Amy Coney Barrett

KATHERINE writes:

What do you think about Trump’s nomination for SCOTUS?  I see this as a worse attack on motherhood/homemaking than anything the Democrats could do.  Amy Coney Barrett should be home taking care of those seven children and her husband.  She obviously does not need the money.  But her career as a lawyer and judge is SO much more important than being a mother.  Trump is implicitly sending this message, as I see it.

— Comments —

Laura writes:

You said it, baby!

Republicans just have to prove what good little liberals they are.

Mrs. Barrett may be wise as Solomon, but she does not belong in a job this demanding — or in fact, any job, given the size of her family, the age of her children and their financial situation. Not only will her children pay a heavy price, but so inevitably does her husband in his career.

How does a man fulfill his role as head of the family when his wife is a Supreme Court judge?

Even liberals notice the hypocrisy of conservative enthusiasm for Barrett. From Slate:

…But looking at the way conservative women, interviewed by Ruth Graham for a piece in the New York Times, describe their feelings about Barrett, it’s clear many people see her as an example—somebody whose life proves something bigger about the capacities of American women writ large. “She shows that it’s possible for a woman to rise to the top of her profession while having many children,” one such fan said. “She’s someone who is challenging a mainstream consensus that there’s a certain way that women need to live their lives in order to succeed,” said another, who, at 30, just finished a Ph.D. and has two young kids.

And in Politico, anti-abortion legal scholar Erika Bachiochi—also, by the way, the mother of seven children—hailed Barrett’s nomination as a turning point in feminist discourse over abortion. To Bachiochi, Barrett’s success story shows that a redoubled fatherly commitment to family life, rather than access to reproductive health care, is the answer to women’s problems. This sounds beautiful, but the mechanism by which men who—unlike Barrett’s husband—prove reluctant to step up might be forced to “meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility, reciprocity and care” remains unclear.

Okay, so Barrett would be a big improvement over Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett called “a  great American life”, but she still represents grueling, feminist-style careerism, which is so different from healthy and balanced interest in work and careers — and that model is responsible for the demand for abortion. From Politico:

And she points to the flexibility of her workplace and credits the growing presence of women in the legal profession as giving rise to better working conditions than when she was a young lawyer: “As women are more present in law schools … on faculties, at law firms … the workplace bends to be more flexible as women seek those accommodations.” As women seek those accommodations … by bearing and raising children rather than sacrificing their very lives on the altar of the marketplace instead.

If she’s so smart, can’t she put two and two together?

If more women are in law, fewer men are in law. If fewer men are in law, fewer men have careers that can support a family. Men can’t have children, get it? But they can support them. And given that they don’t have the immense, God-given privilege of being mothers and given that they truly have to work all their lives, don’t they deserve to do what interests them most?

The feminist belief that the home is not a place for intelligent women is implicit in this statement of Barrett’s. Amy Coney Barrett supports social expectations that make it very hard for ordinary women to have large families and lasting marriages like she has.

We don’t need women judges.

We need women to defend the home and culture (or at least, what’s left of it).

I don’t even understand why a woman would want to become a Supreme Court judge. I’m not kidding. Sure, it comes with perks, but, Good Lord, what a load of drudgery!

Please follow and like us: