Yesterday, in the Oval Office:
"Well, it's sort of easy to answer for me, because a woman is somebody that can have a baby under certain circumstances. She has a quality. A woman is a person who's much smarter than a man, I've always found. A woman is a person that doesn't give a man even a chance of success. And a woman's a person that in many cases has been treated very badly, because I think that, uh, what happens with this crazy, this crazy issue of men being able to play in women's sports is just ridiculous and very unfair to women and very demeaning to women. And that's got to be about a 94% — I read today — it was a 94% issue, and I watched the other day, I watched congressman, Democrat Congressman, fighting for the fact that men should be allowed to compete, essentially, in women's sports, and I say, I hope they keep that going, because they'll never win another election. That's a big deal. But women are basically incredible people do so much for our country, and we love, we love our women, and we're going to take care of our women."
That's a lot of words, but if you had to boil it down to one word, I think you'd have to go with: paternalistic. The first thing he thought of was the capacity to have babies. He veered into abstractly praising women and digging into the transgender question, but he ended with the most basic expression of paternalism: We love our women, and we're going to take care of our women.
Posts
73 comments:
It's a trap.
Well, we do love our women and will protect them. And they return the favor. Usually.
"
That's a lot of words...". Yes, there were lots of words. Rambling? OK. Paternalistic? I can see that.
But I far prefer that to an F'in SUPREME COURT JUDGE saying that she dunno, not a biologist.
The weave was paternalistic, but the basic answer in Sentence 1, was not.
"Well, it's sort of easy to answer for me, because a woman is somebody that can have a baby under certain circumstances."
That's biologicalistic not paternalistic. Too tricky for a SCOTUS candidate maybe, but well within the scope of a President, or a truck driver.
The opinion that this is a difficult question is the sort of thing that Orwell was referring to : " One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
"and we love, we love our X, and we're going to take care of our X." He says this phrase regarding various groups a lot. I would agree with the paternalistic characterization because I think he is trying to get people to feel like America is a family.
I know a woman when I see one. Usually.
The question "What is a woman?" is best asked of a man who asserts that he is one.
What’s wrong with loving women?
Love is all there is.
He's following the Althouse Rule: Any discussion of differences between men and women must cast women favorably.
(yes, I know this is not the Prof's own practice, but something she noticed among other academics. Nevertheless, since she noted the phenomenon, she gets it named after her.)
JSM
"The first thing he thought of was the capacity to have babies." Following the science, to coin a phrase.
If Trump is paternalistic, are Dems misogynistic?
Trump is a family man. So is Musk. Each cabinet member exhibits paternalistic streaks, even the female ones. DOGE is rooted in taking care that our government is sustainable well into the future for the American families. American progeny deserve to live the American way of life. Trump et al are paternal role models.
Some people see paternalism, some people see daddy issues.
Trump's answer was courageous.
Biden had the questions from journalists in advance, while Trump goes in cold. Trump gave a substantive answer to a question that is considered a trap and is too difficult for a Supreme Court nominee.
His first sentence was definitive, the last part about sports was policy, and the parts in between were vague flattery.
Women will have their thing and you have to cater to it as if you cared about it.
Is it truly paternalistic if the “we” includes women in the administration or country as a whole?
A woman loves a man and together they have a baby. Transgender (e.g. homosexual) refers to a state or process of divergence from gender (e.g. sexual orientation). The abortionists are liberals that have adopted a wicked solution to perform human rites for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress.
Paternalism is a damned good thing. I just read the dictionary definition, and it’s the sort of idiot feminist bullshit you might expect. “Control, interference.” Paternalism is fathers directing and guiding their children. Which is a damned good thing. It’s what holds civilization together. Feminism has somehow transformed the glorious, civilizing and loving direction and guidance of fathers into a threat. You can’t get stupider than this.
It's more tribal than paternalistic. Manufacturing humans is a key critical job. Because of it, men are expendable and women are protected. Relative physical weakness is woman's kryptonite that can be exploited. This is related to Don's comment that women are smarter because they can't compete with men physically they are forced to use their minds instead.
Trump's progressiveism is showing.
Trump is a real estate guy.
Women control the most valuable real estate on the planet.
“A woman is a person that doesn't give a man even a chance of success.”
There’s misogyny mixed in with the paternalism. That sounds very incel. I suppose that Trump is an incel in the sense that he has only been able to sleep with a small percentage of the women that he has wanted to sleep with. I imagine that is what he means by not giving a man a chance at success.
Love is the law.
Love is the answer.
When a man loves a woman, he can't keep his mind on nothin' else.
Paternalism represents humans fall from grace frt formerly worshipping Venus then adopting "knowledge" as stated in the Bible. Adam and Eve are cast out from tribal life in a vast garden into the death cult of civilization with its laws, rules, rulers, armies, spys, criminals etc. held together by male monotheism.
In a few days, maybe, Brad Schmeil will be elected. He can help decide what medical treatments you are entitled to receive. Not you old girl. Your days of value making babies are done. But Elon and JD know: we need more babies. Elon knows male babies are the best, for him. But we need women like Dawn too... or did. They could have done thir part and made boy babies. You live richly today, because you are a smart woman who made the best choices. You gave the world two boy babies, and (partiall) Jewish ones too. You won!
And... you can still ask for help supporting your work. You chose meade to lead you. He got you a gun, got you to sportsgames and is taking good care of you. Win-ning! YOu even look good for your age, and couldn't spend the money you have earned, from your work, if you tried.
What a life you made for yourself, even though you are not playing in the top division. You did the best you could with what you had, and are the winner in the ladies' field of competition. Nina has nothing on you. Girls girls girls... and her Jewish lover won't even make an honest woman of her. but those eastern european ones are trained to be comfort women from the get go. I wonder if the 10 or 11 year old goes to the farmhouse to bounce on Nina's boyfriend's lap in her absence. They do it while she is there. It's hopeful if she pleases him enough, she will inherit from the man. Those Eastern European types are taught early what to eat, where to go, how to gain a rich man.
Meade is such a catch. You're not just the woman fucking him. You're his wife... (sure you can't adopt a baby, a nice submissive asian one maybe? or are you afraid meade might like her better than you?) Babies babies babies. That's the only thing better than a bouncey bundle of womanhood, second to man. You came from his rib you know. I'm glad you have finally embraced religion and accepted your role.
Do you you gargle or swallow after he comes in your mouth? NEvermind, I know you said you enjoy that. And at least, he is a Christian man this time...
Love is life, love is yearning
It does not boast, but speaks the truth
Love is fair and knows no boundaries
And the craziest thing you'll ever do
Oh, yeah.
A woman is a good cunt
who accepts God the father
and does his will with her body.
nttawwt
Why not call it the Begleymead blog?
For a misogynistic paternalist, Trump certainly has appointed a lot of strong women to key jobs: Susie Wiles, Pam Biondi, Tulsi Gabbard, Linda MacMahon, etc., etc. They are part of the "we" in the last sentence.
Always say I love you at the end of your goodbyes.
Trump is being a typical human male.
Male apes evolved to be larger and stronger than female apes, and their functional penetrators / protectors / enforcers of breeding rights. This behavior is extremely obvious with gorillas, even though the human size gap is a lot smaller. But still, evolution is evolution and instincts are instincts and hormones are hormones.
Half to 2/3rds of human behavior is driven by biology and species-typical probabilities. Don't let the deluded fantasies of the equity crowd influence you.
Wake me up in a zillion years when pubescent girls with raging hormones stop melting down to next boy band. Beatles. Monkeys. New Kids on the Block. Boyz II Men. Backstreet Boys. NSYNC. Etc.
"The weave was paternalistic, but the basic answer in Sentence 1, was not."
Then a lot of women are not women. I, an old woman, am not a woman.
But he said "somebody that can have a baby under certain circumstances," so he built in the exception. If you're an old woman you're not "somebody" within the "circumstances."
It's not a proper definition if it doesn't cover the people who can't have a baby. Maybe he meant to say something like: a person with various organs that would be required to gestate a baby and might gestate a baby if that person were also fertile and inseminated.
So an old woman has those organs... unless she's had them removed.
Let me tweak the definition: a person who was born with various organs that would be required to gestate a baby and might gestate a baby if that person were also fertile and inseminated.
Trump's manner of irrepressible extemporaneous speaking puts me in mind of 1950's Yankee manager Casey Stengel. Like Trump, Stengel could be hard and hard-minded but possessed a strong native intelligence and knowledge of human nature.
Like Stengel, Trump loves to talk and will talk to anybody nearby. He rambles, gets off on tangents, but you usually end up knowing what point he's trying to make.
Let me tweak the definition: a person who was born with various organs that would be required to gestate a baby and might gestate a baby if that person were also fertile and inseminated.
