With the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court we have not only seen how far Democrat politicians will go in attacking this career woman who is also a mother to seven, two of which were adopted, but we also are witnessing the extreme hypocrisy of so-called "feminists," aka Feminazis.
Female empowerment and equality is something feminists claim they are fighting for, yet time after time we have noted and in some cases documented the extreme hypocrisy of that claim, as feminists have made it very clear that the only women they are prepared to support, are those that walk in lock-step with them and their ideology.
Feminism: The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
While there have been multiple "waves" of feminism throughout the years, the definition has not changed except in the eyes of those that no longer want equality with men, but rather to gain dominance over men, as well as their new litmus test of having to support abortion.
Amy Coney Barrett is literally the very image of what first and second wave feminists claimed as their goal.
A woman, married, seven children, religious and has an exemplary career as a Judge, soon to be an Associate Supreme Court Justice if confirmed by the Senate.
In a normal world, Coney Barrett would be held up as the gold standard of women's ability to choose what they wish, work for it, and obtain it.... in other words, a woman that is a tribute to the first and second wave of feminists that came before her and worked tirelessly to give her the opportunity to achieve what she has achieved.
Some argue that Coney Barrett could represent yet another remaking of the Feminist movement, bringing back some of the original concepts, such as pro-choice meaning to also celebrate the "choice" to bear and raise children while furthering a career.
But Ginsburg also viewed abortion rights as central to sexual equality, and her leadership helped give rise to a movement that remains laser focused on abortion to this day. Yet rather than make women more equal to men, constitutionalizing the right to abortion as the court did in Roe has relieved men of the mutual responsibilities that accompany sex, and so has upended the duties of care for dependent children that fathers ought equally to share.
Barrett embodies a new kind of feminism, a feminism that builds upon the praiseworthy antidiscrimination work of Ginsburg but then goes further. It insists not just on the equal rights of men and women, but also on their common responsibilities, particularly in the realm of family life. In this new feminism, sexual equality is found not in imitating men’s capacity to walk away from an unexpected pregnancy through abortion, but rather in asking men to meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility, reciprocity and care.
While I admire Ms. Bachiochi's view as to the roll model Coney Barrett can play for young women across the country and world, to many the term "Feminism" has already been destroyed beyond redemption.
We see this reactions from modern day feminists to not only Coney Barrett's nomination and confirmation, but to the Politico writers assertion about her being a "new feminist icon," which seems to have angered another female writer at NCR online, who feels Coney Barrett "is not a feminist icon. She is not a feminist at all."
Who exactly has the right to decide who is and isn't a feminist?
Pro-choice feminists have made much of Barrett's anti-abortion perspectives as proof that she is anti-feminist, but the issue extends beyond abortion. Barrett is not on record as a defender of women's rights in any arena.
She has ruled against environmental protections, even though environmental degradation disproportionately affects women, especially those of low income. She has ruled against consumer protection. Her history of legal opinions on health care, sexual assault, and immigration suggests she has no intention of advocating for women in vulnerable situations, but rather will uphold the Trump administration's far-right policies that harm women, especially women from less advantaged demographics.
Bachiochi is enthusiastic about Barrett's achievement of a work-life balance, even while admitting that "few mothers of seven could become federal judges, never mind Supreme Court justices." And thus, unwittingly, she admits what all the rest of us are thinking: that Barrett's achievement is rare because few women have the advantages she has.
We'll start with the assertion that Coney Barrett has "no intention of advocating for women in vulnerable situations."
In here lies the extreme difference between Feminists/liberals and the rest of us.
A judge should not be an advocate, nor an activist, their job is simply to apply the law and the constitution to the cases before them. Too many judges these days feel they have the right to use their position to further a cause from the bench without consideration of the legalities, simply because they think something is right or wrong, no matter what the case law says.
The next emphasized portion shows the absolute disregard for "choice," by assuming Coney Barrett has only achieved what she has because of her advantages, yet that ignores that it took a choice on her and her husband's part on whether to pursue a career in law or to stay at home with her children.
Having advantages in life and making a choice are not mutually exclusive.
While I respect Yoder's opinion, and I get the point she is trying to make, I disagree.
By ranting and raving and screeching like banshees over the likelihood that Coney Barrett will be confirmed the Supreme Court, modern day feminists are exposing who and what they are and personally, as a woman, I wouldn't want their acceptance of "conservative feminism."
I would rather "conservative feminism" be a contrast, a differing choice as to what type of "feminist" young girls and women wish to be, rather than attempting to force them into what feminism has become.
When Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she will be an example of true choice and opportunity, which is exactly what the first waves of feminism were all about.
Young ladies will now have a very prominent example, sitting in the highest court of the land, and proof that "choice" isn't about abortion, it is about being who and what you want to be without anybody else attempting to define them by trying to force them to fit into a box.
The fact that feminists and other liberals (yes, that includes the media) are attacking Coney Barrett's religion, and worse, her children, makes it crystal clear that the only women they support are those as miserable and constantly offended as they are.
Video below: Dems have 'temper tantrum' during Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing
ANP is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program.
EMERGENCY FUNDRAISER: With non-stop censorship and 'big tech' attacks upon independent media, donations from readers are absolutely critical in keeping All News Pipeline online. So if you like stories like this, please consider donating to ANP.
All donations are greatly appreciated and will absolutely be used to keep us in this fight for the future of America.
Thank you and God Bless. Susan and Stefan. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: