Legalities

Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg

Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.

July 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Previous | Main | Next »

Choice

March 05, 2008 7:46 AM

Of all the conversations I’ve had with Justice O’Connor over the years, one of the most interesting and provocative was a personal one. It involved the issue of choice. I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately, because it says something about Hillary Clinton’s bid to be the first woman president.

Today, when women talk about “choice,” it’s usually in the context of abortion. We’re “pro-choice” or anti-abortion. But that wasn’t how Justice O’Connor was using the word.

She was talking about the abundance of choices women have today—a fundamental issue of a different kind. We can work at the highest levels of government, hold partnerships in major law firms, direct leading corporations. We can have children. We can stay at home with them or go to work part time. Or we can work full-time and have children, too.

Those are choices my generation and younger generations of women can make, thanks to the trailblazing women who came before us---women who didn’t have those choices and went without. Just do a quick survey of any big law firm. Many of the women partners over 55—in firms that have them—bypassed kids for a career. They had no choice.

Once when I was talking to Justice O’Connor, I mentioned the familiar anecdote about how she only was offered a job as a secretary when she graduated near the top of her class at Stanford Law School. Her classmate Bill Rehnquist was off to Washington to clerk on the Supreme Court, and O’Connor—also a star student who’d grown up branding cattle and rounding up livestock on her family ranch—couldn’t get a job at a law firm.

I remember telling O’Connor that women of my generation would have a hard time imagining that the first female justice only got a job offer as a secretary out of law school---and had to sit and watch the men go off to fill the big-time jobs. O’Connor swiftly corrected me.

“Oh no,” she said. That story was wrong. There was no job offer. The law firm wanted her to take a typing test before it would hire her as a secretary. She refused. No offer.

Not a whole lot of choices there.

So O’Connor talked her way into a local DA’s office by volunteering to work for free. And when she decided to have children, she left the work force for a while—despite the huge struggle she had gone through to get a job in the first place.

Those are not the kind of decisions the luckiest of us women face today. Instead, we have this luxury of choice, and what do we do? We agonize. Just go to any Borders and look at the forests of trees felled for books on our inner conflicts. Do we “surrender to motherhood” or pick up arms in the mommy wars? Do we work or stay home? How do we decide?

I’ve been there myself. I came thisclose to staying home after my first child was born and nearly quit every day for the first month I was back. I’ve sat anguished in my car many times after prying my little girl’s hands off my leg when I left her at day care. I’ve missed school plays and book fairs. My wonderful nanny has taken my children to the emergency room with broken bones and busted lips, while I tried to get out of the office. Even now, writing this in a hotel room, I can still hear the four little voices that told me goodbye when I left, the littlest one saying earnestly, “Come back, mommy.”

But those were choices I made because I love my work—and choices I was fortunate to make, thanks to women like Sandra Day O’Connor and the generations that went before mine.

Talking all this over with Justice O’Connor a while back, it dawned on me pretty quickly that there ain’t much sympathy for women of my generation fretting over all these choices we now have. We’re the lucky ones who get to decide. So just decide and get on with it.

And that exposes the debate for what it is: luxurious. All those books lining those bookstore shelves are written for women who have the luxury to make those choices, whose spouses or partners work, who don’t have to punch a clock to pay the bills. They can work if they choose or stay home. The hard part is making the decision.

But at bottom, it’s important to remember that those are elitist arguments, true only for a small segment of society. As everyone knows, many, many women don’t have those choices. Some are raising kids alone, trying to figure out how to tell their daughters to pick between soccer and gymnastics, because they can’t afford both. Some combine their checks with their husbands and still worry about paying the bills.

They have to work, and they work hard—and they are struggling all over this country, in Alabama and New York, and, of course, in Texas and Ohio.

To these women, lofty words like “hope” and “change” are less powerful than the concrete idea that a woman could speak for them in the Oval Office, a woman President could give a voice to their powerlessness.

For them, Hillary is a symbol and a cause. She’s both hope and change.

But when you look at the news coverage of her campaign, it’s the elites who are driving the debates. People in the opinion classes—in New York and Washington, on television and in print—act like there’s no question that women today are equal to men, that sexism is behind us, that we can do it all if that’s what we choose to do--even be President.

Sure, you see a minor furor when some commentator says Hillary Clinton reminds men of their ex-wives at probate court. Or when one says she’s where she is today only because her husband fooled around. Or that she’s “pimping out” her daughter on the campaign trail.