How romantic! That definition just gives me warm and tender feelings.
Once a woman, always a woman. Sex is determined but not discernable from conception. Gender (i.e. sex-correlated attributes) is a more flexible descriptor.
Mostly paternalistic, with a touch of avuncular.
a person who was born with various organs that would be required to gestate a baby and might gestate a baby if that person were also fertile and inseminated.
I'm scratching my head at what "circumstances" you imagine Trump might have been thinking of that make his statement any different than the one you crafted, other than the 50-cent wording.
Where Trump is concerned, it's only natural to ask, "Is that a weave?"
But seriously folks, his first stab at an answer seems pretty reasonable. I'd just rephrase it as "Women are biologically equipped to have babies." To be more accurate, it would be something like, "A woman belongs to the sex that can have babies." But Trump is to be commended for also acknowledging the social dimension of being a woman.
I don't know how to be soft
I've become hard just to survive
But I long to become gentle
Gentleness brings love alive.
Take these two strong hands
Soften them darling understand
I will be in love with you,
I'll be in love with you.
Is Dylana or DylanX a woman? He's male. Is a trans/homosexual a woman? She's female, but not feminine gender. She can change. Bisexuals are a purer conception of transgender, who capture the binary nature common to all men and women, whether as couples or couplets. The trans/homosexual behavior has no redeeming value to society or humanity. There is no pride in the transgender spectrum as Diversity blocs, but rather as individuals. So, we define a woman by her sex, gender, or some set of consistent priorities. What, who, why should society normalize, celebrate?
Left Bank: "There’s misogyny mixed in with the paternalism. That sounds very incel. I suppose that Trump is an incel in the sense that he has only been able to sleep with a small percentage of the women that he has wanted to sleep with. I imagine that is what he means by not giving a man a chance at success."
Incredible!
You actually formulated those "thoughts", wrote them down, reviewed them, thought the words made sense and/or were sufficiently compelling, then actually hit "publish".
Truly a case study in the offing.
A woman, as Althouse ably demonstrates, is a person who will complain no matter what.
Why couldn’t he just say “adult human female”?
A woman is an adult female human being. A female is the sex born with organs within which babies are created.
The definition of a woman is simply and straight forward. A woman is an adult female human being.
Isn't having babies maternalistic?
I read nothing "wrong" with that statement. Paternalism kept families together until Feminism II became a thing.
In the womb a female forms specific reproductive organs and then forms eggs and those eggs divide once mitotically, then stop until puberty. At puberty one egg a month of those formed in the womb continues to divide mitotically while moving into channel in which it could meet a travelling sperm. A man forms different reproductive organs but he does not begin to use them to produce sperm until puberty; then he produces 1500 to 3000 sperm per second or about 100 million a day or 1 billion a month, 1 trillion over a lifetime. (Women 1 egg once a month; Men 1 billion sperm a month - don't let DOGE hear of the Creator's wastefullness.)
Anyhow, women's bodies are different and need care and protection in a different way from those of men, it's easy to see why. And the difference for women is related to a possible pregnancy whereas for men it's related to one vital act.
But after beginning with this basic fact which is true everywhere and at all times, Trump goes on make statements which are general but which are actually all related to women he has known - his mother, sisters, wives, daughters, campaign managers.
The way I sum these statements up - I think Trump has created opportunities for women who are not trying to be men whereas the liberals require that a women act as if she had a man's body.
The women around Trump have always been talented - his sisters were lawyers; his wives and daughters are beautiful with brilliant careers; his campaign managers, who have always been women, have steered this outsider who had the Establishment against him to victory twice.
I don't think Trump would have won with male campaign managers, not even once and why that is so or how he knew it is part of the unknown story of our times. His mother was a loving, clever woman and somehow she taught Trump something about women which most men know but whch Trump used as no man ever has before and this gained him the Presidency twice, against all the odds That's just how I see it.
He rambles, but he does try to answer the question. He didn't get the question in advance and have time to prepare an answer and then fumble to say anything, like Biden. It's a stupid question and one that earlier presidents were never asked.
We've reached the point where picking apart the answer yields nothing of value. Trump has been called a racist white supremacist and literally Hitler. If he sounds like your dad or grandad sometimes that doesn't raise any eyebrows. Is what he said paternalistic? Boo-hoo. Right now the score is: Paternalism 1 - Rachel Zegler 0.
