28: Proving Yourself in a Man's World Part I

Jeff Rosen, of the New Republic, wrote an article about Sonia Sotomayor who, at the time, was in the running to become a Supreme Court Justice. In this piece, Rosen portrayed Sotomayor as unitelligent, negatively aggressive, and put immense focus on her temperament in court. What Rosen failed to point out in his poorly-evidenced argument were any of Sotomayor's major credits. According to The White House's background of the judge, Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her high school class, summa cum laude at Princeton, and was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. To attempt to portray this obviously qualified woman as incompetent or inexperienced seems laughable.

What's disturbing about Rosen's piece, still, is how he characterizes Sotomayor's aggressiveness, tendency to ask probing, tough questions and pension for dedication as bad traits. American University law professor Darren Hutchinson critiqued the article, noting the apparent sexism:

"In Scalia, toughness is positive; in Sotomayor, it is nonjudicial. If Scalia asks irrelevant questions, he is just being a dutiful 'law professor' trying to hold the attention of his class. If Sotomayor does the same thing, she is just interested in hearing herself talk. When Scalia duels harshly with litigants, the 'spectators' watch in amazement. If Sotomayor asks tough questions, she is seen as difficult, temperamental, and excitable. The disparate treatment is too dense to deny."

Men are praised for being tough, while women are seen as domineering.