Ms. Goodling defnes herself

A New York Times editorial on Ms. Goodling quotes from her testimony: “At heart, I am a fairly quiet girl, who tries to do the right thing and tries to treat people kindly along the way." It would, of course, be interesting to know if those who have had contact with her at the DOJ, including the fired US Attorneys, have found her all that "kindly," and it seems obvious that she strayed from her presumptive desire "to do the right thing." But what I find most interesting is this extremely ambitious 33-year-old's description of herself as a "girl." In my previous post, I took note of the various stereotypes, invidious and otherwise, invoked by Ms. Goodling's appearnce and career. Are we supposed to be more generously disposed to her than, say, to Kyle Sampson, her partner in presumptive illegality (whether or not, technically, "criminal misconduct"), because she's just a "girl," whereas he's a "man"? (Can anyone imagine him, or any other male witness, for that matter, describing himself as "a fairly quiet boy"?) We also know that she apparently broke down crying in one of her superiors' offices. No doubt this happened, but is this supposed to establish that she's "suffered enough" and that adults in the House and Senate, whether male or female, should simply pull their punches with regard to this "girl"?

Perhaps it's unfair to castigate Ms. Goodling for her use of this one word, but I do fine it passing strange. Frankly, I don't know any 30-something females who refer to themselves as "girls" instead of "women." (And I'm positive that law professors would be castigated if they were heard referring to their female students as "girls," especially since it's unthinkable that the same law professors would refer to their male students as "boys.") However, I do note that the New York Times, among other venues, has recently referred to Paul Wolfowitz's "girlfriend." (Other stories have referred to his "companion," which, frankly, seems both more dignified and more accurate.)