i am furious

I am so mad, that I can’t even think straight. I don’t have anything productive to say other than a string of expletives. But really, what can you say, or what needs to be said, against such utterly contemptible falsehoods?

Why am I mad?

Scalia says “Get over it. It’s so old by now” regarding Bush v. Gore. I am utterly speechless.

The Wall Street Journal endorses Scalia’s old school breadwinner/distant father/supportive homemaker mother model of a family. Thank you, oh prestigious paper covering our nation’s politics and economy, for saying something that is so clearly progressive, modern, and reflective of today’s economic and social realities.

I need to throw something or break something right now.

12 thoughts on “i am furious”

  1. Um. K. Exactly what is the problem with someone raising 9 children and supporting one career? Should she have worked and become a CEO somewhere while his kids are raised by a nanny (then again they may very well have been)? There are all types of families – I see nothing wrong with theirs and it worked out for them. As for “economic and social realities” – I have no idea what that means. Are you saying that everyone should be raised exactly the same way? If my boyfriend and I ever adopt he would stop working and stay home because I have the more lucrative career. Do you have an issue with that? If so, why? (extra bit of info – we are gay)

    Listen I don’t agree with Scalia 90% of the time but I enjoy reading his opinions. And as for the Bush v. Gore deal – I disagree that the Supreme Court should of become involved but lets be honest here – Gore ran an awful campaign and had no chance of winning. Couldn’t even win his home state. So in this instance I agree with Scalia – get over it and lets get a democrat back in the White House.

    Like

  2. I don’t mean to disparage families that choose to have one partner stay at home and raise the kids–I am not a Linda Hirschman. However, the tone of the WSJ article provoked extreme ire in me, since it was based on such a traditionalist, gendered conception of the dynamic: the man is the primary breadwinner and unengaged in his children’s lives, the woman puts her career/public life on the backburner to support her spouse. Most families cannot afford to live on a single income, and most women these days work (see, e.g. Nickel and Dimed, Arlie Hochshild’s work). And still, more women tend to shoulder the grunt of the burden of child/housecare in addition to their jobs. Of the stay at home parents, they tend to be women. The WSJ seems to elide the gendered nature of the traditionalist family view they endorse.

    I don’t mean to diminish your choice of family structure, or to say that there is only one way to have a family. I just bridle that the model endorsed is so traditional and gendered.

    Like

  3. Belle,

    Most families cannot afford to live on a single income, and most women these days work

    I suggest that most families can live on a single income – my family has since my last child was in diapers. That’s a family that has included up to five children at home – we’re down to three now.

    It’s a matter of budget and priority. We don’t have top-of-the line cars, we’re careful with our money. We don’t live in an expensive area.

    I’d love to drive a new car and forego used. I’d like to live in the Bay Area instead of Drivepast, Wisconsin. We decided that having a full-time parent was more important.

    If my boyfriend and I ever adopt he would stop working and stay home because I have the more lucrative career.

    That’s what we did. But it still feels odd – I lucked into a career in IT, and while people think I went to college (diction and bearing are your friends) my only formal training was in the Marines. My wife planned hers education and career path .. and as an educator she’d be lucky to make half what I do.

    Like

  4. I used to buy the line that Scalia based his positions on principle (original intent and deference to states and legislatures) rather than outcome. Bush v. Gore disabused me of that notion.

    I don’t think “get over it” qualifies as the witty, sophisticated, and trenchant legal analysis Scalia is famous for. Nor do I think that “Gore ran an awful campaign and had no chance of winning.” In fact he got more votes than did Bush nationwide and quite possibly in Florida. But Scalia et. al. decided that the Court should intervene in the state’s election procedures. Yesterday, Scalia held that the court had no business interfering in Indiana’s election procedures, procedures obviously instituted for the purpose of inhibiting Democratic votes.

    Like

  5. @3: It is great that you are able to support your family on one income. However, consumer decisions alone do not dictate whether or not a family has the ability to live on a single income.

    Like

  6. However, consumer decisions alone do not dictate whether or not a family has the ability to live on a single income.

    If I implied otherwise, it was not my intention. Yet .. it’s possible to survive on a single-income. It’s a matter of choices that you make.

    Like

  7. “It’s a matter of choices that you make.”

    Or, put more sociologically, a single income places more limiting constraints on what is possible to choose from.

    Like

  8. I have to agree with bdunbar re: “I suggest that most families can live on a single income” and that “It’s a matter of budget and priority.” I grew up in a single-income family of three(my mom was single). She made minimum wage at a full-time job, bringing home the equivalent of $700 per month or so in today’s dollars. We survived, and without debt. Government subsidized housing was a big help. She never accepted any other form of welfare except government cheese.

    I’ll remain agnostic in regard to whether single-income families are preferable. I think it’s situational.

    Like

  9. The point is that Scalia’s position is that those who think Bush v Gore ranks up there with the judicial reasoning employed in Dredd Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy should “get over it” is tremendously insulting. Even conservatives recognized Bush v Gore was a bad use of the courts and badly reasoned. It creates bad precedent which can have effects in the future. It undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary. “Get over it” is condescending and ultimately unreflective about his role in our constitutional democracy.

    Like

  10. It would be easier to live with it if we weren’t living with the consequences every day. And yes, LBN, I am totally on board with you–that is one of the biggest reasons I will never get over the Election of 2000 and Bush v. Gore. Everything I love about the rule of law and the concept of justice is totally undermined by such pernicious judicial fiat. And the contempt he shows for the law, his office, this country’s democratic values is deplorable. I am focused on Election 2008–but as a lawyer, citizen, someone who cares about justice–I can never ever get over Bush v. Gore. Fuck that shit.

    Like

  11. It think it is irrelevant to belle lettre’s point whether or not a family can live off of one income. If a family can and they wish to, fine. Her point was that the WSJ was valorizing a type of family form where a man works and a woman stays home. Again, there is nothing wrong with this arrangement as one option among many. But I think it would be naive to believe that the WSJ would equally promoting of other types of families where one PARENT stays home if that stay-at-home parent where not a woman and if the couple were not straight.

    Like

  12. It think it is irrelevant to belle lettre’s point whether or not a family can live off of one income.

    It’s irrelevant to the point, but germane to her reply in #2 where she wrote Most families cannot afford to live on a single income,

    I’m a nitpicker by profession (shrug). Someone’s gotta pay attention to the details.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.