Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, former first ladies and sisters in grief, have been unloading of late upon some of their gender, the women who voted for Trump against Clinton, and thus have let all women down.

"You don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like," Michelle scolded.

Clinton maintained that women had caved under pressure, from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and bosses, who told them never to vote for "the girl." Other feminists have said that they were racist in supporting white men over sisters "of color;" or opportunists in clinging to men who held power; or secret misogynists, haters of women, who had come to despise their own kind.

But the Guardian, the liberal British sheet that has supported the feminists, reported last week that women had seldom voted on gender, but voted instead on their perceived interests, as determined quite often by class. Unlike some groups which go in for bloc voting, "women...lack social identity bonds," and do not see themselves as a part of a movement. A feminist movement exists, but it's ideological, and too small in most places to swing an election.

"False assumptions that women will vote as a unified bloc go back to the earliest days," the piece noted. Indeed, what broke on November the 8th was not the non-existent "glass ceiling" but the myth that the feminist movement was a movement by and for women, which now has been shattered for good.

The surprise, in fact, is how long the myth lasted, as feminists themselves have both attacked other women, and defended men against women for years. They affected rage (and most likely felt it) at the Access Hollywood tapes, while they themselves supported Bill Clinton, who told Paula Jones "kiss it," assaulted Kathleen Willey inside of the White House, exploited an intern, and then had aides slander her, and was the subject of a rape accusation from Juanita Broaddrick that was wholly ignored by the left.

Clinton's book, "What Happened," has a section devoted to slights flung at herself (and at some of her fellow liberal Democrats) without a word on the torrents of sludge flung at Sarah Palin, her daughters, and her special-needs child, by Hillary's party, her friends, and her friends in the media. No women's rights activists ever saw fit to deplore those.

Hillary beamed when Madeleine Albright said that a "place in hell" is reserved for women who "don't back other women." This should apply to Gloria Steinem, who called Kay Bailey Hutchinson a ‘female impersonator, and also to Democrats who decline to back female Republicans, when they run against liberal men.

For years, feminists had spread the canard that abortion (or abortion rights, as they put it) was a central concern of almost all women, and women were wholly pro-choice. In real life, women's views are exactly as men's are, which means there are fairly small groups at each end of the spectrum.

Most people massed somewhere in the middle, in states of uneasy, ambivalence and doubt. In 2016, Democrats went all-in on the issue, which gained Mrs. Clinton nothing whatever. It may even have cost her, in small drop-offs in the vote among Catholics in the turned-out-to-be-critical upper Midwest.

What will become of the glass ceiling idea if a distinguished pro-life Republican woman runs against a liberal man backed by the abortion rights lobby for the world's greatest office? Which great fixation will give way to the other? Or will both of them simply explode?

Noemie Emery, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."