There's clearly been a push by many conservatives over the last several days to rebrand Amy Coney Barrett as a "conservative feminist" and victory for women everywhere.
Let's be clear about a few things...
Let's be clear about a few things...
The definition for feminist is not "be a woman and exist". It is not "be a woman and simply attain power". It is not "be a woman and agree with me". It is none of these things, and no feminist theorist has ever defined it as such. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Feminism, at its core, is about liberation for all people, universal respect for personal agency + consent, and intentional + intersectional allyship, even when it's uncomfortable. There's grace to make mistakes + learn, sure, because we're all imperfect, but that's what it is.
You cannot oppose civil rights and be a feminist. You cannot deny liberation and disrespect personal agency and call that feminism. Conservative practice, as it currently stands, is resolutely ant-feminist.
However, here's what feminism COULD look like for conservatives...
However, here's what feminism COULD look like for conservatives...
A woman who stridently opposes abortion in her own private life for whatever reason but believes ALL people should have that choice for themselves is a feminist in that aspect.
A person who isn't LGBTQ and may not be entirely comfortable or knowledgable in those conversations but respects others and supports full protection and affirmation for LGBTQ people under the law is a feminist in that aspect.
A man who is deeply religious with socially conservative restrictions over his own private life but does not believe those tenets should be forced on others in any way, shape, or form nor used to discriminate against anyone in the public square is a feminist in that aspect.
Are any of these people perfect? No. Nor am I or you or anyone else, living or dead.
But in these scenarios, they all respect agency, they all support liberation, and they're at least demonstrating nuance that's quite promising for uncomfortable conversations.
But in these scenarios, they all respect agency, they all support liberation, and they're at least demonstrating nuance that's quite promising for uncomfortable conversations.
THAT is feminism. That works. But Amy Coney Barrett is not a feminist. She wants to use her personal beliefs to control the private lives of other people.
She wants the courts to decide who we love, how we're supposed to feel in our own skin, when + where + why + with whom we have sex, and believes that government can exclude people from protection against discrimination if they fail to meet her standards in their personal lives.
I'm a Christian. My faith is very important to me. But my faith does not need anyone's affirmation or agreement or anyone else to follow it. That's why it's called "faith".
Catholicism is not the problem here. Joe Biden is Catholic. So are Nancy Pelosi and Sonia Sotomayor. You can be very religious and feminist. Many do it! (Hi!)
Barrett's deep need to control the private lives of others in order to push her personal beliefs on them is the problem.
Barrett's deep need to control the private lives of others in order to push her personal beliefs on them is the problem.
She's not a feminist and this is not about faith. It's about her disrespect for the personal agency and liberation of others.
And we reject it because we're feminists. /thread
And we reject it because we're feminists. /thread
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
