During the last election, when a member of the media would even mention in passing what Hillary Clinton was wearing, the outcry would be swift and sure: only women are judged by their appearance and its discriminatory to have that be a focus. Fair point.
Yet, it’s so interesting that all that changes when the woman being spoken of is not considered a liberal.
Such is the case in the first day of hearings on Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett is a law school professor and current Federal Judge, and is a judge whose record is one that defers to the legislature, meaning that she interprets laws and believes that laws are to be made my elected representatives, which is different than the philosophy of liberal jurists.
Since all bets are off when a woman doesn’t have the certain required beliefs, liberal columnist Alaina Demopoulo wrote a whole article about Justice Barrett’s dress-a whole article. She contrasted Barrett’s dress with the dresses of the Democratic Senators.
“Barrett’s dress made a statement. So did the Democratic women lawmakers at the hearing. Senators Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Mazie K. Hirono, and Amy Klobuchar all wore bright blue blazers, the color of their party.”
Barrett wore a pink dress.
“It was a pretty dress, maybe even stylish… Her outfit radiates a maternal warmth, an easy comfort. It masks the harm she has the potential to enable once confirmed against women, LGBTQ people, all of those with Obamacare, and victims of voter suppression.”
“The dress labored overtime to quell certain fears.”
You can get all that from a dress?!
But more importantly, how was dress linked to qualifications. What value did that lend to the discussion on whether Barrett has been a good Federal judge or would make a good justice for the Supreme Court? And if it was sexist to talk about Hillary Clinton’s appearance, why isn’t it sexist to focus on Amy Barrett’s appearance?
Well, frankly, we know the answer. Because the standards don’t apply when the woman involved isn’t a liberal. A woman who does not follow the pre-determined stereotype is to be opposed by any and all means. Even if it means doing the exact things you said you opposed….because the ends justify any means, apparently.