But the furor is minor and fades amidst the laughter—because, hey, we all know women today have so many choices that we just go on and on about how in the world we can decide between all those great choices.

Or you hear self-styled feminists and Hillary bashers explain it away as not about all women, it’s about one woman. And because it’s Hillary--because she engenders such vitriol, because everything about her seems to be filtered through the idea that she’s capable of anything, that she will do anything, say anything--they don’t seem to mind the language. You almost expect to hear them say next, hey, she was asking for it.

For the life of me, I don’t get it. Nor do I understand why women—aside from the Hillary supporters and the elders in NOW—aren’t more outraged. You don’t have to be backing Hillary or weary of the Clintons to see those double standards and find the talk offensive and disturbing.

And yes, depressing. Turn on cable news or read an op-ed, and it seems that we’ve chosen either not to care or to pretend we’ve come such a long way, baby, that we can now laugh along with the guys when they say Hillary sounds like the shrewish ex-wife. Girl, that’s real progress.

Commentators have repeatedly underestimated Clinton and written her off as dated and tired and shrill. But for huge groups of women, that stuff isn’t so funny or easily dismissed. It’s too familiar.

Clinton speaks to them as a symbol that “we can”--and a reminder that they’ve heard otherwise long enough.

March 5, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (63)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hillary deserves every negative comment she gets. She won Texas by running an ad that basically said "Vote for Obama and your children will die". She talks about 35 years of experience (somehow 8 years in the senate equals 35 years of experience, but an impartial review will show it has been 35 years of political scheming and lying. Say anything to get ahead. Tell the country that you will fix health care, even though when you had the chance, you did nothing.

Posted by: bg | Mar 5, 2008 8:59:08 AM

Another Republican shilling for Hillary.

Posted by: je | Mar 5, 2008 9:22:25 AM

I have heard sexist language all year concerning Hillary. Meanwhile, nobody
with an ounce of humanity has (or should) use similar racist language toward Obama. I care less about 3 AM and more about how weak he is on No Child Left Behind - stop testing my kids and start teaching them!

Posted by: DAVID | Mar 5, 2008 9:28:49 AM

A very interesting, thoughtful piece (as usual). What you say about Clinton could be said about Obama, too, don't you think.

One of them will face the old guard, and he or she will need all the support they can get. One assumes that vitriol directed at either is a vote for the status quo.

Posted by: francofou | Mar 5, 2008 9:32:19 AM

Hillary is a sign of "we can". We can what? Ride our husbands coattails? How about a woman who has done it on her own. There are plenty of women to choose from from Diane Feinstein on the left to Kay Bailey Hutchison on the right. I am amazed that "feminists" are so taken with HRC. She seems to be a weak example to follow.

Posted by: Bri in TN | Mar 5, 2008 9:36:26 AM

francofou

What do you mean one of them will face the "old guard" she is the oldest of the old guard - big money, big machine old time politics

OBAMA 08

Posted by: Bri in TN | Mar 5, 2008 9:39:14 AM

Jan Crawford Greenburg really understands the history and today's political landscape. All the lovely women chatterers on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX should read this, as well as the working women supporting Obama. It goes without saying, the men definitely need to read it.

Posted by: georgia | Mar 5, 2008 10:42:56 AM

Your article resonates with so many women out here - including me. Looking at the nastiness aimed at Clinton, and women in general, in many of the responses to your piece only reinforces what you have written. Thank you for expressing an opinion that represents those of us who are often overlooked, or worse, denigrated in the media simply for working hard to make life better for everyone in our lives - including ourselves. Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency has shown many of us that we can stand up to the scrutiny, we can win through the biased comments we regularly endure, and that we will succeed in providing our country with a future to look forward to by voting for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Mary from Decatur | Mar 5, 2008 10:59:40 AM

Race and Gender Should not be playing a role in the run for the Presidency.

I do not think Hillary is running to prove anything for woman, Or to make history on being a woman. She is not directing her campaign at woman. She is Directing it to All americans.

She Does have the Best resume for the job, between the two candidates.

On the other hand, Mr Obama is running to make history, expecting the black vote. Evident by what he says, his actions. With his speeches he has won hearts, Promised hope, telling people what they want, and blaming everything on the government and others. he directs his campaign to the blacks, minorities, and the poor.

Posted by: seah | Mar 5, 2008 11:40:18 AM

I am a 21 year old woman and I would never vote for Hilary.

Posted by: Debsy | Mar 5, 2008 11:40:31 AM

I would rather have a woman president that believees she must vs. a male president that hopes he can.

