Feminists have an Amy Coney Barrett problem
Call it “conservative feminism” if you like, but this feminist rebrand may prove a lot more desirable to everyday American women who harbor more hope for love, marriage, sex, and kids (even lots of them) than woke feminists thought-leaders think is possible or even reasonable.
But wait, how could a pro-life, Catholic mom of seven become the new face of feminism?
How dare she get married and start a family in her 20s? And how provincial to refuse to abide by a socially and environmentally acceptable number of children?
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The feminist icon torch was supposed to be passed to Hillary Clinton, but she fell short in 2016.
Regardless, her brand of feminism – the icky tradeoffs, the anger, and the man-hating – never sat well with younger, sunnier women.
During her nomination ceremony, Barrett revealed that her husband “asks me every morning what he can do for me that day.”
A young woman hearing that could hardly be blamed for concluding that if she wants to one day have a career and family, the most important decision in her life is who she marries. And if she finds Mr. Right early in life, she would be smart to marry him sooner rather than later, lest she lose her lover and lifelong teammate forever.
That’s definitely not what young women are being taught in their Women’s Studies classes or in the pages of Cosmo.
As for the children, Barrett’s life challenges the feminist notion that fertility and children are a drain on a woman’s ambition. In her case, children and family gave her professional ambition purpose and perspective.