In this New York Times screed against Ivanka Trump, Lindy West blames her for not stopping everything the President has done that West opposes—which, of course, is just about everything.

Yet a big part of her fury focuses on Ivanka’s support of a move from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to rescind a pending regulation that would have required larger companies to report additional data related to their compensation practices. The Obama Administration had claimed these new reporting requirements would discourage discriminatory practices and reduce the wage gap.

Ms. Trump explained in a statement why she supported the Administration’s decision: “Ultimately, while I believe the intention was good and agree that pay transparency is important, the proposed policy would not yield the intended results.” West isn’t buying it and questions Ivanka’s commitment to helping women, in a most demeaning manner, writing:

Ivanka Trump… is more a logo than a person, a scarecrow stuffed with branding, an heiress-turned-model-turned-multimillionaire’s-wife playacting as an authority on the challenges facing working women so that she can sell more pastel sheath dresses.

West not only seems inappropriately vicious toward the first daughter, but she doesn’t bother to address the entirely legitimate reasons for why the EEOC rule was pulled. These onerous new paperwork requirements would not only have been costly to businesses, but they could actually backfire on women and result in less workplace flexibility. Here’s how the Independent Women’s Forum explained our concerns with the proposed rule in a letter to the EEOC:

. . . the EEO-1 report overlooks that general job flexibility (e.g., telework, predictable scheduling) is something highly valued by women. Many women, particularly those with children, are often willing to trade additional salary for a more customized work environment that suits their individual and family needs…. Employers will be less likely to accommodate requests for flexible or alternative work schedules or positions if they are concerned that government officials will be examining these data points and statistics without this important context, and passing judgment on their compensation practices.


West makes fun of Ivanka for being out of touch, but it’s West and too many other cheerleaders for regulations who seem unfamiliar with how managers and human resources departments actually operate, and how these requirements will work in practice.