and vagina are different body parts (at least when I last checked), and so that’s two parts they’re interested in.
Maybe the Fallopian tubes and ovaries can get a word in edgewise, as well.
The flaw in Marcus’ screed is the same mistake made by many commenters.
The underlying (false) premise here is that SCOTUS is making moral judgements. It is not; it is an apellate court. SCOTUS determined that the law (Obamacare) requiring abortifacient accessibility violated the RFRA. That’s all. Congress is free to change the earlier law if it chooses, but as it stands, SCOTUS has ruled that they are in conflict and the earlier law takes precedence.
Remember that Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are both lawyers. They know SCOTUS is an appellate court yet feel required to announce that their knickers are now in a twist
implying that SCOTUS is making moral judgements. They know this is not so.
Also remember that the law with precedent, the RFRA which Obamacare violates, was backed and passed by a Democrtat controlled congress and signed into law by a Democrat president.
In a nutshell, Hillary Clinton is deeply disturbed by the fact that SCOTUS upheld a law her party originated and her husband signed into law some twenty years ago.
T:
Here’s an article discussing that very point.
It is especially pernicious when lawyers, who know better, pretend they don’t and fan the flames of popular emotion with such demagoguery. But that’s the way they roll. They can’t resist the political advantages of having their uteri speak for them instead of their excellent legal minds, which they no doubt have.
Uterus/vagina, they only see women for their reproductive organs.
It’s degrading & offensive.
I’ve been thinking about the notion that we, as Americans, don’t know history. Seems we don’t want too, sometimes. But watching the turmoil in the Mideast right now, I’m starting to think that’s a good thing. Knowing history too well leads to unending war, it seems.
But maybe that’s really caused by the kind of identity politics that demands we have a “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court, or a “Jewish seat” or a “Black seat” etc. It’s the same as Shia vs. Sunni majorities in whatever government exists in Baghdad today.
This is not trivial stuff. Identity politics can be dangerous.
Joe:
Not trivial at all.
The idea of getting minority members on the Court was to give opportunities to people of those minorities that were equal to those the majority had. To level the playing field so that individuals of any race, creed, or religion could shine if they possessed the qualifications.
It was not to say that only a member of this group or that group had a certain special sensibility that elevated them above the others. I would think that the latter idea would disqualify anyone, white black or purple, from serving on the Court. But of course it doesn’t these days.
What’s funny is that Hispanic and Latino are recent additions to the English language. I grew up in New Mexico and we never called anybody Hispanic or Latina. They aren’t the name of a race or nationality but the name of a new victim group. They are victims of the evil white man or maybe the evil white Hispanic.
Neo,
Thanks for the link. I do enjoy Charles Cooke.
One further thought to illustrate how clueless Ruth Marcus’ screed is. First, the screed again:
In fact what Marcus sees as contradictory is IMO SCOTUS actually being very very consistent. The law in place requiring warrants (founded in the 4th Amendment) takes precedence over developing technology (cell phones); the law in place regarding religious expression (the RFRA, founded in the 1st Amendment) takes precedence over the later Obamacare mandate.
Marcus can’t (or won’t) see the obvious, and based on the idea of SCOTUS consistency one might even argue that it’s the 4 dissenters who are inconsistent. Rather than being the basis for sound judgment one is tempted to argue that perhaps the presence of three uteri actually interfered with it.
n.B., Ann Althouse also has an excellent explication of the Hobby Lobby decision focusing on the idea that the RFRA
The link:
http://www.althouse.blogspot.com
(Posted 10:03 AM July 1, 2014 so one must scroll down)
Sorry, let me make that last paragraph somewhat literate:
“n.B., Ann Althouse also has an excellent explication of the Hobby Lobby decision focusing on the idea that the RFRA requires that when the
The left earns high marks for how swiftly they coordinate their talking points. They do this time and time again. Its no wonder the incurious voter keeps voting for (D).
The Lawrenceville Lesbian sounds a great deal like our belle Michelle did in her Princeton senior “thesis”: Princeton is not black enough (for her).
Gramsci marches on.
That lefty legal minds who ought to know better misrepresent the issues only illustrates that the left has no principles other than the will to power.
They’ll say one thing one day, and then the exact opposite with equal conviction the next day if it serves their agenda.
And as far as appointing justices in order to redress historical lack of representation on the court, one question: What is the “black” legal position? What is the “Hispanic” position, or the “women’s” position?
The idea that a race/sex has unanimity of opinion on any subject is ridiculous.
