How was Amy Coney Barret able to raise SEVEN kids while building her career?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how you guys are pooh poohing the accomplishments of academics now just because they have better hours than BigLaw.

Do you know how freaking hard it is to get a tenure track job at any university these days, let alone one of the most prestigious in the country??

She's a judge now and to get to where she is, she worked long hard hours. Her kids are for show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm also an academic and there are days we struggle with one kid, but all in all it's a great gig for a parent, especially if you have resources to throw at problems.

I understand she was a professor until 2017, when she became a judge. TBH, I have two mom judge friends in their 40s and they are smart as hell and work hard, but they are also home for dinner every single night (even though they may write at night).

Also, her youngest is 8. By 2017, all her kids were in school and she had older teens to help around the house or take care of themselves and others. And there is something to be said for living in a town with a slower pace and a shorter commute, especially with two high incomes and family nearby. It's not my choice to juggle 7 kids under any circumstances, but it is doable.

Cool conversation, but she sucks. There is no such thing as a "conservative feminist."

Lol sorry but we are getting one placed on the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aunt Lydia had a lot of help. She just pushed the kids out as the Catholic Church is still against birth control and had other women actually raise them.

Can we for once just respect her ability to juggle without bashing her choice of religion? Whether one agrees with her judicial decisions or not, I too am amazed by that. Gives me hope for future working women and what they can accomplish.

[Anonymous]

Nannies, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Two were adopted. She has my admiration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two were adopted. She has my admiration

+ 1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two were adopted. She has my admiration

+ 1,000,000

Please don’t admire adoptive mothers. We don’t want to be admired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also an academic and there are days we struggle with one kid, but all in all it's a great gig for a parent, especially if you have resources to throw at problems.

I understand she was a professor until 2017, when she became a judge. TBH, I have two mom judge friends in their 40s and they are smart as hell and work hard, but they are also home for dinner every single night (even though they may write at night).

Also, her youngest is 8. By 2017, all her kids were in school and she had older teens to help around the house or take care of themselves and others. And there is something to be said for living in a town with a slower pace and a shorter commute, especially with two high incomes and family nearby. It's not my choice to juggle 7 kids under any circumstances, but it is doable.

Cool conversation, but she sucks. There is no such thing as a "conservative feminist."

Lol sorry but we are getting one placed on the Supreme Court.

Oh no I don't doubt that this will be indeed what happens. But I think it suck and she sucks. And I hope that when Biden is elected, we soon see 11 justices, 2 of whom are progressive and liberal.

[Anonymous]

Nannies.
Living in a ultra-religious community that REQUIRES the women to help each other.
A mother who believes in the same philosophy of the ulta-religious community and probably moved in with her.
An academic career that allowed her to take copious sabbaticals and teach low class loads in return for no tenure and fewer grants due to publications. (She has 12 - a comparative professor in her field at her age has 30-40).

Even with all that the only reason she's at the top of the list for SCOTUS is because Trump is down in the polls with conservative suburban white women over this pandemic and distance learning thing. The liberal suburban women who just hated him from the day one wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also an academic and there are days we struggle with one kid, but all in all it's a great gig for a parent, especially if you have resources to throw at problems.

I understand she was a professor until 2017, when she became a judge. TBH, I have two mom judge friends in their 40s and they are smart as hell and work hard, but they are also home for dinner every single night (even though they may write at night).

Also, her youngest is 8. By 2017, all her kids were in school and she had older teens to help around the house or take care of themselves and others. And there is something to be said for living in a town with a slower pace and a shorter commute, especially with two high incomes and family nearby. It's not my choice to juggle 7 kids under any circumstances, but it is doable.

Cool conversation, but she sucks. There is no such thing as a "conservative feminist."

Lol sorry but we are getting one placed on the Supreme Court.

Oh no I don't doubt that this will be indeed what happens. But I think it suck and she sucks. And I hope that when Biden is elected, we soon see 11 justices, 2 of whom are progressive and liberal.

He has said he doesn't want to do that and I agree with him. I hope he sticks with that because I think it would be extremely destabilizing for our democracy, much much more so than anything Trump has done (and he's done a lot of destabilizing things).

But forcing through profound changes to the Constitution when one party is in power? Very problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nannies.
Living in a ultra-religious community that REQUIRES the women to help each other.
A mother who believes in the same philosophy of the ulta-religious community and probably moved in with her.
An academic career that allowed her to take copious sabbaticals and teach low class loads in return for no tenure and fewer grants due to publications. (She has 12 - a comparative professor in her field at her age has 30-40).

