Neo-feminism abandoned the egalitarian mantle long ago. Instead, the moniker has devolved into a platform to espouse bitter insecurities, mainly through attacking successful, but “wrong-minded” women, and leading a crusade to rid the world of masculinity.

MSNBC Political Analyst and self-proclaimed feminist, Joan Walsh made that case better than I ever could. Wednesday, she criticized Ivanka Trump’s choice of dress during the G20 summit, calling the “girliness” of her pink frock a “frightening” message.

“That’s not a dress that’s made to go out in the world and make a difference. That is a dress that is designed to show off your girliness,” said Walsh.

Watch:

In her own words:

“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. 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.

…That’s not a dress that’s made for work. That’s not a dress that’s made to go out in the world and make a difference. That is a dress that is designed to show off your girliness, and, you know, God bless her, show it off, but don’t then tell us that you’re crusading for an equal place for women at the table because you’re not.

…You can be a feminist and be girlie. We all have our girlie days, but I think showing up, taking your father’s seat in a pink dress with big bows on the sleeves is really an interesting message.”

A pink dress as a “frightening” statement. Grow the eff up.

“But don’t then tell us that you’re crusading for an equal place for women at the table because you’re not,” said Walsh. I’m not sure how Walsh squares her unofficial feminist dress code with last week’s ridiculous accusations that a Congressional dress code forbidding sleeveless attire and open-toed shoes was inherently sexist.

So which is it? Should professional women be free to dress as they please or bound by dress codes, unofficial and otherwise? And if one dress code is sexist, how is the other not?

Relatedly, I’d love to read Walsh’s wardrobe critique of slut walk participants.

Walsh essentially argues that for Ivanka to be viewed as an equal, she must dress more masculine. Maybe Walsh briefly forgot she was supposed to be a feminist when she advised the only way to be taken seriously in a man’s world is to be more like men? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Women were told to support Hillary simply she was a woman, regardless of her qualifications or lack thereof. Now that the president has placed a woman in a position of responsibility, the same women have nothing better to contribute to the conversation other than “OMG, can you BELIEVE what she was WEARING?!”

Good job, feminism! Next time I want my wardrobe, success, or life choices criticized by pathetically petty, tacky, foolish women who pretend they represent equality, I know who to call.

Shockingly, Walsh didn’t appreciate Professor Jacobson’s take:

Hopefully, Ivanka learned her lesson and will keep her pink frocks for Wednesday’s only:

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye