For anyone wondering whether or not Donald Trump is a misogynist, he’s here to confirm for you not only that he is, but that most of his supporters are too… even the women. Trump needs more, it would seem, than just Person of the Year.
While speaking in Louisiana (note the “Geaux Vote” sign on his podium) Donald Trump used a favored technique for assessing the favorability of his ideas: poll his audience, then apply the response to everyone in the country. In Louisiana, he wanted to know whether Time Magazine should have awarded him “Time’s ‘Person‘ of the Year” or “Time’s ‘Man‘ of the Year.”
The result: Even his female supporters are against the “politically correct” usage of “Person of the Year,” the title that bestows the honors of the award to all genders. Even though a few in his sheltered, xenophobic, homogeny-worshiping crowd cheered for the all-inclusive “person,” more screamed for “man.” Many more. It seems as though equality isn’t just the last thing on his mind, it upsets him, perhaps making him feel somehow “less” having won “Person of the Year,” when what he wanted was an award worthy of his masculinity. Like his supporters, Trump
needs wants the word “man.”
However, before you think this spin, watch:
He goes further in saying that the more inclusive usage, “person,” is why the “magazine business isn’t doing so well.” On its own, that comment may not be indicative of mental illness (maybe he doesn’t know what year it is, either, we don’t know), but it shows a definite lack of understanding about the workings of the world, namely that print magazines are suffering because you are reading this article online and do not have to wait until next Monday and buy a copy of the magazine. It’s the internet, Trump.
The man should just be grateful that he received an award won by JFK. He should be humbled to be in the same company with Angela Merkel (2015), and Queen Elizabeth II (1954). But, no, Trump needs more.
Historically, the times women were nominated or included in a nomination:
In 1999, the title was changed to Person of the Year. Women who have been selected for recognition after the renaming include “The Whistleblowers” (Cynthia Cooper, Coleen Rowley and Sherron Watkins in 2002), Melinda Gates (jointly with Bill Gates and Bono, in 2005), and Angela Merkel in 2015. Prior to 1999, four women were granted the title as individuals: three as “Woman of the Year”—Wallis Simpson (1936), Queen Elizabeth II (1952) and Corazon Aquino (1986)–and one as half of the “Man and Wife of the Year”, Soong Mei-ling (1937). “American Women” were recognized as a group in 1975. Other classes of people recognized comprise both men and women, such as “Hungarian Freedom Fighters” (1956), “U.S. Scientists” (1960), “The Inheritors” (1966), “The Middle Americans” (1969), “The American Soldier” (2003), “You” (2006), “The Protester” (2011) represented on the cover by a woman, and “Ebola fighters” (2014).
This title isn’t some new-fangled PC stripping of masculinity (no, he didn’t say that, he didn’t have to.) Sure, it was nearly the turn of the century before it was changed, but it was never exclusive to men. Perhaps, though, his problem is that he doubts his own masculinity and wants to have it validated? Sorry, but gender — like race, color, and sexual orientation — are not accomplishments, they are simply part of the package. We are more interested in the actions of a person than in those things they can’t control, particularly when we are handing out recognition… be it indictment or commendation.
“Person” is an affirmation that out of all of our human beings, someone is named person of the year by Time Magazine and that person was likely born with genitals. However, it doesn’t matter what is between their legs, it matters what they’ve accomplished.
Sorry, Trump, your gender isn’t what got your “award,” and thus it shouldn’t be part of the title, despite the idea that the women in your canned audience of supporters agreed. Whoop-de-do (with all appropriate sarcasm). Some may even have bought into the idea that any time equal time is given, it is at the cost of the men. However, it costs them nothing to be considered equally, but that is simply not taken into account.
We already know this man is a disaster, yet he insists on rubbing it in.