A Reminder about Iran and the Feminists

This is just to remind people that the same feminists who are in anguish over the potential loss of “reproductive rights” if Trump manages to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court have never seemed a bit bothered by the loss of those same rights for Iranian women when the current regime came along. They seem to be quite happy with that regime and with Obama’s disdain for those Iranians protesting against it. And another thing: the current regime fired all female judges shortly after they gained power, so if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been a judge there, she would have been fired along with all the others. Yet, I have never once heard any of our feminists complain about this.

Comments

[Charles N. Steele]

RBG was a Jewish female judge; in Iran that would be two negatives against her. I was thinking of making a joke about feminists trying to argue two negatives make a positive and denying RBG would have been fired but running into “math is white supremacy” arguments. But besides not being very funny, that’s deeper reasoning than I often see from educated leftists.

When Elena Kagan was nominated several highly educated leftists expressed joy to me that a Hispanic woman was nominated. I asked why this particularly mattered and they couldn’t give an answer beyond “first Hispanic woman.” They seemed perplexed when I asked about her judicial philosophy, as though they’d never thought of such a thing...which they hadn’t, as it turned out they’d never heard of her before.

[John Pepple]

And that seems to be their attitude to Muslim immigrants, too. They just want Muslim bodies here, never mind what their politics are. It seems insane to me, given that Muslim immigrants are unlikely to be very progressive.

[Charles N. Steele]

The apparent lack of thought shocks me. They seem unaware of things such as consequences, and take positions that seem quite contradictory and self-defeating. What’s strange isn’t error, it’s how resistant they seem to be to noticing and correcting.

[Charles N. Steele]

It’s not just the left that suffers this weird inability to notice possible consequences. Here’s a piece by Rich Lowry, a conservative never-Trumper, who thinks Democrats would not actually dare pack SCOTUS because the subsequent public outrage would mean huge Republican victories in future elections. No consideration that if Dems take Congress and Presidency and do this, they’re also planning many things that guarantee permanent Dem victories. My only question: is he insane or is he just gaslighting us?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0920/lowry092520.php3

[djf]

Mr. Steele, Elena Kagan is Jewish, not Hispanic. I think you have her confused with Sonia Sotomayor.

Also, Rich Lowry is a former Never Trumper. National Review has long since made its peace with Trump and has dropped almost all of its writers who continue to wave the Never Trump banner (the clueless Jay Nordlinger is the only one left, I believe).

[Charles N. Steele]

Yes, I definitely meant Justice Sotomayor, not Kagan. Thanks, djf.

Whether Lowry has decided he can stomach Trump as president isn’t the point - my point is that these beltway conservatives are clueless. Lowry has even noted elsewhere that today’s left is totalitarian.

But I suppose there’s a third alternative to my “insane or gaslighting” explanations. He has to fill copy with something, and writing something is more important than being right in his business.