Gone are the days of those on the political left supporting women in the workforce. It used to be that the left encouraged modern day feminism and supported women who wanted to focus on their careers. Because I’m more than four years old, I can remember the 2016 election, when democrats demanded that Americans embrace Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton as a feminist icon. A Clinton surrogate perfectly encapsulated this sentiment at a 2016 campaign rally by saying that “[the fight for women’s equality is] not done […] There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” Similarly, I remember Clinton blaming her loss to President Donald Trump on sexism, saying that “[c]ertainly misogyny played a role. I mean, that just has to be admitted.” And I even remember CNN publishing an op-ed defending these claims: “I believe she’s offering an explanation; not an excuse.”
Four years later, the left continues to posture as the pro-women party. The Democratic Party platform even has a section that reads:
“Democrats continue to fight to expand opportunity for women. By confronting violence against women [and] fighting for workplace equality […] Democrats will make sure that women thrive in our country, because we know that when women succeed, America succeeds.”
For this reason, these same democrats were elated when Amy Coney Barrett, a highly accomplished woman in the legal field and a mother of seven, got nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, right? According to the left’s rhetoric, one would assume that the only people opposing Justice Barrett’s confirmation would have been crazy anti-feminist right-wingers, attacking her for being a woman who dared to leave “her place” beside her husband. However, this assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.
Instead, leftists openly attacked Barrett, during her confirmation. Not only did they argue that she’s unfit for the job, but they went so far as to argue that her gender and position in the household should have her disqualified. Heather Mallick, a columnist and recipient of the 2015 feminist Landsberg Award, tweeted that “Barrett is in fact a female version of her husband, the head of the household at her house […] [S]he is a female Barrett so could somebody question Mr. Husband please.” Later in the thread, Mallick went on to say that Barrett is no more than a handmaid. Mallick, recognized feminist as she is, made these claims while referring to the same Barrett who graduated from the top of her class at Notre Dame’s law school, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was named Distinguished Law Professor of the Year three times, served on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and now fills Justice Ginsburg’s former seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.
This is not an isolated incident. Vanessa Grigoriadis, a writer for the New York Times and Vanity Fair, tweeted that she didn’t understand “how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving, present mom to seven kids? Is this like the Kardashians stuffing nannies in the closet and pretending they’ve drawn their own baths for their kids[?]” 
And just in case these claims aren’t disgusting enough, Slate published a piece in which author Tom Scocca called Barrett “a shameless, cynical careerist who believes nobody can stop her.”
Leftists love to embrace powerful women—but only under the condition that they hold leftist ideals. If a female is running for office on the Democratic Party ticket, then they’re all for it. But as conservative females are increasingly coming into positions of power, leftists suddenly refuse to champion strong women. And it’s not only with Justice Barrett’s confirmation. The number of Republican women in the U.S. House of Representatives is set to double, yet the leftist media is ignoring these women. Democratic congresswomen get featured on the cover of Rolling Stone as “Women Shaping the Future,” while the newly elected Republican women hardly get any mention from big-name news outlets.
With the increasing number of females assuming powerful positions in the name of conservatism, it is only going to further expose the fact that the left does not care about women as much as it claims. If the left were truly passionate about having females in power, it would be just as supportive of conservative women as liberal women. There have been plenty of opportunities to champion strong conservative women recently, but instead of celebrating the fresh faces of female empowerment, the left has dragged down and ignored their accomplishments—proving that they are not actually the party of women.
This is a very foolish piece of writing. The core argument here — that feminists need to celebrate the accomplishments of every woman — is reductive and makes you sound, frankly, very unintelligent. There are qualified women and there are unqualified women, just as there are qualified men and unqualified men. Being a feminist simply means that you hold the fundamental belief that women should be given the same rights and afforded the same opportunities as their male counterparts, it is not a directive that we must like/support every woman. For instance, I don’t like Marine Le Pen, but I still consider myself a feminist.
