Donald Trump Hates Women

by teacherken –

trump if Hillary can't satisfyActually, the complete title is Donald Trump Hates Women: It’s the one position he’s never changed.  It is a must-read piece by Franklin Foer in Slate, to which David Brooks makes reference in his column this morning, which is how I came upon it (yes, I do occasionally look at Brooks).

Foer begins like this:

Donald Trump holds one core belief. It’s not limited government. He favored a state takeover of health care before he was against it. Nor is it economic populism. Despite many years of arguing the necessity of taxing the rich, he now wants to slice their rates to bits. Trump has claimed his nonlinear approach to policy is a virtue. Closing deals is what matters in the end, he says, not unbleached allegiance to conviction. But there’s one ideology that he does hold with sincerity and practices with unwavering fervor: misogyny.

And that is only the start…

In the very next paragraph he reminds us of Trump’s recent history with Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly, putting those episodes into a larger context, prefacing those references with

Yet somehow his misogyny has instead propelled his campaign to the brink of the Republican nomination.

and completing the thought with this sentence:

 Trump rose to fame on the basis of our prurient interest in his caddishness and amusement at his vulgar provocations.

He then follows with this paragraph:

Trump wants us to know all about his sex life. He doesn’t regard sex as a private activity. It’s something he broadcasts to demonstrate his dominance, of both women and men. In his view, treating women like meat is a necessary precondition for winning, and winning is all that matters in his world. By winning, Trump means asserting superiority. And since life is a zero-sum game, superiority can only be achieved at someone else’s expense.

Let me step back for a moment.  It is clear that there are many in American society  — too many — who prefer a time of male dominance, specifically White male dominance, in all things.  Some of that was shattered when African-Americans began to dominate some sports (football and basketball, although there are still too few Black quarterbacks and NFL head coaches), while Hispanics have come to dominate baseball.  It certainly applied in business and in politics.  We have seen the backlash in many ways.  And certainly when it comes to politics, as bad as it was that we now have a Black man with a funny name (OHMYGOD his middle name is HUSSEIN!!) in the White House, for many of Trump’s followers the thought that he might be followed by a strong, independent woman is just too much.  One might posit that the “BernieBro” phenomenon (which I stipulate is a tiny fraction of the following of Senator Sanders) has some roots in the same rejection of strong women.

But with Trump himself, it goes much further.  It is part of his background.  Hell, it might be part of his DNA, even though he has a highly accomplished older sister (whom at least by implication somewhat intimidates him), who was an accomplished Federal Appellate Court Judge, Maryanne Trump Barry, who has herself been targeted by Ted Cruz in an attempt to undercut Trump’s support among Evangelicals.

Allow me to offer several other cogent observations from Foer’s piece. On what was Trump’s response to Marco Rubio’s “below the belt” dig at Trump:

It’s an entirely Darwinian view, where the alpha male has his pick of females, both as a perk and a means of flexing his power over lesser men. It’s the mindset that made his assertion of his penis size in a national debate almost an imperative—if he let the attack on his manhood slide, his entire edifice might crumble.

On why Trump makes the comments he does about the appearance of women:

Trump considers himself such a virile example of masculinity that he’s qualified to serve as the ultimate arbiter of femininity. He relishes judging women on the basis of their looks, which he seems to believe amounts to the sum of their character.

Putting those two together, it becomes easy to understand why he has twice dumped still very attractive wive for younger women — he is asserting (perhaps from insecurity?) his male dominance.

And as we know:

Humiliating women by decrying their ugliness is an almost recreational pastime for Trump.

He has done it multiple time, and he does not care how prominent the woman is.

By the way, as a man of the same age, I look at Trump, his public persona, and his appearance, and I have to say he is probably lucky he is so wealthy, because otherwise it is doubtful many women would find him all that attractive.  But wealth and power do attract, and I know from some female acquaintances that there are females who “keep score” of their conquests just as much as someone like Trump does.

There is much more in this piece, including the famous episode where, upset with a doctor she had recommended to deal with his bald spot, Trump effectively raped his first wife Ivana, although he managed to get a statement out of her that understated (but did NOT disavow) the nature of the incident.  At the end of that, which is the last episode he uses in this piece, Foer writes:

The scene offers a graphic summation of Trump’s retrograde beliefs and real brutality. What’s worse, the same spirit informs his politics—the rampant cruelty, the violent impulses, the thirst for revenge, the absence of compassion. Misogyny isn’t an incidental part of Donald Trump. It’s who he is.

I think Foer’s piece is worth reading and keeping on hand.  His behavior towards women to me displays both arrogance and insecurity, and greatly informs how he would act were he actually given the reins of power.

If he were ….  I am seeing increasing evidence that he may not.  He has been outmaneuvered on delegates by Cruz in Louisiana.  He is trying to impose Rule 40B (imposed at the last convention as an anti-Ron Paul measure) to try to stop Cruz from even being nominated, but unless he can dominate the rules committee at the convention that rule will be changed and Cruz will not need a majority of delegates from 8 states in order to be nominated.  If he loses Wisconsin, as I suspect he will, Trump is going to find it more difficult to get to the magic number of delegates, and as he continues his bluster, it becomes increasingly likely that the power that be will risk denying him the nomination even at the cost of the White House in order to protect down ballot candidates.

Read the Foer provided by the link at the page top.

Form your own opinions.

Peace.

 

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos