The New York Times is not taking the Kavanaugh confirmation very well.

The paper has recently followed its left-wing audience down the rabbit hole of intersectionality, filling it opinion pages with emotional discourses on “white privilege,” race, gender and related topics of interest to left-wing “social justice” activists that the paper is loath to get on the wrong side of.

But the dig may have hit bottom in an opinion piece by feminist Alexis Grenell keyed to Kavanaugh's successful confirmation, “White Women, Come Get Your People -- They will defend their privilege to the death.”

So over the top it approaches parody, it’s a proudly, elaborately horrific rant that received the imprimatur of the radicalized opinion section of the Times, a screed so feminist that it holds in contempt most of the women it mentions.

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.

Fiction is now reality:

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series The Handmaid’s Tale. They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out. .... These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday.

Who are these “gender traitors”? You guessed it:

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. Since 1952, white women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.

In 1996 they voted for that famous respecter of women, Bill Clinton.

.... white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D. Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights. .... The pedestal is a superior, if precarious, place. For white women, it’s apparently better than being “stronger together,” with the 94 percent of black women and 86 percent of Latinas who voted for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton stood by her man and helped smear his victims, all to maintain his (and her) political viability. “Stronger together”?

During the 2016 presidential election, did white women really vote with their whiteness in mind? Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., recently measured the effect of racial identity on white women’s willingness to support Trump in 2016 and found a positive and statistically significant relationship. So white women who voted for him did so to prop up their whiteness.

The evidence cited from that study is weak.

In the study, white women who agreed that “many women interpret innocent remarks or acts as sexist” were 17 percent more likely to vote for a Republican candidate. They were also likely to agree that “blacks should work their way up without special favors.”....

Sen. Susan Collins’ learned speech on constitutional issues cut no ice with Grenell, who was still nurturing her anti-intellectual “rage headache.”