Furthermore, you entirely mishandle the central argument that many on the left were making in response to the confirmation, which is that ACB is not a champion for women’s rights. As one example, she has come out as opposed to IVF, a medical procedure that countless American women depend on to start their own families. (I myself am not a mother, but I would urge you to read Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s piece on her experience with IVF).
And then you make, shockingly, an even more frivolous argument: that people on the left must celebrate conservative women. Now, I am happy that arenas of power are becoming increasingly more gender-balanced with the passing years. But when I see conservative women like Boebert or Taylor Greene who openly espouse Qanon conspiracy theories or Kelly Loeffler who made millions by profiteering — it’s insulting that you expect me to rejoice.
I appreciate your gentle criticism. However, it seems that you skipped over all of the quotes that I provided in the article in favor of one that you say many on the left were making. It does not seem that calling a woman a “shameless, cynical careerist” is an ideological difference, but rather one meant to put her down because of how hard she has worked.
As for my “more frivolous argument” of wanting to celebrate all women in power, I refer back to the first quote I provided, which is from the Democratic Party’s own party platform: “Democrats will make sure that women thrive in our country, because we know that when women succeed, America succeeds.” My point is that women are now thriving, and democrats do not seem very supportive.
They do not have policies that I respect, so I am not happy to see them in positions of power. I hold them to the same standards that I hold any other politician. To approve of them simply because they are women would be demeaning and wrong.
And finally the majority of women continue to vote for Democratic representation, which is perhaps the most telling indicator we have as to which party best honors the needs of American women. Think a little bit more next time before you write this sort of drivel. Or don’t. As your website loves to reminder us — we do have free speech.
This article wouldn’t be so pitiful if women hadn’t overwhelmingly supported the Democratic party in the last, I dunno, 5 presidential elections at least. Bold of you to think you’ve got some insight into what’s best for women that women themselves aren’t privy to. Climb out of your own ass.
Thank you for the kind words. It seems that many women are also coming to the same conclusions that I have, which is why Trump gained among white women by 2 points, Hispanic women by 5 points, and black women by 9 points when comparing 2020 to 2016.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-biden-trump-black-latino-republicans
Thank you for writing such a brave and insightful article! You are right to call the left out on this, at a time when everyone in the media seems to simply look the other way when pro-life women are told they are not welcome at a women’s march, strong, intelligent women such as Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Amy Coney Barrett are demeaned and referred to as Handmaids, simply because they are conservative women who happen to be both Christian and loving mothers, and Melania Trump is mocked and torn apart by the hateful swarms on the left because she wore the “wrong shoes” while disembarking from Airforce One. People who are filled with hatred and ugliness will continue to lash out at you for writing the truth. I hope you disregard their juvenile, mean-spirited attempts to bring you down! Carry on! You are doing great and meaningful work! And you are so much braver than the haters! I wish you all the best!!
Genuinely, thank you for the support! We will continue speaking the truth while others show their true colors.
Let me know when Republicans start supporting universal paid family leave, universal access to birth control, and the Equal Rights Amendment. Then we can talk. And while we’re at it, let’s not forget that the party standard-bearer’s dismissive and juvenile excuse for an apology after his comments about grabbing women “by the pussy” came out: “This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”
It’s old news, but we shouldn’t ever forget it.
peepeepoopoo is demanding “Universal” rights.
there are many different peoples on earth, who knows how many in the universe.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. Islam doesn’t tolerate radical feminism, LGBT equal rights, In many Islamic cultures, LGBT is punished by death – they make women wear the burka and ban women from speaking or showing their faces in public.
With 2 billion plus Muslims and growing – it might be YOU that will be forced to “change”.
I support Western ideals allowing women more freedoms and rights. I confess there are times when I’d like to see HILLARY, Elizabeth Warren or our mayor/mayoress creature forced to wear the Islamic burka, have gags over their mouths and be banned from speaking in public.
Here’s a light hearted cartoon with this theme:
https://artoffarstar88.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/dr-evil-has-a-brilliant-plan/
You’re joking, right? There’s no way someone could possibly be so idiotic as to think that “universal” means “literally everyone in the universe.” So I can only assume that you’re acting in bad faith, which makes perfect sense considering you linked a blog with a well-known, well-documented Nazi dogwhistle in the name. https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88
Ms Poopoopeepee asks:
“You’re joking, right?”