It would be fun for Trump to do a duet with Katy "What is a Woman" Perry when she gets back from [the barest fringe of] outer space, but she plays for the other side (Democrats and not, so far as I know, lesbians).
@Paul Z, I think long time readers know exactly which word in that answer is generating the complaint.
Ann, I’m pretty sure you meant “materialistic”; it’s about women giving birth, which is what women used to do. Of course, men can give birth these days, too, or so the Science tells us
I'm not sure I agree that the last sentence (in particular) is paternalistic. It's just one of Trump's verbal tics. Doesn't matter who he's talking about. If he's talking to cops, he says some thing like "we love our cops and were going to take good care of them" same with firefighters, auto workers, etc. He does it all the time.
Trump also promised “to take care of our men”. Was that ‘materialistic’ of him?
I thought about this at one point..in my 30s? I have said that women’s bodies in general are designed for one singular purpose…to be able to carry, bear and nurture babies. Doesn’t mean they all work successfully. But, the female body has the organs, the pelvic structure, the mammaries, etc to fulfill that singular purpose. It will do what it can to protect that ability. Young female athletes, like marathon runners, have such lean body mass that they often stop menstruating. The body says, “nope. Not a good environment right now.” That happened to my sister. It decides the body is past its child-bearing prime? Hormones change. I’ve said this with humor and have also added that men’s bodies don’t have such an overriding purpose. Their bodies don’t really care what’s going on.
A woman is a person who is not a man.
I came to this site, and stayed, because I saw Ann as sort of like Bill Maher, a leftist who often saw through the liberal bull. But lately I am seeing more knee-jerk leftism than fairness. Trump's answer was not a 'weave', it was an actual answer to an attempted 'gotcha' question that I am sure was not the topic for which the press conference was called. Try asking Kamala or Walz and see what kind of a mess their answers are. They at best pull a Pelosi and just walk away.
Paternalistic? At least you did not go to misogynistic. and yes, protecting your woman is part of a man's obligation.
Men provide order providing the force necessary to maintain society. They protect everyone from internal and external threats to order. Men also produce the wealth and the productivity necessary for modern society. There are almost no women building houses or running oil rigs and if we depended on women for that society would fall to ruin.
All other duties men have are reciprocal. Don't lie, don't steal, treat fairly etc. are all reciprocal duties and fall on both men and women.
There is one non-reciprocal duty that women have that is necessary for the continuation of a culture/society. There is one thing women can do that men cannot do.
This is the definition of a woman. But you have to dance around it because modern women have been trained to be allergic to responsibility.
Ann Althouse said...
"The weave was paternalistic, but the basic answer in Sentence 1, was not."
Then a lot of women are not women. I, an old woman, am not a woman.
But he said "somebody that can have a baby under certain circumstances," so he built in the exception. If you're an old woman you're not "somebody" within the "circumstances."
It's not a proper definition if it doesn't cover the people who can't have a baby. Maybe he meant to say something like: a person with various organs that would be required to gestate a baby and might gestate a baby if that person were also fertile and inseminated.
So an old woman has those organs... unless she's had them removed.
Let me tweak the definition: a person who was born with various organs that would be required to gestate a baby and might gestate a baby if that person were also fertile and inseminated.
A lot of words to avoid the only duty a woman has to society.
Somebody has to do it.
Women are optimized to have a relationship with an infant. Everything they do resembles that. Like telling you you're paternalistic.
Plumbing isn't the important thing.
Mom, RIP, was an Army nurse in the Philippines in WWII, an FDR Harry Truman Democrat, and she would have 100% agreed with Trump.
lately I am seeing more knee-jerk leftism than fairness. Trump's answer was not a 'weave'
That’s Trump’s own boastful term of art for the thing only he does.
Howard said...
It's more tribal than paternalistic. Manufacturing humans is a key critical job. Because of it, men are expendable and women are protected. Relative physical weakness is woman's kryptonite that can be exploited. This is related to Don's comment that women are smarter because they can't compete with men physically they are forced to use their minds instead.
Trump's progressiveism is showing.
Throughout history 50-80% of men that are expendable.
There are always about 20% of men that are necessary.
One of the different things about the United States and Anglo-Protestant culture was that by supporting a pair bond breeding pattern on society it allowed many of the average and mediocre males to be productive members of society and be motivated to contribute by giving them a chance to have offspring.
