creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Connie Schultz icon
Connie Schultz
23 May 2012
Catholic Leaders Must Dial Down the Rhetoric

As a non-Catholic, I wrestled with an internal conflict over the birth control battle of the bishops. Part of … Read More.

16 May 2012
Dear Young Mothers: Ignore Time Magazine

In February 1989, I ended a phone interview for a magazine story I was writing and looked up to find my 21-month-… Read More.

9 May 2012
Finally, the President Says 'I Do'

This was going to be a different kind of column. My friend Jackie, through a mutual contact, arranged for me … Read More.

Why Didn't Coach Tell Me Only Lesbians Play Softball?

Share Comment

Several questions are burning my brain after last week's flare-up over The Wall Street Journal's decision to run a photo of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan playing softball.

In case you missed it — and bless you for caring about real news —accusations and denials were flying like foul balls over the decision to run that 1993 photo of Kagan at bat. Was it an innocent attempt to humanize the spirited 50-year-old single woman? Or was it code for a sinister suggestion about which way her bat swings?

To which I respond: Wait a minute. What?

My questions:

No. 1: How many of my unmarried middle-aged girlfriends with thriving careers and no children are gay and never told me? They have shared the minutiae of their everyday lives — including all those hilarious dates with boys masquerading as grown-ups — and they never have bothered to tell me that what they really want is a date with no Adam's apple and a drawer full of underwire? I'm hurt.

No. 2: How is it that I played softball throughout my childhood, taught my son how to throw a ball and coached my daughter's teams for years and I'm not a lesbian? What is wrong with me? God, are you listening?

No. 3: How come so many of the lesbians I know are terrible softball players?

OK, make that one lesbian I know, but she's one of my very best friends, and she does everything else so well that my admiration for her sometimes morphs just a teensy-weensy bit into raging envy. Her name is Jackie. She is so talented that she regularly bursts into a Broadway show tune that provides the perfect soundtrack to whatever experience we're sharing at any given moment. It's uncanny, and it only took me four years to get used to it. Now I don't blink an eye when she belts out Snoopy's "Suppertime" in the produce aisle.

The point here — and I do have one — is that Jackie, for all her God-given talents, is terrible at softball. Years into our friendship, I learned this after I asked Jackie to sub for an absent player on our newspaper's coed softball team.

She did warn me that she was a little rusty.

"Con," she said, "I haven't played softball since I was a senior at Immaculate Heart Academy and saved the game to beat our arch rival, Holy Angels." No, I didn't confirm this because the only time Jackie ever had lied to me was when she said I looked very New York-ish after cutting my bangs with nail clippers.

I know the Jackie-lie face.

"I don't play all that well now," she told me.

"Great," I said, desperate not to forfeit the game. "What time shall I pick you up?"

Quite a game, that was. We put Jackie out — way out — in left field, where she spent seven innings screeching and leaping like Scarlett O'Hara dodging cannonballs. Even she couldn't come up with a song to match her attempts at bat to, as she put it, "meet the ball."

"Why?" she asked on the drive home. "Why would I put both hands on the bat and leave myself entirely defenseless?"

I asked Jackie whether I could share this little story, and she said, "Sure, Con, as long as you also mention how all you journalists were too worried about injuring your precious little typing fingers to actually field balls and score some runs."

Done.

What does this story about Jackie have to do with Elena Kagan's qualifications for Supreme Court? Why, nothing. Just as that photo of Kagan playing softball has nothing to do with her sexual orientation, which also has nothing to do with her qualifications for Supreme Court. Talk about a string of coincidences.

See, even straight middle-aged women married with children know a red herring when someone slaps us in the face with it. But I do think it's safe to say this whole brouhaha over the nonissue of Kagan's private life does raise a crucial question about the current members of the United States Supreme Court:

Do they, or do they not, play softball?

I'm sure some intrepid blogger is already all over this one.

Meanwhile, to all you girls out there playing your hearts out on softball fields across America: Now you know that you, too, might be a Supreme Court justice one day.

And if you're really lucky, you'll have a friend like Jackie, too.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and essayist for Parade magazine. To find out more about Connie Schultz (cschultz@plaind.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
Connie,

Very funny. This will certainly light them up on PD. I give them 10 comments before someone is concerned about the fact that you get paid for this. I am beginning to think that you are actually able to laugh at what goes on there. It makes me feel a little better. If you can't convince most of them of anything at least you can enjoy the show.

It will be a great thing to have three women on the court. I will have a smile for that and lots of the other firsts we have had so far, even if Justice Kagan does not pitch the first no hitter for the Supreme Nine.

Jim Grissom
Comment: #1
Posted by: JRGrissomCA
Sat May 15, 2010 9:49 PM
Thanks so much for this, Connie. I'd like to add a few points: 1) First of all, I am SO SICK of reading about people who are "accused of being gay," as if it were a crime or a slander. It's only a libel because our society still discriminates so relentlessly against GLBT people. 2) Elana Kagan's sexual orientation is absolutely NONE of our business. 3) I am straight, and I LOVE playing softball, even though I can't stand to watch baseball. My lesbian sister, however, was never into it. 4) See number 2 again. I can't emphasize it enough.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Carla
Sun May 16, 2010 9:53 AM
I think as long as she's not trying out for the Supreme Court's softball team, whether or not she plays softball --- and all that might or might not imply --- doesn't really have much bearing on her nomination!
Comment: #3
Posted by: mmccune7@comcast.net
Mon May 17, 2010 11:05 AM
Sorry to disagree with you... Most of my friends who are gay are liberals. There is no other option for them when it comes to voting on issues, except everything as okay.
When we have person who may serve as a Supreme Court Judge ( whom in this case has never served as judge) make decisions based upon the constitution, we need them understand the law, not base their opinions on their hardships in life. The Supreme Court is not a FEEL GOOD court of the land - it the law of the land.
This person will in my opinion write her opinions based her experiences, hardship and disregard her duty to interpret what the founding fathers believed were to protect the true balance of justice.
Liberals see illegals as mistreated by US as she has been in society. Though the law of land says they are illegal she will more than likely allow feelings to enter the picture than supporting the law.
The AZ law on illegals is supporting the Consitituion, yet liberals see is it as Racist. Why is that we can ask for driver's license to purchase cigars, using credit cards, fly on airplanes or even get a hotel room, but to be stopped a police offer it's racist, profiling or mean.
Strange, no one seems to refer to the illegals as law breakers and the 99.95% coming across the boarder are Latin, not white, black, Asian, or other.
If she is gay - she will be more than likely very liberal and the laws of the land will be rewritten, not based upon law, but feel good intentions. Do you really want that to be the way the laws are defined?
Obama has to be seen liberal to get his agenda completed. Seek how many photos showing him not saying the pledge allegiance to our flag or hand over the wrong side of his heart. Is that by accident? He is more dangerous than liberals, but needs them to make HIS world come true.
Her sex is being used to Obama's favor, not for your's, mine, our freinds who are gay or the Constitution.That should make you sad and very angry.
Regards....
Comment: #4
Posted by: MArk
Mon May 17, 2010 1:30 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Connie Schultz
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

20 Sep 2009 Outsourcing Hotel Housekeepers Creates a Real Mess

3 Aug 2008 Michelle Obama: I'm Still Me

15 Sep 2010 We Outnumber the Religious Fanatics