I’m headed to New York today because my middle daughter was invited to appear in a special Nickelodeon show devoted to discussing feminism (the episode will air in March during Women’s History Month). One of the main topics they asked my daughter to be prepared to discuss is the Equal Rights Amendment.
Meanwhile, an icon of the feminist movement, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is headlining Drudge because of her recent comments about women on the Court. Apparently, she thinks we need an all-female Supreme Court, the obvious implication being that women are somehow morally superior. Perhaps she meant this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, though the justice doesn’t really seem like the stand-up comedienne type.
Some will argue that her comment was meant as a provocative thought experiment, intended to shine a light on unacknowledged sexism. But it’s a significant shift, this move from an emphasis on equal rights to female superiority. After weathering a summer of hype over the “War on Women,” it’s worth pausing to ask: Would nine women really be preferable to nine men, as Justice Ginsburg asserted? What would rule-by-Amazon actually look like? Would our lives be better after a rise of the matriarchy?
I’ve been fortunate in my life to know both wise women and wise men. But also my fair share of fools of both sexes. Perhaps we would do well to ask what kind of human beings we’d like to see on the Court, not what sex we’d prefer.