He represents the possibility of a return to patriarchy
Franklin Foer at Slate argues that Donald Trump’s actual core ideology is misogyny.
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.
To tell the truth, I resent having to pay any attention at all to Donald Trump. I never have before, and I’m annoyed that I have to now. I don’t see why a real estate hustler thinks he’s qualified to be president in the first place, and I don’t see why he doesn’t have even the minimal conscientiousness it would take to realize he should be qualified for the job before trying to get it, and it pisses me off that his lacks force the rest of us to pay attention to him. What a ludicrous infantile setup.
This was a view etched in Trump from an early age. He was the archetypal brat. His father, himself a successful real estate developer, endlessly expressed a belief in his son’s greatness. “You are a king,” his father would tell Donald, according to his biographer Michael D’Antonio.
Sounds like that guy on Twitter who’s always saying he’s THE KING.
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. Walking out of his meeting with the Washington Post editorial board this week, he paused topronounce editor Karen Attiah “beautiful.” When he owned the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants, he would screen all the contestants. His nominal reason for taking on this role was to make sure that his lackeys weren’t neglecting any beauties. His real motive was to humiliate the women. He would ask a contestant to name which of her competitors she found “hot.” If he didn’t consider a woman up to his standards, he would direct her to stand with her fellow “discards.”
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?
Humiliating women by decrying their ugliness is an almost recreational pastime for Trump. When the New York Times columnist Gail Collins described him as a “financially embittered thousandaire,” he sent her a copy of the column with her picture circled. “The Face of a Dog!” he scrawled over her visage. This is the tack he took with Carly Fiorina, when he described her facial appearance as essentially disqualifying her from the presidency. It’s the method he’s used to denounce Cher, Bette Midler, Angelina Jolie, and Rosie O’Donnell—“fat ass,” “slob, “extremely unattractive,” etc.—when they had the temerity to criticize him. The joy he takes in humiliating women is not something he even bothers to disguise. He told the journalist Timothy L. O’Brien, “My favorite part [of the movie Pulp Fiction] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.” Or as he elegantly summed up his view to New York magazine in the early ’90s, “Women, you have to treat them like shit.”
Of course he doesn’t bother to disguise it. That kind of thing is massively popular. We didn’t know that until Twitter came along, but now we do.
This is one reason that evangelicals, both men and women, gravitate to Trump, despite his obvious lack of interest in religion and blatantly loose morals. He represents the possibility of a return to patriarchy, to a time when men were men, and didn’t have to apologize for it. While he celebrates his own sexuality, he believes that female sexuality has spun out of control and needs to be contained. The best example of this view is a reality show called Lady or a Tramp, which Trump developed for Fox but never aired. The premise of the show was that Trump would take “girls in love with the party life” and send them off for a “stern course” on manners. “We are all sick and tired of the glamorization of these out-of-control young women,” he told Variety, “so I have taken it upon myself to do something about it.”
While boasting about how much “pussy” he “gets” – from earlier in the piece:
When Tucker Carlson once mocked him on air, Trump called the pundit and left a voicemail: “It’s true you have better hair than I do. But I get more pussy than you do.”
Manly men get lots of pussy; women who have sex are out-of-control tramps.
I hope I can forget all about Donald Trump soon.
omg wth bbq he’s the worst brat
That’s the whole mantra on the Republican side these days – only an outsider is qualified to challenge the establishment and “clean up” Washington. Being qualified is actually a disqualification in this worldview, and many voters just eat that up. They see it as “the American Way” – where anyone can be president, and “eggheads” are not to be trusted. I cringe whenever I hear someone saying “I don’t want to vote for someone smarter than me”. My response is always, “Why? I don’t understand that. The one thing I DO want to vote for is someone smarter than me, someone more qualified to run a massive, complex country”. The problem is, too many people have been sold on the idea that all smart people want to take over the world and turn them into slaves – I blame Hollywood in part, but it isn’t totally the fact that Hollywood portrays smart people as manipulative control freaks. There’s a lot more going on than that, because the people have to go to those movies and internalize that worldview, which they are apparently happy enough to do.
Politics seems to be the only field where you apply for a job by crowing about how unqualified you are! And it’s probably the only job where someone would think the best way to get the job would be to promise to destroy the institution they are put in charge of leading. Most people who destroy companies don’t get their job by promising to do that; they promise to be great and bring about positive change, then they screw up and destroy the company.
Of course, Trump isn’t really an outsider. He is unqualified, but he’s as inside as they get. He brags about how many politicians he has bought, and how much he has influenced policy. If I’m not mistaken, that’s the sort of thing the people shouting for him claim to want to get rid of. Why they think someone who has made all his money by doing the very things they claim to despise, I have no clue…oh, wait, yes I do. Because Trump hates the people they hate, and hates them en masses, with vulgarity and violence. He panders to the worst in people, and people respond by demonstrating the worst. It’s a disgrace.
Very interesting and alarming, I’d assumed that Trump was just another US God botherer, he doesn’t even try to use some ‘sacred text’ as justification for his attitudes to women.
As Machiavelli observed, long ago, pandering ‘to the worst in people’, not their best qualities, is a surer path to political success.
Americans, please reassure me that Trump has no chance of becoming the CinC of the planet’s most powerful war machine. Unfortunately there are no gods to punish Trump’s hubris, we will have to rely on US voters.
I wish we could.
