Oh no, not another one. Not another smart, ambitious, career-oriented, fifty-something single woman nominated for the Supreme Court. What is the President thinking? It's not just that she knew what she wanted to be early on and focused on achieving her goals. It's not just that she's excessively bright; nor is it about her baseball playing prowess. This nominee has never been married. She can't know what it's like to be a working mother. She doesn't understand how she might balance the demands of growing children, equally striving (or supremely threatened) working (or jobless) husband, and stressful, high-powered job. She has some questions about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In other words she's (wink, cough, chuckle, cue the innuendos) "completely out of touch with the average American," or so says former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum , who knows a thing or two about being out of touch.
(By the way, the above picture of Kagan in the early nineties ran on the front page of the May 11th, 2010 issue of the Wall Street Journal and has provoked intense debate about what the Journal was "hinting." )
Are we really having this discussion? Even behind closed doors or the backs of our hands, online or on Fox News?
Joan Vennochi, writing in the Boston Globe on Sunday, asked: "why does a single career woman with short hair always have to answer the is-she-gay question?" A better question is: why should anyone, male or female, who is unmarried, have to address questions as to whether he/she is gay, straight, uninterested, unable to find the time to forge a long-term commitment, unable to find an equal partner, uncomfortable with the idea of matrimony, or perfectly content with things as they are? Of course, when it comes to matters of the heart, or perhaps something much lower, Americans display both easy offense and prurient interest in equal measure. (image downloaded from lawyersusa.com)
Single American women, however, are particularly distrusted, it seems, especially if they're a bit older. From divorced cougars to "black" widows, popular culture maintains the stereotype of a woman on the prowl for a suitable mate. The fabulous forty, strong women, coming-into-our-own narrative is a lie; what we all really want is a nice guy to settle down with.
That's a whopping generalization to make about what Page Gardner, founder of Women's Voices. Women's Vote, has identified as one of the fastest growing demographics in this country--single women. Absolutely, there are many women who've hoped that circumstances would present themselves and stars would align so that they might discover (or rediscover) their soul mate. But those women are still leading their lives. Some are shattering glass ceilings or bounding over barriers; others are 
stepping over small obstacles or pushing past resistance every day. Along the way, some may have of necessity put the thought of a romantic pairing out of their minds; rather than being out of touch with average Americans, though, they are average Americans.
The successful, smart and lucky women, like Elena Kagan and yes, Condoleeza Rice are those who have discovered joy and satisfaction in their work and in being the trailblazers and why not? Love and marriage work for some and if it happens, it happens. In the meantime, there are places to go, people to meet, friends to cherish and trails to blaze.
(above image downloaded from nurses.com)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
500words
Chauncey DeVega
littlewillie
Molly Tennyson
Karen Riley
RomanticPoetess
Salon.com
Comments
By the way, I don't think that it's gender-biased (not that you said it was). Single men of a certain age are victims of the same questions and speculations.
r
I'd nominate someone who chew tobacco and smooch?
If She only improved her `Job Resume as dairymaid?
Moo cow, and garden plat`Job Experience. Sneaker?
Women wear red-high-top`Barn crocks that squeak!
Great!
Black!
Robe!
Burp!
maybe she's just wise. or lucky. or wtf-ever that sells more ads than any legal paper she ever wrote. gah.
@gabby abby: do you have any idea how much i love the term "nosy parker"?
Many people think you can seperate you personal and professional life. that's bunk, unless you have 2 different personalities.
The more I know about marriage and its history, the more I see it as the domestication process it's intended to be. It's good for the state for people to be married. Young men and unmarried women were seen as the greatest threat to the social order in the early modern period. It's funny to think that they still are.
Nice post, Nikki.
And heck if she is gay, well, that'd be cool too!! Give some of those senators someone to talk to about being in the closet so much and what it takes to get out!! ;D
Rated.
It means that somebody with GREAT credentials and constitutional law experience is getting tacitly called a dyke. What can't be proven by fact will, once again, be proven by innuendo.
R.
Only people with a V card will be qualified for public office the way things are going.
If she is gay, she should just come out. The Supreme Court needs one non closeted gay anyway.
What about Oprah? I never bought the Stedman thing.
Errrrr...... Yes. The public is WAY WAY too intrusive into the sexual habits of all public officials.
Why should the ambiguous get a pass? We really need to get serious as a nation and start worrying about policies and governance rather than the sex lives of politicians.
You get an Amen on that. Either we agree that women should be able to do whatever the fudge they want to do, or not (period). More women (would be feminists) attacked her than men. As long as she--or any woman--is not breaking the law she should be free to do her thing.
