“She looks like the after–picture in a PSA about meth addiction.”

“She is such a —–.”

“The only reason they keep her in the White House is because she’s sleeping with the President.”

These are all insults I have heard hurled by Parker students against politicians. Specifically, against powerful female Republicans who have served in President Trump’s administration.

In a school known for its liberal leanings, there seems to be a widespread case of amnesia when it comes to defending conservative women from sexist criticism.

If these disparagements were directed at, say, former Democratic nominee for President of the United States Hillary Clinton, the outrage would be swift. But assailing ambitious, influential public servants with misogyny is allowed—and often encouraged—if the servants happen to swing right instead of left.  

This isn’t to say that women should be above judgement. In fact, it would be a step in the wrong direction to avoid evaluating female politicians, for doing so would imply that their work isn’t credible enough to be taken seriously. Rather, we need to stop attacking female politicians on either side of the political spectrum in derogatory, gendered ways.

Sexist attacks against female politicians are not new. They are a symptom of a patriarchal culture that regularly fails over fifty percent of our population. But the hypocrisy is especially poignant when liberals—who advocate for acceptance, deplore the president in all his misogynistic rhetoric, and march for women—reject their core values to fire cheap shots at the other side.

This phenomena, while illustrated frequently at a liberal school like Parker, is not isolated to our campus—selective outrage is indicative of a larger pattern of “subtle” sexism ingrained into the left.

To women on the receiving end of such treatment, it is anything but understated. However, it often lacks the aggressive, zealous ring of rhetoric from the right–giving liberals the opportunity to point fingers and deflect responsibility.

But liberals often fail to address the blind spots within their own constituency. Recall Harvey Weinstein, who made headlines after an investigation detailing the years of sexual abuse he inflicted precipitated a reckoning in Hollywood. Weinstein has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians over the last decade.

Recall Al Franken, the former Democratic senator of Minnesota who was accused of harassment by eight women—including Leeann Tweeden, a veteran who was groped by Franken while sleeping on a flight home from her USO tour while he posed for a picture.

While the majority of Parker students didn’t deny the wickedness of Franken’s conduct, I found that left-leaning students often characterized his behaviour as isolated, prefering to turn their attention to the likes of George H.W. Bush instead of Bill Clinton. In this same vein, laughing at the ugly, sexist rumors directed at Nikki Haley in “Fire and Fury” was okay—even though reviving gossip about Hillary Clinton’s marriage was not.

If you disagree with a female politician, it is absolutely your right to criticize her. Call out Hope Hicks for telling “white lies” to the president, challenge Kellyanne Conway for inventing massacres in Kentucky to support her agenda, or condemn Ivanka Trump’s inflated role in the White House.

But ideological disagreement is not a justification for the use of derogatory language.

Under the First Amendment, it is your right to use offensive words—just don’t pretend to support women if you’re unable to extend the same tolerance to those who disagree with you.