I wrote yesterday about some “letters to the editor” the New York Times published in response to their ridiculous editorial advising the Democratic National Committee to appoint an “an unbiased, apolitical panel” to investigate Tara Reade’s sexual assault claims against their presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Included among them was one I wanted to share again because it’s become part of a broader, ugly strategy that is slowly but surely revealing itself among feminists and other staunch leftists when it comes to rationalizing their support for Biden.
Retired Dallas attorney Karen Wilson wrote that she was “a survivor of multiple #MeToo experiences over my 66 years, including a violent rape.” She claimed she “loathed hypocrisy” but that it was paramount to get Trump out of office this year, even if it meant voting for a deeply flawed candidate like Biden who might have violently forced himself on an unwilling woman.
“We cannot survive as a democratic society with Mr. Trump in office for four more years,” she stated. “The need to get him out of office overrules every scruple we may have. I will live with my hypocrisy and believe that tens of millions of Americans will feel the same.”
Attorney and retired philosophy/women’s studies professor Linda Hirshman went even further in an opinion piece she wrote for the Times today. Hirshman, a progressive feminist, wrote that she believed Tara Reade’s rape allegation against Joe Biden – but planned on voting for him anyway:
Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain.
All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal. Barring some miracle, it’s going to be Mr. Biden.
So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it. And don’t call me an amoral realist. Utilitarianism is not a moral abdication; it is a moral stance.
“Suck it up” probably wasn’t the best choice of words here for the esteemed, Ms. Hirshman, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone.
Sadly, Wilson and Hirshman aren’t the only liberal women willing to turn their backs on everything real feminists fought hard for decades ago. Blue-check feminist Kate Gardiner is another:
Self-important hotshot liberal feminist attorney Lisa Bloom made the same admission a few days ago, as my RedState colleague Nick Arama reported:
I believe you, Tara Reade.
You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.
We know he is "handsy."
You're not asking for $.
You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe.
But I believe you. And I'm sorry https://t.co/eMUBrkkVFE
— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) May 1, 2020
She even wrote a whole thread trying to justify her 180.
Quite frankly, I’m not sure which is worse for Democratic women. Admitting you believe Tara Reade but also acknowledging that you will pull the lever for her alleged rapist Joe Biden anyway, or employing one strategy for “believing all women” when it comes to Republicans who are accused, but flip-flopping on that strategy when you’re under consideration for a vice presidential nomination by a presumed Democratic presidential nominee who now stands accused.
Either way, it’s not a good look. Not at all. I think it’s safe to say at this point that so-called “feminists” and other Democratic women have more than done their part to help nuke what was left of the #BelieveAllWomen narrative, much like Biden himself has.