On Saturday, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant post left on the Supreme Court by the horrendous, pro-LGBT, internationalist Jewish radical, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mrs. Barrett is being hailed as a conservative icon. In particular, her commitment to her family – her husband and seven children – has won her a lot of brownie points with more traditional folks. However, it is precisely the fact that she has seven children still in the home who need their mother that I oppose her nomination to a position which would take her away from her family.
To be upfront, I would never vote for a woman for any public position of trust, regardless of her talent or principles, nor do I believe women should be nominated to judgeships, be allowed to serve in the military, and so forth. I have a personal witness that the scriptures are true. The holy scriptures make it abundantly clear that a woman’s calling is in the home and that, whenever possible, she should not work outside of the home. Naturally, circumstances arise which at times require women to work outside of the home or to be the breadwinners. But in the ideal situation, God has appointed man to provide for the family, and woman to bear and nurture children.
An article on Moms.com described how Amy haphazardly juggles her sacred responsibilities as a mother with her professional duties:
“Coney Barrett considered becoming a stay-at-home-mother. Then, she was offered a professorship at Notre Dame and took it. At first, she felt guilty when she couldn’t spend time with her children, but because of the support her husband gave her, she continued to teach.
“Now, she attributes her success to teamwork with her husband, living in a smaller city, and a flexible workplace. She says that Jesse regularly cooks meals and makes doctors’ appointments. Barrett also says that she can volunteer at her children’s school because she can take time to leave chambers and make it to the school quickly. Living in a small community like South Bend, Illinois makes this possible.
“She recalls having a toy box in her office at Notre Dame so that her daughter Emma could be with her during office hours. Although she never had to, other professors attend faculty meetings with their babies. She highlights the importance of how flexible workplaces help working mothers. Finally, she’s thankful for her husband’s aunt, who has provided the family with childcare for 16 years—since Emma was little. She says that consistent, in-the-home childcare has been a significant factor in making her career possible.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is quintessential feminism! It appears to me that far from being a mother first, she has placed motherhood on the backburner. Why should we applaud this woman who deliberately and unnecessarily chose to place her career ambitions above her God-appointed calling to be a mother in the home?
The line “she couldn’t spend time with her children” says it all. Amy has essentially abdicated her role of mother and homemaker, instead choosing to pursue a career and politics. Because she has failed to be the mother she ought to be, other people have had to pick up the slack. Her husband cooks meals and helps manage the kids because she’s too busy outside the home. And her husband’s aunt has spent sixteen years watching Amy’s children. Tell me, why should we give Amy Coney Barrett brownie points for being a mother of seven children when she doesn’t actually mother those children?
In an article aptly titled “Feminists Should Be Celebrating Amy Coney Barrett,” we’re given this accurate paragraph:
“This level of accomplishment and dedication to family, one would imagine, is what feminists are referring to when they say women should be able to “have it all.” Of course, no one can have it all, and life is full of tradeoffs. But you would be hard-pressed to find a woman who has navigated the difficult trenches of career success and motherhood as ably as Barrett.”
No, you can’t have it all. That’s one of feminism’s greatest lies. It has been used to lure women out of the home and away from their families. A woman who works full-time cannot be a full-time mother. There are no ifs, ands, or buts in that statement. It’s the cold, hard truth. Knowing this, perhaps we should ask whether Amy is really a mother or a professor/judge.
Another op-ed titled “Amy Coney Barrett: A New Feminist Icon” is also revealing:
“Barrett’s expected confirmation should serve as a catalyst for rethinking the most powerful social movement in the last half century: feminism. . . .
“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. . . .
“Barrett says that for both parents, the needs of the Barrett children came first, their professions second – and yet both their children and professions thrived. Rather than assume caregiving is a woman’s “choice” to embrace or reject on her own, as Roe does, the Barretts recognize that both mothers and fathers are encumbered by their shared responsibilities to the dependent children in their care. That’s the new feminism building upon, while remaking, the old feminism.
“It’s not only the Barretts’ teamwork that has made all of this possible. In that same interview, she speaks with gratitude about the consistent child care her husband’s aunt has provided for more than a decade. 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.””
Isn’t it somewhat disturbing that Amy’s lifestyle can be seen by so many different people as “feminism”? Of course, many are spinning this in a positive light. They find nothing wrong with women in the workplace, precariously balancing their job with their children’s well-being. Yet, I find it extremely sad that a woman who apparently loves her family so much is content with spending so much time away from them and leaving their care in the hands of others. Indeed, it’s a tragedy that a woman who wears her Christianity on her sleeves conveniently ignores those parts of the good book which spell out a woman’s lofty calling as a mother, homemaker, and wife.