No one should be allowed to tell her what to wear or say or how to live her life, but that would be too civilized for us. It is a shame. R
-R-
Re David Souter: Yes, the question of his sexual orientation has always lingered just outside the drawing room conversations.
The arguments against her are similar to those lobbed against childfree women: you don't have kids, so you don't understand them. As my mother once put it, "Walking into a garage doesn't make me a mechanic, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything about cars because I'm not a mechanic."
What our country needs is strong, smart and judicially-aware candidates for our Supreme Court. Kagan passes everyone of those tests in my mind. Let's let her speak about the issues and forget about her personal life. It simply does not matter here.
Unfortunately for diversity, she appears to be from the northeast. Surely Obama-acceptable candidates can be found from other states?
On the other hand, this may explain why I hug the coastline and keep my head down...
Really? Can you document that statement or are you just taking a cheap shot at feminists?
I'm certain of her intellectual capacity.
Certain of her merit.
I just don't think that academia is where you troll for independent thinkers much less actors.
You get consensus builders, which is great in another kind of ivory tower, just not the SCOTUS one.
Philosophically, I like her better than Sotomayor who actually exemplifies the mental toughness that I believe is prerequite in the job.
But, you mean she never married?
Can I loan her one of mine?
Can Kagan do the job? Probably, with those creds.......Come on!
Great essay Nikki. thanks for bring this buzz out into the open more.
Janet Reno always impressed me with the manner with which she addressed the ongoing speculation about her sexuality and the often not so subtle criticisms about her clothing choices. She had a pretty thick skin in public and it was always my guess that her extraordinary mother was responsible for raising her with the tools to march to her own drummer.
I don't know or care to know about the sex lives of our Supreme Court justices as long as it is not pathologically crazy (weird bondage stuff would creep me out I think), it is none of my business. I have to wonder if that pic was brought up because of it's reminder of Rosie Odonnel and A League of Her Own and Rosie being gay and blah blah.
Kagan's appointment is of great interest to me because of the potential for such long term influence. She is a relatively young woman and her influence on the court could be massive. Without children or a spouse (no spouse? partner? GF? BF? LTR? SO?) I would think this would make her influence the greater.
I'd like to see a black man appointed who is not a sexist, and lets see some geographical diversity too. As so many have already pointed out, Harvard and Yale aren't the only great schools in our nation and I am certain there are many potential candidates with sheepskins from other fine institutions.
And lastly I'd like to point out how insulting it is for people to speculate about one's sexuality based upon such superficial observations. I am unmarried and have no children. I have many friends who are also unmarried and without children. I did not make a decision NOT to have children but reproduction was not a goal or a priority in my life.
I'm rambling here sorry, great piece as usual Nikki Stern.
I don't really know her positions. I'd like to. You know, it was the same thing with Sotomayer. I would have liked more of a liberal ideologue, a counterwait to an Alito or Scalia. But how can liberal women raise serious objections when some of us end up being kept so busy by morons like Lindsey Graham who questioned Sotomayer in a manner that I found incredibly sexist and demeaning?
And now this...
As a straight, childfree chick who has not made having babies any sort of life priority, I would love to have someone with the brain power that Elena Kagan displays working as a Supreme.
Single people without kids are becoming a bigger segment of America these days. Why not have someone with our voice on the bench of the highest court? Go Elena!
I don't agree with Roger here; it's not the same. Men may be subject to the same questions but their overall status is at a whole other level, making the speculations less powerful and invasive.
In addition, there are considerably more men entering office in the first place so even if there were an equivalency of scrutiny, it is diminished by the sheer numbers. In short, it doesn't matter if a man is scrutinized to the same degree (which he isn't) - he's still getting the job!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call me shallow, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that she's a right-handed hitter. And that's a big relief. We all know how flakey southpaws can be.
Oh AMEN kellylark!! Because the guys CAN have it all- the high-powered career, a spouse, and 2.5 children, a well-tended house in suburbia and the admiration of all for being a "family man" if he goes to his daughter's soccer game once in a while.
I was married for about a little more than a year, had a daughter, raised her on my own while maintaining a career (but made career sacrifices along the way because, no, you can't have it all). And the number of women who thought I was after their husbands was unreal (even had a coworker's wife call another coworker's wife to tell her of an imagined affair I was having with her husband!! And the woman had never MET me!). So sick of it all. Haven't been looking for a husband since the divorce 20 years ago and it still unnerves people.
Grow up, people. Not every woman needs or wants a husband and if you have a busy career, well, you may tired enough at the end of the day to just sit and read the paper and go to bed on your own (or, as a stereotypical single woman in my late 40's, go to bed with my cats who love me-and show it- more than my husband every did...).
