Before the #MeToo movement went (badly) off the rails, it made some very valid — and long overdue — points about predatory male behavior: Our wives, sisters, and daughters shouldn’t be subjected to unwanted sexual advances in the workplace. There is something weird, gross, and unsettling when a 60-something CEO has an affair with his 19-year-old secretary.
But then, of course, #MeToo went too far — which wasn’t really its fault: Successful movements always go too far, because they push, push, push until the blowback is too great. At no point in the #MeToo movement did its leaders say, “Y’know, we’ve made a lot of progress, girls. Let’s take a break and have a White Claw.”
Nah: They kept going and going, searching for new XY dragons to slay.
Right until the public had enough and pushed back in the opposite direction.
That’s the root cause of the Pendulum Effect in PR: First, everything swings too far this way, then it swings too far that way.
But it very rarely resets exactly in the middle.
Hopefully, during each pendulum cycle, you’ve gained net ground. That’s the smartest way for political activists to play the game.
But if you’re not careful, the blowback can be so severe, you actually LOSE net ground.
That’s my theory of what happened to feminism during the Monica Lewinsky scandal: Had the feminists better managed their movement, the #MeToo uproar would’ve happened at least a decade earlier.
Because in their fervor to protect Bill Clinton, they discredited themselves.
Instead of acknowledging the obvious — that it’s not “just sex between consenting adults” when the married, 50-year-old president has an affair with an intern who’s barely old enough to buy a beer, and then coaches her to lie about it to federal investigators — the feminists defended Bill’s libido at every turn.
We were told to “grow up” and be more like those sophisticated Europeans who shrugged their shoulders at their leaders’ infidelities. None of the feminists decried the age gap or power disparity; they actually attacked conservatives who pointed them out, accusing us of “infantilizing” a grown woman’s sexual choices.
Time Magazine reporter Nina Burleigh spoke for a lot of feminists: “I’d be happy to give [Bill Clinton oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
(You go girl: Hooray for equality!)
After the Lewinsky-Clinton scandal came to a close, the feminists couldn’t exactly turn around and feign shock and indignation over Harvey Weinstein’s casting couch. They had burnt their political capital — along with their movement’s credibility — circling all their wagons (and all their mares) around Slick Willy.
It took a VERY long time for the feminist movement to recover. The president’s affair began in 1995, and the #MeToo movement didn’t explode ‘til 2015.
They spent nearly 20 years in the political wilderness!
Eventually, the pendulum swung back. It always does. And it always will.
But history has a nasty habit of repeating itself: Remarkably, the feminists are about to make the same mistake yet again!
This time, it’s not in defense of a Democrat’s libido. It’s in their cruel, sexist, absurdly chauvinistic attacks on a grieving widow.
Her name is Erika Kirk.
To most Americans, Erika is a beautiful, brave woman whose husband was stolen from her and her young children. Through it all, she’s tried her hardest to honor her husband’s legacy — reciting his story with teardrops rolling down her face.
There’s no rulebook for grief or sorrow. Everyone does it their own way.
Because grief is such a deeply personal journey. At first, it’s like being pinned beneath a landslide: It’s suffocating and overwhelming. There’s no sunlight or warmth to guide you; all you see is darkness.
But eventually, you dig yourself out — grain by grain, or handful by handful — because you don’t have a choice.
Especially if you have small children.
And through it all, you grieve. You grieve for unfinished dreams. You grieve for lost birthdays. You grieve for all that’s been torn from your heart. You grieve and grieve, and then you grieve some more.
Because love is immortal: It doesn’t end with death.
Grief, I’ve learned, is really just love. It’s all the love you want to give, but cannot. All that unspent love gathers up in the corners of your eyes, the lump in your throat, and in that hollow part of your chest. Grief is just love with no place to go.
—Jamie Anderson
The smartest, kindest (and most obvious) tactic for the radical left would’ve been to simply say, “We might not always agree with the political opinions of Erika Kirk or her late husband, but we’re so sorry for her loss and wish her family well.”
But they simply couldn’t resist the impulse to attack Erika Kirk — and not just her political beliefs, but her appearance, clothes, motives, and even her sexuality.
It’s clear and obvious sexism.
Still, the left-wing media hasn’t stopped attacking her. Consider the flood of headlines:
Slate: Why Do So Many People Seem to Think J.D. Vance Is About to Replace Usha Vance? Glad You Asked.
Salon: Why JD Vance and Erika Kirk’s hug made tongues wag
Ms. Magazine: The Return of the Tradwife Gospel
New Republic: Why the Hell Did JD Vance and Erika Hug Like That?
Irish Star: Erika Kirk branded ‘fake grieving widow grifter’ after latest appearance with JD Vance
The Economic Times: Did JD Vance and Erika Kirk date? Here’s what we know about the alleged affair and marriage speculation
Buzzfeed: “Hands In JD Vance’s Hair Huh”: Erika Krik’s Introduction of JD Vance Is Going Extremely Viral
The Mirror: JD Vance and Erika Kirk slammed for ‘disgusting and inappropriate’ embrace at Mississippi event
International Business Times: Erika Kirk Called ‘A Horrible Actress’; X Users Find Charlie Kirk’s Widow ‘Fake’
Bored Panda: Erika Kirk’s “Inappropriate” Hug With JD Vance And “Weird” Statement at Turning Point Event Goes Viral
Atlanta Black Star: ‘Happiest Widow I’ve Ever Seen’: Charlie Kirk’s Widow Goes Viral for Skin-Tight Leather Pants And Flirty Stage Moment with JD Vance
Just try to imagine how the mainstream media would react if a liberal influencer had been politically assassinated in broad daylight — and then conservatives mocked his widow’s clothes and predicted she’d “rebound” by sleeping with a married politician.
The outrage would go nuclear (and deservedly so).
But that’s EXACTLY what’s happening to Erika Kirk:
Joy Reid mocks Erika Kirk for wearing leather pants and predicts that JD Vance is going to leave Usha for a white woman because it's a "MAGA fairy tale."
— CJ Pearson (@Cjpearson) November 25, 2025
I can only imagine why MSNBC decided they could no longer tolerate giving this vile woman a show.pic.twitter.com/GYUF9EL94Q
Once again, all the good, committed feminists are on the wrong side of history. In their rush to play partisan politics, they’ve sold out the female victim.
Just like before.
It’s horrible mismanagement of their brand. They’re acting like brainless, superficial, sex-obsessed, gossip-mongering hypocrites.
In other words, they’re acting like bimbos.
And if they’re not careful, they’ll lose their movement for another 20 years.
One Last Thing: The Democrats are on the ropes, but make no mistake: The donkeys are still dangerous. We need your help to succeed!
As a PJ Media VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to our behind-the-paywall content, commentating privileges, and an ad-free experience. VIP Gold gets you the same level of “insider access” across our entire family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, and Bearing Arms). That means: More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING!
And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration.
Happy Holidays!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member