The Problem with Protecting our Wives and Daughters
- 3 views
The author is more or less making the suggestion that, whether we like it or not, we have a heritage of a Vision Forum-like view of women being mostly creatures of their fathers or husbands, and when we say we object to Trump’s (or Clinton’s for that matter) sleaze because we want to protect our wives and daughters, we are implicitly forgetting the widow, the orphan, and the alien. It’s a criticism that has some merit.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
How did Trump hurt the widow, orphan, or alien?
At least make sure to write one about Hillary as well!
[Mark_Smith]At least make sure to write one about Hillary as well!
Here you go
[Mark_Smith]How did Trump hurt the widow, orphan, or alien?
I was actually thinking mostly about how concentrating on wives & daughters left widows & orphans at least rhetorically unprotected—that we, not Mr. Drumpf, would be implicitly hurting the widow or orphan because we were concentrating solely on wives & daughters. (the article actually makes this point, too)
However, since you mention it, the models that Mr. Drumpf writes about bedding in his book, being isolated from family members, pretty much qualify as well. We might quibble that they are not technically without parents, but the reality is their parents would have had an extremely tough time protecting them from “The Donald”. The end result is about the same.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Why are you using the name “Mr. Drumpf”? Why not just call him by his name?
[Larry]Why are you using the name “Mr. Drumpf”? Why not just call him by his name?
…..he chose to mock people for having changed their names, and his daddy was born a Drumpf. Sauce for the goose.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
he chose to mock people for having changed their names, and his daddy was born a Drumpf.
I don’t get it. His name is Trump, not Drumpf, no matter what his father’s name was. What’s the point of calling him Drumpf?
Discussion