The XX Factor: What women really think.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ain't No Oprah Winfrey

The Supreme Court ruled, 7-2 yesterday in AT&T v. Hulteen, that women denied credits toward their pension for their pregnancies in the 1960s and '70s—before it became illegal—were not the victims of gender discrimination. The question came down to whether AT&T could rely on past discriminatory practices—before 1978 pregnant women were denied disability leave granted to men—to calculate pensions. Writing for the majority, David Souter found that... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website DoubleX.com!)

Whatever You Say, Senator

That's Why They're in Treatment ...

Hillary's Moment, and the Problem of "Seeming" Sexism

I thought Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the New York Times today performed an important service: It aptly—but gently—reminded us that it’s really hard to talk about sexism in this country. Partly that's because most of us, as Steinem points out, don’t like to hear about it. After all, so much has changed for women since the 1960s—Hillary Clinton was at one point the Democrat’s front-running nominee!— that it can seem monomaniacal to keep track of the myriad ways that women don’t have equal stature. But this reluctance to acknowledge sexism as real can be carried to absurd extremes. And yesterday provided an all-too apt example of Steinem's point: After Hillary was heckled by guys who crudely cried out “Iron my shirt” at one of her campaign stops, USA Today published a piece whose headline read, “Clinton responds to seemingly sexist remarks.”  (The body of the piece continued to refer to "seemingly" sexist remarks.) If these comments were only “seemingly” sexist, I wonder what, exactly, indubitably sexist remarks would sound like? 

This ginger approach to talking about sexism—this uncertainty about whether sexism is even real—is hardly unique to USA Today (as Steinem reminds us). And I think that’s partly because so much of the sexism we deal with now is latent and almost unconscious, leaving many of us, even women, with a mish-mash mush of confused attitudes, like the ones you describe, Emily. So I think Hillary’s emotional speech at the diner yesterday is going to speak to a lot of women voters, who will find in its clarity a relief from the exhaustion of trying to sort out what they really think or feel about this female presidential candidate.

What Are You Laughing At?

The fact that our current president's cowboy ways have been so thoroughly discredited is still another reason I can't see Clinton's biggest obstacle as her womanly lack of a little more snap in the old towel. Wouldn't the stereotypically female virtue of prudence, and maybe even a little well-placed aversion to risk, be a welcome relief right about now? Even in full riled-up feminist mode, I can't see that when she has her first bad week of the campaign, it's because some would-be supporters just woke up and smelled the Black Orchid. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made plenty of people crazy with hatred, too. And I guess the bottom line for me is the many women I meet who genuinely seem to feel guilty about not liking Hillary better; does sisterhood require that we support the woman in the race? Or put another way, are those who say they'd like a woman - just not this woman -- necessarily bitchy phonies?

Titties, Beer, and Breast Cancer

Today's the last day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month and some bloggers are arguing that the ubiquitous "pink-ribbon" approach has gone too far. (See the second panel.) Over at The Assertive Cancer Patient you can find a critique of the relentless "awareness" approach: Sather is giving out awards to readers who nominated the tackiest and most trivial products sold in the name of breast-cancer. The prime offender?

Grand Prize: to the blogger Dubutant, for her entry: Jingle Jugs for Life

Jingle Jugs sells life-size boobs, or "racks," that bounce in time to the song "Titties and Beer." Its market? Frat boys.

From the Jingle Jugs Web site: "Our newest version of Jingle Jugs comes with a pre-recorded breast cancer message. A second re-recordable chip allows the user to record a message of his or her own choice, such as a favorite song, your favorite team's fight song, a romantic message, a political commentary . . . all to which the Jugs will dance and move in synch." (http://www.jinglejugsforlife.com/)

Debutaunt's comment, in a letter to Komen: "... Honestly, I can't see in any good conscience how you can justify accepting money from this vulgar company. They sell a product that is so putrid and heinous, but are justifying it since they donate a ‘percentage' to breast cancer organizations -- then show proudly their giant check to Komen."

