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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she actually had to parent and care for 7 children she wouldn’t be anti-choice.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What has she accomplished? She gave birth multiple times. She's not raising those kids, obviously. The PP who said she has a relatively easy job that she can do from home and cough up a half dozen decisions a month -- how is that remotely impressive?

I think this is an exaggeration because you don't like her politics.

She is soon to be one of the most powerful people in the country for the rest of her life. Hate her politics or personality all you want - but that's a huge accomplisment to combine with 7 children and a successful marriage.

She’s only going on the Supreme Court b/c of her politics and b/c she’s a women.

She is no illustrious academic law scholar, she’s just like many law professors around the country.

Her accomplishment will be b/c she is anti-feminist.

[Anonymous]

Wow, A lot of haters on here.
"she didn't raise her kids", "she hired help" - gasp!, "she put her career first", "her husband is a default parent" - gasp.

A bit hypocritical by dcum standards especially you folks in law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The didn't do anything special with the "adopted" kids or just relied on things like th school system. Lets be real. She was around nights and some weekends but didn't do any of the hard work with those kids. If those kids had SN, as a parent with a child with SN, who needed daily therapies when young, I cannot imagine she was doing any of it and had the aunt and nannies do it all. One person would find it very hard to raise 7 kids at once with 7 very different needs or they just ignored all the needs. They are a family for show, not substance.

She reminds me a little of Sarah Palin in this regard. The family implodes in the spotlight because there’s no foundation.

I think Sarah Palin had good intentions. She wasn't exactly pushing the career track and got lucky it just happened. I do think she did a lot for the one child and had a huge focus on him. Its a bit of a different situation. But, there is no way you can have 7 kids, adopt multiple kids with special needs and be on a career track to the supreme court and have a spouse as a federal prosecutor and give any of those kids the attention and support they need. You can give them money, child care and and a nice physical home but kids need so much more. I guess the kids are lucky at least family, friends and paid help are good enough as a substitute.

[Anonymous]

There aren’t that many conservative (like freakishly conservative) attorneys. The pool Trump is wading in to appoint judges is much more shallow than the pool of moderate or liberal candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, A lot of haters on here.
"she didn't raise her kids", "she hired help" - gasp!, "she put her career first", "her husband is a default parent" - gasp.

A bit hypocritical by dcum standards especially you folks in law

I doubt her husband was a default parent as a federal prosecutor. Lets be real. If she's working the way she did, is 48, how much time do you think she puts into parenting each of those kids? Its impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why have kids if your expectation is others will raise them so you can continue to live your life? She didn't do much mothering to those kids. Kids need their parents. Child care 9-5 is fine, 24/7 is not.

I don’t personally believe in this style of parenting. I’m just not delusional about the work of raising kids. I will say it’s always the women with the biggest family support who tend to minimize how much work it is — Of Course! They’re not the ones doing the day to day work of raising children. In that sense it’s even worse that she’s on the Supreme Court. She thinks it was “easy” to work and raise children because it’s in her interest to minimize the actual labor that went into caring for her kids. It’s easier to say she had a little help from family than to admit her aunt raised her kids with help from other family members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What has she accomplished? She gave birth multiple times. She's not raising those kids, obviously. The PP who said she has a relatively easy job that she can do from home and cough up a half dozen decisions a month -- how is that remotely impressive?

I think this is an exaggeration because you don't like her politics.

She is soon to be one of the most powerful people in the country for the rest of her life. Hate her politics or personality all you want - but that's a huge accomplisment to combine with 7 children and a successful marriage.

She’s only going on the Supreme Court b/c of her politics and b/c she’s a women.

She is no illustrious academic law scholar, she’s just like many law professors around the country.

Her accomplishment will be b/c she is anti-feminist.

Completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people keep going on about the Handmaid’s Tale? We know the connection with Atwood being inspired by Barrett’s religious group but ACB has never expressed ideas like women shouldn’t have birth control or work outside the home right? She’s not a Serena Joy or Aunt Lydia type.

She’s against abortion but so are a lot of other women.

Actually it wasn’t even inspired by her religious group. Handmaid’s tale was inspired by People of Hope (a different organization), not People of Praise which Barrett has been affiliated with. Newsweek recently published a correction.

This is like the most bizarre thing to me. Her organization literally has nothing to do with Handmaiden’s Tale. It’s amazing how it stuck despite the retraction.

[Anonymous]

Healthy neglect.

Or unhealthy neglect, depending on your opinion about kids raised in a pack by someone other than the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why have kids if your expectation is others will raise them so you can continue to live your life? She didn't do much mothering to those kids. Kids need their parents. Child care 9-5 is fine, 24/7 is not.

I don’t personally believe in this style of parenting. I’m just not delusional about the work of raising kids. I will say it’s always the women with the biggest family support who tend to minimize how much work it is — Of Course! They’re not the ones doing the day to day work of raising children. In that sense it’s even worse that she’s on the Supreme Court. She thinks it was “easy” to work and raise children because it’s in her interest to minimize the actual labor that went into caring for her kids. It’s easier to say she had a little help from family than to admit her aunt raised her kids with help from other family members.

What “style” don’t you believe in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people keep going on about the Handmaid’s Tale? We know the connection with Atwood being inspired by Barrett’s religious group but ACB has never expressed ideas like women shouldn’t have birth control or work outside the home right? She’s not a Serena Joy or Aunt Lydia type.

She’s against abortion but so are a lot of other women.

Actually it wasn’t even inspired by her religious group. Handmaid’s tale was inspired by People of Hope (a different organization), not People of Praise which Barrett has been affiliated with. Newsweek recently published a correction.

This is like the most bizarre thing to me. Her organization literally has nothing to do with Handmaiden’s Tale. It’s amazing how it stuck despite the retraction.

It stuck because they use the term “handmaid”.

[Anonymous]

No “hothousing” kids a la DCUM, that’s for sure!

Some people are consumed by their careers and think being a parent means providing food and shelter. Not my type of parenting, but it takes all kinds.

[Anonymous]

ALMOST Every SN mom I know worked only part time or did SAHM once they had a child with special needs. No way is she doing the hard work of parenting.

Growing up a lot of Catholic families were this way. Lots of kids, very little parent time.

But the goal is just to crank out more Catholics.

[Anonymous]

I don't really care as long as the kids are happy and healthy. Raising kids is a team effort.

I care more about her views on the law. On that score I am unhappy with her getting the nod.