It appears “feminists” are choosy when it comes to the type of woman they decide to rally behind and defend. Then again, it’s when it comes to the view of Heather Schwedel and her Slate post “When Melania Trump Is Thanking You for “Support[ing] Women,” Something Is Very Wrong.”
A little backstory. Last week, The New York Times scolded one of their reporters for calling First Lady Melania Trump a “hooker.”
The reporter was later named as Jacob Bernstein, son of famed journalist Carl Bernstein, and he made the comment sitting beside supermodel and actress Emily Ratajkowski while at a fashion show. Ratajkowski did not appear amused and made the reporter’s remarks known by posting a series of tweets. In one tweet, she called the “gender-specific” comment “disgusting sexist bull---t.”
Ratajkowski’s tweets set off so-called “feminists” because she actually stood up for the First Lady. Although they say they fight and stand for women and equal rights, these feminists do not come to the aide of ALL women, certainly not women who happen to be conservative, Republican, or pro-life.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly why Ratajkowski was feeling the wrath of these “feminists,” because she happens to be the wrong kind of feminist. Apparently, Ratajkowski believes in equal rights for ALL women — not just ones who happen to be liberal.
In her post, Ms. Schwedel downplays the reporter’s “hooker” comment, thought Ratajkowski should stop trying to “educate” her on feminism, and should instead focus on President Trump’s policies that somehow threaten women’s rights:
So there you go: Don’t call anyone a hooker in the presence of Emily Ratajkowski, because she is not here for that. While protesting slut-shaming is a valid stance, if this seems like an annoying nontroversy, well, that might be an even more a valid stance. It’s not funny or amusing that a reporter saw fit to throw around the word hooker, but it’s also not clear that calling it out was the best use of Ratajkowski’s energies or platform. Much has been written about the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in pearls that is Melania, and while it’s hard to say how much she should be held accountable for her husband’s politics (which she has at times upheld and other times seemed to distance herself from), I think we can all agree not to call her a hooker without patting ourselves on the back for it.
It’s not that she’s wrong, it’s more like … stop trying to educate me about feminism, @emrata. When defending Melania, why not also point out how much her husband’s administration’s policies stand to hurt women’s rights and safety? It’s for these same reasons that Melania’s thank-you message to Ratajkowski rings hollow. In addition to the fact that her husband has launched gender-specific attacks on women of the very nature Ratajkowski was criticizing, the notion of “support[ing] other women” just because we’re all in this together, ladies, is reductive and not a productive stance. What has Melania done to support real women who are not members of her family? If we really want to support women, we need less woke models speaking out on Twitter and more people actually taking action.
Typical liberal hypocrisy. Yet Schwedel gives Bernstein a slap on the wrist and takes a swing at a woman acting like a true feminist – standing up for another woman – no matter her political preference.
Ironically, Schwedel’s post was written under a column titled “What Women Really Think.”
That might be Ms. Schwedel’s view, but it showed the type of “feminism” she chooses to practice, but that’s definitely not what or how most women think. And thank goodness for that.