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.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« 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)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Women around the world should not be offended when Hillary is being criticized, as long as they believe the criticism is fair. For me and many women I know, we personally believe we don't have obligations to defend a bad person, no matter how qualified she is for any job. Hillary, in our minds, is a bad person. She does not care about women as much as her ambition to become the most powerful person, and that is troubling. She lacks basic human decency, and smart, intelligent women can make genuine choices about whether to rally around her or to see her as what she really is. We have the choice to support or to criticize a candidate, regardless of her gender, so all you Hillary huggers, stop telling us what to do!!!!!!
Posted by: Jane | Mar 5, 2008 12:15:05 PM
Hillary is pathetic. She is shrill. She sounds like a woman not a leader crying out to Obama "shame on you, shame on you". Is she going to say "shame on you North Korea, Shame on you Iran".
We need a strong person; not someone to vilify her past and think it's a reason to put her in the top seat in gov't.
Posted by: J Edwards | Mar 5, 2008 12:16:32 PM
Very good Article! Women should have choices but not all options are the best for the children or ourselves. Mrs. Clinton has been getting poor treatment from the media. She is a genuine person and 'could' make a good president. She has been an example of a forgiving wife and good mother.
She does marginally have more experience that Mr. Obama in the Senate.
She started fighting for Universal Healthcare when she was a first lady (I support the idea), but she has gotten no where. Since she has not found a method it get Universal healthcare implemented when she had a Democratic congress and a democratic president, I do not believe that she could get this done if elected.
As a mother she has experienced first-hand the miracle of life in her womb but she does not fight for protecting unborn women and men. Even if she was pro-life, I do not believe that the Democratic Party would let her be a candidate of their party.
48 million defenseless babies have been killed since 1973 but only almost 4,000 US soldiers have been killed in Irag;however, Mrs. Clinton focuses on saving young men and women with bullet-proof armour, automatic weapons, grenades and air support not the next generation helpless and quiet in the womb. Irag was a unjust war and we should try to extricate ourselves without the fall of all civility in that country.
The media has done a tremendously good job at highlighting the cost of the Irag war in dollars and people's lifes, but remain silent on the huge cost in money and peoples lives wasted in abortion clinics.
We need a president who cares about ALL people not just those groups that are being highlighted by the media today!
Posted by: Samantha Taylor | Mar 5, 2008 12:19:05 PM
The bottom line is: Hillary won last night because of all the false, negative campaign ads against Obama that are straight out of Karl Rove's playbook. Women who rally around her on the basis of gender alone are blind. I believe there are plenty of qualified women candidates who can be presidents of the United States (see Elizabeth Dole, for example, who I believe is more qualified than Bob Dole), and I will not hesitate to vote them in, even against Obama. But Hillary has demonstrated that she would utilize anything--such as gender politics and sympathy of a misguided writer of this piece, as well as false and dishonest ads, to secure her position in history.
Posted by: Lee | Mar 5, 2008 12:19:34 PM
As a middle-class mom juggling home and job, I see the strength, conviction, intelligence and substance in Hillary Clinton. Women are always thought of a second class citizen. Their place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, with no say in any matter. Even though we run the house by a budget, raise ones children, are nurse, teacher and referee in the household. We are strong, efficient and capable to run the United States.
Posted by: jp,michigan | Mar 5, 2008 12:21:04 PM
Are you kidding??? For most working mothers, working outside the home is not a choice.... It is a necessity. Daily we agonize over the toll it takes on our children, our marriage and ourselves. We question whether or not the "choice" as you call it is the right one... do we need to save for college? have cars? eat? have a roof over our heads? These are not choices, they are a means of surviving.... The writer is not in touch with the "choices"/necessities most of us make.....
Posted by: Kim | Mar 5, 2008 12:22:02 PM
The meaning of true choice for women today is: to have the choice to say: "Obama is really the better candidate, the more decent person; and while Hillary has done some admirable things, she is really turning this campaign into a circus and Bush-like antagoinism among the Democrats." A woman has the choice to choose Obama or McCain, and has the choice to reject Hillary Clinton because she is just not the right person for the job.
Posted by: True choice | Mar 5, 2008 12:24:13 PM
Hillary got here because she knows how to play the man's game: to cheat, to lie, and to manipulate with fear and bullying. I want a woman for president, but not a bad person for president.
Posted by: How she got here | Mar 5, 2008 12:26:13 PM
I heard on the radio this morning that the Obama campaign hit a brick wall somewhere between Texas and Ohio. A local reporter said that the fiercley loyal Obama supporters road it all the way to impact. They said the only person to jump for it was Ted Kennedy. he evidently landed in a near by stream and managed to swim to safety. A bunch of paramedics showed up from Vermont. They said they thought everybody was dead at first but then decided they were just recent rally supporters all slack jawed and glassy eyed. Obama came out ok but he said Michelle was still incoherent. He said he must of dropped some delegates somewhere in the crash.
