This is delicious....our Supreme Court nominee belongs to an all-woman club of movers and shakers...you know, the kind of thing that gets a white guy excoriated when he stands before the Senate. Michael Kinsley does a nice job of pointing out the hypocrisy at work here, but he really misses the larger point.
I support Judge Sotomayor's desire to hang out with women, there being no men present. I simply wish to have the same right (or its analog), without there being some hyperventilation about it being some kind of patriarchal conspiracy. This is known as a "First Amendment" right, that off peaceable assembly. Free association is a protected Constitutional right, and I would LOVE for her to take a principled stand on the issue should it come up.
But as we all know (and Kinsley points out nicely), we tolerate discrimination BY (perceived) oppressed groups, but do not tolerate discrimination against them.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I think you came very close to hitting the nail on the head when you said that "we tolerate discrimination BY (perceived) oppressed groups, but do not tolerate discrimination against them."
Discrimination is not always invidious, as Sotomayor herself pointed out. Locker rooms, medical practice, churches/temples, parochial schools, political groups, sports, etc. -- we tolerate discriminate by more than just the oppressed, but by many groups, and that's not a bad thing in of itself. Discrimination becomes a bad thing when it's applied to oppress a group.
Do you feel that you, or men in general have not and do not have access to an organization that allows easy access to socializing and networking among peers? Do you think your chances at political office (and those of all the attendees) have been hampered because you've been part of a gender-restricted group, such as the Encampment in SC? Did people 'hyperventilate' as you note when you joined Boy Scouts or took part in organized all-boy sports, joined a fraternity? Do you fear that these will come up as a discriminatory issue and harm your political viability?
Would membership in the DAR, a sorority, or attendance at an all-girls school constitute an oppressive discriminatory activity?
I struggle with this one. I think that single gender orgs. are not in of themselves necessarily discriminatory, but when they become a center for other business activity and those not permitted to join are left out, discrimination can happen. And that's tough to regulate or to pin down sometimes. So, I'm interested in Sotomayor's position on this, too, but I'm surprised that she would have to be the first to defend a gender restricted organization, given how saturated our boards and courts have been with participants.
Social glue is so critical to advancement, a social group is such a critical place for conducting business and establishing relationships and connections, and access. I think back to my first year as an associate in an M&A firm in NYC, I was the only woman among men, our long days stretched through the night, and critical business and networking was conducted in boardrooms, in elevators, over dinner tables, in nightclubs, and in the gym. I was very grateful to my team and my boss for willingly changing habits and limiting their use of the men's locker and steam room at the NYSC, not literally a boys club, but one from which I was obviously and understandably excluded, to continue the work. Those were key places for establishing the social networks that connect people. And I can't imagine any way around that -- I certainly wasn't heading into the locker room to prove a point.
I guess the difference is subtle: the men's locker room is a place for men to shower and change clothes, the gender restriction makes sense for that purpose. And people do talk and conduct business there. Understandable. Setting up a networking organization or conducting a conference with the purpose of conducting business, or to set policy -- why restrict by gender? That's where it seems shaky and I don't completely understand the need for gender barriers in either the Bohemian or Belizean groups).
Maybe a group like the Belizean Grove provides a virtual locker room to compensate from those from which women are usually excluded and provides a chance to establish that social glue among a subset of movers and shakers that they'd otherwise not have. Again, though, I'm not sure how I feel about Sotomayor's, or for that matter, Scalia's, Bush's, Clinton's, and a host of others' involvement in gender-restricted groups.
But I am surprised that you long for the right to a boys-only membership, and don't feel that you have or have had that opportunity to establish all that social glue and rub elbows among movers and shakers. I'd think that would come easy for you.
GHP,
1. I would have been disappointed if you didn't take the bait. Heh, heh.
2. Prodigious output here.
3. "Discrimination becomes a bad thing when it's applied to oppress a group." I agree. However, when a group separates itself and seeks to advance the interests of its members, this is often considered discriminatory, even in the absence of ANY sense that they were oppressing ANYONE. Isolation and separation alone were sufficient to bring criticism.
4. As for the event in SC, I would love to live in a world where the fact that it was male only weren't notable. But it was.
5. Why is being left- out "discrimination"? You struggle with this one, but let's go with it. No one bats an eye at groups that seek to bring together women execs or entrepreneurs, or minorities...but if there were a white male biz exec club? C'mon now. Even if they aren't trying to oppress anyone, the very fact that folks are left out is seen by some as oppression on its own.
6. Your last paragraph is unkind, un-necessary and matronizing.
What would be the reaction to a Congressional "white" caucus?
OK, you didn't actually answer any of my questions, matronizing (?) as they may have seemed, none were intended as such, I was not being disingenuous or setting you up.
Because I'm struggling with this issue in general (it touches on the whole 'separate but equal' Brown v School Board issue), I'd like to know what oppression, exclusion, or backlash for participating in gender-restricted activities you've encountered that's driving you to wish for opportunities to be part of a boys-only club.
Why does it have to be personal? Why can't it be simply a distaste for the process of political confirmation in which membership in single sex organizations is almost ALWAYS brought up as some kind of a negative?
I support Judge Sotomayor's right to belong to the group she belongs to.
I'll rephrase a bit. I thought the delicious point you were making had something to do with your wish to have the right to hang out with men, there being no women present. Without hyperventilation.
Given that every recent President until now has been a part of such an organization, that many sitting on the Supreme Court (and their spouses) and business leaders in general have or do participate in such organizations without public outcry, I'm wondering in what context you find that you don't have this right in your present role or that it might be problematic if you were to foray into public office.
Post a Comment