Why is the late RBG considered an advocate of “gender equality”?

My Facebook feed is alive with people mourning Ruth Bader Ginsburg, often specifically mentioning that she advocated “equality”. Our government-sponsored broadcasting network describes her as “a champion of gender equality”:

Yet Ginsburg praised Brett Kavanaugh for promising to hire employees (clerks) from only one gender ID and then following through on that promise to practice gender-based discrimination in employment. From “Ginsburg credits Kavanaugh for helping boost number of female Supreme Court clerks” (The Hill):

“Justice Kavanaugh made history by bringing on board an all-female law clerk crew. Thanks to his selections, the Court has this Term, for the first time ever, more women than men serving as law clerks,” she said, according to remarks released by the court.

Her remarks come several months after Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the court last year after a fraught confirmation battle that centered around allegations of sexual misconduct, followed through on a promise he made during the nomination process to appoint an all-female team of law clerks.

(Why is that private employers can be sued by plaintiffs alleging gender discrimination in employment if our top government officials brag about doing this?)

Perhaps RBG could legitimately be described as having been an advocate for 1 out of 50+ possible gender IDs. But why is she is an example of someone who advocated “equality” among people with 50+ gender IDs?

Separately, if Mother-of-7 Amy Coney Barrett is appointed to this demanding job (though apparently it wasn’t too demanding for an unhealthy 87-year-old?), will that stop stay-at-home American helicopter moms-of-1-or-2 from complaining that they are exhausted from doing the most difficult job on the planet?


8 thoughts on “Why is the late RBG considered an advocate of “gender equality”?

  1. “But why is she is an example of someone who advocated “equality” among people with 50+ gender IDs?” “Equality” here means “equality for women.” That in turns means favoring women because everyone knows that women are disadvantaged relative to disabled men veterans with PTSD and opioid addictions. No one advocates for “equality for disabled men veterans with PTSD and opioid addictions” because no obfuscation is necessary.

    You can’t advocate for “equality for men” even if you believe that that having ten times as many men in prison indicates inequality, because no one believes that any man is disadvantaged in any way relative to anyone else. So you can’t believe it, either.

    This stuff is complicated (and systemic). If you haven’t received an education at an elite, expensive U.S. university, you probably can’t understand it.

  2. Fun fact: if a member of the senate is nominated for the supremes, no senate confirmations hearings are required. Trump could nominate Ted Cruz or Mike Lee on Monday, have a vote on Tuesday, and a new supreme by Wednesday.

  3. WaPo, 10/15/18 – Ruth Bader Ginsburg can learn something from Brett Kavanaugh


    “…Ginsburg, on the other hand, has hired only one African American law clerk in her 25 years on the Supreme Court. This is an improvement from her 13-year tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when Ginsburg never had any black clerks. When this issue was raised during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1993, Ginsburg said: “If you confirm me for this job, my attractiveness to black candidates is going to improve.” This remains a promise unfulfilled.”

  4. Only oldspeakers still insist on crimeful meanings to words. The latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary should suffice to educate even a doubleplus crimethinker that “the all-female court is now gender-equal”.

    • Well, of course, a period of supra-equality will be necessary to heal the accumulated trauma of inequality of the past!

Comments are closed.