Recent polling shows Gavin Newsom in the number one, two, or three spot for likely Democrat candidate in the 2028 presidential election. So, it’s not surprising that the public is scrutinizing his equally pretty marriage partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and many Republicans are not too keen on what they’re hearing from her.
Here is some of the chauvinistic, feminist tripe Americans may have to listen to for four to eight years if Pretty Boy Newsom is elected.
In July 2021 in an interview with The Guardian, Ms. Newsom made the following astonishing claim:
Look at tech in Silicon Valley. Had more women been early on in those companies or at the tables of power making decisions, I don’t think we would have so much or allowed for so much racism, bigotry, misogyny, and hate online.
For someone who claims her life’s work is “deconstructing gender” and the “limiting narratives” that harm children, that’s a remarkably bigoted—even misandric and hateful—claim about men.
Since Ms. Newsom clearly holds a dim view of maleness, she uses her own children’s story and play times to inculcate them with socially constructed feminist theory:
I’ve given our boys dolls … to learn that care and caregiving is not just an activity that’s reserved for women. What I’ve done with both my daughters and my sons is if I’m reading a book and the protagonist is a male, I change the “he” to a “she.” It just normalizes for my sons in particular … that women can be the center of the story.
So, bowdlerizing and censoring in the service of the all-important leftist goal of deconstructing gender are the tactics Ms.—or is it Mx.—Newsom employs.
In order to deconstruct those troubling gender narratives, does she change the “shes” to “hes” to ensure that her sons know they too can be the center of stories about vulnerable princesses who are thankful to be saved by brave princes? Does she want her boys to know they too can be Cinderella? After all, shouldn’t weak, fearful boys see themselves represented in stories?
Others—especially conservatives—believe it’s a good thing to encourage boys to see themselves as protectors of those who are weaker and more vulnerable. Conservatives view it as a virtue to cultivate manly traits in all boys, especially in those who may be more fearful, weaker, and less confident.
Most men learn that caregiving is a role and responsibility of both women and men as they grow up observing mothers and fathers doing maternal and paternal things. Boys don’t need Barbie dolls to learn that fathers care for their children.
Ms. Newsom sees everything through the distorted lens feminism has sold to America. The omniscient Ms. Newsom knows precisely why Trump fired Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem:
Conservative women that Trump handpicks, that align themselves with an agenda that controls women, restricting our rights, limiting our autonomy, and pushing us back into the straitjacket of femininity that is only in service of men. … Women are brought in, packaged Mar-a-Lago-style and lifted up as long as they committed wholeheartedly to serving the interest of the patriarchy at the top. Now it looks like power or proximity to power with a big title, but it never comes with job security or protection. There’s no secure place inside this handpicked patriarchal body that systemically disrespects, devalues, and discriminates women and girls regardless of your political affiliation, you might want to wake up and see this for what it truly is. It’s a war on all women.
That is one wild statement, jampacked with assumptions and dumb ideas.
First, every president handpicks people to serve in his administration that align themselves with his agenda.
Second, neither the Trump administration nor any conservative agenda seeks to control women, restrict women’s rights, limit women’s autonomy, or push women into a straitjacket of femininity only in service of men (whatever the heck that means).
I assume the perfectly coiffed Ms. Newsom is primarily alluding to conservative opposition to legalized feticide, in which case there are two competing rights: the “right” of the mother to control her reproduction and the right of another human simply to exist—to be protected from slaughter. In the case of competing rights, the right to exist is a right of a higher moral order.
Third, Ms. Newsom can’t be ignorant enough to think that the firing of a woman constitutes a “war” on her or, even more absurdly, a “war on all women.”
And surely Ms. Newsom, whose husband seeks to be president, is not arguing that presidential appointments should be protected from being fired simply because they are women.
Ms. Newsom and I seem to have grown up and raised our children in entirely different worlds. I too have four children including a son and never once did either my husband or I suggest anything like what Ms. Newsom claims about raising boys:
We’ve been socializing our boys to believe their value lies in power, dominance, control, and aggression at the expense of empathy, care, and collaboration. We’ve literally said, “Boys, your value is economic dominance, financial success, sexual prowess and athletic achievement.”
I’m not sure if she knows what “literally” means. Can she identify a single parent who has literally said to his or her son, “your value is economic dominance, financial success, sexual prowess, and athletic achievement”?
Her statement sounds like a stereotype socially constructed by leftists in an academic laboratory.
Ms. Newsom sees her work as “deconstructing gender” and “deconstructing limiting narratives” about what it means to be a girl or boy. Curiously, Ms. Newsom, a triple sport varsity athlete in high school who was recruited by Stanford to play D-I soccer, has made zero public statements about the sexual integration of girls’ and women’s sports. In fact, word on the street is that she’s not a fan of boys in girls’ sports. So, why the silence?
But, deconstructing gender is not Ms. Newsom’s only cause. She also identifies with juvenile offenders in San Quentin prison because of the death of her sister in a golf cart accident:
I told them [the prisoners] about my own loss. I lost my older sister a few days before my seventh birthday. … I shared that because they [the prisoners] ultimately were accused of committing these violent crimes and sentenced for life. And I think it shocked them that this, you know, blonde lady who was, you know, interviewing them had a similar story. I was perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time but wasn’t punished the way they were because clearly it was an accident, but theirs was probably an accident too.
Whoomp, there it is—her omniscience again. She just knows that juvenile offenders in San Quentin were imprisoned because of an accident. Definitely not a crime. And this narcissistic blonde lady has a similar story.
Her hubby is just like blacks because he “can’t read,” and she’s just like San Quentin prisoners because when she was six, the golf cart she was riding in accidentally drove over her eight-year-old sister. They’re just alike the same.
The logical implication of her identification with those prisoners is that they too should be “punished” as she was. In other words, the Newsoms have no plans to make America safer.
Let’s not forget that Jennifer Siebel Newsom attended the infamous gathering of a dozen happy-go-lucky revelers to celebrate the 50th birthday of one of the Newsoms’ wealthy lobbyist pals on November 6, 2020, smack dab in the middle of the COVID lockdown. The party was held at the chichi French Laundry, one of the most expensive restaurants in the country. While the elderly were dying alone in hospitals; children were locked out of schools, beaches, and parks; and small businesses were permanently shuttered, Jennifer and Gavin partied like the pampered, privileged elitists they are.
I guess leftists don’t really think wealthy, white heterosexuals are noxious oppressors after all.
Let’s hope that neither Newsom sees the inside of the White House Private Residence.