Sexism, Misogyny, and Trump

[Written for Feminist Theory.]

Kate Manne’s book, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, details misogyny in a way I had never thought of before. She articulates the differences between sexism and misogyny perfectly and provides examples that allow the reader to understand her argument clearly; however, we disagree slightly when it comes to where misogyny lies. Nonetheless, in my opinion, Manne does a great job at discriminating between misogyny and sexism, and offering examples to prove her points.

The bulk of Manne’s book discusses misogyny and the way the word should be defined and used. For her, misogyny is  when someone, a woman, rejects societal gender norms, which makes patriarchy uncomfortable and results in the bubbling up of violence and aggression. She paints the picture of misogyny as an enforcer to police patriarchal hierarchy, which is a definition that I support. In order to defend her account, she correlates it to the “naive conception” of misogyny, the innate hatred of women for simply being women. Once again, I think she is spot on because misogyny is not merely an individual issue. This is, it is instead, clearly a political strategy set forth to keep those not meant to be in power, women, out of power, or at the very least, in line with those in power. In contrast, the naive conception of misogyny neglects the possibility of it being a political issue and understands misogyny as an internal monster in men that causes them to hate women.

It’s easier to paint the picture of something enforcing patriarchal ideals than it is to paint the picture of what ‘innate hatred for women’ looks like. Moving further, she explains how this naive conception truly is naive. In our patriarchal world, it would be senseless and silly to assume men could have hatred towards women. If you hated women and wanted to get rid of women, what would you (men) do for food, nurture, sex, cleaning, and so on? The patriarchal hierarchy requires women to give all of these things, and more, to those placed before us, so if an innate hatred of women were common, what would the world look like without us (women)? An even bigger, dirtier shit show? As Manne claims on page 45, the naive conception “would effectively define misogyny out of prevalence within a patriarchal order, which I take to be the setting in which it should be (most) naturally occurring.”  Lastly, the naive conception would mean that all women are subject to misogyny: i.e. if you are a woman then you would provoke hatred and disgust from men. However, this is not the case. As a 23 year old woman, I would say that I have not been victim to misogyny in the same ways as many of my peers. I spent nearly 20 years of my life following the “good girl” ideology because it was what I knew and I was good at it. Staying silent, following the rules set before me, and caring for or nurturing everyone around me comes easy to me. I was either too blinded to see the misogyny around me, or I was too “good” to bear the brunt of it. Misogyny targets those who are not following along; it affects the women who do speak for themselves, who don’t follow rules without questioning them, and who don’t jump to care after everyone because “it’s in their nature.”

Manne’s focus on sexism is not quite as in depth as her discussion on misogyny, given the topic of the book, but what little time we spend on it is well put. She plainly classifies sexism as the tool used to justify misogyny and the patriarchal norms in America. Sexism is used to make misogyny seem inevitable. Sexism justifies claiming a biological difference between what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman even if it sounds as absurd as declaring that men are not able to see dirt. This definition alone is one that I agree with wholeheartedly, but the simplicity in the way she distinguishes the two will stick with me forever. “Sexist ideology will tend to discriminate between men and women” (79) and “Misogyny will typically differentiate between good women and bad ones.” (80) Manne gives us ample examples in her book, but for me, this hits home. This paints a picture of my own life from the past few years since being on my own and becoming my own person. I went from being the obedient, quiet, (God fearing) Addie that my family loved so dearly, to being the lazy, unfriendly, (“please pray for her”) Adele that I’ve come to love so dearly. I no longer smile on command; frowning is much more comfortable. I don’t take what a Republican white man says for gospel; they’re wrong 99.9% of the time. I might not be doted on for being so “nice” and “respectful” anymore, but if the patriarchal punishment is being the one at Christmas to set my grandfather straight, then I’m much happier now than I was when I was a “good girl.” “Yes, Grandpa, she can be a Doctor in Education. She should be referred to as Dr. Jill Biden-- that’s who she is. That doesn’t make her arrogant.”

