MORE Gender Issues Confusion Monday, PART 3:The New York Times’ Hit Piece On Donald Trump And Women

Trump girls

The New York Times assigned six reporters to interview over fifty women who have dealt with The Donald, and the resulting story proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he engages in routine sexual harassment, acts like a high school student, behaves like the archetypal male chauvinist pig, and habitually ogled women and made comments about their appearance. Of course, anyone who hadn’t been in suspended animation for the past decade or so would know or assume all this based on the Trump’s activities and words. This is the dilemma in trying to cover an obviously unfit and unqualified Presidential candidate like other Presidential candidates. For a traditional politician, the Times’s revelations would be devastating. In Trump’s case, we have learned so many worse things about his nature during the past six months that his misogyny is both old news and relatively trivial. It’s like a character “Jurassic World” warning  that the murderous Indominus Rex has bad breath.

It appears that the Times was also sloppy in its reporting, but never mind: the real mystery is how any Democrats thinks that what Trump has done can benefit Hillary Clinton in any way. Nothing Trump is accused of in the article approaches the conduct that women who  were involved with Bill Clinton claim he inflicted on them, only to have their claims dismissed or ignored by the news media and Democrats. That party went on record as believing that personal conduct, no matter how offensive or abusive to women, doesn’t matter, or at least didn’t matter in Bill’s case, because “Bill was on the right side of the issues, especially abortion. Indeed, one famous female journalist wrote that she would sleep with him anytime, just to thank him for supporting abortion.”

OK, I think I get it: this is a form of Ethics Accounting: if you support so-called women’s issues, then you can harass, abuse and mistreat women, or at least other women. Is that the rule? Somehow I can’t see Hillary being able to attack Trump’s treatment of women with that as the defense for Bill and her enabling.

Meanwhile, the Times is obligated to put equal research into investigating the extent to which Hillary assisted Bill as he sought to discredit and intimidate his victims. If it does not, any claims of objectivity become laughable. In the end, which candidate was more ruthless, cruel and unjust? Who victimized women more? And if the facts show what I think they will show, how will those women who say they favor Hillary Clinton justify their position?


Facts: PJ Media, Free Beacon, The Hill, USA Today

7 thoughts on “MORE Gender Issues Confusion Monday, PART 3:The New York Times’ Hit Piece On Donald Trump And Women

  1. I made a similar comment elsewhere this week and was roundly bashed for it. it never counts when it’s the Clintons!

    • I read the article. The problem is that after hearing about Bill Cosby’s shenanigans for the last year plus, this article was a snoozer in comparison (as a young man he only liked pretty girls, the horror!). HIs treatment of women is deplorable, but we have a similarly aged famous man who was so awful that everything else pales in comparison. I’m not saying that’s right, but I kept waiting for the money shot.

  2. Jack,
    Let me offer a different perspective. What is uniformly obvious in the photo above? We have 6 highly glamorized females posing adoringly with this man who is at least twice their age. Why? Perhaps it is because of his fame, wealth or his ability to help them achieve their own desired goals makes him a target for their affections. Is that ethical? Monica Lewinsky may have succumbed to the same but is known to have gone beyond the simple photo shot. Other women in Bill Clinton’s life may have also been attracted to his persona and wealth but drew a line in the sand regarding just how far they would go to get favors from him. Bill Clinton and Cosby are alleged to have crossed those lines on several occasions. This is far different than a man that loves to be given the attention of myriad beauties but does not cross those lines.

    I cannot buy the whole misogyny argument in its clinical sense. I think he loves women – the more the merrier. If he has a contempt for women why does he elevate them to positions of power within his own organization at a much greater rate than other similar organizations. Why does he want to be around them in general? A misogynist defined is one who has contempt for women and avoids any dealings with them other than relegating them to servant tasks. Furthermore, it is obvious from the photo that there is no harassment because all parties look as if the attention is desired. I think Trump would prefer to be surrounded by talented beautiful women (by western standards) in his business and personal life. Could we also say that these women in the photo above were using their sexuality to garner his attentions and obtain favors? Cleopatra did not use heavy lead based cosmetics simply to ward off eye infections or gain the favor and protection of the gods Horus and Ra.

    I believe that it can be argued that males and females both use physical attractiveness characteristics to achieve economic, physical and emotional security. It is hardwired into our psyche. That is not to say that everyone focuses on physical attributes alone. I am sure that are some people who are completely unaffected by physical traits and make decisions on relationships or in business objectively. I just have not met many of them yet.

