Hillary v. Donald is a Teachable Moment for American Feminism

If I’m lucky enough to be alive in thirty or forty years, I can’t wait to read what those historians write about the 2016 presidential election. My guess is that, more than anything else, it will be remembered as one the great epic struggles for women’s rights. On the one side you have Hillary Clinton, who went from being America’s most powerful First Lady to widely-respected careers as a United States Senator and Secretary of State. Running against her is Donald Trump, whose long history of misogynistic comments was brilliantly profiled by The Huffington Post. In lieu of reiterating the entire article, I will profile three of Trump’s most notorious remarks, all of which contain embedded assumptions that I anticipate will come into play in the Clinton-Trump election:

“If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

“While Bette Midler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.”

“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.”

Needless to say, these attitudes set Trump apart from other presidential candidates who faced off against barrier-breaking opponents. Neither Richard Nixon nor John McCain resorted to religious or racial bigotry in their campaigns against John Kennedy and Barack Obama, the first Catholic and African-American presidents; yet if Hillary Clinton becomes America’s first female president, it is all but certain that Trump will rely on hoary sexist rhetoric in order to tear her down. This is because, whereas Nixon wasn’t bigoted against Catholics and McCain isn’t bigoted against African Americans, Trump is clearly prejudiced against women.

Indeed, can you even imagine McCain trying to thread a racist narrative into his campaign against Obama in 2008? Say what you will about Nixon, but is it even conceivable that he would have allowed Kennedy’s religion to become an issue in 1960? Both men were as determined to win in their elections as Trump is in this one, but they had a fundamental respect for themselves and the American public, one that proscribed them from stooping or wallowing in the muck of hatred. Yet Trump is not only a man who has resorted to sexism in the past; as he revealed when he argued Clinton’s political success is only possible because of her gender, he has clearly established that he plans on continuing to do so with Clinton in this election.

That’s why it behooves us to figure out what lessons our children should learn from the impending misogynistic spectacle. While this would normally be the part of the article where I delve into my own views, I recently had a conversation with a close friend of mine who is a successful female professional (and wished to remain anonymous) who answered this question far better than I ever could. Her reply deserves to be quoted in full:

“Women have it tough in two ways: if we are strong, unrelenting leaders then we aren’t being ‘ladies’ or conversely being ‘bitches,’ but if we hold onto a softer feminine nature OR support issues related to being female, while being strong, we are perceived to be ‘playing the woman card.’ I think what’s happening with Trump and women is the same thing that he plays at with minorities and immigrants: the bully card. ‘If you’re not a white, straight man then you aren’t the status-quo.’ You are not ‘normal’ or even ‘desirable.’ And if you’re not rich then you’re a loser, which plays on the fears and insecurities of many men. White men in large numbers are fearing even the smallest loss of their white privileges. They’ve resented ‘taking orders’ from a black man, and God forbid they have to take orders from a woman. One could wonder if the strength of the white argument is based in Neanderthal genetics: a stupid, violent strain that survived but did not advance us culturally. But that’s not what a healthy civilization values. And as our values evolve, so do our colors and genders. But this means change, and again, change makes some people very afraid.

“Bottom line: all men who support evolution and bringing our culture to peace and higher values must consider the risk of supporting bullies. And the must look back at the cost of supporting a bullying regime. In 2016, survival in our culture is not about being strong enough or fast enough to run from an elephant. It’s about being able to inspire people to be their best selves. And this ability is not constrained to human beings with penises.”

This isn’t to say that there aren’t legitimate reasons to oppose Clinton. Certainly I can understand why conservative voters would want her to lose, and for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender. Similarly, there are valid concerns about Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street or long history of scandals, and these can be fairly used against her by political opponents. At the same time, there is ample reason to believe that Trump’s plan is going to rely heavily on sexist stereotypes. He has already accused Clinton of playing “the woman card,” and we are only slightly more than six months away from election day. It’s going to be worse before it gets better.

Moreover, it is bullying. Every time Trump uses Clinton’s gender against her, he will only solidify his historic legacy as a man hopelessly behind the times. Instead of taking advantage of his unique opportunity as that rarity in American politics – i.e., the non-politician who becomes a major party’s presidential nominee – he will be recalled as a hapless bully, one who resorted to reactionary views on gender at the precise moment when our nation was gearing up to reject them wholesale. When books are written about the 2016 election as a historical event, this will be the main story thread that those scholars will follow.