Assemblyman Charles Calderon: a Sexist?
-
1
January 28, 2012 10:56:47 AM PST
This is the California State Assemblyman who said that the California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is "attractive" in a hearing last year. Now he is proposing legislation that radically changes the operations of her Court. He didn't have the courtesy to discuss this with her in advance and in attempts she made to discuss this with him, he seems to be refusing to speak to her.
I have to wonder - if the Chief Justice were a man, would he handle this differently? Calderon sounds like the slimy politicians from decades ago. I may be wrong but at least it is how it looks. I thought we were more enlightened here in California.
-
2
January 28, 2012 2:40:14 PM PST
While appearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in May of last year, regarding legislation he introduced ( AB 1208) that would " decentralize control of California Courts" and diminish the Chief Justice's oversight of the court system", Calderon apparently got a little flustered in explaining his position. He remarked to the Committee something to the effect that his bill was not motivated by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye's being the head of the court system. To illustrate his point, he testified:
"It isn't 'Is she nice?' 'Cause she is. 'Is she smart?' 'Cause she is.' 'Is she attractive?' 'Cause she is.' It isn't about that"
My first response when I read about this was: What a jerk. And even more of an idiotic because he didn't see anything wrong with what he said nor did he think it would be appropriate to apologize either. I am inclined to think he would not likely commented in a like fashion or treated the Chief Justice like he did, had it been a male.
In response to Calderon's comments, Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society said: "Assemblymember Calderon's comments reveal an unconscious bias towards women based on outmoded stereotypes. Verbalizing his bias is of consequence because it enables others to freely express those same feelings". I concur.
BTW AB 1208 is worth reading up on- It is a horrible bill imo. It's currently pending on the Assembly floor with a deadline of January 31, 2012
Here is a link to the California Judicial Council website ( who stands opposed to the bill) that provides detailed information including a summary of those who oppose it and letters they wrote to the Assembly requesting they vote nay.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/16330.htm
-
3
January 28, 2012 6:54:02 PM PST
Saying someone is attractive is sexist?
Calling someone nice, smart, and attractive may be his opinion but I don't see where the conspiracy is. After he said those things what did he say?
So he was asked, why do you support this bill, he says, it's not because she is [insert compliments] and then say it's because... because... what? What's the rest of the quote? I can't find anyone reporting on what he said. It's all just reporting on how he is a sexist and a bigot.
So he has a bill that he will diminish the Chief Justice's power and her side fights back by calling him a sexist? We may as well say he's racist too.
Wait, is there a pattern of comments like this or is this just one comment? How do we know he is a sexist against all women based on this one instance.
-
4
January 28, 2012 7:10:23 PM PST
Well sure enough! There is more to what he said that puts things into context.
He was discussing how a panel of 12 Justices can oversee a 1100 person bureaucracy. He was saying it has nothing to do with the Cheif Justice because not matter her traits it's too much for a 12 panel body that only meet 6 times a year to handle. He was saying it's not anything to do with her, then he explains
"How much is she going to be infromed. How is she going to control an 1100 judicial bureaucracy? It's not that she isn't smart, nice, attractive, trustworthy, or sincere. The issue isn't her. The issue is any chief justice able to control an 1100 judicial body?
He's basically saying no matter the intelligence or charisma, the job is to challenging logistically.
Watch the video so you can see the whole discussion. You can start at 1:27:43 if you don't want to watch the whole 2 hours.
http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/2409
I find it curious, suspect even, that all those attacking him didn't include the whole statement. It's very easy to single out a part of a sentence or statement to make a very different point.
I could say "I hate people that kill others."
If my statement were taken as, efritz said "I hate people." Wow efritz hates people! He's a nut don't listen to him.
Some people are too quick to jump to the sexist, racist, character attacks (even when untrue) because it detracts from the issue, in this case the bill he was presenting.
Steve, I am not saying you are jumping to that conclusion, because you were merely posing the question. I take it you hadn't watched the video.
-
5
January 28, 2012 10:34:54 PM PST
Correction 21 judges, not 12.
-
6
January 29, 2012 2:37:16 AM PST
Thanks - I listened to the relevant parts of the session and to be honest, it looks even worse. Calderon makes his absurd statement about the Chief Justice and then talks a lot about being able to discuss the issues moving forward. However, the Chief Justice has recently said that Calderon will not discuss the issue with her.
The key is: if the Chief Justice were a male, would Calderon be more willing to hear from him? This legislation came up one month afterthe Chief Justice started, so she was not given a chance to implement any changes.
