My wife @LauraSlavich is literally a genius (I know because we took IQ tests and she beat me ). She was Salutatorian in high school (because she took Calculus and the Valedictorian took art). She could have gone to any college, but chose a small Christian college in Kentucky.

I met her at @SBTS where she was finishing her Master’s. She was encouraged to do a doctorate, but she was ready to enter the marketplace. She became the director of the main office of the local crisis pregnancy ministry in her mid-20s.

She combines humility with confident self-assurance like no one else I’ve ever met. With her intelligence, work ethic, and confidence (not to mention kindness, compassion, and spiritual maturity), she could have done almost literally anything she wanted in life.

When we got serious after we had started dating, she was clear that she wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. (Sometime I wish she’d stayed in the marketplace because I might have been able to afford a Tesla ).

I say all this in light of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination. Many folks are talking about feminism‘s relationship to conservatism, with many pushing back on ACB’s choice of having a large family, her deep Christian commitment, and whether this is compatible with a feminist vision.

It seems to me that true feminism would be directed to let women decide to pursue a life that they want, a life that gives them joy.

Some of a certain perspective might look at Laura’s choice and think “the dogma lives loudly within,” that she wasted something, that she is beholden to some patriarchal vision.

But a vision that truly values empowering women would celebrate their ability to choose a life that gives them joy. I have no doubt Laura could have been a highly successful lawyer, a CEO, or whatever she had wanted to be. I’m grateful she wants to be my wife and our kids mom.

Someday she might want to do something else too and reenter the marketplace. I will be all in with whatever she wants. (And when that happens maybe I will get a Tesla after all ).