The New York Times published an article on 5/28/09 about Sonia Sotomayer.  The headline on the online summary page read "Sotomayer's Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament."  When I clicked on the article title, the page that came up had a headline with a couple words changed, it read "Sotomayer's Blunt Style Raises Issue of Temperament."  This drew me in immediately as it was a tricky little switch.  But more than that, I was hit by the "justice train" that chugs continuously down the tracks in my head that made me immediately wonder if a man with the same "temperament" would have received the same headline.  Would they refer to him having a sharp tongue?  Maybe sharp wit.  Would he have a "style?"  Certainly he'd get the description of aggressive, but not blunt.  Nevertheless, I read on.

Once I got past the strange twist in the headline, I have to admit that overall the article was well-written and fair - except for one phrase that derailed the train and sent me flying.  The writers added it in a well-structured, balanced sentence that is the perfect example of what I constantly refer to as the "invisible gas": the statements and visuals in our world today that perpetuate in a very silent, subconscious way, the negative stereotypes about women that continuously wear us down and slowly kill us without most of us even knowing it (except through our constant weariness and blatant stress ailments that we think we've acquired through other external factors).

"But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as “difficult” and “nasty” — raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen."

I'll make it simple.  Why add the "difficult" and "nasty" line?  One paragraph above, her supporters praised her and this paragraph gave voice to her detractors.  That's fine.  That's fair and balance journalism.  But why add in two descriptives that I've never seen attributed to a man?  The sentence read fine with out this phrase (except for the "sharp-tongued").

The article then goes on to give credence to her ability to counterweight Justice Scalia who the author stated as known for his "acerbic questioning."  Doesn't that mean he is sharp-tongued too?  Doesn't that mean he has a "difficult" or possibly "nasty" temperament also?

Read the article.  Tell us what you think.  And if you disagree with how that piece - or others along the same lines - have been written, tell the editors.  Don't be silent.

I am surprised that they did not use the "b" word. I watch Newt and friends steam over her comment about a Latina woman having better judgement than a white man. "If I had ever said that it would be over for me"- YES it would, give us a few thousand years to dominate the world and you can say it all you want, only by then you would have the proof that she was right-the vast majority of women would make better decisions. All the slaughter and wars could not have taken place on a planet run by mothers and daughters.

Strong women are always dismissed by men as being too gruff-what they really dont like is a woman they cannot intimidate.