New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | October 11, 2005

Cathy Young proves that she's an elitist, misogynist anti-Christian by raising an eyebrow at the Harriet Miers nomination.

Comments

|10.11.05 @ 5:55AM|#

Maureen Dowd? But, nobody, absolutely nobody, gives a shitty rat's ass for what Maureen Dowd scribbles, anyway. Ms. Young really oughta know that.

|10.11.05 @ 9:20AM|#

Cathy says, "But, polarized as the country already is, the last thing we need is one more war�even a culture war."

An anarchist says the more polarized we are, the more we need cultural wars. Polarization is good.

|10.11.05 @ 9:46AM|#

"Curiously, the nastiest gender-based swipe at Miers so far has come from a liberal feminist, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Dowd calls the women on the Bush team "self-sacrificing, buttoned-up nannies serving as adoring work wives, catering to W's every political, legal, and ego-affirming need." So Bush's male friends are just cronies, but his female friends are described in blatantly sexist terms."

Conservatives like Young pull this trick all the time. Conservative administration organizes itself so that women or minorities are playing stereotypically subordinate, supportive roles. Liberal notices this and comments on it. Conservative then accuses liberals of being sexist or racist for daring to notice the sexism or racism. The best example if the hypocritical freakout by Republicans when Howard Dean dared to note that the only minorities at a Republican event were the waitstaff. Damn you, Howard, you're supposed to be "colorblind" and not notice those things!

If you think that Dowd's impression is unsupported by facts, then say that. But it is isn't sexist or racist to have a problem with women or minorities being consigned to nurturing support roles; it's sexist and racist to so consign them.

|10.11.05 @ 9:48AM|#

I agree with Ruthless. Culture wars bring the idiots out in the open. Only sunlight can kill the scum of ignorance.

|10.11.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Joe, I don't think Cathy was making such a stink about the simple fact that Dowd noticed what she noticed - the stink was about the fact that both men and women in the Bush administration have been relegated to "self-sacrificing, [...] catering to W's every political, legal, and ego-affirming need", yet, Dowd sees this application to women differently than she sees it as applied to men. Her point is that the administration indiscriminantly relegates these people to these roles, regardless of gender, and that Dowd is wrong to differentiate.

Tim Cavanaugh|10.11.05 @ 10:00AM|#

Conservative administration organizes itself so that women or minorities are playing stereotypically subordinate, supportive roles.

Secretary of State? Attorney General? Secretaries of Interior, Labor, Education, HUD, and Transportation? Their backs must be bowed from all the time they spend mopping the floors and slaving over a hot stove.

Dave W.|10.11.05 @ 10:07AM|#

But it is isn't sexist or racist to have a problem with women or minorities being consigned to nurturing support roles; it's sexist and racist to so consign them.

No, but it can be sexist to assume that women are so "consigned," when in some cases the "consignment" is an informed and free choice. I am not necessarily talking about the Motel 6 cleaning person, but I think Harriet Miers, whatever her limitations, has made her choices with a reasonable amount of freedom, at least for the last 20 years or so. It would be a form of sexism to characterize these choices as a "consignment." Specifically, that word takes Ms. Miers brain and will out of the picture, and that's a no-no.

drf|10.11.05 @ 10:08AM|#

a conservative?? people have called Cathy many things here, but that's the first time i've seen that :)

but Joe although I don't remember dean's comments, i agree with you that race-bating or accusations of being colorblind or not fly on all sides. and the GOP seems to be more sophisticated with their putting-down, etc.

GOP minions tried claiming that Alan "circus freak" Keyes's nomination here in Illinois wasn't racially motivated (he ran --- errr -- crawled against Barak Obama). It appeared as though they played the race card and waited to deliver the "HA! you noticed! you're not colorblind!"

(resisted urge to poke that gop idiot in the nose)

cheers,
drf

|10.11.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Evan,

Rove? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft? These men have been in the drivers' seat, in a way that Rice (given her positions because of her ability to help Bush understand policy issues) and Miers (nominated for her service as Bush's lawyer and "Staff Secretary" have not).

There are certainly counterarguments to be made. Maybe Dowd is way off base here. My point is just that taking note of a pattern of behavior does not make you guilty of that behavior.

dhex|10.11.05 @ 10:17AM|#

saying "maybe dowd is way off" on anything is like saying "maybe the sky will be above our head today."

|10.11.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Ah... Keyes... [nostalgic chuckle] I wonder where he's going to take up "residence" next election.

Dave W.|10.11.05 @ 10:21AM|#

These men have been in the drivers' seat, in a way that Rice (given her positions because of her ability to help Bush understand policy issues) and Miers (nominated for her service as Bush's lawyer and "Staff Secretary" have not).