Posted by: Belle | Mar 5, 2008 11:41:07 AM

Your article is thoughtful and right on. I have wondered the same thing about Hillary's treatment by the press. It is outrageous. I hope your article will sensitize many to the double standard. Thanks.

Posted by: North Carolina | Mar 5, 2008 11:48:29 AM

I think that the question of Hillary Clinton as a model for women is a hard one because much of her present success is attributable to her husband. I'm not implying that Clinton isn't incredibly smart and capable in her own right, because she is. But you can't deny that even much of the "White House" experience that she touts came because she happened to be married to the President.

Posted by: Carolyn Elefant | Mar 5, 2008 11:49:10 AM

"...work at the highest levels of government, hold partnerships in major law firms, direct leading corporations..." All nice jobs, sure, but also very limited opportunities (openings) to get to those levels, regardless of gender. How about women's choices now that include software engineer, commercial pilot, soldier, physician, etc.?

Posted by: Roger Hassen | Mar 5, 2008 11:49:21 AM

I've yet to understand why so many media outlets are so quick to abuse every movement and sentence Hillary utters. I feel empowered as a woman to see another woman, especially Hillary Clinton, fighting so valiantly despite the media's preoccupation with advancing Obama's campaign. For me it is about this woman -- Go Hillary 08! Florida is behind you!!!

Posted by: Floridagirl | Mar 5, 2008 11:51:15 AM

A very insightful piece. I admire Hillary for what she stands for, what she has accomplished, and how far she has gone. But your article is not really about her, as much as it is about women who are against her because they lack the confidence to believe that a woman can do the job; and they cover this sense of inferiority by hiding behind a more particular veil: not THIS woman. Even if they do not like her, their silence when she is attacked as a woman e.g, that she advanced beause of her husband's philandering; that she is pimping her daughter; that her tears betray fake, contrived emotions; that her laugh is a noisy annoyance... is disturing. That can happen only because women in this country have a faint memory of how it was to have very little choice. There is price to be paid for that amnesia.

Posted by: Raul of TExas | Mar 5, 2008 11:51:22 AM

WOW! By far one of the best written pieces I've read in a long time. It's amazing how far women have come in such a short amount of time. I'm a teacher, I see it in the classroom everyday. Girls excelling academically above boys. I think this is just the beginning. This election is truly phenominal. Great article!

Posted by: mark | Mar 5, 2008 11:55:35 AM

In my opinion, without her husband's name, his political past and present, and money, HRC is no more "qualified" for the job she seeks than any other legislator in the US. Too bad Justice O'Connor did not have a wealthy, successful spouse to hire her upon graduation, but one would not expect an individual with such integrity to take that route. As a woman, I am offended at the implication I should vote for HRC simply because sexism exists, as if there is some antidote. Supporting her because she is female only reinforces the sexist behavior we say we abhor. Please be assured, I do not want HRC to speak for me in the Oval Office. I am not powerless. Remember all the choices I have?

Posted by: Anon | Mar 5, 2008 11:58:03 AM

More of the "woe is me" vein of women today. No one truly believes sexism or racism is gone in our country, but as a man, the concept that she appears as like a "shrewish ex-wife' is more real than you might expect. Men nowadays are expected to do just as much as women do at home and with their kids (and that should be expected, it is a partnership, after all), yet, we're supposed to sit down and shut up if we have any complaints. We're not allowed to have any. Believe me when I say this; hen-pecked middle clas white males will have a WHOLE LOT to do with this Democratic nomination that most might think. And it counts against Hilary, I'm sorry to say.....

Posted by: Doug | Mar 5, 2008 12:10:55 PM

This is a very thoughful piece, and puts front and center an issue that I (and I suspect many other democratic women) have been struggling with this primary season. Every time I hear the biased language and vitriol that is so often aimed at Hillary (some right here in the comments to your posting), I am outraged. I admire Hillary for perservering, and succeeding, in the face of it and her ability to do so can only help pave the way for future generations of women. But I also admire many things about Obama. Not only do I want to see our national politics more focused on the kind of principled debate I believe he envisions, I want my children to grow up in a country that is capable of that kind of dialoge. Given than I agree with most of both candidates' policy positions and believe they would both be fine presidents, the question becomes do I sublimate my strong feelings of gender identity (and pride) to that optimistic vision? It is a question that I answer differently almost every day, and one that I think may be playing a role in the varying results Clinton has had with women voters throughout the primaries.

Posted by: conflicted | Mar 5, 2008 12:10:56 PM

Post a comment