A possible replacement for the Notorious RBG believes wives should be ruled by their husbands

[Gingernaut]

If this is true, this is worrying.

mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/trump-s-leading-pick-to-replace-rbg-believes-husbands-should-rule-over-wives-93462IjaBkKkd-p7tXZVCQ

I hadn't heard of this woman. However, it looked as though she is a circuit judge and (according to Wikipedia) is the first and only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

She seems to have retained her maiden name of Coney when she married, becoming Ann Coney Barrett.

A Catholic, she believes that life begins at conception (as do many women in America). However, when challenged on her religious views she is quoted as saying:

“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

Obviously Coney Barrett is a more conservative choice than many feminists would like to see. However, I do not think it is fair to write her off as a pawn of her husband, and I don't think people should be denied positions on the basis of their religion.

I've heard this about her before too, and while some American women believe life begins at conception, those who believe in reproductive freedom could believe that life begins at conception AND believe that women have control over their own bodies. So, even if an embryo has the potential to grow into a full-term child in the womb, it is a woman's choice to decide what to do with any pregnancy. Either way, she scares the hell out of me and American women will take to the streets to protest her appointment.

Not the main point of the thread, but ad far as I know it is entirely normal/usual for women in the US to retain their maiden name as a middle name when they get married. They tend to replace their existing middle name. I don’t think it is a marker of feminist leanings or modernity.

Yes, that's a completely normal/traditional thing to do in the US. You give up the middle name you were assigned at birth (har har) and use your maiden name as your middle name. Husband's name becomes your surname. It doesn't indicate any kind of progressiveness.

Maybe. But Hillary Rodham became Hillary Clinton once it became clear that voters expected her to take her husband's name.

She didn't run for President as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If you read the article it doesn’t seem she’s a bog standard catholic. She’s a member of a small off shot group which requires members to take loyalty oaths to spiritual leaders. The women’s is called a “handmaid” - lol. So the problem is that a potential Supreme Court justice is in a cult and has sworn a religious oath to put the cult first. This would be a clear clash with her oath of office. The cult have said, rather nicely, that they would never tell a judge what to do in her office. But if she voted in favour of abortion would that honestly have no repercussions in her religious community?

As an aside, I’m deeply amused at these American women who believe they should be ruled by their husbands and yet they do things like go to law school and have powerful careers. It’s not a very trad wife lifestyle to be a full time Supreme Court justice.

The protection that Rode v’s Wade has provided for American women will be OVER if either of Trumps nominees get in.

The roll back of women’s rights in the US will escalate very very quickly.

Lots of people believe that life begins at conception, because it quite literally does. But you can believe this and still support a woman's right to choose. I do. Lots of women do.

*Roe

Lots of people believe that life begins at conception, because it quite literally does. But you can believe this and still support a woman's right to choose. I do. Lots of women do.

Women can do whatever they want with their bodies, at least in the UK. No-one will be prosecuted for inducing an abortion on themselves. However, as with murder, once someone else is involved, especially the medical profession, which is a profession regulated by law, the law can step in. There are currently numerous restrictions on the ability to get a termination in the UK, and many women, perhaps most, agree with at least some of them. How many would support completely unrestricted abortion rights if they realised that it would mean a foetus could be aborted purely due to its sex, or at almost full term due to a dispute between the parents?

I agree that people shouldnt generally be denied positions based on their religion.

However, she is not a run of the mill member of a mainstream religion. She is a member of an extreme group (offshoot of catholicism) whose members swear allegiance to the group, and if appointed, she's going to be ruling on issues that the group has firm teachings about. I would be concerned that this represents a conflict of interest and would impact on her ability to be impartial, in a way that it wouldn't if she was in another role e.g. accountant, a bus driver, anything that doesn't involve weighty moral decisions.

@WeeBisom

If you read the article it doesn’t seem she’s a bog standard catholic. She’s a member of a small off shot group which requires members to take loyalty oaths to spiritual leaders. The women’s is called a “handmaid” - lol. So the problem is that a potential Supreme Court justice is in a cult and has sworn a religious oath to put the cult first. This would be a clear clash with her oath of office. The cult have said, rather nicely, that they would never tell a judge what to do in her office. But if she voted in favour of abortion would that honestly have no repercussions in her religious community?

As an aside, I’m deeply amused at these American women who believe they should be ruled by their husbands and yet they do things like go to law school and have powerful careers. It’s not a very trad wife lifestyle to be a full time Supreme Court justice.

^^^THIS^^^^

With bells, whistles and knobs on!!!!

"Kingdom of God" is trending on Twitter, btw.

www.theguardian.com/law/2020/sep/21/amy-coney-barrett-ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-trump

Well actually I do not believe that people should get a free pass on believing in crazy or believing in misogyny just because of religion (see also the other main religions). I say this as a former Catholic - believe me, when I tell you that women, the world over, would have a better life if religion had never been invented by men (which it was). A tool of the patriarchy. When are we going to stop allowing this nonsense to skip the rule of law and impose restrictions on the lives and bodies of women? I say this as a feminist who has spent many years studying my former religion - religious belief (i.e. adherence to a religion) is incompatible with feminism.

Amen!

I find it surprising that she believes in being submissive to her husband but has such a high-flying career and in fact a higher-flying career than her husband, who is in the same field. In my experience, often even atheistic, liberal men don't like their wives eclipsing them career-wise, and yet presumably if her husband has dominion over her he would have made her cool it in terms of career if he didn't like that she was doing better than him, but evidently didn't.

I find it surprising that she believes in being submissive to her husband but has such a high-flying career and in fact a higher-flying career than her husband, who is in the same field

Well, yes. I find it difficult to believe that a woman with such a successful career is simply a submissive doormat who defers to the men around her.

I know Christian women who are high fliers in their careers while their husbands are SAHDs. Not common, perhaps, but they exist. And there are plenty of other religious couples where both partners work but the wife is the breadwinner.

Submissiveness is subjective to a certain extent too - some women choose to 'submit' to their husbands in the home while holding a senior managerial position at work. They don't see a contradiction.

Let this nominee be judged according to how she performs her work, not her personal faith. If there is evidence that her faith unduly affects her judgments, that is a separate issue to be addressed.

Otherwise we're straying into seriously dodgy territory and making all sorts of assumptions/stereotypes. For instance, does anyone want to tell a headscarf-wearing Muslim that she should be denied a senior role because of her internalised misogyny? I didn't think so.

For me, the issue is not that she may have internalised misogyny due to her adherence to a patriarchal religion. It's that she has sworn an oath of loyalty to a group whose stated beliefs / aims are different to those of the State. As her job will literally be to pass judgements there could well be a conflict of interest here.

It's not that she is religious per se.

As others have noted, it's possible to belong to a religion without fanatically adhering to all of its teachings. But IMO swearing allegiance to the group takes that to another level. It's publically stating your (high level of) commitment to the teachings of the group.

I don't see it as any different to any other conflict of interest. Just like you can't work for a regulatory body and one of the companies that that body regulates. It's not about her being discriminated against for being religious.

It's not about being denied a senior role. It's about the particular role of being a judge. That's quite specific.

Let this nominee be judged according to how she performs her work, not her personal faith. If there is evidence that her faith unduly affects her judgments, that is a separate issue to be addressed

Yes absolutely. Let’s not form opinions and voice concerns prior to appointment.
Let’s just wait and hope for the best.

@Banyantree1990

Lots of people believe that life begins at conception, because it quite literally does. But you can believe this and still support a woman's right to choose. I do. Lots of women do.

When else could life possibly start if not at conception?