There’s a picture making the rounds on the internet showing one of Amy’s daughters looking up to her with a smile on her face. It makes the comment that the daughter is “looking up to her mom.” In the long run, however, what will her daughter remember – that her mom was a fancy judge, or that she was absent in the home during much of her childhood? Will she remember any landmark cases her mom may have been involved in, or will she recall the small, daily moments where her mother showed her love in ways the world does not value?
Perhaps Amy Coney Barrett’s family really is as happy as they claim. I hope they are. I hope her children are happy. Yet, I know that however happy and well-developed they may be now, they could rise to even greater heights if their mother was in the home with them. Her four daughters, especially, need the example not of a working woman with a busy professional life, but of a humble homemaker and mother performing her duties in this highest and holiest of all callings. I fear that, spurred on by her example, Amy’s children will one day grow up to prioritize career over family as her actions prove she does.
Let’s be honest, the only reason President Trump selected Mrs. Barrett is because she’s a woman. He’s pandering, as he so often does. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, over whom he gushed with praise, died, so he rushed to fill her spot with yet another career woman. There was not one man available could have done the job, Mr. President? Did you really have to choose a mother of seven children, one of whom has disabilities, to serve in one of the most sensitive positions in the country?
According to my score card, President Trump is only one for three on Supreme Court nominations. He nominated the Establishment charlatan Brett Kavanaugh, apparently unaware of the murder coverups he’s been involved in on behalf of the Establishment. And, now, he’s nominating a woman who ought to be at home with her small children. I’ve been critical of President Trump’s lack of discernment from the beginning. He hits a lot of homeruns, but he also strikes out a fair amount. Amy’s nomination shows, yet again, that President Trump often gives into popular opinion rather than sticking to principled positions. Conservatives clamored for Amy Coney Barrett, and others demanded a woman fill a woman’s position, so he gave them what they wanted.
If our nation was in touch with its moral roots, we would not celebrate a working woman filling positions of national trust. Instead, we would celebrate the woman who embraces God’s will for her life and stays home with her children. In such a society, the wife would be commended, the homemaker would be cherished, and the mother would be exalted. Instead, in our warped Marxist-feminist culture, the 21st-Century version of Rosie the Riveter is the ideal.
To close, I want to reiterate that traditional gender roles, as ordained by God Almighty, are not suggestions. They cannot be discarded without serious consequences to individuals, families, and societies; especially by professed Christians. It’s no coincidence that the rise in societal corruption, mismanagement, degeneracy, broken homes, and rebellion, has coincided directly with the rise in women abandoning the home and motherhood in favor of 9-5 desk jobs and worldly accolades.
Ladies, the home is where you were designed to shine! Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise. The greatest work you can do for society is to stay at home and raise a beautiful family in the ways of God and goodness. Think of it, you can raise the next generation of citizens, shaping them, molding them, and teaching them the principles they will act upon.
Nothing you do outside of the home will ever match the eternal impact you can have inside your home as a mother. There is no higher and holier calling than motherhood; no profession more important and far-reaching than raising the rising generation. As important as sound Supreme Court justices may be, they won’t long be remembered. But good mothers will be remembered and praised for generations, both by their families and by a society that will benefit from their tender devotion in the home.
And so, I say, stay home, Amy. For the sake of your beautiful family, the well-being of your young children, and the greater good of society, stay home.
September 28, 2020
As a Latter Say Saint woman( concert of 42 years) I have to disagree. I have 7 children and chose to stay home with them. I have been married twice, both temple marriages. Even though I cherish all the memories and time I got to spend with my children… I am now divorced and care for 1 disabled daughter. The patriarchal system while ideal has some serious flaws. For one it attracts covert abusers who enjoy the attention of being the primary breadwinner and being the hero in service of the church. However, emotional and psychological abuse are far too common in the church and leaders are poorly trained in how to recognize it. They are taken in and blinded by the heroic antics of the abuser. I know far too many women in my shoes. I will encourage all young women to continue a career , even if it’s part time
I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it. Exceptions are one thing, but what I’m talking about are rules and principles. The principle set forth by God is that a woman’s calling is as a wife, mother, and homemaker in the home. According to President Benson, a woman’s very exaltation is dependent upon how well she fulfills this duty. But again, I know there are exceptions and it’s not always possible to live up to ideal.
Very well articulated, sir, and I couldn’t agree more! Thank you.