The Biden Administration has poised itself to stand out as the pro-minority, pro-women, and pro-economically challenged. Primary amongst their list of pro-female proofs is that of Vice President Kamala Harris. Not because of anything she’s done, mind you, just because she’s a woman.
They have pushed the American people into seeing an imagined sharp juxtaposition between the current administration and the previous one, and the news media has backed them every step of the way.
According to a glowing piece in The New York Times that can only be called reporting by the most imaginative, the paper doted on President Joe Biden for supporting the promotion of several female generals to four-star status, explaining in no uncertain terms that Biden had paid them special attention because of their gender.
“President Biden has nominated two female generals to elite, four-star commands, the Defense Department announced, months after their Pentagon bosses had agreed on their promotions but held them back out of fears that President Donald J. Trump would reject the officers because they were women,” the Times reported.
“The nominations of Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost of the Air Force to head the Transportation Command, which oversees the military’s sprawling global transportation network, and of Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson of the Army to head the Southern Command, which oversees military activities in Latin America, now advance to the Senate, where they are expected to be approved.”
While the paper had no end of praise for the current president and all manner of “girl power” type content, they were particularly light on details of why they believed that Trump (the first president in the history of the United States to have a winning campaign ran by a woman) wouldn’t appreciate their promotion.
“The unusual strategy to delay the officers’ promotions — intended to protect their accomplished careers — was devised last fall by Mark T. Esper, the defense secretary at the time, and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the Times authors stated.
“They both thought the two generals were exceptional officers deserving of the commands. But under Mr. Trump, they worried that any candidates other than white men for jobs mostly held by white men might run into resistance once their nominations reached the White House.”
The paper went on to highlight “fears” that if they “even broached the women’s names, Mr. Trump and some of his top aides would replace them with their own candidates before leaving office.”
“They were chosen because they were the best officers for the jobs, and I didn’t want their promotions derailed because someone in the Trump White House saw that I recommended them or thought D.O.D. was playing politics,” Mr. Esper reportedly said, referring to the Department of Defense.
“This was not the case,” Mr. Esper added. “They were the best qualified. We were doing the right thing.”
While the motivation of a promotion (or lack of promotion) or a hit piece of unfounded rhetoric about a president that isn’t in office anymore, and has no record of negatively addressing the women in question, the question before us is; is the Pentagon or the White House discriminating on the basis of sex?
Feminist icons spent decades trying to make sure they weren’t passed over, forgotten, or intentionally discriminated against because of gender. They asked for equality. That, however, seems to have morphed into dominance and anyone or anything that stands in the way of that dominance is branded as “anti-woman.”
So, in memory of International Women’s day, feminism and equality were trashed, and political points and sexual bias won out.
Congratulations liberals, you broke feminism.