I’ve had a number of different thoughts about the recent authorization of military action in Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people.
Something that sticks in my head is the response to the stated reasons that swayed President Trump into striking the airfield in Syria. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that images included in the President’s daily briefing of the situation motivated him to begin down the process of authorizing the attack. President Trump described very emotional and visceral language in his statement at Mar-a-lago:
Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.
After we learned of what exactly pushed him over the edge, did the media jump on this opportunity to lambast our new president for being overly emotional with our nation’s military force? Well, not exactly:
- Newt Gingrich (I know I know, who cares) compared Trump’s care for those in harm’s way around the world to conservative demigod Ronald Reagan.
- Jeanine Pirro shoveled praise onto the President, saying “His clarity, determination and compassion for the most weak among us without the accustomed indifference, whimpering, dithering, vacillating moral equivalency of the other guy reflects not only his courage, strength and honor, but finally the resurgence and the reawakening of America the great. This is what we voted for.” Man, Jeanine Pirro really loves tomahawk missiles.
- Even the Failing New York Times’ Mark Landler called the decision “acting on instinct” and said Trump was “a man suddenly aware that the world’s problems were now his..” Typically that happens to a President before they issue two separate travel bans aimed at curbing admittance into the United States, roll back environmental protections, and try to strip 24 million Americans of their healthcare. But hey, now is better than never I suppose.
Which brings me to the question that has been swirling around in my head: what if Donald Trump was a woman and had done the exact same thing?
If it had come out that President Donna Trump had ordered a tomahawk missile strike into a foreign country largely because of pictures she saw of grief-stricken parents with their dead children, do you think she would have been afforded the same assumption of stability of thought that a NOTORIOUSLY UNSTABLE man has?
I think the entire next day would have been consumed in unfit-for-office debate and “maybe Donna Trump is pregnant and/or on her period and that explains her rash decisions” speculated on every media outlet regardless of their perceived leanings. Because sexism in the United States does not belong to one political party; it is ubiquitous and that is unquestionable.
Sit down and honestly think about how President Donna Trump would have been treated if she provided that same explanation for military aggression. Or if she could have shown the slightest sign of vulnerability at that tense moment.
I think your answer will reveal something about yourself.