×
Via Twitter, TPM News Editor Justin Elliott points out this "creepily gendered" Times headline: "Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament."Indeed, I can't remember the last time I heard a man referred to as "sharp tongued," which strikes me as a synonym for catty, pushy, nasty, and a whole bunch of other terms usually reserved for aggressive women. The Times article, by Jo Becker and Adam Liptak, goes on to call Sotomayor "testy" and "combative," though also "formidably intelligent" and "gregarious." But the piece buries what should have been very close to the top, a comment by Judge Guido Calabresi, former dean of Yale Law School. He said:
Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman. It was sexist, plain and simple.Right. If you're laboring under the assumption that the current Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of passive nice guys who make lawyers feel warm and fuzzy inside, read Jeff Toobin's profile of Chief Justice John Roberts. In any case, by acknowledging that critiques of Sotomayor's "temperament" must be understood within the context of her place in a male-dominated profession, the Times reporters clearly one-up Jeff Rosen's now-infamous "Case Against Sotomayor." But while it's perfectly legitimate to debate Sotomayor's potential shortcomings, I'm still not thrilled with the way this "temperament" story is being framed. As Ann Friedman and I discussed in our first episode of "Ask a Feminist," there is a well-developed body of sociological research demonstrating that within workplaces, male aggressive behaivor is accepted by both men and women as a "leadership" quality, while similar aggressive behavior by a woman gets her labeled as a difficult bitch. In some surveys, even women have reported that they prefer male bosses.All I ask is that coverage of Sotomayor's "personality" be put in this context.--Dana GoldsteinUpdate: Josh Marshall made a similar point (very) early this morning.