The way I view marriage or any other life choice actually is that we all have "to do" lists in our heads, things we want to achieve in life, a list of priorities that fluctuate according to circumstance. Unfortunately, some of those priorities conflict with others on the list and thus we make choices. Clearly, Kagan's top priority was her career, regardless of her sexuality, which one would think in a discussion about her qualifications would engender respect; one would assume the same to be true of all of the judges on the court. That her marital status and/or sexuality has become an issue at all is ridiculous.
Long time speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, was a life-long bachelor. I sometimes wonder if he could have withstood the innuendo and risen to such prominence in today's environment. Maybe not, but maybe yes. After all, despite the whispers, people like Crist, Rice, and Kagan seem to be able to weather the storm and still reach high office.
It's not a female thing, at least not down here, as it is homophobia.
Women do not have external appendages that are exposed to the "elements" that arouse them, sexually. Hence, it takes much more for us to respond, which makes us less likely to scandalize ourselves when in public office, at least, sexually, and which helps us to be more discriminating in our choices. We have also been "blessed" with a hormonal system that peaks and ebbs on a weekly basis and at age 50 is hard to find on any day. Because there are deeper needs, we can fulfill them in many ways, other than seeking immediate gratification, and we do so, often, unconsciously. We derive great satisfaction and fulfillment in education, informing ourselves, putting it into action, making a difference, contributing, making a mark, achievement; we nurture our children, our neices, nephews, godchildren, and the children of our dear friends, of which we have many. There are many ways in which to enjoy life as a single woman. Since we do not live in a society like Saudi Arabia, it is possible to travel freely around the world and to the supermarket; to golf, swim, tennis, and play baseball.
Finally, a woman who can support herself, fulfill her own needs in ways other than having to have a man define her, is ambitious and accomplished, is not that attractive to most men, no matter what she looks like. My own experience is that men need women who are needy, a generalization, I admit.
This country is supposed to be so modern, so progressive, such a bastion of freedom, liberty, etc. The past two years have shown us how provincial and narrow minded we still are, especially when it comes to roles and perception of woman. We have broken glass ceilings, alright, we just had better not walk through them, once opened, unless we wear the right clothes, the right hairdo, the right makeup, are demur and coy, can wink and be cute, exploit our uniqueness as a woman, and have a man on our arm. By the way, there is nothing "new" about how women manage work, home, kids, marriage....it's old news....we have been doing it for years and it is not a pre requisite for anything other than learning how to give it up and do your own thing when no longer needed.
I have my likes/don't likes, etc.
From my osbervation(can't speel onservation) point in the real world, I will tell you all what a real man sees as a real woman:
Can she hit a low outside pitch without trying to pull it?
Can she bait a hook?
Can she reach into the container of leeches and put it in a jig?
Can she clean the fish she catches?
If the boat hits a deadhead at night, will she not react?
Can she lay a fly right between those two pads in one soft presentation and have the patience to allow it to be still till a fish hits it?
Can she bite a piece of rare/med rare steak and smile with pleasure?
Can she respect a man who can be both soft & hard emotionally?
Can she be ambitious, inquisitive, adventurous and, best of all, is she intelligent?
Does she look you in the eyes?
Can she tell an asshole to go to hell?
Will she try to learn about something BEFORE expressing an opinion of it whatever the subject?
Those are SOME of the things that a REAL man wonders about a woman.
Yes, there are more however, one of the very LEAST of what a REAL man wonders about a woman is that which is none of his business.
I never ever gave a goddamn about who fucked who when whichever who was not a part of my life.
Those who don't understand that is actually meqans is and not was have spent way too much time watching the #1 reality show of all time:
"You Have No Life".
It's not just marital status and/or gender preference. If she was married, they would be picking away at her hairdo, her clothing choices, her husband, who must be a stay at home emasculated pansy man, her poor children neglected and sacrificed for mom's ambition. Remember the nut crackers of Hilary during the last election campaign, where you cracked nuts between her legs? We have miles and miles and miles to go, baby.
The only way it would concern me is if an issue came before her that was a gay rights issue and because of her being gay, or whatever we used as an example group, she voted based on her being gay not what is written in the Constitution as she was appointed to do.
The Constitution is what it says on the paper. If you don't like it there is a way to change it. However, when an issue is before the court there is only one controlling item. Can she read it and follow it without letting her personal beliefs get in the way? If so, great. If not it's back to the short list for another pick.
Read Harv: http://theHARVview.blogspot.com
Kagan has my sympathy and I wish her the best.
These attitudes described fall under the category of demonizing choices. We still have a long way to go.
I admire Kagan for being her own person and wish her well on her appointment. She will make an excellent Justice. Certainly far better than some of the male Justices that we've had through the years, although it shouldn't really matter whether a Justice is male or female. It would be more representative of the citizenry though if there were at least four female Justices on the SCOTUS.
So, I gave it some thought, not as any scholar, just as a common sensical application and this is what I came up with.
It would not, should not influence the judgement of a gay SCOTUS in making a determination on a gay rights issue anymore than it would/should influence any other SCOTUS who is vehemently opposed to gays. No issue or case that comes before the SC for determination should be influenced by any SCOTUS who may have predetermined personal experiences, opinions, beliefs, etc, be they political, social, religious, identity, racial, corporate, etc.
To place special emphasis on any nominee because they may have self identified to one sexual orientation, or because they are obviously of a different ethnic, racial background, or, if they are handicapped, even, is a flawed argument. Everyone sitting on that Court is different in one way or another, just as we are.
It is an equal argument, then, to say that those who are not gay would be predisposed to blanket judgements against anything that would protect the rights of someone who may be gay and we are beholden to believe that those appointed to the SC are above this....
Why must every woman be judged by her relationships with men? Are we still so backwater that we cannot understand that women can lead successful, thrilling and entirely happy lives without one? Why does it matter if she is or is not a lesbian and what's with our national obsession to determine what, if any, skills (sport or otherwise) makes one a lesbian?
What she's chosen to do with her brain should carry more weight than what she's chosen to do with her vagina. Here I am, hoping we can enter the 21st Century while so many refuse to acknowledge the 20th Century.
sheesh
But while this is a "good to be a democrat" moment, to think that this wasn't going to be discussed was naive. Tacky and ill mannered as it is, it was going to be brought up.
@Hell's Bells: I did mention Condi Rice in my post. I think she was painted as lonely rather than gay...
Go back and read the first few lines of my post. It says that we are going to use gay as an example because that is what everyone is talking about. You could put tall, short or even left handed in there instead of gay.
I could care less what group you identify with or belong to as long as when something about that group comes before you that you forget about your association with that group. No decision should ever be made based on your church, or as they just did, on what is done in other countries. It should only be what is written in the Constitution.
To me being gay doesn't put you into any group, or give you anymore or less rights, that being say tall. Why did you jump to I'm picking on her, or anyone else, because of who she does or doesn't sleep with?
As for "what's written in the Constitution": People who talk about following the Constitution "to the letter" are being shortsighted, with all due respect. The Constitution offers legal guidelines; it is an invaluable document precisely because it is adaptable. You will find no mention of "terrorism" (nor airplanes, nor homosexuality nor campaign contributions). On the other hand, you can find endless examples of executive "workarounds" (say, for example, in prosecuting a war without Congressional permission). The Supreme Court justices must look at the world we all live in and try to make rulings based not only on the guidelines issued by the Constitution but also on a long history of other decisions. It is the history of precedent that helps bring our present-day legal system in line with the guidelines set forth by our (male, white, property-holding Christian) forefathers. To suggest that justices are to read, see, hear and consider nothing but what those wise men wrote is to dismiss hundreds of years of jurisprudence and is, in my view, ludicrous.
Yeah, to everything else mentioned above, I agree (givertake).
And, yeah, if she's gay, more power to her. (I'm assuming so, maybe I'm wrong.)
BUT, there's a huge chunk of America that does not say 'i dont care' about the gay issue. You don't have angry mobs protesting against single women the way you do against gays. You don't have priests and ministers saying being a 'spinster' is over-the-top satanic sin, the way you do with gay.
And yes all of this is ridiculous, just like how Obama caused the gulf oil leak, or the recession, or the Afghanistan war. But, too much of the population believes this crap.
So will she be like Mary Cheney, who can get away with being gay? Or will she be like Ted Haggard, who crashed and burned when it was revealed? I can't say. But it is true that, in general, liberals/democrats get trashed when conservatives/repubs don't, for the same indiscretion or situation.
I think it's ill-advised to be complacent and just sit back and think the Gay issue is going to just blow over. These aren't Barny Frank's voters, these are US Senators who tend to be fairly conservative and homophobic.
Here's an argument that won't work: Gee, most animals also do it. Counter argument: humans are different from animals, so point is moot.
another: Homosexuality is Normal! counterargument: no it isn't, it's a perversion against God.
another: Scientists have proven that it's normal! counterargument: are these the same scientists who dreamed up Global Warming? If so then I know the're lying.
Here's an argument that will work: She was born that way, nothing she can do about it.
Another: it's like being left-handed. We now know that people born that way are not evil (the latin word for Left is sinister), and that there's no way to train them to be right-handed; it's life-long.