    An interesting question to ask women is why they think most advertisements, websites, and magazines targeted specifically at female readers and edited by a primarily female staff focus on personal beauty and fitness. I see no issue with the fitness component but why the preoccupation with a flat stomach and tight Gluteus Maximus as opposed to other muscle groups?

    Why do many women feel compelled to adorn themselves with makeup, trendy jewelry, or wear clothes that accentuate their sexuality such as those women in the photo above? Even the photo of Valerie Jarrett on the right sidebar suggests that she feels it necessary to be seen in public wearing red lip gloss and earrings. For what purpose is all that personal adornment? What if a male did the same? What would we think of him? Would we trust him or not?

    If we are honest with ourselves we must face the fact that human sexuality, and the western perception of what is beautiful and attractive, drives many of our decisions and as a means to drive the decisions of others. We often prefer the telegenic 6 foot two, handsome candidate with a full head of hair over the sweaty 5 foot 10 candidate with the receding hairline irrespective of policy positions ( Bernie Sanders excepted). I believe that most men and women want to be perceived as sexually attractive and take steps to enhance their sexual persona for a variety of reasons. I don’t buy the argument that such enhancements make them feel empowered unless the empowerment is rooted in the sub-conscious belief that an attractive appearance will allow them to be more competitive in a sexuality driven world and they opt in to such competition.

    As I have repeatedly said, I do not like the bravado of Trump and his ad hominem attacks on his adversaries but I see no difference in his name calling and those that use pejorative words to describe him. Yes, Trump has little regard for social niceties when he counterpunches. But, is he responsible for the decline in civility in politics. No. He is who he is. Should he treat a female adversary more delicately than he would treat a male adversary simply in deference to their femininity. I think not. If he did it would be the height of misogyny to do so because that would suggest that women need male protection.

    • Chris:

      1. An ad hominem attack is when one attacks a position by way of denigrating the one who holds it. That is not what is going on with Trump, at least when I am involved. I don’t argue that his policies and political positions, whatever they are, if they are, are invalid because he is a lying, ignorant, boorish, uncivil, intellectually deficient asshole. I am saying that lying, ignorant, boorish, uncivil, intellectually deficient assholes are inherently untrustworthy, and thus we cannot have a lying, ignorant, boorish, uncivil, intellectually deficient asshole as President. That is not what Trump does. Trump engages in ad hominem attacks, not responding to direct criticism except to insult the source of it.

      2. The conduct described in the article, as I said in the post, is per se sexual harassment. His comments about Rosie O’Donnell, Carly Fiorina and other women are misogynist. He doesn’t like women, he likes beautiful women as sex objects. As I documented, he referred to his infant daughter as a sex object, which is sick. That’s not “social niceties” Treating women in the workplace as meat on the hoof isn’t a social nicety.

      3. This is essentially blaming the victim. Women can choose to look as enticing as they choose—in the workplace, that is still no excuse for a man to regard them as girl on the stool in a dating bar.

  3. Jack
    Your points are well taken. What I endeavored to do was to approach the issue in a gender neutral manner. In general, I do see your descriptions of Trump’ behaviors not as ad hominem attacks but merely as descriptors of what you consider uncivil boorish behaviors. However, when Trump called for a border wall to prevent illegal immigration the tactics from his adversaries were to label him a racist and xenophobe. That is an ad hominem attack When he called for a temporary ban on Muslim visitors to the U.S. the ad hominem rhetoric from his adversaries escalated.

    On point two, you claim his behavior is per se harassment. From a legal perspective you are probably correct but only if it is a behavior that continues after it has been rebuffed. Some women will like the comments and others will not. The real power in such situations lies with the women. They are the ones that say which suitors are welcome and which are not. Men unfortunately are not mind readers so they rely on visual cues.

    The point that I was making in the prior comment is why are these 20 something beauties appear to be fawning over this 60 something man? I contend that there is a cultural, if not hardwired, symbiotic relationship between men and women that create the circumstances that underlie sexual harassment situations. Each side uses the other for achieving a given end. The problem of harassment arises when cues are ignored or misunderstood.

    In our culture, that places an emphasis on youth and vitality, older, economically powerful women and men who display confidence, wealth and achievement prefer attractive younger men and women for both sexual and psychological needs and easily attract the affections of younger suitors whose needs focus on economic security or social advancement. It makes them feel young and full of vitality. Younger less economically powerful women seek out potential mates who they believe can help them economically often ignoring existing behaviors of the potential mate that can lead to relationship failure and domestic violence. Conversely, males tend to focus on physical characteristics which helps them socially. There is a tremendous amount of literature this subject.

