The Evil HR Lady flagged the latest example of flagrant hypocrisy from progressive women in this politics drenched year, the worst being the sudden disappearance of any concern about sexual harassment with President trump being opposed by a serial practitioner even if you don’t believe the former staffer who has “credibly” accused him of finger-rape. You will recall similar criticism launched at Sarah Palin.
Here’s feminist writer Vanessa Grigoriadis:
I guess one of the things I don’t understand about Amy Comey Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving, present mom to seven kids? Is this like the Kardashians stuffing nannies in the closet and pretending they’ve drawn their own baths for their kids…And if there aren’t enough hours in the day for her to work and mother those kids, when she portrays herself as a home-centered Catholic who puts family over career, isn’t she telling a lie?
Fellow feminist and progressive writer Meaghan Daum replies on Twitter
I wonder this, too. It may be sexist to ask the question, but childcare arrangements are usually inherently sexist. Is Barrett’s husband the primary caregiver? He’s a partner in a law firm. Are the older kids raising the younger kids, one of whom has special needs?…The problem is, it’s a setup. Because if people start asking about that, she and/or her supporters will say “would you ask this of a man, even a man whose wife has a big career outside the home?” Well, probably not. But just because it’s unfair doesn’t mean it’s not worth asking.
They get away with this convenient bigotry because they are women and their target is a conservative. No male could make such criticisms, and if any conservative dared to question Democrat-nominated female judge with such observations, the long knives would be out and sharpened.
Rachel Malehorn on the always excellent human resources blog is having none of it, writing,
I do not care what your political beliefs are. This is about women being judged on something other than knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett has seven children–the oldest is 16 and the youngest is five. Everyone is, presumably, out of diapers and in school. And while most women don’t have seven children, most women do have children (or will have at some point). And just what type of mother she is or if she sends them to daycare or has a nanny is completely irrelevant to her ability to do her job….It absolutely is “not worth asking.” We NEVER ask these questions of job candidates. And I can’t imagine that this type of question has ever been asked of a male Supreme Court nominee. Chief Justice Roberts had toddlers when he was nominated. Former Justice Antonin Scalia (for whom Coney Barrett clerked) had nine children. I couldn’t find the ages of his children, but here’s a picture from 1986, when he was sworn into the court:
She adds, “This is 2020. We should not ask any female candidate for any job about her child care arrangements. We should not ask any female candidate if she has children. I’d point out that we shouldn’t ask this of male candidates, but we don’t already.”
Bingo.
Ethics Alarms 
OK we know what the law is. But if I am employing ‘you’ to look after my business, my clients, my properties, my children, my parents or my dog etc. I need to do some sensible due diligence. If you have 100 dogs already on your dog walker register it is unlikely you will have the time or inclination to care for my beloved Fido in the way I’d like. In an ideal world I’d discuss this with ‘you’ and you might be able to reassure me. But if the law seeks to prevent me discriminating on the basis of your other responsibilities I’ll have to guess, which may well be unfair on you. But I care more for Fido.
Would you ask a potential employee if she plans to get pregnant in the future? How is that much different than asking about how many dogs one walks. Perhaps, more dogs means employing more help.
Your reasoning could be extended to ask a man or woman how much he drinks, does he plan to participate in local politics that might negatively impact his work. I doubt anyone would have the cajones to ask a black woman if she is involved in the BLM movement and how that might affect her ability to do the job.
An employer can ask if there is anything that would prevent you from carrying out the duties of the position but when the employer gets a NO to that question that’s it.
There’s nothing wrong with ascertaining a person’s capability to do a job in light of other responsibilities, as well as their ability. And for appointment to high office, employment discrimination laws don’t seem to apply, so intrusive questioning is not legally prohibited. But, when the concern about capability has been directed toward only one gender, and when the person in question has performed exceptionally well in a similar job while having similar, or even more onerous, responsibilities, that line of questioning is not ethical.
My first thought with the last nominee was – what kind of father is he a would it be right to nominate him?
“while most women don’t have seven children, most women do have children”
My Dear nearly 93 year old Mother, with the help of my Dear late Father, stuck with seven (7).
All (including yours truly) are eternally grateful, something we remind her of daily!
