Conservative double-standards aren’t breaking news.

Andrea Batista Schlesinger

Conservative double-standards aren’t breaking news.

Eleanor Smeal, head of the Feminist Majority Foundation, is on the record now that Harriet Miers, the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, is being "subject to a double standard," according to today's New York Times.

Smeal: "I think that essentially that this hue and cry that she isn't qualified, there's a sexist basis to it."

Reading the paper this morning, I was annoyed. Why is the left spending time defending Harriet Miers? Who cares if she's a feminist, when her vote could determine the future of choice in this country?

Then, in talking to people smarter than me, I became convinced that this was a savvy move on behalf of a grander political strategy. Expose the conservative right for the sexists that they are.

But now I'm back where I started: why are we giving political cover to someone who sole fidelity is to President Bush and his legacy? Are we making it more difficult for Democrats to vote against Miers by setting her up in this way? And revealing the Right to be sexists is like revealing the White House to be patriarchal in their approach to the other nations that inhabit this earth. It is inherent in their worldview. Not exactly the subject of an expose.

I've changed my mind three times and it's only 9am. Who knows where I'll be on this by noon.

Andrea Batista Schlesinger: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 8:49 AM, Oct 12, 2005 in judges
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (6)

Comments

As we all know, Harriet Miers isn't qualified. And of course I am sure there are members of the Right who believe that is mainly because she is a woman. But they have lots of other proof too. I think we do need to call out bigotry whenever we see it (so do your thing, Smeal) but when a woman who IS qualified is attacked (and this of course is inevitable) then lets really break news.

A blip in AMNY this morning says that the First Lady claimes that Miers criticism is sexist.

They sure do know how to stick to the talking points.

Look, the Bush women are all feminists - they're all pro-choice. It's the modt obvious "hidden" agenda in the GOP....

The real problem is that we're so much on the defensive that we no longer control the debate over what is sexist, feminist or what qualifies someone to uphold our Constitutional rights.

Well, here's my question: does it matter if someone is feminist if their agenda isn't? Does it matter if the First Lady and Condi and Harry are pro-choice when they work to advance an agenda that is far from it? Is that a victory for feminism, or a loss?

Irving, I am totally confused. Can you explain what you mean when you say they are feminists? Are you saying that sarcasticly ? Are you saying that because they are women with jobs they are feminist?

If you ask me, taking advantage of the work of our feminist foremothers but not acknowledging it and not supporting the women of today is not feminist. Its childish, selfish and hypocritical. That's what I hate about the CondeLIE-zas and Coulters of the world (among 1,000 other things).