First, let’s distinguish verifiable, measurable facts that lend themselves to factually supported logically deduced and testable conclusions from purely opinion based characterizations.
“Donald Trump hates women” is a textbook characterization. Those who cling to this characterization hate Donald Trump. That’s an observation.
The group that hates Donald Trump and is convinced he hates women are in near perfect cosmic sync. The quote unquote “case” that they produce is impossible to refute for two reasons. First, for those who would dare to disagree, proving a negative is at best a tricky undertaking. Second, how can one “prove” that Donald Trump “hates women?” If it’s impossible to prove…how much harder then becomes the even more impossible task of “proving” he doesn’t. Also…it’s silly. It’s a conversation more suited to the halls of junior high school. It’s part of a narrative fueled by statements made by individuals who seek to control the school yard narrative and who say things with the assumed authority of a bunch of “Heathers” whose power derives exclusively from operating in a controlled existential paradigm where what they SAY is so because they SAY it is so.
The rest of us are effectively bullied into a discussion that shouldn’t even be taking place, and IF we chime in with a dissenting opinion…well…we know the result of that and have probably learned by now it’s just not worth it.
Here’s how a professional/grownup might approach the subject of Donald’s Trump’s attitude towards women. It would start not with a characterization or even an assumption, and would employ the scientific method of inquiry. It would follow the data. It would be interesting. It would be intellectually honest. And the person dedicated to the task would accept the outcome. For starters I’d scrub the term “attitude” because it’s unhelpful to the rigors of an intellectually honest analysis. A more useful (and in my mind that is synonymous with interesting) approach would be to back up as far as possible from the initial characterization and instead examine the actual data surrounding Donald Trump, his Administration, and the role played by women in it.
The literal face of the Trump Administration is a woman. The actual, literal face of and figurative interface between the Trump Administration and the entire world outside the White House is…a woman.
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: WOMAN.
The actual, literal face of the Office of President of the United States of America is a GIRL named SARAH Huckabe. Simply ask the question: is that consistent with the narrative of a man who allegedly hates women? You decide…but do it behind closed doors because the tolerant liberal proponents of diversity and freedom of thought do not like it when you disagree or even question the tenets of their rigid orthodoxy.
Contrary to the hysterical assertions of a “misogynistic society run amok” in the United States women have in fact attained status, security and levels of achievement that are in all the world and across history unsurpassed. No? Then tell me where do women enjoy greater rights (legal and actualized), access to opportunity and levels of accomplishment greater than those found in America? It is instead factually accurate to say that in other parts of the world women are subordinated, subjugated, enslaved and brutalized. The “world outside” is by and large a place of danger and intense hostility to women and attitudes of women that can truly be characterized as contemptuous. And where do all the various members of the international community come together to conduct international affairs and “commune” with one another? The United Nations. So in addition to putting a “woman’s” face on the OFFICE of the President of the United States of America, the sitting president has appointed a WOMAN to serve as the FACE of the United States of America itself. Is THAT consistent with the Heathers narrative that Donald Trump “hates women?”
Speaking of “glass ceilings” (the ones that the elitist and entitled members of the Clinton Crime Syndicate equate with all offices that they haven’t managed to secure)…did you hear the one about the CIA? That’s right. The first woman director of the CIA EVER…Gina Haspel…for the time first ever…America’s top spook…is a GIRL.
Three of the most prominent roles in this (first) Trump Administration are women, and that’s just for starters. To me, that’s not only a more compelling fact-based narrative, it’s an infinitely more interesting one.
The proponents of the false narrative scrupulously avoid actual data and reasoned dialogue because not only is there no data to support the Heathers narrative that the POTUS “hates girls,” but in fact the ACTUAL data systematically repudiate it. The narrative is the fantasy world of those who PREFER a fictional manufactured “reality” where things “are” because they are SAID to be. It works frighteningly well in the halls of junior high school.
Inasmuch as the modern technologies of mass media, the internet and social media have gone a long way towards turning the entire world into a virtual junior high school, we see that the bullies, the authors, promoters, peddlers and profiteers of the false narrative works with frightening efficacy outside of the school ground as well. Examine the data…and simply ask…”does that even make sense?” And if those around express dis-ease with your interest in honest intellectual inquiry…KNOW that you are in the presence of those who do not respect your individual views or identity but instead DEMAND your obedience. And THAT is the essence of bullying. THAT is the essence of tyranny. Examine the data. Think for yourself. These simple exercises are to the leadership and street thugs of leftist oppression the stuff of pure poison.
The FACT is that these three incredibly capable individuals who serve in incredibly high profile, prominent positions of profound importance are WOMEN. The sublime beauty of factually accurate statements is that they stand on their own and of their own accord. They simply are. As for explanations it is probably true that the more simple ones are the more compelling and in effect better ones. The more complicated they are, the more complicated they are forced to become…can frequently be attributed to the fact that the explainer is trying to prove something that is simply not supported by available evidence and sound reasoning. And finally, to demonstrate in the clearest possible terms how infantile are the protests of the Trump hating Heather’s who demand that “Donald Trump hates women!” Allow me to respond, “No he doesn’t,” or alternatively, “Na-AH!”, It’s not just childish. It’s boring.
Does this “prove” that Trump doesn’t hate women? Not remotely. However, it’s highly concrete, informative and non-controversial DATA that speaks to the topic of the POTUS and the role of women in his administration.
That said, given the significance and gravity of the three positions, it presents a far more supported and compelling case that he does NOT “hate women” (or has a remarkably clumsy way of showing it) than do the promoters of the Heathers narrative that convicts him of hating women on the basis of some truly shabby and unimpressive “evidence.”
The more COMPELLING case is not that Donald Trump is a hater and bully of women, but rather the women who HATE Donald Trump and demand the obedience of others in their venomous assessment of him are the true bullies of this updated “Heathers” episode being played out in the arena of what remains of “real life.”
Steven Korbin is a lawyer working in Los Angeles, California. He holds a Master of Arts in American History, Columbia University, and is a graduate of Loyola Law School. His use of all caps should be considered an extension of Mr. Korbin’s passion during the creative process.