New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is having a book published, and of course, the excerpts that will drive the most buzz were released first. In her book, Gillibrand alleges incidents of sexual harassment by male colleagues and at least one man identified as a “labor leader.”

Naturally, with such teases in front of them, the natural question everyone wanted to know was, “Who said those things to her?” Gillibrand has declined to name names so far, which has opened her to a fair amount of ridicule and criticism for promoting one thing but refusing to practice it herself.

If a woman as powerful as @SenGillibrand won't stand up to the predators in congress, how can we expect coeds to? @Cosmopolitan

— Hair (@SHannitysHair) August 29, 2014

We generally call that “hypocrisy,” and the feminist movement is full of it.

The mainstream liberal media outlets have rushed to defend Senator Gillibrand from having to name her alleged harassers, which means that they probably all have a “D” after their names or have good liberal cred. If any of these alleged harassers had an “R” after their names, the media would be drooling all over themselves to spread that name far and wide. But we have long known that Democrats get a pass when it comes to bad, harassing, and abusive behavior when it comes to women. See Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Bob Filner (who Nancy Pelosi suddenly forgot that she knew) for examples of Democrats behaving badly. And yes, Republicans behave badly, too. The media likes to expose them, though, instead of covering for them.

But none took the feminist flag further into Hypocrisyville than the always reliable Amanda Marcotte.

http://t.co/ZKBHDj8wu4 No, Gillibrand should not name her harassers. It would ruin her and accomplish nothing.

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) August 29, 2014

From her Slate article:

In the real world, when an anecdote shifts to an accusation, the accused immediately denies any wrongdoing and accuses his accuser of being crazy, slutty, or some combination thereof. And should she not be able to produce rock solid proof that the harassment happened, people will take sides and tempers will flare. The accused will likely get away with it, even if he’s totally guilty, and the accuser’s reputation will be seriously damaged. Gillibrand feels she can’t even accuse anonymous people without making excuses for them. Why on earth would she invite the pointless misery that would result from naming names?

Uh, because Gillibrand brought it up in a book that is clearly designed to promote her and her liberal feminist cred, that’s why. When you make these kind of passive aggressive accusations, cloaked within the guise of an anecdote, you kind of have to provide a little proof. Now, because we are talking presumably about Democrats and liberals, I believe Gillibrand’s story. However, I also believe this is the most cowardly way to go about raising your own profile, by throwing the equivalent of a Molotov cocktail and expecting no one to care who lit the fuse.

But if you happen to point any of that out to dear old Amanda, then you just want to call Senator Gillibrand a slut. No, really.

I’m now convinced that the reason Republicans are demanding Gillibrand name a harasser is so they can castigate her as a lying slut.

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) August 30, 2014

Poor Amanda. She built that straw man so nicely, spread the lighter fluid, and lit the fire, and no one admired the pretty flames.

@AmandaMarcotte Are you for real? Yes, when you make an allegation like that, the veracity matters. Where does slut enter the equation?

— Bill Zeiser (@BillZeiser) August 30, 2014

I fully expect that the next time a woman alleges some kind of harassing behavior in a Republican setting, Amanda will give it a pass because naming a name would “just invite the pointless misery that would result” from stepping forward. Even if it is THE TRUTH. What a fabulous message to send to women. Don’t bother naming names – it’s not worth it.

Sorry Gillibrand’s story ruined your narrative, Amanda. Thanks for giving us a reminder of what typical feminist hypocrisy looks like.