Now, the original Jingle Jugs product sounds totally ridiculous, and this "Jugs Across America" tour is juvenile at best. (Traveling Breast Museum? Please.) But the vilification of the company's breast cancer product raises some questions in my mind: Is it really all that bad for the makers of this yucky product to preach a philanthropic message to their customers, however self-serving it may be? Is this product purely a shameless attempt to win some easy PC-points? Or is it indicative of the fact that we now live in a hard-headed post-feminist age where we accept that the objectification of women will always exist, but ensure that at least now people who buy gag items like this know (or are reminded) that women aren't just objects, they're people who can get sick too? I lean toward thinking the latter. But I can imagine that if I had breast cancer I'd be grossed out.

Check out Sather's write-up of the worst pink-ribbon products here.

Darren Mack Trial and Fathers Rights

I must confess to a more than passing obsession with the Darren Mack trial, which gets under way today in Las Vegas. Mack stands accused of fatally stabbing his estranged wife Charla with their 7-year-old daughter upstairs in the home, then shooting – sniper style – at the family court judge who was presiding over their divorce and custody dispute. Of course part of my fascination is that I knew Darren and Charla quite well, back when I clerked at a Reno divorce firm.

The current jury pool offers a snapshot of everything weird and wonderful about Vegas, including, at present, a former go-go dancer who has been married three times, a veteran trapeze performer, as well as a floor supervisor for a local casino who’s studied martial arts since he was 5. But I am mostly curious to see whether the defense will indeed be styled as a referendum on father’s rights and their alleged unequal treatment in family courts. After the shooting, Mack left a message on his cousin’s answering machine asking, “If anything happens to me, please make sure that the true story about the injustices that are going on in that courtroom get out to the media and the public.” I guess he’ll finally get his wish.

Mukasey and Sex Discrimination

At today's confirmaton hearing for Michael Mukasey, Bush's pick for attorney general, Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked questions about a disturbing ruling Mukasey made as a federal judge in the Southern District of New York. Here are the facts (I just looked them up): In 1983, a woman police officer was sexually assaulted. She later testified that the attack took place over six hours and was by a fellow officer. But when she initially reported the assault, she said she'd been attacked by a man she'd met at a laundromat instead of naming her assailant. A few days later, she named the male officer. He denied the accusation and passed a lie dectector test. So did she.  Still, she was charged criminally for having falsely stated that she didn't know the man who'd attacked her. She was also suspended from the NYPD without pay, and eventually fired. Her alleged rapist retired with his police pension intact.

 Two years later, the woman brought a sex discrimination suit. Judge Mukasey ruled that she couldn't bring her case to a jury because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, saying that it was the jury's job to decide whether the allegations were true and "whether the discipline meted out to [the woman officer] was unlawfully disparate to that received by her male fellow officer." A trial followed. The jury ruled for the woman and awarded her more than $260,000 in damages. (Her name is in the record, but somehow I don't feel right about publishing it here--a whole different issue.) For a second time, Mukasey thwarted the woman's claim, this time by setting aside the jury's verdict. Mukasey said that "no reasonable jury could infer an unconstituional pattern or practice of gender discrimination" from the facts. (I'm quoting the Second Circuit again.) And he ordered a new trial. Also for a second time, the Second Circuit reversed. It held that Mukasey's grant of a new trial was an abuse of discretion.

 Feinstein wanted to know if Mukasey considered this an "unusual" case. Mukasey said that to call it unusual was "a stark euphemism." And then he talked about all the women law clerks he has hired--"each of them hired on the merits, on the merits." He also talked about his effort to get a woman admitted to an all-male club he used to belong to, and leaving the club when he failed.

But his handling of the sex discrimination case seems awfully rigid, doesn't it? He got knocked down by the Second Circuit, and he insisted he was right, at this woman's expense. Trial judges aren't often that stubborn. I wonder what was going on here.