Good News: Saying That “Women Can Have It All” Regarding ACB “Is A Trap”

See, it’s not actually feminist to say that women can have it all. Can you guess why? Beyond the simple notion that Liberals hate her simply because

The “Women Can Have It All” Narrative Around Amy Coney Barrett Is a Trap

What do we know about how Amy Coney Barrett—judge, mother of seven, and nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court—juggles childcare and work? Barrett has said that she and her husband have alternated periods of time when they stepped back from work to care for family, and that he has taken on more of the load since she became a judge. (But he still has a job, as a trial lawyer, so he probably isn’t doing everything…seven kids under 20 is so many kids!) She has also mentioned care provided by her husband’s aunt. (But still, seven kids! And how do they keep that nice, big, beautiful house clean?)

On Saturday, writer Vanessa Grigoriadis posed some of these questions in an (admittedly flippant) Twitter thread, and a fight ensued. “I guess one of the things I don’t understand about Amy Comey [sic] Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving, present mom to seven kids? Is this like the Kardashians stuffing nannies in the closet and pretending they’ve drawn their own baths for their kids”? she asked. Grigoriadis got ratio’d, then linked to in multiple op-eds (coming from the right, and the center-left) calling these kinds of questions “anti-feminist.” “No one would question a father of seven being selected,” ran a typical tweet sent in reply to hers. (snip)

It would be fine if we wanted to admire her for these accomplishments, full stop. But the way conservative women, interviewed by Ruth Graham for a piece in the New York Times, describe their feelings about Barrett, it’s clear that 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 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.

You’re waiting for the but, right? Uber-leftist Slate’s Rebecca Onion will bring the but

All this talk, presented as feminist, isn’t simple “inspiration.” It’s a trap. Barrett’s success, as Graham reports, is already getting used as “proof” that women don’t need access to abortion—that women can dig deep when they need to, and succeed even with kids in tow. One woman Graham interviewed used an idiom: “Women are strong enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.” This is a saying I also saw deployed in critical replies to Grigoriadis’ tweet. (“Just because YOU couldn’t do it doesn’t mean others can’t either,” wrote former baseball player Curt Schilling; thank you so much, Curt Schilling.) But we are not talking about two trivial activities here, when we talk about working and raising kids. And we obviously do not have the full picture when it comes to Barrett’s childcare situation, or marital dynamic, or the other forces in her life aside from sheer grit that have helped make this balancing act possible. So it’s ridiculous to pretend that Barrett’s work-life equilibrium can be applied in some one-size-fits-all way as an aspirational model for womankind.

These people. Right to abortion. Do they think that all strong women who are having a great life – career, kids, great marriage, great life – are proof that women don’t need access to abortion? Apparently walking and chewing gum at the same time is now code for “women don’t need abortions” (perhaps if they used proper birth control/protection when having sex at a time they don’t want children, as Dems always push in grade schools and high schools and such, they wouldn’t need it).

Rather than trading anecdotes of “strong women” back and forth, we should look for concrete ways to support those who cannot, metaphorically speaking, do the pull-ups. In 2020, many mothers have been asked to take on burdens that are absolutely unsustainable, and are losing economic ground while doing it. Even in Normal Times, mothers’ situations vary widely. There are mothers who chose the wrong spouse, and have no support from them; who didn’t have much money to begin with, and have less since they had kids; who are managing chronic illness, and can only do the minimum; who cannot afford childcare; who have no family nearby, or family they trust, to help.

Got that? Is this like 4th Wave Feminism, we’re we only respect those who are in tough situations (and some put themselves in them), but not successful women? Only the women who should be wards of the state (because liberals love them some Nanny State, eh?)

(The Post Millennial) Bitch Media co-founder Andi Zeisler tweeted out a “short list of things that are not synonymous with feminism.” They are: “being a woman, having a successful career, being a mother, having women friends, doing a job women weren’t always allowed to do.” But the kicker, for Zeisler, is “legislating away another woman’s bodily autonomy.” (snip through a lot of ACB’s rulings, especially as they relate to abortion)

Feminism should be about gaining equality under the law for women regardless of their political views. It should not be particularly concerned with the political views of women. The attainment of equality itself perpetuates a situation where women don’t have to feel like their equality is predicated on ideological compliance. But instead, contemporary American feminism only supports women that toe progressive line.

If one isn’t a far left loon, one cannot be a part of 3rd and 4th Wave feminism.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

Comments are closed.

Pirate's Cove