A lesson that gender is never, ever a qualification for any sort of job or position. We're always hearing feminists wanting women in positions of power and being promoted not because of their skills or talents but solely their gender, and they're always going on about how things would be better if more women were employed and in power. Well feminists got their wish with getting Amy Coney Barnett and it turns out she's ultra right-wing and while she may be a woman she certainly is no ally when it comes to equal rights. As usual feminists are throwing around their usual schtick by saying Barnett serves the "patriarchy" (feminists' favorite word to throw around when they want to blame something for their shortcomings and misgivings rather than take accountability), but truth of the matter is Barnett is just not a good person and this should be a wake-up call that gender is never a qualification for any position. Things like skills, talents, qualifications, job ability, etc. are what matter and yet feminists think gender is the sole qualification. You wanted a woman in a position of power solely based on gender? You got it and it turns out she's awful on women's rights. So much for more women, eh feminists? Of course they'll blame the "patriarchy" and other usual BS like "internalized misogyny" and never accept that women can also be terrible people.

I always believe the best people for specific jobs should be chosen based on qualifications and not gender. If a woman happens to be the best person for a certain job then great, but when you want it to be a woman based solely on that then it ceases being about equality and is nothing but pandering and tokenism. I would've rather had a good, qualified male in Barnett's position and a male who advocated for equal rights for all demographics, rather than a woman like Barnett.

Edit - For some reason I thought her name was Barnett but just now I saw it's actually Barrett, my bad. Oh well, well, name typos and misspellings aside my point still stands.