I guess the campaign manager said he didn't know how they were going to get to the next stop as there vehicle was in pieces. I would think hitting a wall with all that momentum behind you and all would smart quite a bit.
Posted by: ShadowKnows | Mar 5, 2008 12:37:12 PM
I can not waiat until I can vote for Hillary. I feel that she is the best person for President of this country. I do believe she will do the best job. Look at what we have had for the past eight years. Also, I do think that NAFTA was not a bad idea if used as it should have been, fair trade. But the CEO's of large companies did not use it for trade, they moved their companies to other countries and took jobs from the USA to Mexico and China...if you really look into it, the CEO (the money people) are the Republicans. So I feel that their abuse of NAFTA was the problem, not NAFTA. Also I never took her recent ad (red phone ad) as scary, I just took it as, let us all think about who do we want in that office to be there to answer that telephone. I was not afraid, just made me think. I know who I want, and it is Hillary. Even if she voted for us to go to war, she voted with the information that the President gave everyone...weapons of mass destruction....I think I would have made the same choice with the information given to me by the Commander and Cheif. I think she would be the best thing to happen to this country in a long time. It is time for a women to be our President.
Posted by: Anita Kramer | Mar 5, 2008 12:39:26 PM
Bri in TN:
That's the type of comment I expect from someone who does not look at woman's own accomplishments, but only that of their spouse's. Maybe you should do some research.
Worked on the House Judiciary Committee (during the Nixon Impeachment Inquiry)
Ran Legal Aid as part of the Children's Defense Fund
Appointed by Jimmy Carter on the board of US Legal Service Corporation
Named one of the 100 most influential Lawyers in America, not once - but twice (Law Review)
Just because you never heard of her before she became first lady does not mean her experience does not predate that event. Besides, you left off her amazing work as my Senator.
I am just going to assume that by "riding coat-tails", I assume you mean she designed the coat, made the coat, wore the coat, earned plenty of medals to hang on the coat, let her husband wear the coat for 8 years, borrowed it to work on policies, put the coat back on and became Senator?
Posted by: ubiquenyc | Mar 5, 2008 12:40:48 PM
I''m voting for Hillary as well. As a WOMAN she represents change in the real sense of the word. Obama is black BUT he is still a man. Men have been in the driver's seat for far too long. How the world will view us now that we have a WOMAN in power is a very interesting alternative. Historically speaking, how many wars have WOMEN waged? Now there is an interesting statistic that should be discussed.
I am very comfortable and confident when I say I would like to be represented by a woman for once in my life.
Why do people attack her with such vitriol? Is she just a good target to hate? They attack her in a way that resembles a loathed character in a TV drama. Why is that? Has she personally ruined these individuals' lives to such an extent that they seem to identify her as the root of their ills?
It says a lot about the social consciousness of America. It seems appropriate to be jealously obsessed in seeing the downfall of celebrities. There is a morbid fascination to see her fail that borders on the fanatical just as Obama's supporters fanatically drawn to his oratory pipings.
Posted by: Doug | Mar 5, 2008 12:47:24 PM
Jan Crawford Greenburg forgot to mention that Barak Obama and John McCain got everything handed to them and that they have conspired to hold women down. Barak Obama is about to be handed the Democratic Nomination because it usually goes to a black man, right? Barak had nothing to overcome. John McCain just followed the old boy network to the Republican nomination. He might have endured 5 years of torture from the hands of people who hated him because he was American. He might have been vilified and demonized based on pure rumor and speculation by the Bush campaign in SC in 2000 and then by the NY Times this year. Fortunately the torture and reputation-assasination did not break John McCain, but I am sure that being offered a job as a secretary out of school would have oppressed him tremendously. What is most important is that we remember that Hillary deserves the presidency because she is a woman. All the other issues are insignificant, right? If Hillary is not elected then it just proves that sexism is out of control and Americans are bigoted and ignorant. However, if John or Barak is not elected, it may suggest that it is still OK to hate American Servicemembers or African-Americans, but hey, these guys will get over it, right? What is really important is that we define ourselves by our sex or our color or our age and we vote based on our resentment towards others who are not like us? I got the message loud and clear. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by: Sean O'Brien | Mar 5, 2008 12:55:34 PM
WOW! What an inspiring article. Cuts to the core of how life can be for a woman -- the good and the bad. Amazing and sometimes not so amazing too is some of the vitriol that it has evoked. Inspite of it all, I truly admire Hillary's strength in standing tall for what she believes. Her true love for her job is obvious which some call selfishness. Her passion for her cause which some call 'being mean'. Yet these are qualities truly admired in men -- they are considered strong, tough and able to lead. Without the love and the passion she has for her job, Hillary would have been crushed by all this venom and hatred. Kudos to Hillary for her many accomplishments and thanks to the author for highlighting the struggles of some of the smartest women in our time. Hillary is an icon and will be remembered for a long, long time.
