Basic Information : Synopsis : Characters : Expectations : Thoughts : Evaluation : Book Group : New Words : Book References : Good Quotes : Table of Contents : References
Basic Information:
Author:
Linda Hirshman
Edition:
eBook on Overdrive from the Fresno County Public Library
Publisher:
HarperCollins
ISBN:
0062238469 (ISBN13: 9780062238467)
Start
Date: October 25, 2018
Read
Date: _
390
pages
Genre:
History, Biography, Supreme Court
Language
Warning: None
Rated
Overall: 2 out of 5
History:
2 out of 5
Note:
Partial review. Need to finish book.
Synopsis (Caution: Spoiler Alert-Jump to Thoughts):
The
book traces the route of the first two female Supreme Court
judges-Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Gingsburg.
Cast of Characters:
Expectations:
Recommendation:
Osher Book club
When:
Summer 2018
Date
Became Aware of Book: Summer 2018
How
come do I want to read this book: Because it was a book club read.
What
do I think I will get out of it? I am interested in understanding who
Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are. From the
title I am hoping to explore the relationship the two had considering
one is a liberal and one is a conservative. The title and some of the
lead in almost makes it sounds like a legal road trip.
Thoughts:
Hirshman
has an annoying habit of being informal in tone such as calling
Justice Powell O’Connor’s BFF (Best Friend Forever) or calling
Ginsburg “Ruth”. She tries to personalize, but in a lot of ways
she detracts from their accomplishments. Hirshman does not take a
high road to these women, how are we too?
But
she does a good job of showing that decisions by the court are not
white tower decisions, but a molding of people’s beliefs,
personalities and goals. The right and wrong of a situation is based
both on the law, past decisions, and a personal sense of morals. That
is why it is important to have people on the court who are able to
distinguish all of this and understand how the rightness of a case
fits in with precedent and the law.
All
through the book, Hirshman makes the comparison that sex
discrimination is similar and covered under the same reasoning as
racial discrimination. But I do not remember any woman being murdered
for being too uppity, except by an irate husband-but we get the same
with a jilted woman as well. There is no KKK against women like there
was against blacks.
Introduction:
Ruffled Collars xi
I
am not sure if Hirshman will carry this through, but she is pretty
derogatory towards men, particular old men. In describing the Supreme
Court judges before Sandra Day O’Connor, she calls them just
the Nine Old Men.
I believe this sets the tone for the book-men against women.
In
what looks like a paraphrase, Hirschman says that O’Connor said
that it
was okay to be first, ...but you don’t want to be the last.
She
points out the O’Connor and Ginsburg are polar opposites in their
approach to politics and geography, and probably preferences.
Hirshman
points out that O’Connor reflective Reagan’s values while
Ginsburg reflected Clinton’s. She then makes a statement which I
do not think she backs up-Each
one was better off for the other being there.
Maybe Hirshman will later on.
She
also says that their superficial differences masked the strengths
each held in common. Not sure one could say they were superficial.
Does the tag liberal and conservative with the values each hold mark
as superficial and the only thing which matters is the strength you
bring to your gender?
Is
it an embarrassment to help another person? Hirshman does not
identify if the help offered by a male college was due to O’Connor’s
gender or if he was just being helpful. There is the implication it
is. But today we seem to assume males are being chauvinistic if they
are helping women, when maybe they would offer the same help to a
male as well.
Hirshman
is more into describing the movement for women's equality than truly
telling O’Connor’s and Ginsburg’s story. At least what she
conveys. She notes that If...they
were the only women worthy of governing, they would have been useless
to the movement.
At least that is what I take from this statement. Hirshman will more
use these two as markers for how the women’s movement is
progressing.
I
am wondering about a paragraph where she notes that Ginsburg had a
friendly correspondence with a person who opposed women’s rights.
From the description given, it was a friendly in nature, at least
Hirshman uses the phrase friendliest
tones
to describe the correspondence. From the author’s description it
sounds like Ginsburg was just trying to win him over through
kindness, rather than a friendship between two people who
disagreed-something which is becoming more rare by the day.
Part
I Sandra and Ruth Come into Their Own
1
Country Girl, City Kid 3
Love
the phrase about O’Connor’s grandmother-i-if
her eyes were open, her lips were moving.
From
a flat tire incident with O’Connor father and her being late, she
learned the value of no excuses. Even in unfair situations, she
learned it was better to not make excuses than demand just treatment.
Harry
Rathbun-Stanford professor, non-practicing lawyer and engineer.
Influence on O’Connor. He had a commitment to better the world, but
did not know what a better world would look like. From Hirshman’s
comments, he seems a bit weird and light weight as he aged.
Ginsburg
model was Robert Cushman who was one of the leading people against
McCarthy and his red-scare witch-hunt. In contrast to Rathbun,
Cushman was said to have left Ginsburg with a
charge to make the world better, with a clear idea of how to make
things better.
