I'm writing this blog in memory of late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneer on the court for women’s rights and protector of our United States constitution. Regardless of if you agree with her more recent opinions and rulings, she led an amazing life and, deservingly, became a role model for millions. Following her death, I was both disappointed and unsurprised that President Trump announced that he would be nominating a woman to the Supreme Court to fill the seat left behind by the ‘Notorious RBG’. The title of this post is not because I’m a misogynist, think that women shouldn't be on the supreme court, or think that it's ‘ a man’s job’ etc but for the same reason I was upset when Joe Biden declared that he would choose a woman as his VP pick (and a woman of color too - for the same reasons, but that could be another blog post). And hear me out before you start writing angry comments and taking me out of context. These men, in positions of power, suggesting that they will pick a woman for XYZ position undermines that woman’s accomplishments and tokenizes her.
Allow me to further explain. Both President Trump, for the supreme court, and Joe Biden, for the Vice Presidential nominee, had many people on their short-lists - men, women, Blacks, Whites, Latinos, straights, gays etc. One could argue that any of the people on each of their lists would/could be a great pick, and I’d say that being put on one of these lists is an accomplishment in it of itself. When Vice President Biden and now President Trump announced that their respective picks would be a woman, in an effort to create hype and narrow down the list, it immediately undermined the women’s accomplishments. They decided to take out all the men, not because they were less qualified - but because they weren’t a woman. And by the same token, they kept all the women because they were women and not because they were necessarily more qualified. Were they kept because they were accomplished, respectable, or outspoken people? We and they might never know… Amy Coney Barrett and Kamala Harris will forever have a voice in their head saying - “you only got picked because some old guy wanted to pick a woman - if you were a man you never would’ve even made the list.” How disgusting is that? That’s misogyny - not me sitting here complaining about it.
It tokenizes them. Articles spring up in the weeks between the “it will be a woman” comment and the nomination: ‘Here are the top 3 Women Trump/Biden could pick”, “Who will SHE be?” etc. For people to cheer at the announcement that a woman will be chosen is also saddening to me - their cheering for a man who has said that he will prop up a woman because she is a woman - not because she was the best possible pick. This is irredeemable - as much as Trump and Biden would like to claim that the women they chose were better than all the men on the list, we’ll never know for sure and more importantly: THE WOMEN WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE.
So what do I suggest? Simple: pick someone because they're the best person for the job and vocalize that! No accomplished woman should ever be diminished to an immutable characteristic. People should choose nominees because they believe in them, and if they happen to be a man: alright; if they happen to be a woman: alright. Lastly, if these choices were women in an effort to gain women voters (again, I hate to suggest this because it delegitimizes the women who got nominated) the Trump/Biden team can choose between women behind closed doors, but they should at least say they're choosing the best person for the job in public and to the nominee.
Women's rights icons such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg would agree - women should be chosen because they are indeed better than the man, and not because they happen to be a woman. She famously said that there would be enough women on the Supreme Court when there were “9” because no one questioned it when there were 9 men! If 9 times in a row, a woman happened to be a better choice than a man, no one should question that.
I’ll end my thoughts here. I am very interested to hear from the girls in the comments. I am not a girl, and I’ll never know what it’s like to be one, but I can only imagine what it would feel like to wonder if I got something because of my accomplishments or because of my gender…
Noah
I personally think it was very important for Vice President Biden to pick a woman as his running mate and Trump to Nominate a woman. I understand that it may seem as if women could sometimes be used as "tokens", but I do not think that is the case in this situation. Before the 1970's women were not given equal pay as men, they were not allowed to go to doctor's appointments without a male counterpart, be part of the STEM field nor get an equal education. Finally we are at a point in history where women can accomplish anything they set their minds to including potentially being Vice President of the United States and be on the Supreme Court. Using their platform and voice, these women have the ability to continue to uphold women's rights and have a unique perspective that males would not be able to have no matter how hard they try to sympathize with women. This is why it is crucial that Biden picked a female as his VP and Trump nominated a women automatically. It is only fair considering all of the equality RBG was able to establish in this country for generations of women to come.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need women in positions of power/decision making. I'm also not trying to delegitimize them being picked. My point is that they shouldn't announce that they'll be picking a woman - they should just pick a woman. Do you think it was good that they said they would pick a woman? Don't you think it undermines their accomplishments? I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
DeleteI believe that some of the women who are being picked for positions are just being used as tokens and that there are other far more intelligent women that they could pick.
ReplyDeleteI like your outlook. Women are very qualified to be in this position, but there is no reason for politicians to use them as tokens. It shouldn't have to be stated that women are being picked for a specific position because the public should already assume that they're qualified. It's really just another political move by people who think they know what they're doing.
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point, Noah. I think it was very important that women were chosen for each of these positions. That being said, I completely understand your comment about them being tokenized. If you are picking the best candidate for the job then pick that candidate. If it's a woman, pick a woman. Don't announce that it's a woman being picked. Hmmm. I hadn't really thought about it from this perspective, and I appreciate you making me think.
ReplyDeleteUltimately tokenism is bad and people should receive positions primarily through their merit, but also consider the importance of traditionally marginalized groups in positions of power not only in the context of the individual, but also in the context of the society willing to let them take that position.
ReplyDelete