MSNBC’s Joan Walsh Doesn’t Understand the Power of Femininity…or High Fashion

In a recent appearance on MSNBC, Joan Walsh took Trump Derangement Syndrome to new heights when she complained to the host of MSNBC is Dying Live about Ivanka Trump momentarily sitting in for her father at the G20 Summit. Walsh- a feminist who who doesn’t think women should be judged or rated on their looks – was more offended by Ivanka Trump’s outfit than her seat-warming abilities, saying her “ornamental” dress represented “patriarchal, authoritarian societies” in which daughters are property.


“Right. With big bows on her sleeve. I mean, I don’t mean to sound sexist — it can be dangerous to comment on what women wear — but the fact that she sat in for her father in a dress that was so incredibly ornamental was such a contradiction in terms”, Walsh said. “And I think that what we see is that in patriarchal, authoritarian societies, daughters have great value — they are property. And the message that she is sending about her own value, about her place in the White House, and about the place of women in this administration, I think, are really frightening.”

One of Joan’s key concerns is bows.


An educated, accomplished, free American woman sat in for the President of the United States at one of the most important conferences in the world and she’s nothing more than decoration because she has bows on her dress?

Please imagine for one moment that it was Michelle Obama who momentarily sat in for her husband while conservatives pitched hissy fits of Election Night 2016 proportions. Would Walsh be talking at all about what Mrs. Obama was wearing? Walsh’s hatred for Trump runs so deep that she can’t even see the ridiculousness of her complaints.

One might legitimately take issue with an unelected, unofficial “aid” temporarily taking the seat of the President at a meeting of world leaders, but that anyone would think the bows on the sleeve of a dress would indicate anything about that decision or that person’s fitness as a human being is beyond stunning. Walsh was sure to preface her comments with “I don’t mean to sound sexist…” before going on to denigrate a woman for how she looked.

Is it not empowering to see a woman so valued as a member of the White House that she is trusted above her own brothers to represent her father’s affairs? Would Walsh feel differently if she knew Ivanka was actually a Democrat and only switched parties to vote for her father in the primaries?

Her entire statement is tragically ridiculous, but above all it is indicative of the real problem with the entire modern feminist movement in America. Walsh and modern feminists think “women’s equality” is about being able to do all the same things men do, to act the way men act without judgment or being accused of “penis-envy”. She misses the advantage of womanhood entirely.

The power in being women is precisely that we are not men. Our equality is an equality of purpose, not circumstance. Yes, our lives and thoughts and deeds are and should be every bit as valuable as a man’s. This is why the Bible so clearly states that God created “them, male and female together”. Neither one could function properly without the other…each one unique in their provisions to each other, but each one equally as important in creation.

When a woman goes into the boardroom (or takes a seat at the G20 summit) her advantages don’t lie in matching manly quality for manly quality. It is the “girlie stuff” that not only sets a woman apart from her male counterparts, but elevates her. Ask any man what he finds most intimidating about a woman and nine times out of ten he will say a confidence and beauty.

*By the way, a beautiful woman doesn’t have to look like a Victoria’s Secret model. Beauty is in how a woman cares for and presents herself, not the actual physical qualities. Beauty is a package, not a dress size.

I can only assume that Walsh’s comments mean she thinks that the opposite of “girlie” is the only legitimate look for a powerful woman. So…masculine? Non-girlie? Frumpy? Ironically, Walsh doesn’t see at all how her point of view sets back women and feminism. In her view, a woman shouldn’t dress to attract attention when dealing with men in professional settings (I’m sure she could find a few Imams who share her views in this case). However, eschewing the physical aspect of our interactions with men puts us at a distinct disadvantage. We can never “out-man” a man. If we try to relate to men using the standards of masculine interaction we will lose that game every time.

Indeed, this is a man’s world but God’s gift to us to navigate that world is our feminine instinct (often called women’s intuition) and our physicality.  These are things men don’t have. Instead of muting those qualities we should be leveraging them. The “feminine mystique” has confounded and subdued men since the beginning of time. Why wouldn’t an ambitious woman want to take full advantage of the confusion their confident presence can create in men?

Instead, Joan thinks we should all just be the Muszak version of our male counterparts.

There is also a special irony in the fact that Walsh has criticism for Ivanka’s killer fashion sense but then expresses shock and outrage at the discover that the House of Representatives has “no-sleeves” rule for women.

Were we dealing with anyone but Trump, Walsh would be singing the praises of a president who trusted his daughter to run his affairs above anyone else around him. She would be hailing the President as a champion of women’s empowerment.

But this is 2017 and this is MSNBC and this is Joan Walsh and why let common sense get in the way of a good rage boner?

Women’s March Covered 3.4 Times More Than March for Life

The 2017 Pro-Choice, Anti-Gender Norms, Pro-Illegal Immigration, Anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington was covered 3.4 times more than the 2017 March for Life.

Is anyone surprised?

The numbers are in. Among the three major broadcast news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), the Women’s March was given one hour, 15 minutes and 18 seconds – and the March for Life was only given 21 minutes and 52 seconds.

It’s worth noting that these three networks significantly increased their coverage of the March for Life from last year – 21 minute and 52 seconds compared to 35 seconds in 2016. This year, all three networks covered the event, whereas last year only ABC even mentioned the March for Life.

What’s the reason for the increased coverage? We can’t say for sure, but many are speculating that President Trump’s interview with ABC’s David Muir may have had something to do with it. In the interview, when asked about the Women’s March on Washington, President Trump emphasize the then upcoming March for Life, saying:

“And I will say this, and I didn’t realize this, but I was told you will have a very large crowd of people — I don’t know as large or larger, some people said it will be larger — pro-life people, and they say the press doesn’t cover them.”

March for Life President Jeanne Mancini addressed the issue of numbers in her remarks at the March for Life, emphasizing that the number she’s focused on isn’t that of attendees.

“People keep asking me about our numbers for the March for Life. Well, it is hard to add up how many have come here over the last 44 years, but that really isn’t the point. The only number I care about, and the only number that we all care about is – 58 million. Since 1973, 58 million Americans have died as a result of abortion. We stand here today for them – for the little innocent children who have lost their lives to abortion. We also stand here for the mothers who regret their abortion decision.”

While it’s easy for us to get discouraged by media coverage comparison, Mancini’s comments put things into perspective – 58 million lives. That’s a number that puts them all to shame.