So let’s appoint ALL female justices…as long as they’re all conservative originalists. The left ought to be OK with that, right?
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2014/07/02/i-disagree-with-you-so-shut-up-is-not-an-argument-its-tyranny/comment-page-1/#comment-218941
Here is a tie in. It’s not a propaganda defense, it’s a propaganda attack.
If you have two problems that are hard to solve, such as the Hobby Lobby incident and the Kendall shooting lions incident, then use them to solve each other. Have the Left’s own propaganda weapons and slam them with it.
Kendall is an example of the Left trying to put women back into the weak and kitchen role, with no choice. This weakens the narrative in Hobby Lobby.
Remember to make the LEft follow their own rules. Not even the LEft’s operatives can automatically respond to this, since it requires original thinking. They will get orders. Until then, you have open season on them by savaging em.
This is not trivial stuff. Identity politics can be dangerous.
Of course it is not trivial. As for dangerous, ever notice the names of all those black and whites that died in riots started by Sharpton and Jackson’s race rhetoric?
It’s already dangeous, not “can be”.
To the Japanese, the idea that a leader would be elected or appointed, and then turn on 52% of the student body is… probably unthinkable.
That’s for shadow assassins, ninjas, and traitors to consider and operate in.
In Japanese high schools, popularity is determined by academic and athletic achievements, as well as social status, popularity, and how inclusive the person is towards various tight in groups in the school. A popular phrase for a leader campaigning is, “I have no power on my own, that is why I must borrow the power of everyone in the school, so please lend me your power”. To do that, and then insult the majority is… not structurally or socially stable.
There’s so much venom directed at men who wish to control women’s health care, etc that it is insulting to me as a pro-life woman. It’s simply not an issue that is based on gender. There are plenty of pro-choice men and plenty of pro-life women.
I try to keep love and charity in mind and assume good motives for my ideological opponents but -dang! – these people make it hard.
Juli, their propaganda is mostly designed to mind control and zombiefy single women. It’s to convince single women that the only power able to protect them from rape or economic destitution is the State, not their husbands, their lovers, boyfriends, friends, family, or anything else for that matter.
It’s similar to how Leftist psychologists implanted false memories of child rape into a woman patient’s mind via hypnosis back in the 80s or so. If they can convince a person not to trust a group, they begin to be disassociated from their families or male friends around them, leaving an authority to gap. Since most humans are afraid to die alone or be alone to survive, they want an authority figure to tell them what to do. By destroying the authority figures around single women, it provides a vacuum for the Left’s rapists and Ted Kennedies to step in.
The Lawrenceville Lesbian is pig-ignorant. And of course well indoctrinated; she’s been urged to be a bigot all her young life, and praised for it, so no surprise there.
The whole thing about this Tribalism business the fargin’ Communists have foisted on us is that it contradicts the American Rule of Law.
You can have one or the other, but not both. I specify American, because our legal ideal was always that all citizens are supposed to have the same standing before the Law.
If guys can think with their little heads and make bad decisions, . . .
I don’t think her photo was racism- I think it was classism really. She’s mocking the middle class boys, yes predominantly white, but that’s almost immaterial. Now…I know how it would be handled in reverse if a middle class white male mocking the dress of blacks who have embraced counter culture. RACIST! But it’s not. She may have some sense of racial pride, the black power thing especially, but it wasn’t necessarily the motivation here and it wasn’t per se racist to mock people’s style of dress and manner. It’s just not.
What’s more telling of the social cultural/political dynamics of Lawrenceville is that Peterson was elected in the 1st place despite presumably not hiding her cultural/political orientation.
It’s not enough to compete within electoral boundaries only. The social arena comes first.
holmes,
Peterson indicated her mindset: “I didn’t become president to make sure rich white guys had more representation on campus”
Eric:
Actually, I’m not sure she got elected despite not hiding her political orientation in terms of her agenda against white males. I’m not at all sure she campaigned by divulging that. The article also alludes to the fact that from the start there were allegations that ” the election she’d won had been fixed.” It provides no details of why those allegations were made or whether they had any basis, but it raises at least some doubt that her election was fair at all.
holmes:
One of the hashtags she gave it was “confederate,” and her remark was about “rich white guys.” Racist and sexist both. and of course classist. By the “rich white guy” remark she shows she clearly delineates the student body by categories of race and sex, and in her student body presidency she will consider white men to not be her constituents nor she their representative.
As far as “rich” goes, unless the majority of the students are on scholarship, most of the students there are rich.