I respond:
Yes absolutely – the funny comic I linked to is a joke, designed to get a laugh, that’s why these cartoons are called comical “comics” – .
Another reason Lib Leftists, Antifa, extremist feminists and extremists LGBT, BLM, are so repulsive to regular Americans – they can’t take a joke. They are obsessed with the idea that someplace, somewhere a healthy American guy is having a beer & having a good time – just laughing at a joke. These extremist feminists are the same as the no fun Bible Thumping Women’s Temperance League types that forced Prohibition on us.
Lighten up sisters! How about U Chicago undergraduate women or even graduate students decide to have a little healthy fun – put on a Black dress, have a straight man take you to dinner, take you partner dancing. Let’s dump this terrible no fun Lib Leftist politics and also move away from the curse of U Chicago – where fun goes to die! Jeeees.
Ms poopooopeepee – yeah, I understand when Libs use “universal” rights, they are only talking about everyone on planet earth. But, even that is ridiculous nonsense. The John Lennon “Imagine” world were there are no divisions between nations, peoples, religions and everyone in the entire world lives in equality, lives as one. That’s just not practical in any way. John Lennon wrote “Imagine” when he was living in the Dakota on Central Park West in Manhattan NYC – the most expensive street in the most expensive city in the world at that time. So he was telling everyone to give up all their possession, when he had the most luxurious possessions of his own. Most of the people that push this universal equality are idiot Liberals, but not all. Lots of Neo Conservatives, various tax exempt Conservative Christian Groups do the same, try to convert the world and bring everyone here to Provo Utah and have the Donny and Marie LDS life. Not possible.
The reality is that Barrett is not, in fact, qualified to be a SCOTUS judge. She had less than three years of prior bench experience before being confirmed. I would agree that attacking Barrett using the logic of her cult is beneath us. I would also argue that the cult itself is disqualifying. I will wait for the author to denounce the *actual death threats* experienced by progressive Democratic women of color, or perhaps the fact that Black Labour MP Diane Abbott, who happens to be significantly further to the left than the Starmer camp, received nearly half of all online abuse directed at women MPs leading up to the 2017 election.
Given that many liberals can’t understand that representation is not the same thing as advancement, it is unsurprising that conservatives can’t either.
Would you then also say that Justice Kagan is unqualified to be a SCOTUS judge as well? She had zero years of experience when Obama appointed her. And while I’m not sure exactly what you’re referencing, of course I denounce death threats aimed at anyone. Seeing as how that’s never changed the mind of a leftist though, I’m sure it won’t change yours.
Leftists are the ones who pushed for representation being a a measurement of advancement, and this is the result.
You exposed the hypocrisy of the left. Well done.
“We will continue speaking the truth while others show their true colors”. The truth will prevail. It is not the matter of the belief, it is a fact. The left do not discuss and express their opinion in a respectful manner, they use aggressive tactics to suppress what is different from them.
It is despicable that people have chosen to hide behind fake names and attack Mr. Weekley in personal terms. To those who have taken this tack, I suggest that you find better things to do with your time.
Ok Mr. Hurley, I’ll bite. I think Mr. Weekley’s post fails to address the basic question that, if the Democratic Party is no longer the party of women, why then do women as a whole continue to support it by a significant margin? His comment that Trump and Republicans made gains with women in the 2020 election are meaningless when contextualized, since context reveals that even that wasn’t enough to make the female voting bloc swing anywhere but Democratic, even in spite of the diversity of opinions and beliefs held by women in this country.
What you fail to understand, Mr. Samuel Herbert, is that even though just because more Women vote for Democrats doesn’t make them the party of Women because Women who vote for Democrats are wrong and Women who vote for Republicans are right. There Fore, you are also wrong. I can prove this in so many ways, but the best is to look at Republican policies and how they differ from Democrat policies. Flash Back to 1982. The Equal Right Amendment was expired, like the milk in my refridgerater. Then in 2016, we elected Trump and he saved Suburbian Woman by preventing poor people from moving to the sububr. Going back to 2000, bush V, gore made bush the president. We had a Republican the president also, and Women did really well then too. All of these prove that republicans are better than democrats (a.k.a. LIBERALS), but the most damming evidents is what happened in 1998 when The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.
