Charlotte Allen has already blogged on the war on Ivanka Trump ("Feminism Today: Hey, Let's Destroy Another Woman's Business"). D. C. McAllister pursues the idea with a piece in The Federalist entitled "The Claws out for Ivanka Trump Show Liberal Love for Women Is a Sham."

McAllister addresses the various double standards in play when it comes to the feminist attacks on Ivanka Trump. For example, when Ivanka tweeted a picture of herself taking a phone call in the White House "with my personal assistant Theodore (a baby)," she was accused of "making a mockery" of working women who did not have "additional careers."

A liberal celebrity or politician, McAllister argues, would be praised for a similar tweet. She adds:

The same goes for all the stores that are pulling or downplaying her clothing line—Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, T.J. Maxx, and Marshalls. Ivanka was shocked, of course. Why would they boycott her clothing line just because of her dad’s politics? Aren’t women supposed to be treated independently, separate from their male relatives?

Isn’t this what we were told repeatedly about Hillary Clinton? It didn’t matter what Bill did. Hillary was her own woman. She didn’t have to answer for her husband’s shortcomings and immoral behavior, particularly toward women. Yet this is what we get about Ivanka: “While she is not her dad, she is complicit in his actions, especially considering her husband is her dad’s advisor.”

Complicit in his actions? Which illegal or immoral actions is she involved in, exactly? Unlike Hillary, who actually took active steps to silence her husband’s accusers of sexual assault and rape, Ivanka has done nothing even remotely similar. She has supported her dad’s candidacy, and she continues to support him, but she is not actively “complicit” in anything. Women are independent of men, right?

I don't know the ins and outs of merchandizing, but I agree with McAllister that this cheap behavior is going to backfire:

It’s this kind of hypocrisy from the Left that got Donald Trump elected. People are tired of it. They see behind the veil where petty, insecure people are pulling the levers. This is especially true of the feminist movement: Madonna, Ashley Judd, Scarlett Johannsson, Sarah Silverman, and all the rest of the liberal celebrities who are in meltdown mode right now are being exposed for the frauds they are.

Just like the organizers who refused to let pro-life women participate in the Woman’s March, and the conga line of liberal elites who bash conservative female pundits and politicians as if they’re Sarah Palin beating a halibut, women who attack Ivanka are backstabbing harpies. That’s all. They’re not principled. They don’t care about women’s rights. They don’t care about the dignity of all women. They care about one thing—their own egos, which are wrapped up in their liberal politics. They don’t care about you. They care about themselves.

Meanwhile, I have referred my overwrought liberal friends, who are having the vapors over President Trump's commenting on Nordstroms, to this American Thinker headline:

Which Is Better: A President Who Criticizes the Police or One Who Criticizes Nordstrom?