Feminist Hypocrisy

Harriet Miers:

became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association

became the first woman president of the State Bar of Texas

served as the chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice

was named the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers

...to name just a few of her accomplishments.

As I've stated before, I'm in a bit of a wait-and-see stance about this nomination. I just need to know that she shares the desperately needed strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution--to interpret and apply, not re-write, the Constitution.

However, that's not the purpose of this post. What I find interesting, yet again, is the reaction from women and those who are supposed "women's advocates." Maureen Dowd, who makes Michael Savage seem sane by comparison, wrote a piece in the New York Times entitled, "All the President's Women." In it Dowd claims that the president surrounds himself with yes-woman; strong women who live to serve him.

Dowd describes these women, including Condi Rice, Karen Hughes and Harriet Miers as women who "subordinate themselves to W..." My guess is that if Clinton, or any other Democrat, had as diverse a leadership team, that diversity--especially the presence of "strong" women--would have been celebrated. Not here.

Larry Elder read from an LA Times Letter to the Editor which suggested that because Harriet Miers has never had children, she fails to bring a woman's experience to the job. She's merely a man wearing a dress. That was written by a woman in the year 2005, not 1905.

It seems to me that for women's advocates, this would be a time to commend this woman. Shouldn't they be hailing this as a victory regardless of ideology? Aren't they all about encouraging, celebrating and making ways for women to have greater opportunities and greater achievements where men have traditionally dominated? It seems Miers may very well be a product of feminism, at least in her career path. She never married. Those who worship the concept of "choice" are now slamming her for the choice she made to pursue her career.

Once again, women on the left reveal their true colors: women's achievements only count if you are a non-Christian, non-conservative and preferably non-white, as this Fox News report reveals. In reality, a woman can and will be praised by supposed women's advocates as long as she serves as a mouthpiece (kinda like a "yes-woman") for a leftist, feminist agenda.

As I've already mentioned, I care most that Bush's appointees, male or female, hold an originalist judicial philosophy. This is yet to be determined. However, what has been clearly established is that this is a woman of upstanding character and outstanding achievement. And, for that, she is to be commended.


At 10/06/2005 12:49:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 10/06/2005 12:52:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

That was my comment that was deleted. I left off the last word accidently what i said was this:

Absolutely, Lores. What's important to know here is: What is her judicial philosophy?

Gender should have no dog in this hunt.

I have come to the conclusion that she is an excellent choice for the job based on what people who know her and work with her say.

At 10/06/2005 01:16:00 PM, Anonymous Clayton Bell said...

I think this was all a huge mistake by President Bush. He's so out of touch with the people who didn't vote him in that he went behind their backs with this pick. He should have known by now that's his job to directly appeal to the people who didn't win the White House, the Senate, and the House, and give them a pick who reflects their minority position.

I don't know about this pick either, but P. Bush (When did he become Mr. Bush on news stations?) has been pretty good in appealing to his base. Maybe he should have picked a bigger fight, but maybe he picked someone he knew he could get confirmed and still uphold his values, and the values of those who elected him.

At 10/06/2005 02:55:00 PM, Anonymous Jets said...

Saddly the womens's movement long ago went from one that supported women to one that thrives on them being victims. Tammy Bruce has written several excellent books, and numerous articles, on this subject with a unique inside view as the past president of the L.A. chapter of NOW. An organization that now considers her an enemy and she states has lost it's focus on women.

At 10/06/2005 05:00:00 PM, Blogger Jamie Dawn said...

We've seen this same thing before in a different arena. Blacks unwilling to celebrate Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court and Colin Powell and Condi Rice's high level positions.
Hypocrisy is the right word for it.
They won't celebrate women unless they are the right KIND of women.

At 10/06/2005 05:28:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

I've never agreed with anything Ann Coulter has to say but she has an interesting take on this in her column today. (Yes, even though I disagree with her, I read her column)

At 10/06/2005 06:04:00 PM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

I don't pretend to speak for the "Women's Movement". But I'm not seeing what the charge is that's being levied against them here. Is it that they are not quick to embrace somebody who is such a supporter of theirs? Is it that liberal women's groups don't celebrate the achievement of Harriet Miers to the high degree that Concerned Women for America and other conservative groups trumpeted the success of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Or that liberal black organizations aren't as proud of Clarence Thomas as Project 21 was of Thurgood Marshall? Welcome to politics.

At 10/08/2005 06:16:00 AM, Blogger Goat said...

I have a new essay up you will enjoy Lores

At 10/09/2005 09:34:00 AM, Blogger Cabe said...

I miss the days of John Marshall.

Oh wait...I wasn't born yet, I must be dreaming. Unless I'm somehow trapped in time....Oh No! I must prevent the presidency of FDR! Hehehe.


Post a Comment

<< Home