OPINION: Amy Coney Barrett is No RBG Replacement: How the Newest Supreme Court Justice Reaffirms the Need for Feminism in 21st Century America
Cleary Waldo (SFS ‘23) is a journalist for the Eastern Europe & Russia and Compass Gender sections and a guest writer for the Caravel's opinion section. The content and opinions of this piece are the writer’s and the writer’s alone. They do not reflect the opinions of the Caravel or its staff.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed on October 26. (Flickr)
Since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. women have been searching for a new feminist icon to fill her shoes, while GOP senators have sought only to fill her seat on the Supreme Court. Despite President Trump’s efforts to appear inclusive by nominating a woman to the highest legal position in the country, Judge Barrett’s record reminds us that feminism is more than just adding women for the sake of adding women and claiming “diversity.” Her nomination has created division along more than just party lines: it has also sparked disagreement among women about what it means to be a feminist today.
Feminism as a concept and a definition is not difficult to grasp; however, the term is associated today with a movement that is much more controversial than its founding mission and central goal of complete gender equality. Terms like ‘feminazi’ paint feminists as angry misandrists intent on tearing down the patriarchy in a blind PMS rage. Even the idea of ‘destroying the patriarchy’ has become a radical idea in many circles, despite the fact that destroying a patriarchal system does not inherently mean creating a matriarchal one. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court provides us an opportunity to codify the central themes of feminism. Yes, she is a successful and powerful woman and has distinguished herself immeasurably by her expertise as a legal figure. All of her success, however, does not make her a feminist and certainly does not qualify her to be the new face of feminism many supporters are trying to paint her as. Amy Coney Barrett is not a feminist— she is a beneficiary of feminism.
The idea that Amy Coney Barrett should be revered as a ‘new feminist icon’ and would be anywhere near an adequate replacement for Justice Ginsburg and her legacy as a champion of women’s rights is absurd. Feminism is all-encompassing. Despite its fem- prefix, it is not a movement that is restricted to women. While historically there has certainly been a separation between feminists based on race and class, the contemporary movement as a whole is based on unadulterated gender equality. This does not mean, however, that all women’s views must be accepted. Their voices are, of course, valid and deserve to be heard, but feminism is not synonymous with blanket protection. It does not contend that certain voices are more valid than others as a general rule, and it certainly does not contend that being a woman justifies restricting the legal rights of other women.
To be clear, it is not Judge Barrett’s faith or even her history of conservatism that I am taking issue with; to criticize a woman on her faith would be hypocritical and play into a variety of feminism that has no place in the 21st century. Rather, I am taking issue with the beliefs that seek to impose restrictions on the bodily autonomy of other women, especially those who do not share her views. Amy Coney Barrett has a fantastic legal mind. However, her intellectual capacity does not exempt her from being held accountable for how her decisions would affect women across the country. “Evil genius” seems too strong a phrase, but the basic premise rings true.
Having followed in the footsteps of women like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who paved the way for future generations of industrious women, Amy Coney Barrett’s philosophy is an insult to RBG’s memory. While her statements about personal beliefs not affecting her rulings were admirable on paper, the law is ‘practiced’ because it is open to interpretation, and Barrett’s approach to the Constitution is one which restricts progress for groups not initially privileged in 1789. Her fidelity to a 231-year old document brings to the fore a central argument as to what the balance should be between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. To begin, core citizenship rights such as suffrage were not granted to women in the United States’ founding documents and required decades of activism to be added. Furthermore, the definition of what a woman is in the 21st century is changing as we work through the questions of gender and sex. Someone who is tethered so tightly to the meaning of a word more than two centuries ago, unwilling to adapt to the changing dynamics of our country, would teach a new generation of young women looking for a role model that to be a feminist is to be concerned with their own lives without regard for the bigger picture.
A true feminist icon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her commitment to upholding Roe v. Wade in her confirmation hearing, categorizing its underpinnings as “the equal dignity of the woman, the personhood, the idea of individual autonomy and decision making.” It is evident that her own fight to practice law and to earn the respect of her male peers was a driving force behind her unwavering support for legal protections for women. In contrast, Judge Barrett abstained from answering any substantive questions during her confirmation hearing, citing Ginsburg’s refusal to make any prejudgements about cases whose topics might come up during her time on the Supreme Court. The issue of prejudging or giving insights into how a justice might rule is admirable, and Judge Barrett certainly held her ground under significant pressure from the senators who questioned her last week. However, feminism is not the act of simply existing as a woman; it is about advocating for women’s rights and making progress towards a more equitable society. Barrett’s unwillingness to unequivocally address issues that would affect a myriad of groups, particularly those who are not white and heterosexual men, is a statement about her indifference or, more likely, her attempt to shield herself from further criticism and minimize opposition to her nomination based on her personal views.
The issue of whether or not Amy Coney Barrett is the new voice of feminism in America is not a question of party nor ideology. She simply does not fit the criteria. This should not disqualify her from being nominated to the court, nor should these factors have necessarily even influenced how senators voted on her confirmation. Her appointment is but a symptom of the current administration’s agenda and the GOP’s Senate majority. However, supporters attempting to paint her as a feminist simply due to her gender is misrepresentative of what the feminist movement stands for and runs the risk of diverting attention from the ideology’s central message of equal opportunity and dignity for all genders.
Have a different opinion? Write a letter to the editor and submit it via this form to be considered for publication on our website!