Since Joe Biden's inauguration, I have seen many self-proclaimed "feminists" jumping for joy over his Vice President pick being a female, and better yet, one that's a minority. I can understand why this would call for celebration, but let's not pretend we're unaware of the real reason behind Biden's selection.
For a party that continuously preaches that our politicians are all a bunch of “old, white men,” they didn't try very hard to avoid pushing forth people who fall into that category this last election cycle. In Biden's case, Kamala Harris was the bonus that made Biden a marketable candidate to all of the people who were tired of "old, white men." They may have been “settling for Biden,” but that was an easier choice for them if it helped elect the first female, non-white Vice President.
The Vice President selection had zero to do with merit. Merit didn't matter to Biden or the Democratic Party puppet masters behind the curtain when it came to finding a Vice President that could make it possible for Joe Biden to defeat Donald Trump. That is the sole reason Harris was selected. I'm puzzled as to why so few feminists haven't caught on to such a glaringly apparent political stunt. Perhaps it doesn't matter to them how certain women have gotten into the position they're in, so long as they're there.
I, on the other hand, view Biden's obligatory VP selection as disingenuous and shallow. He chose Harris because he had to. There are few things I find more degrading to a person than being at the receiving end of this sort of treatment. To be placed in a role due to how many victim groups you belong to rather than work ethics and your accomplishments is in no way empowering, even if it's an honorable role.
Kamala Harris for VP is affirmative action at the highest level. When will the day come that women and minorities no longer have to suspect that mere obligation is why they've probably moved up in the world? But instead were hired based on education, skills, training, etc.? When will we stop putting gender, race, sexuality, and other labels above merit?
We should not be hiring or electing people based on gender or race. Neither has anything to do with an individual's ability to be a good leader. Virtue signaling based decision-making is how we get ourselves incompetent leadership, of which there are abundant examples in this country. The great irony of feminists pushing so hard for women to be in influential roles is that they suddenly have an issue with that if the woman in question has views that differ from theirs, no matter how impressive her track record is.
Just look at how feminists treated Amy Coney Barrett when Trump selected her for the Supreme Court. So much for uplifting and empowering women, right? While they bashed her incessantly, they simultaneously praised Cardi B for her contribution of “WAP” to society. That leads to my second argument as to why “Kamala Harris is not a win for women.” Much of Kamala Harris's political success can be attributed to her willingness to appease Willie Brown's desires.
Willie Lewis Brown Jr. ( Willie Brown ) served as San Francisco's mayor from 1994-2004. I don't find it necessary to venture into the more explicit details of what I mean by “appease,” as it is common knowledge at this point that Harris and Brown had an affair in the early 90s. Brown was still legally married to his estranged wife, and he was 30 years Harris's senior. Their relationship, which ended in 1995, was not a secret. Harris became the district attorney of San Francisco in 2003. Although Brown and Harris had split up by that time, there were speculations that Brown had helped Harris accelerate in her career through his influence and connections.
Embarking on a political career after essentially being a mistress to a married politician is at the very least questionable. Feminists celebrating Harris's ascent to the country's second-highest office have yet to bat an eyelash over this. Although feminists are aware of her personal history, they don't seem to care. As we have learned from their praise of morally corrupt women such as the previously mentioned Cardi B, sexual promiscuity is acceptable and “empowering.”
The hypocrisy and backward nature of modern-day, first-world feminism is a topic I believe I could write an entire novel on. There is no shortage of material to cover.
Getting back to my point, though, Kamala Harris is not a good role model for young women. What does her climb up the political ladder teach young girls? That having a relationship with a much older married man is acceptable if you are doing so to advance your career? Or perhaps it teaches women and people of color that their success is based on shallow obligations for the sake of other people trying to keep a good reputation through virtue signaling and political correctness?
If these teachings are what we choose to instill in young women, they will neither feel empowered nor find healthy ways to empower themselves. Benefiting from having an affair and affirmative action is not the answer. These are not key elements to a woman's success in the world.
Is Kamala Harris the image of a successful woman that we want to paint for our daughters?
Help to Keep Special Interests Out of Your News!
Red Liberty Media is a non-partisan multimedia news platform. We’re a growing start–up independent news source. We are not controlled by special interests groups and our work is mostly self-funded. Consider becoming a Red Liberty Media monthly contributor and support our work!
About the Author:
Erin Fitzgerald Adair is a political commentator known as @Always.Right on Instagram. She attended college for Political Science and History, formerly hosted a weekly podcast, and recently worked on a congressional campaign. Erin is a “Cav Kid” from Georgia who now splits her time between there and Florida. She is passionate about advocating for gun rights, free speech, and our constitutional liberties while speaking out against abortion, censorship, and cultural marxism.
Comments