National Review lies about feminists… yes, again.

Posted on March 12, 2003 by Ampersand

NRO today features a “guest commentary” by Rochelle Tedesco (via Diotima), an attorney who (judging from her publications) specializes in arguing that asbestos isn’t so bad (or, anyhow, not as bad as strong tort laws are). But Ms. Tedesco isn’t talking about fire safety today: she’s here to bash feminists.

Thus, as a woman and an attorney in my late-20s who does not completely support the agenda of women’s groups, I have long been aware that if I ever try to enter public life, I should not expect any support from “the sisterhood.” Yet not until the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen did I realize that not only would the sisterhood not support me, it would actively oppose me and stand as an obstacle in my path of professional success. I am not alone; these groups would also try to impede the success of any other women who does not totally agree with them.

Here Ms. Tedesco seems to be arguing that it’s surprising that NOW and other “women’s groups” oppose political nominees based on their politics. But what’s wrong with feminist groups opposing anti-feminist women, or pro-choice groups opposing pro-life women? It would be sexist if feminists gave a free pass to an anti-choice judge just because of her sex.

Ms. Tedesco has a further charge to make, though: “Women’s groups” are actually sexist, in that they oppose female pro-life nominees but not male pro-life nominees. (This may be the first time in history an anti-feminist has accused feminists of being overly pro-male.)

Even more surprisingly, facts suggest that this unique “sisterhood” works harder to oppose talented women jurists such as Justice Owen than it does to oppose conservative male jurists…. Interestingly, neither the women’s groups nor the Senate Judiciary Committee waged a similar full-scale attack when Michael McConnell, a former law professor who has criticized Roe v. Wade, was confirmed as a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. They simply let him go “right on by.”

So “women’s groups” let Mitch McConnell go “right on by.” Although Ms. Tedesco says “facts suggest” women’s groups “work hard to oppose” female jurists, this is the only fact she states in support of her case. And who are these mysterious “women’s groups”? It’s difficult to say; the only group Ms. Tedesco names is NOW.

Okay, fair enough: Let’s check out NOW’s website: did NOW let McConnell go “right on by”? No; as Ms. Tedesco would have known had she bothered fact-checking, NOW campaigned against his nomination, even setting up a page asking their members to lobby the Judiciary Committee against McConnell. (Actually, I remember receiving a bulk emailing from NOW against McConnell).

Well, even if Ms. Tedesco was lying when she said NOW let McConnell go “right on by,” maybe she’s right to suggest that NOW systematically objects more to conservative women nominees than to their male counterparts? I did a little googling, seeing how often some recent anti-choice nominees are mentioned on NOW’s website.

Does NOW discriminate against female conservatives?
Pro-life
nominee		 How often
mentioned
by NOW?
Carolyn Kuhl 8
Michael McConnell 9
Deborah Cook 9
Dennis Shedd 19
Patricia Owen 22
Charles Pickering 32
Miguel Estrada 1,260

While it’s true (if website mentions are any indication) that NOW campaigned less against McConnell than Owens, it’s also clear that there’s no pattern of bias against female nominees. Even if we ignore Estrada, some of the pro-life nominees NOW complained the least about were women; and some they complained the most about were men. Ms Tedesco’s “facts” turn out to be fiction.

Just another day at The National Review, the magazine honesty forgot.

.

This entry was posted in Anti-feminists and their pals. Bookmark the permalink.