It has been quite enjoyable to see liberals and the mainstream media (one and the same) flail about in reaction to Carly Fiorina and her debate-winning performance on Wednesday night. Her gender doesn’t have bearing on whether conservatives like her so much as it’s her gender that makes liberals loathe her. Odd, I know. Remember though, women’s empowerment must contain important things like abortion rights and using gender as a crutch. When that is missing from a woman who is making her mark, liberals have a fit. If you need an example, look no further than their reaction to Carly.
On Wednesday night, Jake Tapper asked this (ridiculous) question to all the candidates:
“Earlier this year, the Treasury Department announced that a woman will appear on the $10 bill. What woman would you like to see on the $10 bill?”
Carly Fiorina answered:
“I wouldn’t change the $10 bill or the $20 bill. I think honestly it’s a gesture. I don’t think it helps to change our history. What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation. We are half the potential of this nation. And this nation will be better off when every woman has the opportunity to live the life she chooses.”
You could almost feel the Left’s collective heart stop for a few moments. After all, she’s a female. She’s the only one in the GOP candidate grab bag that is a female. She’s not using her gender card when she has the platform to do so? Well…no. She’s not. So Thursday’s reaction from some in the liberal media? Slate’s post of insistence: “Yes, Carly Fiorina, Women Are a Special-Interest Group”, The Washington Post’s article of disbelief: “So, why couldn’t the GOP candidates think of some good women for the $10 bill?”, and Huffington Post’s piece with a half-complimentary title: “Carly Fiorina Stood Up To Donald Trump, But She Isn’t Standing Up For Women’s Issues”.
They just can’t handle it.
The truth is, women are not a special-interest group. (But sure, if liberals want to play that game, we can also claim that men are a special-interest group. You know, equality and all.) The idea is very much a pat-on-the-head thing. The same goes for the absolutely non-essential idea of adding a woman to the $10 bill. Remember, the Treasury Department doesn’t even have a specific woman for the bill yet, just the general idea of us as a placeholder. So we should feel all empowered, or something. I don’t like those “gestures”, and neither does Carly Fiorina. They are meaningless, and only puff up the chests of those who introduce them. They’re meant as victories for “equality”, but are empty in a grandiose sort of way. I simply do not care at all, and asking the candidates that question was a very CNN thing to do. The purpose was to make the GOP candidates look less female-friendly to the audience, which it kind of accomplished. Carly Fiorina did not play into that hand, and since she’s a woman, this bothered the Left even more.
The author of the previously mentioned Slate article wondered:
Any potential U.S. president should have to answer to specific questions about the state of gender inequity in our country and how he or she would better it in office. It’s easy, at least in theory, to identify Parks or Susan B. Anthony as unobjectionable historical figures. It’s harder to address the diverse everyday experiences of women today.
Congratulations. We each have diverse everyday experiences. I fail to see how the experiences of women should automatically be pushed to the forefront over the experiences of men? And gender inequity? Sorry to disappoint, but no one who shall ever hold the Office of the President will be able to combat that, since it’s a naturally occurring thing.