One time Bush had to make a choice as to whether Ms. Rice or Mr. Powell would be in the driver's seat (perhaps an unfortunate metaphor here). You know the rest of that song . . .

drf|10.11.05 @ 10:21AM|#

heh, peachy.

if hillary can take advantage of carpetbagger laws, i guess alan can too ;)

joe and dhex. agreed.

and we shall now call dhex, "loretta".

(did BRIAN appear to anybody else last night in a magical dream full of space aliens?)

|10.11.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Tim,

Nominating people to high positions based on their service, and expecting them to be "Bush's guy" at State, Justice, SCOTUS, or wherever has been a hallmark of this administration.

It was clearly Ashcroft's Justice Department when he was AG. Now, it's Bush's Lawyer's Justice Department. Look at the administration's pesentation of Roberts - a great thinker, a strong record of service - vs. their presentation of Miers - someone close to Bush, who can be trusted for that reason. I don't think it's beyond the pale to suggest there's a double standard that shows through.

And the bent back/mop snipe is just childish. We're pretending that the only people in Washington who are subordinate are the janitors?

|10.11.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Dave W, Rice is clearly "Bush's man at State" in a way that Powell never was.

|10.11.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Erm, ALL posts in the administration are subordinate to the President.

Dave W.|10.11.05 @ 10:24AM|#

Dave W, Rice is clearly "Bush's man at State" in a way that Powell never was.

I know. I am blaming the woman for that. It was her choice. She was not consigned any more than Powell was.

|10.11.05 @ 10:27AM|#

Dave,

This is a conversation about a topic other than "was coercion used?" There are other things to talk about, you know.

|10.11.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Why does anyone bother to bringing up Dowd any longer? Ever since the Times started the Times Select idiocy she has been an irrelevance along with the rest of their opinion leaders. They have chosen to place her drivel behind a nice high wall lets give them the same courtesy we would give our neighbors and let it stay there.

dhex|10.11.05 @ 10:47AM|#

loretta?

drf|10.11.05 @ 10:53AM|#

PFJ's Stan who wanted to be called "loretta". in that scene where they were explaining to Brian that the romans were oppressors.

i dunno. it's a silly reaction. "is it too early for a drink" (if a Mr. Mom quote works)

dhex|10.11.05 @ 11:07AM|#

sorry. i didn't have my python-implant in when i read that.

mr. mom always works!

drf|10.11.05 @ 11:26AM|#

thanks, dhex. it's a diversion from today.

fyodor|10.11.05 @ 11:29AM|#

joe,

By your own account, Bush seeks subordinate from men in his cabinet, not just from women. Plus, even if he expects Miers to be subordinate on the court, there's no way he can insure that, so it's hardly an act of subordination to put her in that position of untethered responsibility.

Okay, at this point I was going to transition to the inappropriateness of Dowd's remarks, but that's when I started to gag. Dowd is a whiny and petty bitch, and such prattle is to be expected from her. It's a stretch to say she represents anyone but herself and her whatever-sized cadre of fans.

dhex|10.11.05 @ 11:39AM|#

fyodor: i believe the term is "plus-sized".

i have a professor who thinks maureen dowd is "well-reasoned" - and yes, i did laugh out loud when she said that. i apologized for the outburst, of course.

R C Dean|10.11.05 @ 11:51AM|#

But, polarized as the country already is, the last thing we need is one more war�even a culture war.

I totally disagree. Trying to suppress and deny the divisions in our society is a very bad idea. Let's have it out, I say.

|10.11.05 @ 11:55AM|#

"Let's have it out, I say."
Fuck yeah!

|10.11.05 @ 11:56AM|#

fyodor,

"By your own account, Bush seeks subordinate from men in his cabinet, not just from women." He seems to do so to a greater degree from the women from the men, and to a greater degree from the minorities than from the white men. Not to any absolute degree, but enough that a pattern emerges.

I think you've got my point backwards about Miers - he's not putting her on the court to subordinate her. This is a promotion to a position of greater responsibility and autonomy, after all. It's that he chose someone personally subordinate to himself to put in that position. Sort of like Rice. Compare this to Roberts, who is no one's man but his own.

I don't want to overstate this. My point is just that it doesn't make Dowd a sexist to take note of such a trend, however much anti-feminists might find turnabout a cute rhetorical gambit.

fyodor|10.11.05 @ 11:56AM|#

lol, dhex!!

|10.11.05 @ 12:00PM|#

R C Dean

I agree (as long as the culture war doesn't become like the one we had in the 1860's, of course). Nobody is served when everybody tries to varnish over important differences.

fyodor|10.11.05 @ 12:06PM|#

My point is just that it doesn't make Dowd a sexist

If Cathy Young is literally calling Dowd a sexist (didn't RTFA), then she's surely stretching the point.

All I would say about Dowd's comments are that they're stupid. You're giving her way too much credit to say that she's noticing some pattern. She writes that way for its biting ironic (and partisan) effect. But it's all effect and no substance. Actually, though, she makes a good living doing what she's doing, so it's really not stupid, for her. It's people who listen to her that are being stupid.

|10.11.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Sounds like Dowd is--yet again--seeing what she wants to see. Sounds like joe is, too.

