Story highlights Peggy Drexler: Even if Ivanka has real influence over her father, it's clear from her recent interview that she never intended to use it, unless she was the beneficiary

Being a champion for one woman -- that is, yourself -- doesn't make you a champion for all women, Drexler writes

Peggy Drexler is the author of "Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers, and the Changing American Family" and "Raising Boys Without Men." The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.

(CNN) Since she first hit the political scene, stumping for her father, Ivanka Trump has been positioned as the would-be president's "conscience": the bright, reasonable, poised (and female) counter to his wild card, off-the-cuff, often openly misogynistic ways.

Her mere existence seemed to offer proof that much of what Trump said was bluster, for show and for effect. His admiration for her, a successful working woman who championed families, seemed a clear example that here was a man who, despite what he was saying, respected women, listened to them and would stand up for them.

Ivanka was proof that a man, who has had several unhinged moments, could not only surround himself with even-keeled people, but also could literally produce them. A giant jerk can't raise a daughter like that, can he? She made voters feel safe. And many of them fell for it.

But some nine months into the Trump presidency, Ivanka's power is waning, her voice almost a whisper , and it's easy to question whether she ever had any power or voice to begin with. In a new interview with the Financial Times , we learn that she swapped out the beige and mahogany that runs through the rest of the West Wing for an all-white office. Beyond that, what changes has she wrought?

In the lengthy interview with the paper, Ivanka makes an attempt to clarify her position and defend what many have viewed as a shirk of her responsibilities as White House adviser and first daughter. For one thing, she lets us know we can't very well expect her to stand up to her father in public. As she tells the FT: "To voice dissent publicly would mean I'm not part of the team. When you're part of a team, you're part of a team."

Read More