Try to imagine the most impressive resumé you can.
Maybe your education background consists of Oxford, Princeton and Harvard.
Perhaps you worked as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and then went on to serve under Bill Clinton as his associate White House counsel.
From there, you did a seven-year stint as dean of Harvard’s law school. President Barack Obama then appointed you as solicitor general, followed by a nomination to the Supreme Court.
Well, to some, this wouldn’t matter at all if you didn’t look good while doing it.
Elena Kagan has the aforementioned resumé, but when her nomination for the Supreme Court was first announced, all that people seemed to notice were her looks and the fact that she isn’t married.
The not-married part also sparked speculation about her sexual orientation. Naturally, our society would make it so that these things are the basis of a woman’s success.
We cannot think of a reason why it should matter that Kagan is not attached to another person or how, in any way, it relates to how qualified she is for the job. If you can think of one, by all means, enlighten us.
This is nothing new in American politics. Hillary Clinton’s “crow’s feet” were the topic of discussion among certain media outlets.
During her campaign, Rush Limbaugh asked, “Does our looks-obsessed culture really want to look at an aging woman?”
His wife must have been thrilled to hear that one.
During that same presidential campaign, all we heard about Michelle Obama was what designer she wore and her gym regimen.
Sarah Palin’s wardrobe somehow became just as important as her lack of knowledge on foreign policy. The list can go on.
So why does our “looks-obsessed culture” focus mostly on women in politics? Sure, some men have faced such scrutiny, but, for the most part, it’s successful women who suffer.
Never has a male justice on the Supreme Court dealt with such nonsense. We wish we knew why it matters to some people what a potential Supreme Court justice looks like and what her sexual orientation is.
We can’t seem to remember attractiveness being a qualification for judicial office.
It’s amazing that women have finally gotten to the point where they can realistically run for office in the highest positions and still remain punching bags for society’s prejudices.
Women now have higher college enrollment and graduation rates, and more women are becoming bosses, CEOs and are working on Wall Street. Why should the most talented, smartest and able women who contribute to society be ridiculed for their looks and marital status?
If anything, can shallowness at least be left to the entertainment side of the media, where some women make careers because of, you know, their looks?
We believe that Kagan can be a fair and powerful force as a Supreme Court justice.
We can’t help but admire a woman who, as a dean at Harvard, didn’t allow army recruiters on campus because of her disagreement with “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Too bad more attention wasn’t paid to her ideas and career in law.
As Kagan now goes through her confirmation hearings, we hope her looks won’t be the topic of discussion, but rather what she can bring to the table as a Supreme Court justice.
Be the first to comment on this article!