I'll acknowledge I probably do as well, however rational and objective and wise I may think I am.

Of course, as has been noted before, Dowd is virtually irrelevant. She's just another product of that bizarre mind-altering echo chamber called the Upper West Side. (Actually, I'm not entirely sure she lives there; but if she doesn't, she should. It's a truly frightening place.)

fyodor|10.11.05 @ 12:16PM|#

After RTFA, Young clearly calls Dowd's choice of language sexist, but doesn't claim she has any overall bias in her views. On the face of it, she's right. Though to be more fair than Dowd deserves, even putting aside my criticisms and general dislike of her writing, one must at the least interpret her style through the prism of "satire," and as such maybe it's no big hypocritical deal.

That said, I'll next try to find a little time to read Dowd's article to see if she backs her charges on Miers with joe's "pattern," or if, as I suspect, she was just taking joy in her ability to be sassy and turn a phrase while spitting some vitriol in her preferred direction.

Dave W.|10.11.05 @ 1:16PM|#

This is a conversation about a topic other than "was coercion used?" There are other things to talk about, you know.

I am combing this thread looking for a clue to why Dowd chose to explain Miers, but not Michael Brown's, behavior in terms of gender. We know Dowd wasn't coerced. We know that Miers and Brown are / were / would be in remarkably parallel situations (moderately successful professional lawyers, unqualified Bush appointees).

So why does Dowd explain one of these individuals in terms of gender and the other not? I would suggest prejudice, more specifically gender-based prejudice. Otherwise, Dowd wouldn't find gender inequality where only ideally gender-blind logrolling and cronyism exist.

Good we are all finally getting clear that the whole Miers thing is about abortion, specifically keeping it safe and legal. Which, strangely, makes George Bush the heroic feminist in this story.

|10.11.05 @ 1:25PM|#

"So why does Dowd explain one of these individuals in terms of gender and the other not?"

She doesn't explain Miers' behavior in terms of gender.

She explains the positions she's given, and the role she's expected to play, in terms of gender.

Dave W.|10.11.05 @ 1:34PM|#

So why does Dowd explain one of these individual's experiences in terms of gender and the other not?

|10.11.05 @ 1:41PM|#

For the same reason Ambrose Bierce doesn't write books about wars that didn't happen.

|10.11.05 @ 1:48PM|#

In Maureen Dowd's world, Republicans are all evil white men. Therefore, any woman appointed by Bush is a June Cleaver and any black an Uncle Tom. It's myopic, simplistic and totally predictable. In other words, perfect for the New York Times.

fyodor|10.11.05 @ 1:50PM|#

Okay, just read Dowd's article, and it doesn't say anything about preferencial treatment given to men by Bush for truly meaningful jobs. The only pattern she describes is elevating women above their qualifications, which I venture to say would almost certainly be seen as sexist had such a pattern been described by a conservative. Also, she ignores the pattern of cronyism involving both sexes that everyone else is well aware of. No, nothing the least bit intellectual here, but calling her sexist is beside the point. She's just using a cute and pissy gimmick to claim that Bush is bypassing more qualified women to choose compliant ones. Just as he's done with men, though to bring that up would ruin the moral authority of this jilted feminist.

Dave W.|10.11.05 @ 1:52PM|#

No, Joe. Both Micheal Brown and Harriet Miers are real people. They exist. Their lives and experiences both happened.

SPOILER ALERT: Anyway, Bierce is probably most famous for writing about a small struggle that never objectively happened, so I don't think Bierce is too hung up on that particular point.

|10.11.05 @ 2:18PM|#

"No, Joe. Both Micheal Brown and Harriet Miers are real people. They exist. Their lives and experiences both happened."

But the issue Dowd is concerned with here - the imposition of stereotypical female roles on a high level administration figure - only happened to one of them.

Dave W.|10.11.05 @ 2:30PM|#

the imposition of stereotypical female roles on a high level administration figure

Why doesn't Dowd think Brown had his female role imposed upon him? Because he's a guy?

|10.11.05 @ 5:00PM|#

Because Brown was neither charged with a supportive role within the White House, nor (God knows) sent to be Bush's guy at FEMA. He was pretty much told "here ya go," and left alone in his role.

|10.11.05 @ 7:12PM|#

joe,

As opposed to a Supreme Court nominee, who faces constant interference from the president.

|10.11.05 @ 9:24PM|#

You don't need to constantly interfere if you appoint your poodle to the court.

fyodor|10.12.05 @ 10:54AM|#

You don't need to constantly interfere if you appoint your poodle to the court.

How about if you appoint your bitch? Ha-ha-ha!! But now, that wouldn't be sexist if it were said by a liberal merely pointing out the sexism in the Bush Administration, blah blah bleh...