Brooks: The sexual politics of 2016

Posted by | March 29, 2016 16:47 | Filed under: Opinion Politics


David Brooks in the New York Times:

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a revolution in manners, a rejection of the civility codes of the educated class. As part of this, he rejects the new and balanced masculine/feminine ideal that has emerged over the past generation. Trump embraces a masculine identity — old in some ways, new in others — built upon unvarnished misogyny.

Trump’s misogyny is not the historical moralistic misogyny. Traditional misogyny blames women for the lustful, licentious and powerful urges that men sometimes feel in their presence. In this misogyny, women are the powerful, disgusting corrupters — the vixens, sirens and monsters. This gynophobic misogyny demands that women be surrounded with taboos and purgation rituals, along with severe restrictions on behavior and dress.

Trump’s misogyny, on the other hand, has a commercial flavor. The central arena of life is male competition. Women are objects men use to win points in that competition. The purpose of a woman’s body is to reflect status on a man. One way to emasculate a rival man is to insult or conquer his woman.

 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

4 responses to Brooks: The sexual politics of 2016

  1. William March 29th, 2016 at 17:11

    What cracks me up is that after 8 years of attacking Michelle Obama for such things as *gasp* going sleeveless, the right wing clowns like Hannidy are suddenly aghast over the criticism of republican candidate wives.

  2. majii March 29th, 2016 at 19:05

    I’m not believing anything Brooks is writing at this point because instead of using his media platform to stop the GOP’s lurch to the hard right, he used it to justify and excuse the very behavior that led to the current situation in his party. As William notes, he was MIA when FL Michelle Obama and the president’s daughters were attacked by those on the right. I’m so not buying Brooks’ selective attention to details because it informs me that he was OK with attacks on women on the left but now that it’s happening on the right, he’s pretending to be turned off by it. Liar.

    • Lauren Stephenson March 30th, 2016 at 04:47

      I am getting a salary of 6700 dollars each week. Over a year ago I was in a horrible condition ,,pdf jobless and no bank credit . Thanks to one of my friends who showed me a way where I was able to gather myself and making average of 58 d/h. So it can change your life as it has changed mine. Why not try this.

      Look here for details
      ere..

  3. Aquarius 1027 April 1st, 2016 at 04:24

    This absurd attempt by Brooks to categorize misogyny based upon so-called historical perspectives is complete nonsense. There is no “traditional” or “moralistic” misogyny, there is not some “commercial flavor” or “new” misogyny. – From the denial of the right to vote and the right for equal pay to the restrictions with abortions, the intention and effect has always been the same: the subjugation and denigration of women.

    Whether varnished or unvarnished throughout the decades, misogyny is still misogyny.

Leave a Reply