Feminist Cheering for Kamala the Opposite of Empowering

 

Across my personal social media yesterday, I saw friends cheering the swearing of Kamala Harris as Vice President with their daughters, explaining that their daughters finally felt that they could achieve one of the highest offices in the land. Here’s my question about this narrative:

Why did they think that in the first place?

When we read books about the achievements of women, I make a concerted effort to make clear that while there were once limits on what women could achieve in the past but women overcame those limitations as best they could (i.e. a girl in a book we were reading about the 1800s could not become a veterinarian, but she still became a world-famous entomologist). Reading about the present day, we absolutely do not read children’s literature that reinforces a false victimhood narrative about what women can accomplish today. That is, unfortunately, a theme across children’s literature featuring girls and young women.

Four years ago, a woman ran for President. She lost not because she was a woman, but because she was a uniquely inferior candidate. Telling girls that they are unsuccessful because of their reproductive organs instead of the truth only handicaps them. This time around, a woman ran as Vice President and benefited greatly from being a woman: she was invited to join Joe Biden because she was a woman, not despite. Being a woman was an asset to Kamala Harris’s political career. Biden and Harris won not because Harris was a woman or despite that fact, but on their merits. Just like Donald Trump and Mike Pence did four years ago.

If we want our girls to grow up thinking they can do anything in the future, we need to stop telling them that they were ever handicapped in the first place.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Percival (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    There is less of a biological difference between races than there is between sexes, so you have science on your side.

    So true. I think it is easily seen in the differences between men and women in sports.

    There are very few sports where men and women can compete equally. I used to fence, and that was one sport where the sexes competed equally, at least at the lower levels. I fenced sabre, and there were women better than I was and women not as good as I was.

    There’s something about a woman whipping you with a sword . . . (sigh) . . . I miss it . . .

    Usually you have to pay extra for that.

    Worth it . . .

    • #31
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    It occurs to me that this same point could be easily turned to “Black Cheering for Kamala [is] the Opposite of Empowering.”

    • #32
  3. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Stad (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Actually the only qualifications Biden demanded in his Vice-Presidential pick was that she be a Black Woman. H

    Partly black woman.

    The left claims Black status or Native American Indian status when the DNA is a minimum of 1/256th Black or Indian. I think this covers about 80% of the country.

     

    Wasn’t there some other government that used to determine race by % blood? Hmmmm . . .

    The U.S. government still uses blood percentages to determine who qualifies as a Native American or not a Native American for some tribes. Given the Federal Government’s treatment of Native American tribes, it makes me more hesitant to use government to determine race and not less.

    Well, I believe it was the New York Times that had no problem identifying George Zimmerman a “white Hispanic”. I guess we’re now allowed to define our own race if we can define our own sex . . .

    Maybe everyone should list their race as black. 

    • #33
  4. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    TBA (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Actually the only qualifications Biden demanded in his Vice-Presidential pick was that she be a Black Woman. H

    Partly black woman.

    The left claims Black status or Native American Indian status when the DNA is a minimum of 1/256th Black or Indian. I think this covers about 80% of the country.

     

    Wasn’t there some other government that used to determine race by % blood? Hmmmm . . .

    The U.S. government still uses blood percentages to determine who qualifies as a Native American or not a Native American for some tribes. Given the Federal Government’s treatment of Native American tribes, it makes me more hesitant to use government to determine race and not less.

    Well, I believe it was the New York Times that had no problem identifying George Zimmerman a “white Hispanic”. I guess we’re now allowed to define our own race if we can define our own sex . . .

    Maybe everyone should list their race as black.

    Welcome to da hood, ma Brutha!!

    • #34
  5. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Kamala Harris will forever be known as the affirmative action vice-president. 

    This is the sad pinnacle we have reached. 

     

    • #35
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    Kamala Harris will forever be known as the affirmative action vice-president.

    This is the sad pinnacle we have reached.

     

    But if she ends up being president, she will only be the second affirmative-action president.

    • #36
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.