    What is rarely discussed is for what purpose do women purposely dress to accentuate their own sexual attractiveness in the workplace when it can lead to unintended advances from co-workers. What business purpose does it serve? In the sales profession, it often leads to increased sales because people buy from whom they like and attractive women are much more likeable than the little fat bald guy who is equally or more competent in knowing which his products are the best fit for the prospect. History is replete with countless examples of women using sexual attraction to obtain a desired result. Is it misogynistic to hire the less experienced young and attractive woman over a much more experience older woman in her late fifties who is just as energetic simply because the younger female is expected to get more and larger sales orders because she is so adorable and pretty? If so, what if the person doing the hiring was also a woman, is she a misogynist if she chooses an young attractive female because she knows that the new hire’s sexuality will be a plus?

    With respect to Ms. O’Donnell I think the feud between the two was childish behavior on both parts. Ms. O’Donnell has made a career out of insulting people. She has made millions of dollars being loud, boorish, intellectually dishonest and uncivil. She is no Mara Liasson. Ms. O’Donnell took made some disparaging on the air comments about Trump and he took her to task in his typical New York tough guy style. In short, she started a knife fight and he brought a gun. Should he treat her differently than he would a male adversary because she is female? If he does it would be patronizing.

    I think the feud continued because both sides saw positive PR results in the barb trading. Both sides used words that both sides knew would be viewed as hurtful by their respective audiences who would then rally around them giving them even more public exposure. Whether there was explicit collusion in both camps to elevate each side’s professional visibility in this battle of words is anyone’s guess but in the world where any press is good press I would not be surprised that the real chumps were those that followed the verbal boxing match. Trump’s vulnerability is to be called a loser which is why he projects similar epithets on his adversaries.

    As for Carly Fiorina, we learned of this comment through a writer for Rolling Stone magazine. The same magazine that gave us Jackie at UNC. It may have been 100% true, slightly embellished or flat out false. I cannot give credence to any source whose organization has been thoroughly discredited. Assuming it was 100% true, Carly Fiorina handled it perfectly. She did not fall into a trap like “Little Marco” did. She did not engage. Trump’s tactics are to unnerve his opponents by targeting perceived emotional vulnerabilities. What woman would want to be called ugly and what man wants to be called little. The question then arises why did Ms. Kelly go directly to the question of Trump’s comments about women in the first debate? What was her rationale for reciting a laundry list of comments instead of merely asking for an explanation why he resorted to making disparaging comments about women’s appearance who challenged him on occasion rather than on the merits of their positions? Dredging up the lurid details makes for great TV ratings but does little to allow for an examination of his policy points.

    Thus, if he treats male and female adversaries with the same boorish behaviors is he both misogynistic and an misandristic equally. Perhaps, but that would make it terribly difficult for him to get along with anyone let alone be economically successful.

    I do not know if Trump elevates any unattractive women to positions of power and authority in his organization but I doubt that every female in his organization is perfectly proportioned with high cheekbones either. So to suggest that he only likes beautiful women as sex objects I cannot say. I can say that with all things being equal the more attractive candidate will win the job in every organization more often than not because we all prefer to be around what we consider attractive people. People like to be around perceived winners; whether it’s in the arena of business or the gene pool.

    Point three is unfair. None of my comments should be construed as blaming the victim. I took a balanced approach at the subject matter. The matter of how provocatively one dresses is one of choice. The matter of sexual attraction is one of biology that is much harder to control. Social customs and values are now only used temper and constrain the male behaviors that are biologically based. We have abandoned such customs and values with respect to female behavior that is similarly rooted in biology to create the illusion of feminine empowerment.

    However, I disagree with this comment “Women can choose to look as enticing as they choose as they choose—in the workplace, that is still no excuse for a man to regard them as girl on the stool in a dating bar.” I have seen women dress so inappropriately in the workplace that it becomes a distraction to both the men and woman around them. When it becomes apparent that a young women or man is using the workplace as a stool in a dating bar and dressing to attract the attentions of various potential suitors or paramours then I have an obligation to correct the behavior before it creates a very unpleasant situation for all.

    Therefore, [sic] “saying that lying, ignorant, boorish, uncivil, intellectually deficient assholes are inherently untrustworthy, and thus we cannot have a lying, ignorant, boorish, uncivil, intellectually deficient asshole as President”, what choice do we have if our choice is between Hillary and Donald?

    By the way, I read the piece on negotiation skill disparity and I loved it. I have often used similar examples in economics classes that I have taught when discussing wage differentials and discrimination.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.