- Share This Post
- submit
- 3
-
Sparkle (0)
David Souter is leaving the Supreme Court and it’s exciting to consider whom Obama might appoint as Souter’s replacement. But I’d like to look back for a moment- at why Souter left and what that says to us. Souter “told friends he looked forward to returning to New Hampshire while he was young enough to enjoy climbing mountains and other outdoor activities.” On NPR, Nina Totenberg reported Souter explaining his discontent: “the workload of his job is such that when ‘the term of court starts I undergo a sort of annual intellectual lobotomy, and it lasts until the following summer when I sort of cram what I can into the summertime.’” For a man to whom reading and thinking is supreme, this is no sort of work life balance.
At Salon, Joan Walsh wrote, “Finally with a Democratic president in the White House, he can go home to New Hampshire.” Walsh’s point is that the putative Republican, faced with a recent stacking of Bush-era mega Conservative appointees, feels safe to leave his spot to a less right-wing replacement. I’m glad Souter waited.
But I was struck by Souter’s justification: he left because he wanted his life back. When powerful people-- politicians or corporate executives-- leave huge jobs to “spend more time with the family,” we almost automatically assume it’s code for a huge sex scandal in the making or some kind of fraud or looming failure. But a Supreme Court Justice is not subject to the damage of scandal or public pressure; it’s the ultimate tenure. When a Justice leaves, it’s because he or she wants to, or must because of health reasons.
When I suggested that Souter was leaving to seek better integration of work and life, several colleagues wrote back, “but he’s not married and he doesn’t have children.” Indeed, as Brian Williams wrote on his blog, “Souter’s been described as an almost Victorian figure, straining to maintain the lifestyle he prefers while the world changes around him.” Williams is saying that Souter is kind of odd, and that’s why he wanted to escape his extremely powerful but all-consuming job and go home to Vermont. How ridiculous.
This country’s emphasis on work is so insane that we presume only harried parents of young children (usually mothers) want some kind of measure between their work and their personal or home life. That’s ridiculous. Kate Hutchinson writes,
“In my office, women who are single just work their asses off until they have kids, and then comes the work/life balance question." Really? Single women--or in my case--childless women are just expected to work until they drop? What about time off for reading, yoga, traveling, volunteering, doing things that are personally fulfilling?”
At the Glass Hammer, Cynthia Diaz writes,
“I have been told that putting in extra hours would be expected during a crunch, not a problem. I think everyone has heard that request at one time or another. It is what often follows that is insulting: “After-all, you’re single. You have no responsibilities.” Being single somehow allows my free time to become someone else’s asset.”
But, let’s face it, single women “complaining” is hardly a force for change in our country; usually women voicing objections are discursively constructed to be a force for ridicule. I tried to find some single men writing about the need for more work life integration, but I came up short. Recent studies show men in two earner households feeling more conflict than women about work and life. But it’s still pretty much a taboo subject for many men to discuss publicly, especially during a recession.
The more powerful (and frankly) men we hear from who insist on their right to some kind of integration between their work life and their personal joys the further along we’re going to get. Thank you, Justice Souter. I hope you have a wonderful summer at home.