Calderon has always felt that he didn't need to apologize, It's not any worse than if I said he is a twit because he has a bad attempt at a comb-over. If I used that as part of my rationale, I would look like a twit. In the same way, his use of attractiveness is absurd and insulting. He should at least have recognized his error and apologized for that. However, he won't do that.
-
7
January 29, 2012 2:48:03 AM PST
In his closing starting around 1:45, Calderon keeps saying "Does she know..."? It seems that the Chief Justice has been trying to talk to Calderon about these issues but he doesn't want to listen.
Sorry, Calderon still sounds like a twit. It's too bad the rest of his legislative buddies don't seem to see that (or care).
-
8
January 29, 2012 9:12:24 AM PST
Steve,
You asked, "if the Chief Justice were a male, would Calderon be more willing to hear from him? This legislation came up one month afterthe Chief Justice started"
Well before the timeframe I gave in the video, he discussed that she was with the board for 1.5 years not in the Chief position but with the same body. Then she had been in the Chief position for 4 months.
The question he is raising is even after 22 months, which is plenty long enough, she is she (or any of the 21 justices) even aware of these issues.
It's a valid criticism that he may not have reached out to her, but his goal was not to create a forum with her, it was to reform the system regardless of who is in the office. That may be a valid or invalid reform, who knows. Heck we see bills all the time that are not valid (SOPA for instance).
But no where in his discussion does he imply that he is doing this reform becuase the Chief is a woman. That is a leap. If you have to ask, "if the Chief Justice were a male?" then it just goes to show we really don't know. It should be really clear before we drop accusations.
If we can't read his mind,
and
we don't have a pattern,
and
multiple people with analytical minds and too much time on our hands (us) can't agree,
then
I think it's unfair to slander the guy with the charge of sexism. (Again not saying you are slandering him)
He may be a twit. He may have used clumsy talking points or had a weak argument.
For the record he did apologize if he offended people.
For the record I really don't like apologies when they say "if I offended people." I really don't like when people use the "if" statement in their apologies but that's another story.
-
9
January 29, 2012 1:14:47 PM PST
I wish that Calderon could offer an explanation why he didn't initiate his legislation sooner in addition to what prevented him from collaborating with the new Chief Justice to advise her what reforms he felt needed to be changed about the Judicial Council that might be accomplished without new legislation, or at least allow the new Chief Justice sufficient time to consider what reform might be needed and to implement changes as necessary.
And , imo, He comes off as being rather chauvinistic. He is sounding and acting as though he is superior to Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye.
I concur that when one prefaces an apology with " if I offended anyone" that it is not an apology because it lacks an authentic admission of remorse of the offense caused.
-
10
January 29, 2012 4:19:20 PM PST
Calderon has had plenty of time to propose this type of legislation during his tenure as an elected official but he chose now. He isn't new to the game. I can't help believing this is gender movitated. The chief justice position works in other states and works at the federal level. Why would he think it doesn't work now in California? There is no evidence to support his claim that "a" chief justice doesn't know what the other justices are doing". If he has facts, why won't he speak to her. That is what intelligent people do, yet he won't. One must wonder, does he have facts???
Oh, and by the way, an Assembly or Senate member have staff that study issues so the member can appear well informed. Does Calderon think that elected assembly and senate members duties should be changed/reformed also?
-
11
January 29, 2012 5:08:52 PM PST
Irene,
"There is no evidence to support his claim that "a" chief justice doesn't know what the other justices are doing"
He wasn't saying that. He said that the 21 justices don't know what the 1100 judicial bureaucracy is doing, not what the other 20 justices are doing. There is a big difference.
"I can't help believing this is gender movitated." Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would like to see some facts and perhaps even a second or third incident before we brand the dude.
Has he ever done anything else that gives people reason to believe he might be a sexist?
-
12
January 29, 2012 7:55:39 PM PST
I have three incidents:
.1. He felt the need to describe the Chief Justice as attractive,
2. When he was informed that this was improper and in poor taste, he didn't feel the need to apologize,
3. He makes allegations about how she runs her agency and when she asks to confer with him on these issues, he refuses to speak with her. Taken alone, I wouldn't consider this sexist but with the other two, I have to wonder why he won't meet with her.
Yes, these are all opinions. My opinion is that he is acting like a sexist. Pretty sad.