This was through traditional liberal freedom. There is a difference
between defending liberal democracy and defending economic privilege.
Wonder
how the Swedish courts work-Ginsburg had the opportunity to see them
in action. It is from Sweden is where Ginsburg understood that
“female privilege” was a tool to hold down women, not to elevate
them. I still do not understand this. Such as when Chesterton was
against overworking females in factories at the turn of the century,
how does this protection translate into holding down females?
Quotes
Sarah Grimke about taking their feet off our necks.
Ginsburg
understood that legal stereotyping was worse than private behavior.
2
The Lawsuit of Ruth's Dreams 32
Marriage
a refuge from the hostile world and an agency in making sure it
stayed bad…
What a sick way of looking at marriage.
Alice
Rossi describes the delima which women have-be assertive and be
labeled with unpleasant names or quiet and not amounting to much.
Wile this is probably true, there seems to be a third way to
accomplish it and that is to be independent. I am thinking of those
who established themselves as leaders such as Mother Teresa, Corrie
ten Boom, …
How
to establish equality: Hirshman shows the two different thought:
O’Connor thought that existing law was sufficient, it just needed
to be approached in the right way. Ginsburg supported the Equal
Rights Amendment but also chipped away at tradition through court
cases.
3
Goldwater Girl and Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU 45
Interesting
that the ACLU in practice also practiced gender preferences.
Hirshman
says that the the right of reproduction infringment goes to the
Nazi’s. I understand that the Nazi’s wanted those who they felt
were defective not to reproduce. But did they force their “perfect”
people to give birth? Hirshman seems to equate the prohibition of
abortion to this Nazi practice. I would have said that the having an
abortion is closer to the Nazi’s practice than giving birth.
Abortion
is based upon privacy (Roe vs Wade) rather than a women’s right to
their own body.
Part
II Chief Litigator for the Women's Rights Project
4
Act One: Building Women's Equality 69
When
a movement is looking at change within society, they look for places
where precedent can be made which will affect things in a small way.
This way, there is little opposition to the change, paving the way
for larger changes.
Hirshman
portrays the ACLU has being controllers of process. When someone who
does ask for help wants to go a certain way, the ACLU gets rather
belligerent. Also they have an attitude of superiority that we are
better than you are. At least that is my feeling as I read the book.
5
Intermission: Abortion 78
Abortion
was deemed a right of privacy rather than the right of a woman to be
able to use her body as she wished.
Hirshman
seems to like calling men names, but bristles when women are called
names. Example of the former is she calls the Supreme Court justices
old
WASPy gentlemen.
Then brings religion into things by calling out the Catholic religion
of one of them. I wonder how she would do if one of them as an
atheist? Or a pagan?
Ginsburg
was after equality. Abortion was not part of her strategy.
Part
III FWOTSC
9
Sandra O'Connor Raises Arizona 117
Why
does Hirshman italicize the word chairman?
10
Welcome Justice O'Connor 126
Stereotyping
a person can lead to consequences further down the line. Such as if a
nursing school is all women only, then only women will become nurses.
But what is the reason behind stereotyping? Isn’t it that there is
a tendency for a group of people to act in one way? How do you
acknowledge that without restricting the person who is in that class
of people but goes against the stereotype? And how do you work with
the tendency for a group of people to act in a way and accommodate
that? Does the needs of the one out weight the needs of the many? Or
the many the one?
O’Connor
understood she was a role model and that she would attract attention
just by beng there.
11
Women Work for Justice O'Connor 156
Not
sure where Hirshman was looking. She said that the case hishon
v. king & spalding
appears nowhere
in the voluminous literature about the Burger Court.
When I do a simple Google
search
on that name, there are several references to it.
Hirshman
describes the maneuvering on how opinions are written. A senior
person who is on the losing side, may change his vote so that they
can assign who will write the opinion. This way an opinion may be
written which is less favorable to the outcome than by someone who
wholey agrees with the verdict.
The
author describes how the O’Connor would vote to get more justices
on the side of feminists than if she came out on the liberal side.
Hirshman describes O’Connor as someone who voted for change, but
not a robust vote for change. She describes O’Connor as being
tightfisted
with her opinions favoring women.
Part
IV Sisters in Law
15
Ginsburg's Feminist Voice 215
Nothing
unbalances the balance of power between the sexes like the
possibility that a woman can bring a costly and embarrassing lawsuit
grounded in sex.
16
The Importance of Being O'Connor and Ginsburg 246
17
Justice O'Connor's Self-Inflicted Wound 255
Part
V Absolute Legacy
18
The Great Dissenter 273
19
Notorious R.B.G. 289
20
Our Heroines 298
Evaluation:
Warning:
I read about 90% of the book, before I needed to return the book to
the library. So this review is based upon a partial reading of
Sisters
in Law.
This
is a type of book which my evaluation depends on what I wanted going
into it. I was interested in knowing about Justices Sandra Day
O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. While I got some of that, I had
the impression the author was more interested in using them as a
vehicle to mark the legal battles in obtaining women’s rights.
