Since November, the Left has waged a bitter battle against Betsy DeVos, President Trump's nominee for secretary of education, railing against her qualifications in a tense confirmation hearing and roasting her on late night television shows.

It is, of course, normal for the opposition party to question nominees who do not share their outlook on policy. But the attacks on DeVos have been different — sharper and more personal. In fact, the attacks have been so striking that if DeVos were the nominee of a Democratic president, the Left would almost certainly be crying sexism.

For instance, prefacing his question with the condescending assurance he didn't "mean to be rude," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., flatly asked DeVos during her confirmation hearing, "Do you think if you were not a multibillionaire, if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party, that you would be sitting here today?"

Sanders' assertion that DeVos' decades-long career in educational advocacy is entirely irrelevant, dwarfed by the magnitude of her family's bank account, would immediately be decried were it levied against a liberal woman.

But Sanders is not alone. This is arguably the Left's primary argument against the confirmation of DeVos. The very first line of the Democratic National Committee's call to action against her reads, "Donald Trump nominated Betsy DeVos who is unqualified to be Secretary of Education."

Regardless of party affiliation, it should at least be clear that DeVos dedicated her entire career to advocating for children and families, accomplishing a great deal towards her goals for reform, whether or not you agree with them.

The implication that she is nothing more than a wealthy layabout overlooks her accomplished career and is a perfect example of a trope the Left regularly defines as sexist.

When Sanders himself referred to Hillary Clinton as "unqualified" during the Democratic primary, ThinkProgress published an article claiming that he had "deployed a common attack used to undermine and overlook women in all walks of life."

Does this not apply to Betsy DeVos?

Consider the way in which three different male late night television hosts ruthlessly mocked an out of context soundbite of DeVos discussing guns in schools, laughing smugly at her implied stupidity. The clip itself was only made possible by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., cutting her off as she elaborated on an entirely valid point about the importance of deferring to state and local governments.

Powerful male television hosts cherry-picking a clip in which a male senator cut off a female presidential nominee, inviting the country to laugh at her supposed lack of intelligence? Let's be honest: this is a clearcut embodiment of the Left's definition of sexism.

Remember when Bernie Sanders interrupted Hillary Clinton in a debate last year? Liberal websites from Mic to Vox immediately pounced on his behavior. If it's sexist to interrupt women, it's not just sexist to interrupt liberal women.

What about the time the so-called "HRC Super Volunteers" released a list of sexist words and phrases used against Hillary Clinton? Among them was "out-of-touch," a descriptor that women's marchers are literally carrying on anti-DeVos signs at protests around the country.

If feminists genuinely cared about combatting what they see as patriarchal attacks on accomplished women, they would devote their energy to combatting the treatment of DeVos. Their silence is simply another indication that this is not the case.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.