More from Peterson:
Neo,
Fair or foul, whatever she did to acquire the office, it worked. The mechanics of how and why that happened need to be better understood as a reproducible formula.
Holmes seems like been beaten too often by the Left’s racism charges that it feels better to appease the overlords over the matter.
A common human psychological problem that’s been seen throughout the ages.
In Japan, high school elections are designed to enforce social consensus and agreement by super majority. This prepares the way for consensus in Japanese society, by not rocking the boat and teaching kids that the System does indeed work, if only because they are the ones charged with maintaining it.
When a student council President is elected, and the staff positions are appointed or elected, that council has a real portfolio of power when it comes to determining the club funding for the student body, athletic or cultural. This makes it more difficult to hoodwink people as to corruption, because people are forced to pay attention, since if they ignore it, their club’s funding can be eliminated. Thus they have a personal model of democracy to run off of, and can form independent opinions when Japanese society does not perform up to spec.
The investment of real body in the student body trains leadership abilities and makes the consequence of corruption or incompetence very stark to everyone that is involved in a club. And that’s mostly everyone in the student body. Since it’s unusual to find people with the time and attention for more than one club, the clubs serve as the bottom up social cell of organization and polling the opinion of the larger student body.
In order to distribute power and control, as well as monitor every class, with every class being its own social body, the student council also has class representatives from each class that attend meetings and follow the directive of the student council.
Since the student council must represent the majority or preferably the super majority, the 90% of the body, mere athletic prowess cannot trump academic achievements. Since the student body are composed of talented athletes as well as smart testers. Social consensus thus must be met by combining the interests of the two, to get them working together, and that’s usually done by electing a council President that is strong in both academics and athletics. Much as a nation in war, prefers to elect a leader that has warrior credentials and military achievements.
In the US, however, college students are taught that democracy needs to be Fair. And that to be Fair, you need a minority, like a black, or a lesbian, or a homosexual, in order to “represent” the best future for the student body. The fact that this is dysfunctional and corruption to no end, is probably why greater American society is the same. When American culture is broken, there’s no way the kiddies can find a working system on their own.
I’m not saying it was appropriate, I’m saying I don’t think it was racist. That is probably how a lot of middle class white dudes dress and she was making fun of it. A lot of black kids dress by embracing prison culture- if I were to wear low hanging pants, a bandana, Nike high tops, etc and make fun of their mode of dress and manner, I’m not being racist. I could even say “This is how poor blacks dress” and I’m still not being racist. I’m allowing for some room to make fun of people and not have it be racist per se.
Does this individual see everything in terms of race/gender/sex? Yes, yes she does. Will that inevitably lead to malice for those very reasons? yes. But I don’t like seeing this kind of thing punished per se. If she did other things, then OK, remove her, and the school has every right. But I can’t help but feel they’re punishing her because they know they couldn’t allow it and then allow the reverse. That was more important to them.
And Ymarskar, group think by moi? Puhleaze. If I engaged in group think I would agree with all of you here on this issue 🙂
N-Neocon… I think you’ll enjoy a term which a lady colleague and mother uses to explain something I’ve marveled at for years from my own Queen: *Uterine Navigational System*.
ie-That often seemingly ‘other-worldly’ (to us Guys) ability of women(especially wives/mothers) to find ANYTHING that’s supposedly ‘Lost’. Most men on this site know from which I’m speakin’..((-:
I was thinking about this some more. Not every stereotype propagation about race is racist. Not every use of race as a grouping mechanism to describe a particular culture is racist. At least it’s not racist in a traditional sense- thinking less of a race or vilifying a particular race based solely on race. Islam has a problem with extremism. It’s not bigoted to point this out and we on the right bristle when we’re accused of “Islamaphobia” and the like. If I say “Islam and Arabs have a problem with violence and extremism” it’s a nice shorthand to explain a general trend.
And we need more words to describe racism. Some racism is racial pride and racial denegration- thinking your race is better than another. Some racism is mocking differences based on race- close to the former but not quite. Some racism is merely tribalism- you are different and I like the same. Literally every people on the planet engages in this. Europe is nothing but tribes. Every campus in the US has black students predominantly befriending black students, hispanics with each other, Indians, asians, etc, with not much cross over. It’s tribalism. People prefer people who look like themselves. This is something to overcome and it can become the first kind of racism but it’s not per se.
So in these clashes of cultures to shorthand a cultural attitude by saying “white guys”, while perhaps motivated by the worst form of racism, isn’t always so. And to say “white males do X” or “black females do Y” in a sociological academic way is very useful and not based on denigrating a race qua race.