Even with all that the only reason she's at the top of the list for SCOTUS is because Trump is down in the polls with conservative suburban white women over this pandemic and distance learning thing. The liberal suburban women who just hated him from the day one wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

I can't tolerate what this woman stands for, but I believe she had tenure, grants are measured in $ just as much as frequency, and I am pretty sure sabbaticals are only allowed after a set # of years AND tenure...or at least this is how it work at my institution (maybe you mean parental leave though, which can typically be taken whenever needed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also an academic and there are days we struggle with one kid, but all in all it's a great gig for a parent, especially if you have resources to throw at problems.

I understand she was a professor until 2017, when she became a judge. TBH, I have two mom judge friends in their 40s and they are smart as hell and work hard, but they are also home for dinner every single night (even though they may write at night).

Also, her youngest is 8. By 2017, all her kids were in school and she had older teens to help around the house or take care of themselves and others. And there is something to be said for living in a town with a slower pace and a shorter commute, especially with two high incomes and family nearby. It's not my choice to juggle 7 kids under any circumstances, but it is doable.

Cool conversation, but she sucks. There is no such thing as a "conservative feminist."

Lol sorry but we are getting one placed on the Supreme Court.

Oh no I don't doubt that this will be indeed what happens. But I think it suck and she sucks. And I hope that when Biden is elected, we soon see 11 justices, 2 of whom are progressive and liberal.

He has said he doesn't want to do that and I agree with him. I hope he sticks with that because I think it would be extremely destabilizing for our democracy, much much more so than anything Trump has done (and he's done a lot of destabilizing things).

But forcing through profound changes to the Constitution when one party is in power? Very problematic.

I think Biden is right to say that. But I hope he does it and I expect he will. Democrats are playing too nice and the time to be nice is over. I disagree with you wholeheartedly about the degree of destabilization this would cause for so many reasons, including how Rs voted to change the way SCOTUSes are confirmed in the first place (i.e. Kavanaugh wasn't a legitimate confirmation, by your logic).

[Anonymous]

How does Amal Clooney have time to raise twins and consult on high-profile cases? She hasn’t had to worry about making billable hours for years. She deals with only certain kinds of cases and activity. (This is not a slam at Amal - she’s really smart and accomplished, but making hours on a weekday is not something she needs to worry about).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has said in interviews she had a lot of extended family around in South Bend, including her husband's aunt who did most of the childcare while they were working. She and her husband took turns being the "default parent" and and he picked up more slack at certain points with kid logistics like activities and doctors appointments (like when she became a judge he picked up slack, when they were babies she did the heavy lifting). Notre Dame is pretty good with leave/teaching release policies for tenure track faculty and she was able to bring kids into the office with a basket of toys to play while meeting with students (this is not atypical of universities...being a faculty member is a stressful but flexible gig day to day). She also said living in South Bend helped because it's such a small city and if she needed to leave campus to get to her kids' elementary school or activities, she could be there in 10 minutes, whereas in a larger city it would be much more challenging.

I went down a youtube rabbit hole wondering this same thing last night. That's just what she said to a panelist of Notre Dame law students.

So, basically she didn't raise her kids, which is the obvious answer.

Look, that's like saying that every working mother doesn't raise her kids, which isn't fair. I know some really successful Catholic moms in demanding professions, and one characteristic that they have in common is that they don't need a lot of sleep. Barrett's husband can cook (I think she said this in the Notre Dame Alumni club speech) and that is extremely helpful. Her husband's aunt provided childcare and that is super-helpful as well. I presume that they paid her, but there is a huge trust level with family members that enabled them both to continue working. I do wonder how they were able to take care of the two adopted children with so much "outsourcing" to the aunt. The first adopted child was severely malnourished when adopted at 14 months and the second adopted child was 3 years old, which necessitates a huge adjustment. Somehow, they made it work. I've been to South Bend and most faculty live within 3 blocks of the university. Easy peasy commute, often by walking or bicycle. Even the downtown is 10 minutes away. Lots of students around to provide extra babysitting, if needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else feel strangely ambivalent about her?

OTOH, I abhor her politics. OTO, I'm impressed despite myself by what she has accomplished. When I was younger, I had hoped for something similar to her lifestyle.

I never wanted to have seven kids because that's crazy but I had hoped for 3-4 plus two demanding professional jobs. We weren't able to do it. Husband has the demanding job, I have the mommy tracked job. I'll never end up as a federal judge.

That’s because you’re trying to do it on your own. She had her aunt as a full time nanny and countless nearby family members to help out. That’s a support network most families can only dream of.