In St. Michael’s parish where I grew up, the Gordons led the league with eleven kids, the Baretos were second with nine (Richard Bareto was the Chief of Police on Miami Beach during the Gianni Versace murder and follow up). The Moores brought up the rear of the really big families with seven (Michael Moore is the Southern District of Florida judge, now chief judge, who sent Elian Gonzales back to Cuba to be raised by Fidel, er, his father). Good Catholic families. How many kids does Mitt Romney have? How many kids does Nan Pelosi have? Is one enough? Are two too many?
If the nominee were from Brooklyn, NY or Berkeley, CA and was a lesbian nursing her fourth or fifth IVF baby while on the bench in the Ninth Circuit while her clerks attended to her other toddlers, or had adopted seven kids from Rwanda, we wouldn’t hear a peep. She would be singing, “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar,” in honor of Helen Reddy’s death. She’d be the model of “doing it all.” She’d be compared favorably to Angelina Jolie. Sheesh. Give me a break.
My point, an obvious one, is that I may have an ethical duty to Fido which I have to balance against my obligations to ‘you’, legal and otherwise.
My personal experience sadly is that anti discrimination legislation may disadvantage women (and less often men) by blocking any reasonable discussion of how ‘work’ and ‘family’ responsibilities’ can best be accommodated.
The key to asking that type of question is in keeping it neutral. A question that asks how many dogs do you walk at a time or how much time do you spend with each dog is fine as these questions are directly related to the quality of care your dog receives. How does the number of children one has affect the work output? It doesn’t. There is no direct correlation suggesting that the number of children affect absenteeism at any greater level than any other familial responsibility. Would you ask a female applicant if her husband beats her or drinks excessively?
In the ‘bad old days’ I used to ask applicants (male and female, young and old) whether they would be able to deal with highly demanding and potentially unreasonable clients 24/7. I stopped asking such direct questions about 25 years ago.
Because it’s illegal, right Andrew?
It’s disappointing that the Democrats are not as serious about packing courts as they could be.
CLOWNS!
If they would just abolish the Senate’s advice and consent provision in the Constitution, then their Great Leader could take over the packing process with optimal unaccountability. It’s a win-win-win:
1. Win for the one-party system by streamlining the judicial appointments, so that one person – the Great Leader – makes the decisions on whom to appoint (and dismiss), at will. No hearings, no confirmation. Just DONE. No more independent judiciary – just a bunch of party hacks securely employed for life as super-legislators, serving the Great Leader.
2. Win for the weasel legislators: No more messy, protracted shitshows of hearings and confirmations and votes – senators no longer accountable at all. Less hay to make for any senators’ election opponents. Incumbency-for-life virtually guaranteed!
3. Win for The People: like the old mint commercial, we all get “Two! TWO! TWO Branches in One!” (only “democratically elected” Great Leaders by direct popular vote with no Electoral College in the way. No more fretting by voters about “whom will the President nominate? [to the courts]” Just shut up and vote. Easy-peasy.
Meant to put close-parens – ) – in #3 after “in the way.”
And the two-Branches-in-one would be the Executive and Judicial.
I always LOVED how Gadhafi was referred to as “The Leader.” Perfect. Also reminds me of American Express at some point during Mrs. OB’s tenure there switching “leader” for “manager.” Hilarious. I thought “leader” was much creepier than “manager.”
As the mask drops on the Left, how can anyone vote for them again?
This is something I’ve been thinking about and trying to stop thinking like that. But I guess I’m going to have to write about it. I don’t think it would matter if Donald Trump was a Lizard Man from Planet X. He’s just one flawed leader. The entire Left, including the Democratic Party, has revealed itself as an existential danger to the gramd idea of America and democracy itself.
The sad part is, I know several non-political people who see exactly what the left has become, and they reason thusly – “if Biden wins, there will be complaints and riots for a while, before the right calms down and gets to work. If Trump wins, the riots will get worse, the left WILL push us to civil war before his term is up, and people will die. Therefore, I have to vote for Biden.” Which fills me with horror, but it’s not invalid.
Sure it is. Those people are being intimidated by violence and the threat of violence, and in addition to being craven, it’s naive. If intimidation works, it will continue. These are people proving they don’t have the character to preserve a democracy. They deserve your pity and your contempt.
That is indeed, tragic.
We can not have a healthy political culture by appeasing violent lawlessness.
If the L:eft pushes us into civil war, we might fight it.
I get embarrassed being a woman at times.
Idiots.