Whatever Happened to "Women Can Have it All"?

Rule #2. Dunn’s First Law. With enough idiots, you don't need a conspiracy.

By Rich Kozlovich

On Oct 1, 2020 Don Irvine posted this piece, Vanity Fair writer questions Supreme Court nominee’s mothering, with 24  comments you might wish to view, some of them appearing in this piece.

Amy Coney Barrett, husband and 7 children stand with President Trump and the First Lady.

 

Irvine starts out saying:

 

Even before it was officially announced that Amy Coney Barrett would be nominated to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Vanity Fair and New York Times Magazine contributing writer Vanessa Grigoriadis attacked her mothering skills, comparing her to the Kardashians and accusing her of lying about how much she spends with her seven children.

Grigoriadis wasn’t the only liberal who went after Barrett’s family life.Dana Houle, a self-described political consultant to Democrats, questioned whether Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti was somehow not completely above board in a tweet that he subsequently deleted after a barrage of criticism...........

And then there was Boston University’s Ibram Kendi, who compared Barrett to “white colonizers” for adopting black children in a couple of tweets on Saturday.

So, how much time is she supposed to devote to her children?  Who decides that?  Is there some kind of government formula based on academic clap trap? 

Bluebird12345 posted this comment about that:

Right on cue. I sometimes think you so-called journalists never learned manners at home, but only learned to hand off the hateful baton from one liberal socialist to the other.

Vanessa, who are you to judge Amy Coney Barrett on her mothering skills? Do you have full evidence that Amy is not a good mother? I remember many articles saying women could have it all. A wife, mother and a professional job, and though i preferred being at home with my children, other women chose to use their educations to help their husbands and families. From what I saw and the people who are close to Amy have said, she is an outstanding wife, mother and a professional. She has an outstanding resume. Above all, she loves God, her family and the Constitution. Why are you so jealous and have your poisonous fangs out for her?

Without evidence to support your hateful statements, without knowing Amy and her husband and children, you formed an opinion without proof. Some journalist you are. You just treated Amy in a way you yourself would never want to be treated, much less written about. You don’t think any farther than your own article and who might be hurt by your stinging and unfounded words.

You wrote this trash to impress all of your socialist buddies and far be it from you to encourage another woman, especially when they are pro-life. They don’t get a say in the matter, only you socialists are the arbiters of right.

My first thought was: Isn't this in reality an attack on fundamental feminist arguments?  Did they question that of the fathers appointed to SCOTUS?  How much time are fathers supposed to devote to their children?  What if the children are good children, never cause trouble, always please their parents and always do the right thing?    Are they supposed to spend more time or less time with them under those circumstances?  And what is that number? 

Apparently I wasn't alone in seeing it in this light. Here's what usafoldsarge said

Yes and it was the feminists that claimed they could do all things, that the nominee is being disparaged about. Writing for Vanity Fair is about all Vanessa whatsherface has done. Which automatically qualifies her to comment about a woman’s mothering ability, unless she was of the same ilk as the Great Vanessa. Then the praises would be nauseating to read. Always find experts such as this, with zero qualifications and even less experience running off at the mouth.........

praireliving expanded on this thought saying: 

But I thought the left was all about feminism, women being able to work out of the house, and having it all. They spend a great deal of time disparaging SAHMs. Now the truth is out. It isn’t about being a working mom or a SAHM it is about whether or not you toe the liberal party line.

DrGadget commented: 

 

 “I guess one of the things I don’t understand about Amy Comey Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving, present mom to seven kids?” So if I’m hearing you correctly Vanessa, it sounds like you’re admitting the whole Feminist “I can do anything a man can do” lie needs to be tossed out the window because it’s simply not possible for a woman to do everything. Not even an extremely gifted woman with a loving husband............

The feminist narrative is that women can do all things and have it all.  Do I understand and remember  that correctly?  If that's true, and it is, why is the nominee being disparaged for doing all things? And with no evidence to the contrary, it certainly seems she's doing it all successfully.  So, are we do think this writer is a traitor to her gender, to feminism and to what's now a fundamental leftist narrative? 

I wonder how much time these people spend with their children, and what is the conduct of their children?  Maybe if we knew that we could opine that makes them unqualified to spend so much time writing about the actions of others?  If not, why not?  These writers need to answer that don't you think?  Or as Dan Rather would famously intone......:"Questions Remain!"

Here's reality.  

This attack on this woman is a common practice known as a logical fallacy.   This logical fallacy is known as an ad hominem attack, meaning,  “against the man."......"sometimes called "name calling" or the "personal attack" fallacy.  Again, we see the underlying moral foundation of leftism is hate.

stlmark commented:

It’s the old practice of throwing everything up against the wall and seeing what sticks. Judge Barrett could be the next Mother Teresa and it wouldn’t matter; they would still look for anything to attack her. The politics of abortion trump (pardon the pun) everything else. It has become the new sacrament to this crowd. Forget the Bible, the Constitution, and anything else; all that matters is allowing women to kill their unborn children for any reason. This crowd is scared to death that she will provide the vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, so that means it’s war and anything is allowed. To them, the ends truly do justify the means.

This has nothing to do with her qualifications as a federal jurist, and in point of fact, if she had aborted seven children they would have praised her for her "bravery" and commitment to women's "health", and right "to choose" and the right to "control their own bodies". 

So here's the thrust of their position.  Murdering her innocent unborn would qualify her in their eyes, but adopting children from that hell hole in Haiti is racist and makes her a bad mother.  No evidence any of that's true, but they're leftists, what does truth have to do with the bigger picture?  And their "noble cause" that represents their bigger picture is what?  Keeping the murder of the unborn innocent the law of the land! 

So, what happened to Women Can Have it All?  If it doesn't fit today's leftist narrative, it's out!  But don't worry, they're leftists.  Tomorrow it can just as easily be back, and back and with passion, and a vengeance filled with self-righteous moral indignation and condemnation of those who oppose them. 

Must be nice to be a leftist, that way you're never wrong no matter what you think or say, even if it's corrupt, contradictory and devoid of facts.