PressEthic

Feministing occasionally goes too far, in my opinion, but today they caught something very interesting.

Think Progress posted a list yesterday of the differences in descriptors used for new Chief Justice John Roberts and current Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

I'm not going to pretend that I think this list is all-inclusive, and of course we have to take into account that the press has to fill in a void that is left by Miers's lack of a judicial record.

But really:

ROBERTS: "Brilliant but self-deprecating, earnest but not humorless." (Boston Globe, 7/21/04)

MIERS: "She never misses a birthday." (LA Times, 10/4/05)

ROBERTS: "Exceptional intellect. Exceptional temperament. A conservative judicial philosophy." (LA Times, 7/25/05)

MIERS: "She makes a wonderful sweet potato pie. Many marshmallows." (AP, 10/3/05)

Now, despite my personal opposition to marshmallows, I don't think they should be constitutionally banned, and thus I don't see how they're relevant.

And, honestly, the Roberts list isn't all that relevant either ("earnest but not humorless"? Most people I know fit that description). But no one's talking about his hypothetical barbecuing skills or obsession with power tools, or any other stereotypically male traits. Roberts is portrayed as a person, no gender-specificity, while Miers is portrayed as a woman. Call it male privilege, call it a bias in the press, I don't like it, and I don't think it's ethical.

Sandra Day O'Connor has been a justice since before I was born, so I have no idea if she went through this, or if people cared.

Certainly, there were no blogs to call anyone out on it. And as the first female justice, I'm sure she put up with some kind of to-do.

I have one question though:

We know Miers is a "pitbull in size-6 shoes." What size are Roberts's shoes? I mean, you know what they say about men with big shoes, right?

They have big feet.