I’m always amazed at the self-contradicting ideology of feminism: Women are as tough as men, but if a man treats a woman as harshly as he would a man, he is a misogynistic a-hole. Only half of that ideology can be true, and I would say it’s the latter half.
In the photo we see a graph of how often Trump interrupted Clinton in the three presidential debates. The graph was posted on Facebook by Christian author Michael Frost. He commented, “‘Manterrupting’: unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man. It’s a thing. And one of the world’s greatest manterrupters is running for president. Over 90 minutes of yelling over the top of his opponent, seizing the floor, and interrupting. This guy’s all class.”
Now, I am not going to to defend Trump against charges of rudeness; he obviously comes off as an arrogant jerk most of the time. But, does our friend Frost honestly believe that if Trump’s opponent in this election were a man, he wouldn’t interrupt him just as much, if not more, than he did Hillary?
Does Frost believe that Hillary is a delicate flower, who was somehow able to navigate her way through the harsh political waters over the years making it to the presidential debates, and is unable to handle Trump? Does Frost really believe that Hillary didn’t restrain herself in the debates as a strategy to egg Trump on and make him look all the more misogynistic so that she could play the sexist card? Could Hillary not have been just as aggressive as Trump if she felt it was advantageous to do so?
This is a perfect example of the contradiction in feminism. If feminists want women to be treated like men, but then get offended when they are, their ideology can not stand.