New SCOTUS nominee

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

It drives me absolutely crazy that so often, people think it's ok to criticize women on the basis of their looks instead of on the quality of their work.

I don't think this is a gender issue (criticizing the woman based on looks); I think there would be a similar response if the nominee were an effeminate male.

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I don't think this is a gender issue (criticizing the woman based on looks); I think there would be a similar response if the nominee were an effeminate male.

You may be right. So the "problem" is more that she looks masculine than she wouldn't be considered attractive? That makes some sense, although I still think it's extremely pathetic. Because there are certainly some male justices who are extremely hard on the eyes (for example, Scalia), and I don't remember people bringing looks into the conversation when they were nominated---but they don't exactly look effeminate.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

hahaha, you're right

ETA: She's never been a judge. Has anyone else on the Supreme Court not been a judge?

William Rehnquist, who went to become Chief Justice.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not surprised?

This.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I don't think this is a gender issue (criticizing the woman based on looks); I think there would be a similar response if the nominee were an effeminate male.

It is about both gender and sexual orientation. They are correlated.

She is unattractive, but she'll be in good company regarding that. I see what EW is saying and it is tongue-in-cheek (I hope there's no pun there) as far as I'm concerned. ETA: Scratch that. I think I interpreted his attempt at sarcasm differently than he meant it.