I knew the moment I saw Dan Rather’s warmed-over take that the narrative in the event of a Pence debate win would be because of sexism.

If the Marxist Brain Trust is to be believed, uber-empowered Senator Kamala Harris, whose emotionality is that of a delicate flower, was single-handedly winning the vice-presidential debate before her inner, feminine light was snuffed out by a big bad man’s mansplaining.

The big bad man in question is Vice-President Mike Pence, the human form of grace coupled with vanilla bean, a man whose biggest faults are apparently his happy marriage and his devotion to Jesus. Politico tried setting it up before the debate:

And immediately after the debate:

This one is just … wow.

(Harris literally spoke exactly as long as Pence did — although some say she received two minutes more in time.)

The mansplaining garbage is due to Harris losing for no other reason other than Kamala Harris wasn’t a better debater or more knowledgeable on the issues last night than her opponent, period. Democrats know this, but they have to explain it in a way that doesn’t give voters the idea that her power, thus authority, is diminished. The irony is that their chosen narrative inadvertently undermines her anyway. The success of an empowered woman isn’t dependent upon the behavior of her male opponent. I seriously doubt that Kamala Harris actually believes her loss is because of sexism — this is a woman who was AG of California and came up in the good ol’ boys club of the DNC, you don’t get this far in politics on the power of victimhood. Victimhood as a power fuel burns bright but at a notoriously high rate and as such, doesn’t last long. Harris is strategic, so she won’t dispel this narrative because if it works to her advantage then so much the better. Harris doesn’t need paternal head-patting and more irony — the idea that something as ridiculous as this caused her to lose a debate is the actual sexist charge because it relies on the idea that Harris is of weak character.

Earlier on my radio program I spoke with Megyn Kelly about this:

Disagreement isn’t persecution. A man doesn’t commit a sexist act by disagreeing with a woman. Incorrectly and maliciously casting polite disagreement as sexist persecution shows the weakness only of the person making the charge. Truly empowered women are empowered because we know where we made our mistakes, our missteps, and we right our approach to not make them again. We learn from and grown from these experiences rather than use them as excuses for not meeting a higher standard of performance. The sexist is the one who uses these disadvantages not as learning tools, but as obstacles to keep women at a lower level of either performance or behavior while demanding that the world meet her at her level because she isn’t strong enough to ascend to anything better. It’s an emotionally abusive concept and it’s even worse when it’s used as a tactic by women themselves — and it is, it describes the entire industry of third wave feminism; it’s nothing more than a tactic for the racket, all about control and subjugation to party line rather than promoting freedom of decision for free women.

Speaking of these progressive men, where are these men when Second Amendment-supporting women are called “gun whores” by other progressive men? If you want to soft through a treasure trove of sexism, just look at the Twitter mentions of any pro-2A woman. This narrative is disingenuous not only because the charge simply isn’t true, but their concern for equality is situational.

ADDING: Great point made here: