Politics & Policy

On Donald Trump’s Supposed Misogyny

(Photo: Gage Skidmore)
He is many things, but a misogynist isn’t one of them.

You have to marvel at the ease with which our fellow Americans who call themselves progressive label those with whom they differ “sexist,” “intolerant,” “xenophobic,” “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “racist,” and “bigoted.”

I always wonder: Do they believe it? Or do they say it because they lack intellectual arguments?

I have come to believe that both are true. As a student of the Left since graduate school at the Russian Institute at Columbia University’s School of International Affairs, I am more aware than most people of how old and ubiquitous this mode of attack is. Once Stalin got away with calling Trotsky a Fascist — Trotsky, the father (along with Lenin) of the Bolshevik Revolution and the founder of the Red Army – the Left has relied on defaming its opponents. And whatever they say often enough, they come to believe.

Moreover, the libel list never ends. The Left may not produce liberty or prosperity, but it does produce labels. We now have “misogynist” and “transphobic,” for example. There is literally not an area of life in which the Left differs with the Right in which it has not assigned a label for the Right.

Which brings us to the constant charge against Donald Trump that he is a misogynist, a hater of women.

Like the other charges against him and those who voted for him, it is repeated so often — by every liberal columnist and commentator, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, every other left-wing newspaper, and all the left-wing Christian and Jewish clergy — people just assume it to be so.

But, amazingly, there is little, if any, evidence to support the charge. The evidence supports charges of insensitivity, boorishness, crassness, immaturity, and verbal impulsivity. But not misogyny.

Take the most infamous of the alleged proofs of Mr. Trump’s misogyny, his comments secretly recorded in 2005 in a private conversation with Access Hollywood host Billy Bush: “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women] — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab them by the p***y. You can do anything.”

Why does that demonstrate misogyny? How is that hatred of women?

It’s crass, juvenile, sexually aggressive, improper, etc., etc. But in what way does it demonstrate hatred of women?

It doesn’t.

In fact, in his professional life, as reported during the campaign by the Washington Post, Trump was known for hiring women for the highest positions in the American real-estate industry. Read the Post’s November 24, 2015 piece, “Donald Trump, a champion of women? His female employees think so.”

Trump was known for hiring women for the highest positions in the American real-estate industry.

Other proofs of Trump’s misogyny are his insulting statements to women. But for every one of those, one can point to insulting comments he made to men. Remember “Lyin’ Ted” and “Little Marco,” and his devastating putdowns of Jeb Bush? And nothing he has said to women is as bad as what he said during the campaign about Dr. Ben Carson, calling him incurably pathological and comparing him to a child molester.

So why do so many women (and men) call Trump a misogynist?

Because he has so often described women in sexual terms. Because, as the charge goes, he “objectifies” women.

Now, before responding to that, it is worth noting that this clearly disturbs college-educated women and men far more than it does women and men who did not attend college.

Which means one of two possible things: Either the college-educated are wiser on this matter, or the non-college educated are wiser.

#related#As in most matters, my position is that college makes most people less wise. You have to go to college to think that men who see women they find attractive as sex objects hate women. Throughout history, women understood that men sexually objectify women; that this is male nature and has nothing — repeat, nothing — to do with hatred. Only the well-educated equate sexual objectification with hatred.

If sexually objectifying women makes men haters of women, then gay men hate men — because gay men sexually objectify men in exactly the same way that heterosexual men objectify women.

If you have a problem with this — and I can understand why people do — you need to take it up with God or Darwin. But this is how male sexual nature works — it objectifies the object of its sexual attraction — male or female.

The good news is that every healthy male is capable of both respecting women and sexually objectifying them.

Even Donald Trump.

Most Popular

Film & TV

A Film for All Christians

‘The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts,” wrote George Eliot in Middlemarch, “and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” The passage provides the title ... Read More
Film & TV

A Film for All Christians

‘The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts,” wrote George Eliot in Middlemarch, “and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” The passage provides the title ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The FBI’s Corrupt Cops

White-collar criminals should hope for one thing this Christmas: that they get to live under the Horowitz rules. Michael Horowitz has testified that he found no evidence of political bias on the part of the decision makers who, under the Obama administration, relied on hilariously implausible “evidence” ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The FBI’s Corrupt Cops

White-collar criminals should hope for one thing this Christmas: that they get to live under the Horowitz rules. Michael Horowitz has testified that he found no evidence of political bias on the part of the decision makers who, under the Obama administration, relied on hilariously implausible “evidence” ... Read More
White House

The Horowitz Report and the Power of Inertia

The best thing I've read about the report is by Julian Sanchez. An excerpt: The heart of the Horowitz report deals with the Carter Page FISA application, and documents a progression that ought to sound familiar to anyone who’s studied the history of the intelligence community: An investigation begins with a ... Read More
White House

The Horowitz Report and the Power of Inertia

The best thing I've read about the report is by Julian Sanchez. An excerpt: The heart of the Horowitz report deals with the Carter Page FISA application, and documents a progression that ought to sound familiar to anyone who’s studied the history of the intelligence community: An investigation begins with a ... Read More