by Max Brantley
Republicans seem unable to censure Trump without invoking female spouses and especially offspring. In this version of Take Our Daughters to Work Day, the work is displaying concern for women, and the daughters are less protégées than props.They should also invoke sons and the fervent hope that they'll be brought up better than 70-year-old Donald Trump was brought up. Bruni notes what's wrong with the teary-eyed father/husband/sister approach.
As Yochi Dreazen noted in a post for Vox, it cast men in the role of protectors and carried a stronger whiff of chivalry than of equality. It also defined women in terms of men and caring about them in terms of their places in men’s families.When Tom Cotton or John Boozman or Bruce Westerman or any of the other Republican congressMEN from Arkansas talk about putting out the lights of a boor like Trump to defend their womenfolk, it should be considered in light of:
My loins are fruitless but my principles are clear: No human being — woman or man — should be regarded as a conquest or an amusement with a will subservient to someone else’s. That’s how Trump seems to treat most of the people in his life, and I object to that not as the brother of three admirable siblings (including a sister), not as the son of two extraordinary parents (including a mother), not as the uncle of many talented nieces and nephews, not as the partner of a wonderful man, and not as a friend to brilliant men and women whose welfare matters greatly to me.Amen. And it is also wrong that femininity's putative defenders in the Arkansas congressional delegation have amassed ahauvinistic record on legislation important to women.
I object to it as the citizen of a civilized society. I object to it because it threatens the people I don’t know as well as the people I do. I object to it because it’s wrong.