"Paternalistic" said the blog's mommy... What if there were a woman/female/xx/ovarian who had not had any reproductive organs removed who delivered trumps weave? Would it still be paternalistic?
A woman is a person that doesn't give a man even a chance of success.
So no pussy-grabbing then?
“The definition of a woman is simply and straight forward. A woman is an adult female human being.”
Then to define “female”, males produce mobile gametes, and females produce sessile gametes. In mammals, this almost always means XY or XX sex chromosomes. Yes, there are rare edge cases, such as XXY or XYY, which kinda work. hermaphrodite
Bruce Hayden said...
“The definition of a woman is simply and straight forward. A woman is an adult female human being.”
Then to define “female”, males produce mobile gametes, and females produce sessile gametes. In mammals, this almost always means XY or XX sex chromosomes. Yes, there are rare edge cases, such as XXY or XYY, which kinda work. Hermaphrodites can most often be classified based on their chromosomes - testing of which has become routine. Or, if not, by whichever sex they were assigned at birth. And that covers probably over 99.9% of the population.
The new Blogger template that Ann is using appears to have remove the option to delete one of your old comments. So apologies for the double posting. The first one went out accidentally before I was done with it. So, I figured that I would just copy it, paste it into a new comment, finish it, and delete the first one. Nope. Doesn’t work anymore. Sorry.
Women and children first!
Who is woman? What is she that all our swains commend her?
Holy, fair, and wise is she. The heavens such grace did lend her that she might admirèd be.
I’m going to counterquibble Ann’s quibbles.
The Donald : “… because a woman is somebody that can have a baby under certain circumstances.”
1. “somebody” references a human
2. “can have a baby” references ability, it has nothing to do with volition
3. “under certain circumstances” references the additional conditions, besides womanhood, which must be met before a woman can have babies. Trump does not specify them, but that doesn’t make his definition wrong, it just leaves it incomplete (as a scientific definition.) As a definition in a press conference it’s plenty good enough.
The “circumstances” are :
(a) not too young
(b) not too old
(c) not faulty construction, or damaged
(d) access to sperm
So Trump’s definition comfortably covers everything we think of as a woman – whether she is disinclined to become a mother, or is post menopause, or has defective reproductive equipment, or is marooned on a desert island with The Andrews Sisters.
And comfortably excludes everything we don’t think of as a woman – such as ferrets, staircases, galaxies and …. men.
(cont) Trump’s formulation is not importantly different from saying that :
“a ship is a vessel that can carry people and cargo from A to B across the sea, under certain circumstances.”
The last three words cover the details that it needs to be not still under construction, not unseaworthy on account of age, faulty construction or damage, and suitably supplied with fuel (or sails) and crew. But in real life, who would even bother to add the last three words ? They’re implied anyway.
The fact that Trump adds them in the case of “woman” merely indicates that he knows he is in a room full of folk who have come to pick nits.
Drago, it’s a question of the mathematics of being a womanizer like Trump.
Let’s say Trump has had “success” with 100 women over the course of his life. He’s probably met 5 women a week that he would like to have sex with (some days none, some days more than one). That’s 260 women a year, 16,900 over the course of 65 years, a success rate of 0.6%. The rest of the time, 99.4%, he was involuntarily celibate.
I don't perceive that about having babies as paternalistic - asked for the definition of a woman, you have two choices: social identity or biological identity.
Biological identity may be expressed commonly (gives birth) or biologically (XX/large gamete). So he used the common definition.
Social identity is the paternalistic choice. Think about it. Social identity defines a woman by superficial characteristics or stereotypes. It is the biological definition that is NOT paternalistic, even though the biological definition does lead logically to some sex-based legal distinctions.
LB of C : "The rest of the time, 99.4%, he was involuntarily celibate."
I don't think celibate means what you think it means. Try pastries etc instead of women. You go into a shop selling pastries, cake etc, and you are confronted with a yuuuge array - chocolate cake, lemon cake, coffee cake, fruit cake, seven different types of muffin, four types of donut, several tarts, brownies, cookies of all descriptions and so on. Of these you'd quite fancy any of about fifteen possibilities. But you have to settle for two max because otherwise you'll be sick. So you didn't have thirteen of them. Does that make you hungry ?
Women, moreover, are not like pastries. Once you've had a pastry, that's it. A woman is reusable. Some men use the same woman thousands of times. That really gets in the way of having five new pussies a day, but it doesn't make you celibate.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.