Cosmopolitan ran a hit piece today titled, “Ivanka Trump's White House Gig Is an Insult to Working Women.” Authored by former Sen. Ted Cruz speechwriter Amanda Carpenter, the piece bashes the first daughter’s new West Wing office position for “nepotism” and “giving off the air of an entitled princess.” Furthermore, Carpenter claims, another woman might easily be better at her job.

“By taking this role, Ivanka is taking away a life-changing opportunity from another woman, who undoubtedly would have more expertise than the first daughter,” she writes.

Carpenter’s piece is nothing short of sensational contempt for the president and his family members. It provides no real evidence as to what makes Ivanka less qualified for the White House role than any other woman; rather, it attempts to dismiss her solely because she is “privileged,” referencing her multimillion dollar businesses and her father’s connections. The author seems so eager to bash Trump’s daughter that she brands Ivanka as a snob for not accepting a monetary salary, then slams her for “taking advantage of taxpayer-funded resources” in the same article.

True, Ivanka is at an advantage for being offered a White House “gig” because she is the president’s daughter. But would another woman in her place have taken it? Let’s look at what other presidents’ daughters were doing while their fathers were in office:

Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti, who hated him, spent most of her time leading counter-activist efforts against her father’s administration and posing nude for Playboy as “Ronald Reagan’s Renegade Daughter.” Barack Obama’s daughter Malia was busy interning for radical feminist and child molester Lena Dunham. George W. Bush’s daughters Jenna and Barbara were both arrested for alcohol-related charges twice within five weeks. Bill Clinton’s daughter Chelsea was consistently coddled by parents who wanted to give her a “normal childhood,” even though she got to accompany her dad on his trips for fun and have him attend her sleepover parties with her friends. Talk about privilege.

Ivanka is already incredibly busy as a wife, a mother of three young children, and a successful businesswoman. This new White House position wouldn’t exactly be her daily spa trip. She practically had to uproot her family from her New York haven and move to a new city where the majority of people already hate her family to death. There seems to be no career benefit, either. The fashion line owner has explicitly stated she does not plan to run for political office.

As for charges of nepotism; there is no rational way to prove it exists, and it is silly to even try. It’s like saying Jews are only in the media business because other Jews got them there, or saying Indians are doctors only because other Indians are hiring them. People hire people they know and trust, and share mutual friends with. That is how all hiring processes work. Sure, familial connections are a big plus when trying to get your foot into the door, but they don’t guarantee that you’ll be good at your job. Trump obviously trusted his daughter can do a good job advising him, and sure, he probably trusts her more than a random woman off the street. Besides, it is highly unlike the self-loving Trump to knowingly jeopardize his administration by hiring someone he doesn't think is qualified.

Carpenter’s hit piece against Trump is weak. Understandably, it is flooded with underlying hatred for the man who libeled his opponent Ted Cruz during the Republican primaries last year by saying Cruz had an affair with her, a former staffer. But using “privilege” as a reason to bash Trump’s daughter goes against the entire conservative philosophy of virtue over victimhood, discrediting Carpenter as someone who is just pawning for liberal Cosmo readers instead of making an honest assessment of Ivanka's qualifications.