Hi Carson,
In the comments I get the sense that you think “representation being used as a measurement of advancement” is not good. So OK, you’ve exposed the hypocrisy of the most logically bankrupt leftists who claim to love women, but not ACB.
But this brings to light the fact that most leftists don’t really care about female representation if they don’t like the policy. Isn’t that a good thing? If representation shouldn’t be used as a measure of advancement, then the problem is the blind celebration of Democratic women regardless of policy, not the distaste for Republican women due to bad policy. I feel like you’re insisting that leftists be stupid twice if they’re stupid once.
Yes? No? Thanks, -Eli
Great question, and this was one point that I had to think through myself while writing this. I do not think that representation should be used as a measurement of advancement, but in recent years, leftists have taken this position, and I just wanted to examine their current thoughts about conservative women and hold these comments up to their past comments about women who support liberal policies. So I do agree that the leftists are only “stupid once” in that they shouldn’t have been blindly celebrating (and demand that others celebrate) liberal women in power. But since that’s the bed they made for themselves, I’m going to point out the fact that they should be lying in it.
Hope that clarifies a little bit.
Yes, thanks, it totally clarifies. I think that, by focusing on the left’s current hypocrisy rather than their past stupidity, all the commenters above now get to rightfully say that this article conflates representation and policy in the same way the left does, when this article insists that the left be consistent by supporting all women instead of intelligent by supporting good policy. If the real point being made is that Dems were dumb in 2018, it seems better to point to that than to Dems not being dumb in 2020. The point on the page seems to be that Dems in 2020 are mean and exclusionary, as evidenced by the tweets and lack of leftist celebration right now, but to say that being mean = being against women requires the very conflation of representation and policy that the Dems made in 2018, which then needlessly undermines part of this article, when it could’ve made the exact same point by attacking the Dems’ behavior in the last midterms. Am I making sense here? -Eli
I do see the angle that you’re coming from here, but the point of this article isn’t to discuss the merits of representation, nor is it to say that Dems are mean and exclusionary in 2020. The point is that they are being hypocritical when they try to claim that they are for female representation, but then attack women in power who don’t conform to their belief system. I’m not analyzing what they should’ve done in the past or what they should do today, but rather pointing out what they did do in the past vs. what they are doing today.
You say that she’s qualified, yet she can’t even remember the full first amendment? Leftists won’t support her because she is openly against gay marriage. The fact that she is female is completely irrelevant. Her gender does not automatically incline democrats to support her.
Literally eat my boobs this makes me want to drive off a bridge. Literally eat my boobs this makes me want to drive off a bridge. Literally eat my boobs this makes me want to drive off a bridge. Literally eat my boobs this makes me want to drive off a bridge. Literally eat my boobs this makes me want to drive off a bridge. Literally eat my boobs this makes me want to drive off a bridge.
hELLO Lil Huddi,. I have not eaten a boob before… I do dirnk milk every day though…one glass a day provides good calcium and vitamin D…and of course milk comes from the boobs of cows! Ha! Also I encourage you not to drive off a bridge…you have much to live for…smart kids at U of C like yourself are smart and capable and you can do anything…if you put your mind to it. Frank
That was a well-written article, but I believe that you might be missing the point. Democrats do not support ACB due to her beliefs. This has nothing to do with gender. Democrats dislike her due to her past. She served on a school board that openly went against LGBTQ+ rights. She is also openly against women’s reproductive rights, which is difficult to understand because she would be taking away her own rights. The fact that she is a woman has nothing to do with this issue. Man, woman, or other, the democratic party would not have supported her. The fact that she is a woman is a great stride in the inclusivity of all genders in the federal court system, but that does not compare to her far right-leaning opinions. It is also extremely concerning that she a representative of our government and cannot remember the first amendment.