While their stories are tied up with the women’s rights battle,
that is only part of who they are and their stories as justices on
the Supreme Court. So in that respect, the book is disappointing.
Sisters
In Law
is more about how the law has operated, but is changing, in a male
dominated world. It is not about anything else but that. It does not
talk about important cases other than those concerning women’s
rights. So if you are interested in something broad in understanding,
this is not your book. If you want to see these two justices through
a feminist lens, then you probably have found your book.
There
are two things which really struck a negative chord in me. First, it
seems the author in trying to be light and relevant to today’s
reader took away the respect which the Supreme Court and its justices
deserve. There are many flippant references to them. And that gets to
the second issue. Anything Hirshman dislikes, she dismisses and
starts calling names without understanding why the justices may be
reasoning the way they are. Such as the justices other than Ginsburg
and one Catholic justice are called WASPy. I wonder what Hirshman
would react to if O’Connor and Ginsburg were called something like
the girls of the Supreme Court?
I
do intend to finish the book and my review, at this time, I cannot
recommend Sisters
in Law.
Note
to Gary:
Be sure to revise once I have read this.
Notes from my book group:
Read the book in our OSHER book club.
The
New York Times asks an interesting question: Did
Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg really change the world? Or did they
make it all the way to the Supreme Court, as the first and second
women ever to serve there, because the world had changed?
Is
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noteworthy because she was the first
female Supreme Court Justice or is there another reason? If it is
because of being the first, why do we honor a person because they are
first? I am thinking of two people here. First there is Crispus
Attucks. He was the first person who was killed in battle with the
British for the cause of freedom-this was during the Boston Massacre.
By the way, he was black. The other was Jackie Robinson as the
first MLB black player. But he was good enough to get in the Hall of
Fame on skill alone, let alone being the first.
- Why the title of ____?
- Does this story work as a ___?
- Did the ending seem fitting? Satisfying? Predictable?
- Which character was the most convincing? Least?
- Which character did you identify with?
- Which one did you dislike?
- Every story has a world view. Were you able to identify this story’s world view? What was it? How did it affect the story?
- In what context was religion talked about in this book?
- Was there anybody you would consider religious?
- How did they show it?
- Was the book overtly religious?
- How did it affect the books story?
- Why do you think the author wrote this book?
- What would you ask the author if you had a chance?
- What “take aways” did you have from this book?
New Words:
-
Doughty (Introduction): brave and persistent.
-
Internecine (Introduction): destructive to both sides in a conflict.
-
Apoplectic (chp 4): overcome with anger; extremely indignant
-
Miscegenation (chp 10): the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types
-
The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan
-
A Marriage Agreement in the magazine Up from Under by Alix Kates Shulman
-
The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild
-
First Line: Women’s names and titles matter.
-
Last Line: I would suspect that, because the women will relate to their own experiences.
-
Introduction: Ruffled Collars xi
-
Part I Sandra and Ruth Come into Their Own
-
1 Country Girl, City Kid 3
-
2 The Lawsuit of Ruth's Dreams 32
-
3 Goldwater Girl and Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU 45
-
-
Part II Chief Litigator for the Women's Rights Project
-
4 Act One: Building Women's Equality 69
-
5 Intermission: Abortion 78
-
6 Act Two: Equality in Peril 84
-
7 Act Three: The Stay-at-Home Dad to the Rescue 94
-
8 Finale: Boys and Girls Together 105
-
-
Part III FWOTSC
-
9 Sandra O'Connor Raises Arizona 117
-
10 Welcome Justice O'Connor 126
-
11 Women Work for Justice O'Connor 156
-
12 Queen Sandra's Court 174
-
13 No Queen's Peace in the Abortion Wars 184
-
-
Part IV Sisters in Law
-
14 I'm Ruth, Not Sandra 199
-
15 Ginsburg's Feminist Voice 215
-
16 The Importance of Being O'Connor and Ginsburg 246
-
17 Justice O'Connor's Self-Inflicted Wound 255
-
-
Part V Absolute Legacy
-
18 The Great Dissenter 273
-
19 Notorious R.B.G. 289
-
20 Our Heroines 298
-
-
Acknowledgments 303
-
Notes 305
-
Bibliography and Sources 353
-
Index 375
References:
-
Publisher's Web Site for Book
-
Author's Web Site
-
Wikipedia-Book
-
Wikipedia-Author
-
Amazon-Book
-
Amazon-Author
-
GoodReads-Book
-
GoodReads-Author
-
New York Times Review. Good analysis: This would have been a more coherent and satisfying book had she been willing to portray her subjects as I think she actually does understand them: not as sisters yoked together in a common project, but rather as representatives of the different ways that smart, ambitious women navigated life in mid-20th- century America, when social norms and expectations were changing but old patterns still prevailed.
-
NPR Review
-
Lit Lovers
-
LongReads
-
No comments:
Post a Comment