-
13
January 29, 2012 10:13:35 PM PST
Steve,
Nice try but I am not saying three aspect to the same incident, I am saying do we have any other incidents where he has show sexism to other women. To be fair, if we only have one data point we can't say he is this way to all women. We could say he perhaps doesn't like this one woman, but we can't make the leap that he is sexist to all woman. And we have to remember, he gave compliments so all we have discovered is that he thinks she is smart, nice, attractive, sincere, and trust worthy. If anything the guy wants to date her!!! ha-ha
But to your points:
1. This is the one everyone is stating. Even though it's debatable, I will grant you this for your argument's sake.
2. He did apologize. You must not have seen it in my comments above.
In his own words,
---
Calderon said his comments were misconstrued and he accused Evans of making them an issue as a proxy for the Administrative Office of the Courts, which opposes his legislation.
“It’s a sideshow,” Calderon said, disputing Evans’ claim that his remarks were degrading.
“That’s not the way I see women,” he said. “I see them as equals.” Asked if he will apologize, Calderon said, “I certainly apologize if anybody misunderstood it.”
http://www.womenswatchinc.org/blog/how-hot-is-the-chief-justice-mr-assemblyman/---
So this one doesn't count.
3. There are many people that don't meet with other people especially when they are proposing something the other person won't be happy with. Did Obama sit down with Govenor Jan Brewer before suing Arizona? So this one too doesn't count as an incident of sexism.
Steve, I don't mean to be desparaging in my comments. I appreciate that you are providing more thoughts and opinions. I think I have articulated my point and so has everyone else.
-
14
January 29, 2012 10:29:32 PM PST
We all say stuff occassionally and then wonder why such nonsense came from our own mouth. On these occassions it is best to clarify or apoligize and move on.
I agree that referring to his female peer as, "attractive," was a poor decision on his part. He would not refer to a male peer as, "attractive." They fact that he doesn't realize this is poor form in this day and age is telling in my opinion.
You probably don't see it as sexist, EFritz, because you are a nut who hates people. But, that's expected from a blood-thirsty Spartacus fan. ;-)
-
15
January 30, 2012 12:47:40 AM PST
Nice one Erin.
-
16
January 30, 2012 11:24:43 AM PST
Yes, these are my opinions. He sounds like a real twit. We'll call it a difference of opinion.
-
17
January 30, 2012 11:57:59 AM PST
efritz, imo, we disagree. When the chief justice knows what the other justices are doing, the chief justice is then aware of what the "1100 judicial bureaucracy" is doing.
Should we reform the office of the president of the US since how could he know what all the states are doing?
Yes, it is sexist when Calderon comments that the chief justice is attactive just as it is sexist when commentators report on what female candidates are wearing but not what the male candidates are wearing, i.e., their lovely blue suits and red ties.. It's not acceptable any longer because it's sexist, minimizing their skills, accomplishments or what they are saying. Would he have said "boy the chief justice is handsome" if it were a male chief justice....I don't think so.
-
18
January 30, 2012 1:02:39 PM PST
Isn't that" apology" ( “I certainly apologize if anybody misunderstood it.” kind of like saying that the problem lies with the folks who thinks what he said is sexist or at least chauvinist ? It Further demonstrates to me that he "reveals an unconscious bias towards women based on outmoded stereotypes. Verbalizing his bias is of consequence because it enables others to freely express those same feelings" Kind of along the lines that this very married and family man might have said what he did because " If anything the guy wants to date her!!! ha-ha"
-
19
January 30, 2012 9:50:17 PM PST
Irene, you said, "Yes, it is sexist when Calderon comments that the chief justice is attactive"
So when a man says a woman is attractive, it's sexist?
beez, regarding my "If anything the guy wants to date her!!! ha-ha" The ha-ha was the give away that the sentence was tongue in cheek. It was not a serious comment.
-
20
January 30, 2012 11:14:04 PM PST
efritz, when my husband says I'm attractive, it's a compliment or if I'm at dinner with friends and a male comments that I'm attractive, it can be a compliment. Let's be clear, in a professional world, yes, it's sexist and let me repeat my earlier comment, "Yes, it is sexist when Calderon comments that the chief justice is attactive JUST as it is sexist when commentators report on what female candidates are wearing but not what the male candidates are wearing, i.e., their lovely blue suits and red ties. It's not acceptable any longer because it's sexist, minimizing their skills, accomplishments or what they are saying."
-
21
January 31, 2012 12:58:49 AM PST
Context is everything.
|
|
|