Posted by: Voter | Mar 5, 2008 1:13:26 PM
As usual, the far more thoughtful posts are coming from the Hillary supporters, and the more shrill, emotional ones from her detractors.
Now me, I rather became a Hillary supporter by default. I liked BOTH candidates - at first (& yes, the fact that one was a woman & one was a racial minority only made me happier: I was proud to be in a country where these things didn't matter - even if it's only ostensibly (it's a start!)). But when I examined both of them more closely to determine who should get my vote, the choice became clearrer & clearer: Hillary Clinton has the experience, dedication and character that we need in the White House. That she's a woman is just the icing on the cake.
Posted by: Susan | Mar 5, 2008 1:25:31 PM
Jan,
I'm sorry to say the lessons learned from the hard history of O'Connor are already anachronisms.
Women now are attending and graduating colleges at a much greater rate then men. This is having a tremendous affect on law school and other graduate schools as well, as women now make up a majority of graduates there.
In the last bastions of male predominance, such as engineering schools, recent news reports discuss administrators de-emphasizing math and physics to attract female students. This is on top of affirmative action programs that in many places still give diversity "bonuses" to female applicants.
Add all this to the fact that males children are more likely to be incarcerated, drug addicted, victims of crimes, and high school drop outs, and you must come to the unfortunate conclusion that if you were raising a daughter and son in modern America, your daughter has a much better chance of success than your son.
Posted by: Nessuno | Mar 5, 2008 2:36:39 PM
What would be the difference in voting for Hitler versus Satan? UH, UH, I don't know!
In all seriousness this woman is pure evil. She has committed more crimes and gotten away with it. From Whitewater, to smearing the women who Bill had affairs with, to having her husband pardon her corrupt friends and family members and lets not mention VINCE FOSTER.
Only a left-wing liberal would vote for Hillary Rotten Clinton. And only an idiot would vote for someone based on the gender on the gender of that person. Come on people, wise up. Keep this shrill, annoying thing out of the White House.
I hope I didn't anger any of you far left extremist morons.
Posted by: Liberals are morons | Mar 5, 2008 3:07:26 PM
Ms. Crawford, I would just like to say that you have taken the words right out of my mouth exactly! Why isn't there more outrage and this thing about so many women hating Hilary is bugging me. However, I know some women who DO say they hate her but I believe that most women have been taught to be self-loathing and therefore cannot encourage other women when they do well but instead become jealous or at the very least unsupportive. Most women are still being led around by the nose by men and male institutions (e.g. religious institutions).Sad but true, they can't see the forest for the trees; and yet this could be a defining moment for women. We may not pass this way again any time soon. And I am very disappointed as well in Oprah Winfrey. She has made so much money "off the backs" of women and this is like a slap in the face. I won't be listening to her shows or anything she supports any more. It really comes down to just advertising for her!
Posted by: Patte | Mar 5, 2008 4:03:39 PM
CORRECTION: PRO-CHOICE VS. PRO-LIFE
I AM THRILLED WITH ALL THE ADVANCEMENTS THAT WOMEN HAVE MADE IN THIS COUNTRY. I AM EVER HOPEFUL THAT UNBORN CHILDREN WILL SOMEDAY ENJOY THEIR INHERENT RIGHTS AND ADVANCEMENT TO LIFE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. AS A SOCIAL WORKER SEEING THE ILLS AND PAINS THAT THIS PROCEDURE CAUSES IS GUT WRENCHING. WOMEN AND MEN HAVE SO MANY CHOICES OF THE TYPES OF BIRTH CONTROL THAT IS AT THEIR DISPOSE AND THEY CHOOSE TO ELIMINATE A BEAUTIFUL BEING THAT HAS BEGUN LIFE'S PROCESS. I WISH PEOPLE WERE MORE THOUGHTFUL, KIND, AND CONSIDERATE.
ALSO, I FEEL DESPERATELY SORRY FOR THE CHILD YOU HAVE TO PEEL OF YOUR LEG TO GO TO A JOB YOU LOVE. WHEN YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO WORK AND YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR CHILD IT SHOWS WHERE YOUR HEART IS! THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME FOR WORK WHEN THEY GO TO SCHOOL.
Posted by: Mel | Mar 5, 2008 4:18:45 PM
Yes, I do not feel women in the younger age groups have had to deal with the discrimination older women have. I'm almost 40 and I've dealt with sexual harassment, unequal pay, and unequal opportunities in the workplace. Another thought - Clinton brings a different set of experiences with her to the White House based on the opportunities she was able to have during the 1960's and 1970's. Her experiences with women and children's issues will be helpful to all Americans.
Posted by: Jennifer | Mar 5, 2008 5:04:26 PM
Post a comment
