Barefoot and Pregnant

Shorter Ross Douthat: Woman would be happier if barefoot and pregnant. We need to find a new way to be sexist about single women without being sexist because we are a kinder and gentler country than we were back in the days when women were happy.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Mike says:

    I don’t see this writer’s surveys or what he is basing his claims on about women being happier before than now.  Even if they were included, I’m very skeptical of surveys. Now that I’ve acknowledged what the article was about, let me go off on my tangent.  Speaking of sexist, has anybody heard who Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court?  (What a rhetorical question.)  Why yes! A certifiable sexist and with great racist credentials too.  I was thinking now is time to go Mahatma Ghandi on them.  Yes, I’ve been feeling quite unheard by my representatives as of late and my initial reaction was to give up my life by starving to death in protest of this “final straw”, nominating, and no doubt getting an openly racist sexist on the Supreme Court.  Before I took such an extreme step, I thought I had better at least think it through rather than act on emotion.  What about the founding fathers? I greatly admire them and realize they had their human flaws.  Despite being truely committed to liberty, they were somewhat tainted by the society and culture they lived in.  Perhaps I should be more accepting of less than perfect people. Ok, no hunger strike.  I’ll just constantly remind myself by giving the Democrats my new personal name.  I’ll call them the: Everybody has flaws and democrates just happen to be sexist racists party.  Hmm, I better work on shortening that.  How about the racist, sexist, we are all human, democrat party.  What a big umbrella the democrats have.  I’m not sure how to properly credit what I’m cutting and pasting from another site. But here from The New York Times website, which I thought gave a complete enough backdrop of the quote to put it into context:
    Published: May 14, 2009

    WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

    Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’ (May 15, 2009)
    Times Topics: Sonia Sotomayor

    In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    She clearly went too far when speaking of the benefits of diversity in this sentence. It is questionable how meaningful While she used some hyperbole in her speech, this is nothing compared to the hyperbole in using this to declare she is a racist and a sexist.

    A person’s life experiences do matter in making decisions. She also said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality. What is important is her judicial record and overall public statements–not cherry picking specific lines for the purpose of character assignation.

    What is not in doubt is how dangerous the politics of personal destruction practiced by the right wing has become. Within hours of her name leaking the right wing blogs and talk radio had already been through everything they could find on her, not to make a fair assessment but to find whatever they could to attack.

    It wouldn’t  matter who the nominee is. They would find any comment from a minority candidate to make they look scary. If taking quotes out of context didn’t accomplish their goal they would jumble a few words and create a quote of their own.

    The real danger is not from people like Sotomayor but it is from the authoritarian right and the propaganda techniques they use, creating followers who do their bidding as they seek to destroy the principles this country was founded.

  3. 3
    Mike says:

    It only took one line from Jimmy the Greek  to lose his job on a sports show.  A sports show doesn’t really carry a lot of political weight, but the party of racists and sexists are going to put one proven not only in her statements but in her court decisions as well, being overturned a number of times because of her obvious bias, on the Supreme court.   Hey, if she wants to backtrack and say she was wrong for what she said, liberals can forgiver her (like they never would a conservative) but for me, I’m all about maintaining the already set standard of one strike and you are out.

  4. 4
    Fritz says:

    Ron, it’s getting pretty hard to buy into “the real danger … is from the authoritarian right”.  At this point, it’s like listing the Spanish Inquisition as your top danger.

    IMO the primary danger is that excessive economic power by a few privileged companies is being replaced by excessive economic power by the government.  The founding American principle that is most under attack right now is that fortunes can be won (yeah, and lost) through individual action.  And I am *not* blaming only the Democrats for this — the Republican Party has been at least as bad.  Conservatives turned a blind eye to the abuses of corporate governance that were rampant on the Republican watch.

    Between popular anger at corporate meltdowns, the “crisis” of CO2 emissions, and a desire to have someone, anyone, third-party medical expenses, I think we are going to have European levels of government control over economic activity.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    “but the party of racists and sexists”

    If anyone this would be the Republicans.

    “her court decisions as well, being overturned a number of times because of her obvious bias,”

    Just another one of many falsehoods being spread by the right. As I said, they would be spreading similar falsehoods about any appointee.

  6. 6
    Mike says:

    This is a cut and paste from fox news dot com:

    Perhaps Sotomayor’s most controversial decision was in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she was part of a panel ruling against a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. — they objected after the city threw out the results of a promotion test because too many white firefighters, and not enough minority firefighters, scored high. 
    She and two other judges summarily dismissed the case without tackling the complex issues outlined in stacks of briefs and debated in extended oral arguments. Instead, the court issued an unsigned, one-paragraph opinion. Sotomayor’s colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, was so concerned that he wrote a lengthy dissent highlighting what many saw as an attempt to bury the case. 
    “This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal,” he wrote. 
    The discrimination case was later kicked up to the Supreme Court, and a decision is expected by late June. 
    Sotomayor has a record of being rebuffed by the high court. Of the six decisions she was a part of that came before the high court, five were reversed. In the sixth, the court disagreed with Sotomayor’s reasoning. 
    Senior administration officials said they have no concerns about the reversal rate or Sotomayor’s position in the firefighter case. But that and other cases are now ripe for analysis. 
    — In one case reversed by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and the majority on the appeals court ruled that an inmate could sue a private corporation for injuries he suffered in a halfway house run by that company. Though the company operated the house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons, Sotomayor argued that the company was not shielded from liability. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision in 2001. 
    — In another case, Sotomayor dissented in a 2006 opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. She argued in her own dissenting opinion that the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.” 
    — Sotomayor, in 2003, also wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision that a Muslim inmate’s rights were not violated when he was denied a holiday feast. Sotomayor argued that the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the feast was important to his religion. 
    — In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in a decision to dismiss a case in which a black student claimed his school discriminated against him by transferring him mid-year from first grade to kindergarten. Sotomayor argued that the “lone black child” in the class was not given an “equal chance.” 
    — In 2007, Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “best technology available.” She wrote it could only consider cost as a factor in more limited ways. This decision, too, was overturned by the Supreme Court. 
    Now back to Mike,  the Ricci case sums it up, huge case, lengthy arguements and briefs.  What does she do?  She just says that white guys lose and goes on to the next case.  Which matches perfectly her statements and her body of decisions.  And the talk is not if she will be confirmed or not, that is already decided.  The talk is of how much of a show of resistance should the Republicans put up before she gets appointed.  

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    If you have to resort of cutting and pasting from it is clear you have no real argument. They are just distorting the record to push their own agenda.

  8. 8
    Mike says:

    The party of racists and sexists. That is my personal line I came up with, if that makes me fit from your perspective as being “from the right”  I’m quite cofortable with that.  But let it be said it came from Mike and not something I copied off the radio.  Also, the overturns are a fact, not a falsehood.  My added commentary of it being “because of her obvious bias” I guess makes it a falsehood in that I’m sure the reversals didn’t make such a claim.  I thus rephrase:  …being overturned a number of times, which IMO was because of her obvious bias.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    Whether or not you came up with this line it is a dishonest smear, as well as the falsehood that she had reversals because of bias.

    I am not going to waste the bandwidth here for repetition of dishonest right wing talking points and character assassination, and am certainly not going to waste any more of my time with this.

  10. 10
    Mike says:

    O.K, I defer again.  Let me blame this on my newness at blog sites.  I felt to read a bunch of details, then write them in my own words would be more misleading.  But I think I see the light.  There would be no point to turning this site into a scrapbook of news items.  I stand corrected, and apologize. I’d like to thank you again for letting me share and getting your feedback. 

  11. 11
    Fritz says:

    Ron, is it an actual fallacy to state that she had reversals because of bias?  I have not bothered reading up on all this (I mean, who cares?  She is going to be confirmed on a walk.).  It is a documented fact that she has been frequently reversed (I have heard 60% of the time — that seems pretty high.  Is that a normal reversal percentage?). 

    I suspect higher courts only are going to write down that a reversal was due to judicial bias when they *really* hate the lower-court judge.  So is there some obligation to assume “not due to bias” in all the other cases?  That seems to be a protocol that would be overly charitable — like taking the findings of internal affairs police review boards at face value.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:


    The Supreme Court typically reverses 75% of circuit court decisions that rules on. They only ruled on five of her cases, so the right wing claims of having a huge number of decisions reversed is a lie. She has had three cases reversed during her career, which is pretty trivial (and puts her record well above the average 75%).

    The court decisions have been on narrow, technical legal issues pertaining to specific cases.  There was no bias involved in the reversals.

    It is a common distortion to take a decision on a case based upon narrow technical issues to claim an ideological position. She has ruled on two abortion cases, and supported the pr0-life position. Of course the right doesn’t want to mention that–and actually it isn’t very meaningful as the cases were decided over technical issues which had nothing to do with her position on abortion. Similarly a list of decisions such as the one from Fox above is dishonest as it gives the assumption that she is taking a certain ideological position when actually she was ruling based upon some technical issues of the specific case.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    You are also right that she is going to be confirmed on a walk, assuming nothing surprising comes up. I find the manner of the right wing attacks to be the significant part of this story, considering that any pick would have been subjected to similar lies from the right wing. Their distortion of her judicial record is very similar to how the right typically distorts voting records (such as taking an up or down vote on an overall budget and then saying a Senator voted for or against a specific item in the budget).

    You may disagree as to how significant this issue is compared to economic issues, but in a democracy I see it as an extremely serious issue when votes are being influenced not by the actual facts or serious discussion over different viewpoints but based upon repeated campaigns of distortion such as this. It is important for a democracy to work for the voters to be working from accurate information, not the misinformation regularly spread by the right.

  14. 14
    Fritz says:

    Ron, please stop using the term “pro-life”.  🙂   They are anti-abortion activists.  Please don’t buy into their agenda.

    In all fairness, a judge can certainly push an ideology by deciding which technical factors to pay attention to and which to ignore.

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:

    I only used pro-life here since the liberal appointee took their side (even if not supporting their cause). A judge might be pushing an ideology based upon which technical factors, but it doesn’t look like that is the case when looking at her cases. As I said, she even sided with the anti-abortion activists on technical grounds in cases.

  16. 16
    nomoreGOP says:

    This is a cut and paste from fox news dot com:


    sorry.. but that is just plain hilarious..

Leave a comment