Moving forward, Manne introduces an interesting idea on page 31. Tom Fordy asks point blank, “is there a misogynist inside every man?” Manne responds with a clear response on page 77, “No, not as I’ve defined the term here, so as to be a threshold concept. And one need not be a man to be a misogynist either: women can fit this description too.” At first glance, I found myself struggling to grasp the idea; however, after discussion and allowing time to process, I agree. She expresses misogyny as something that comes in degrees, and zero is technically a degree. Zero is simultaneously something and nothing in this theory; the person has put in the work to unlearn the behaviors, but on a degree system, zero is the lowest possible outcome. While I hold my stance that this is unlikely, in terms of misogyny needing a slow evolution to change in society, I do understand and agree with her point. Misogyny cannot be overturned quickly, so a degree system makes sense. Misogyny is the enforcer of the patriarchy, taught not directly to us but instilled in us at a young age, with toys and mannerisms, (ex. “He’s gonna be a lady killer” / “She should marry a doctor so she can stay at home”). This means there is a degree of misogyny inside every person, even if that person has unlearned the misogyny, their degree is zero. . We are force fed patriarchal ideals before we are even born, from the beginning, and I would argue that these could have an effect on us as newborns, an effect that would require us to unlearn the behavior instilled in us to reach a degree of zero misogyny. I’m not a parent or well versed in newborn psychology, but I imagine it like this: a baby is told, whether consciously listening or not, that they are so strong or so pretty from the point they enter the world. They may not consciously be absorbing that information and translating it to mean ‘I’m better than that girl,’ or ‘I should smile 24/7 to share my beauty,’ but who is to say that their subconscious isn’t already at work, internalizing those ideals and nurturing them to then flourish when they are at an age to properly think and assess for themselves? Only to then be allowed to play with toys of “their own gender” or instructed on the ways of the patriarchal hierarchy. It’s possibly a stretch, and maybe even controversial to say, “your baby is a misogynist,” but I think it brings up an interesting debate point.

Her discussion of Trump in her book was a work of enlightenment for me. At the time of the 2016 election, I was a high school student in the depths of being deemed a “good” woman, so I was not thinking for myself, forming my own opinions, or even paying attention to the world around me. (A man would tell me what I should know.) I knew nothing of Trump-- what a glorious time of my life-- but after getting away from the dogmatic ideals surrounding me, I came to understand Trump as, what I would call him, the King of Misogyny. Ironically, I think this is a title that he’d twist in his own favor, as I think he attempted to do with Megyn Kelly. Manne gives us a few examples of Trump’s brand of misogyny, but the one about Megyn Kelly having blood coming out of her eyes and “wherever” was the most intriguing to me (88). He was so outraged that a woman in (some small bit of) power would dare question his intentions with other women, in a public manner no less, that he had to change the narrative to the woman being so angry with him that she was bleeding. Which could sway people to consider her a ‘witch,’ and as Manne points out in her final chapter, I don’t think this is a far cry from what might have been a goal: turn people against Kelly, make her out to be “crazy” and “untrustworthy” so that I (Trump/ a man) can get away with my misogynistic tendencies. The point Manne makes about Trump not being sexist was another point of personal enlightenment. While I still can’t firmly get behind the idea that he is not sexist, Manne made very good points. Sexism as a justificatory tool requires an acceptance of natural, biological differences between a man and a woman that would position the man in a higher place simply for being a man. We don’t see Trump doing this, per se. As she points out in page 89, Trump has hired women in places of power in his companies, which alludes to him believing women can and do compete with him, successfully, in the male dominated business/political world; however, his doing so hightens his misogyny because he feels a need to control these women who are powerful in their own right in a “man’s world.” It’s almost like his hiring them serves as their patriarchal punishment for not being the caring, nurturing, woman she “ought to be.”

Kate Manne’s book, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, has been one of my favorite books that I have read for a class. She was incredibly insightful and offered her ideas in a way that was easily digestible, something that I find male philosophers can’t seem to do. She uses this book to discuss misogyny, sexism, the 2016 election, and how they all go hand in hand-- an absolutely riveting tale. Her book was riddled with incredibly insightful information that I found invaluable. My final words to wrap up my love for her book, agreement with her definitions, and abhorrence for a certain orange someone will be a quote from the first couple pages of her book-- a quote that gave me chills and sets the tone I hope to carry throughout my life: “Silence isolates his victims; and it enables misogyny. So let’s break it.” (18)