I don’t think it’s likely. He apparently won’t win the nomination on the first ballot, so that’s one big obstacle – and he doesn’t have the numbers to win the election. But things can change, so who the fuck knows. We were fatuous enough to elect Bush Junior.
… and US voting machines! … oh wait
@RJW #3
I think it’s extremely unlikely. To win the general election, you have to appeal to moderates. Trump doesn’t. His supporters are who they are, but outside of them he’s not just not preferred, he’s positively disliked. His “negative numbers” are very very high. A good percentage even of Republicans are embarrassed by him.
Now, that’s not to say it’s impossible. He’s come much farther along and done much better in this campaign than anyone predicted, and that’s scary. The fact that so many Americans can be so entranced by a demagogue has me worried about the future. But he probably won’t be the next POTUS.
Thanks, that’s reassuring. The intricacies of the US system are sometimes baffling to citizens of parliamentary democracies.
@5 Rrr,
Oh jeez, I haven’t forgotten the ‘hanging chad’ controversy. As far as I understand the US doesn’t have a national Electoral Commision to supervise elections.
emphasis added
This is something I don’t get. The appeal of patriarchy to (some) men is obvious. What’s in it for the women? Serious question. I don’t get this.
Read Vyckie Garrison for insights on that.
I think you’ve just described my attitude to 90% of all Republican candidates in the last quarter-century.
New York Times, 2016 Feb 23, Donald Trump in New York: Deep Roots, but Little Influence says that while Trump creates a high profile for himself in New York–if only by plastering his name across his buildings–he has little involvement or influence with city or state politics.
Those would seem to be empty boasts.
I’m less convinced… there’s enough folk that’d prefer him to Hillary (and have an irrational dislike/approach to her) to make that matchup a more even contest… this includes a number of Bernie supporters…
Yes, Hillary has high negatives, too. Polls show her beating Trump by a narrow margin and Bernie would beat Trump by a wide margin.
If the elections were held today, the polls are even remotely accurate, and the machines aren’t rigged.
^ The first isn’t true. A terrorist attack on US soil or even an ally close to election time could make people stupid.
The second might not be true. Polling with today’s communication methods tends to have more skew problems.
The third. Oh, the third. We really don’t know. Is Diebold more afraid of high taxes or nuclear war?
Thank you very bloody much, Ophelia. Until I read this I had nothing but contempt for Trump, but now it turns out that while he cannot quote a single line from the Bible, he’s word perfect on one of my favourite films, meaning that I have to credit him with at least some good taste (even if we have different reasons to like Pulp Fiction)
Or do I have a bad taste in films?
Either way I am now deeply conflicted so once more, thank you very bloody much, Ophelia. :-)
Steven – I’m sure the claims of influence are empty boasts. I do not, however, believe he is an outsider. He is part of the establishment. He can’t be bought by billionaires? No, because he is a billionaire, who will do what it takes to remain rich.
But what other job do we suggest that the best choice is to hire the least qualified candidate, the one with no training and no experience? This is a weird country.
Trump will win if there’s another major terrorist attack, especially if it occurs on U.S. soil, between now and November. The higher the casualties, the greater his chances. When Trump reacts with machismo to such atrocities, he galvanizes people.
I cannot stand Hillary. She’s done nothing for women. She’s done nothing for anyone. She’s ridden on her husband’s coat tails since he became governor of Arkansas, all the while tolerating his serial *chasses aux chattes*.
Were I an American, I’d be looking at Sanders. Despite his reputation as an Old Bolshevik, he’s actually quite a practical guy
From here in the UK
The Nightmare Scenario: you get Donald Trump, we get Boris Johnson*
The Perhaps Democracy can Survive Scenario: You get Bernie Sanders, we get Jeremy Corbyn.
* Actually, in our terms Trump is closer to NIgel Farage – no political experience, a deeply offensive, highly privileged wanker who has somehow managed to convince a surprising number of people that he’s a “man of the people” all while living off Daddy’s money on a huge estate.
(Boris is more like The Shrub – he’s nowhere near as stupid as he pretends to be and “buffoon” is his persona. Having said that, he’s nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is either…)
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1150531274965332/?type=3&theater
Actually, in our terms Trump is closer to NIgel Farage
Trump and Sanders actually have quite a lot in common.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-sanders-similarities-1.3506257
@ John #19
I read the article and was pretty unimpressed: “let’s generalise about broad situations and attitudes to foreign trade and come up with statements that could be fairly applied to about 70% of politicians while ignoring context, actual political statements, experience and overall approach to social issues and pretend that makes two people, who happen to both be on the US presidential slate in the same year and are therefore responding to the same audience in the same cultural context, similar in some meaningful way.”
I’m also unsure what the relevance of that is to the bit of my post you quoted was. In UK terms our politician Farage is analogously closer to Trump than our politician Johnson. That comparison is not affected by whether Sanders and Trump are somehow mysteriously alike.
@ No my link had nothing to do with Farage. You’re quite right. However, this is a thread about Trump and the U.S. elections and since I’ve encountered a number of articles citing some similarities between Trump and Sanders, I just thought I,d post one.
Cruz or Kasich is the true nightmare scenario here. It’s not clear exactly what Trumpenfuhrer really believes or wants to do whereas the former two are a direct threat to pretty much everything we hold dear.
Now Trump’s brown shirts on the other hand are quite, quite scary…
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1153167458035047/?type=3&theater
[…] What was that about Trump’s hatred of women? […]