Guest Post: An Endorsement of Donald Trump Is An Endorsement of Rape Culture

A vote for Donald Trump is an endorsement of rape and all other forms of sexual harassment. Make excuses all you like, but it’s the truth. Granted, there are usually a host of issues that any given candidate has a stance on, but Mr. Trump’s other policy ideas have been so vague, I think it’s fair to say that normalizing sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination are among his only solid positions. And the scariest part is that if he is elected, it will only get worse. “And when you’re a star they let you do it.” Imagine what he will think he can do if he is occupying one of the most famous and respected offices in the world.

Mr. Trump has apologized, surprisingly, promising to be a better man and insisting: “Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am.” Here’s the thing, though: They do reflect who you are, Mr. Trump. There are countless other examples of comments like this being made over the years, even in this election cycle, so claiming that somehow these particular comments are not representative of the whole is inconsistent with reality and frankly, rather insulting. Not only that, but the fact that instead of apologizing, your initial response was to try to blow it off as simply being “locker-room banter” demonstrates that you don’t feel you should have to apologize for it. You are only apologizing now because you think that not doing so will hurt your campaign. You are not sorry. You think this type of thing is excusable and a joke, and it’s disgusting.

When you, people of the United States, step into the voting booth in November, remember that the president (along with other elected officials) is supposed to represent not only your political views, but also the United States as a nation. When the rest of the world looks at us, the president is who they see. When your son or daughter or mother or father thinks about the face of America, the president is who they see. Is this the way we see ourselves? As defenders of rape and propagators of hate? If you feel that way, then go ahead and vote for Mr. Trump. I’m not going to stop you, nor do I have any right to. Just remember that your vote has consequences.

Mr. Trump is not going to stop his puerile behavior just because he’s elected. He’ll keep saying these things and worse because so far, he’s discovered that no one will stop him or call him out on it. And every time he does, you will have to answer for it because you knowingly helped put this misogynistic, racist, homophobic, cruel person in office. But this is our chance to turn things around, to show Mr. Trump and everyone else who shares his beliefs that this is not who we are. Electing him will be a huge step back in the progress that we’ve made as a nation toward equality. Please don’t take it with him.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts

About the author

Jordan Barrows

Hailing from Helena, Montana, Jordan Barrows is a senior at the University of Arizona studying Biochemistry and Molecular and Cellular Biology. When not working in the lab or attending classes, he enjoys hiking, bike rides, playing music, and teaching.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • One Trump line in the “apology” that caught my eye, “If if anyone was offended by my remarks … ” Gosh, how could anyone be offended by spouse cheating, p—y grabbing, sexual assault, remarks?

  • If T=rump became Cdr (Groper) in-chief, sexual abuse in the military – and corporate culture – would only get WORSE!

  • Thank you for the post Jordon. Trumps remarks years ago are deplorable.

    Now watch the attached two videos of the real life horrors these women experienced as they discuss the rapes and sexual harassment they experienced and the inexcusable attacks directed at them to keep them silent. You will have a better understanding of what rape culture really is. I look forward to your condemnation of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    You wouldn’t want to be accused of endorsing Rape Culture with your support of either Hillary or Bill.

        • Yes, because Dems have always been anti-woman ever since I can recall. Oh wait. That was the PUBBIES!

          Come ON, Skinky. You really should know better, and I think you do. But you simply choose to go all Zinke on us. What the hell. You’re a young outta stater seal wannabee. And that’s just real sad.

          Get a few miles on you and then come back when you have a real argument. “You’re still young, that’s your fault, you have so much yet to go through”.

          Yes, Skinky, that’s your fault. You fault the wisdom and experience that comes with age and history. Stick to doggerel, dude. It’s what you do best! You put the dog shit in doggerel! And really, when you think about it, that’s kinda like doin’ sumthin’!

  • William Skink you can do far better than ask a sure to backfire double barrel loaded question like that. Sure she intervened once and lashed out another time, but if you truly believe she is/has been perpetrating rape culture then make your time stamped case to whom you now see fit.
    This is a time for reality. This is not a zero-sum Presidential game. The Ryan plan to cut taxes and increase debt through misnamed “reconciliation” may well be brokered in a Republican controled House. And power brokered by Mitchell in the Senate.
    The present plan to pack the USA Supreme Court must be denied!

  • You are right William, it was a futile attempt to try and get Jordan and folks that think his way to be honest about the issue of rape. To expand on Jordan’s comments, “An Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Is An Endorsement of Rape Culture.” I am now waiting for Governor Bullock to retract his support of both Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    • Hi Pogo Possum.

      If I’m understanding your comments correctly, you feel that it was wrong for me to condemn Donald Trump’s misogynistic words and actions and exclude Bill and Hillary Clinton from the same treatment. You’ve requested, albeit not in a futile manner, that I and others be honest about the issue of rape. In response, I would like to give a brief explanation for why I wrote about Mr. Trump but did not see fit to include the Clintons.

      First of all, my goal was to comment on Mr. Trump’s actions and what supporting him means. As I mentioned, he has demonstrated his desire to normalize sexual objectification and assault time and time again, particularly in this last week. Barring a solid defense of these actions that does not rely on diversion tactics (bringing up Bill and Hillary, for instance), I believe it is not unreasonable to claim that actively supporting Mr. Trump is analogous to actively supporting the predatory behavior he so freely promotes. Is it a harsh accusation? Of course, but that does not invalidate it.

      As for the Clintons, there are a couple of important points. First, I never denied their involvement in any of the events that you have alluded to, especially Bill’s, since he has publicly confessed at least some of them. Second, Bill Clinton is not running for office. Hillary is. Third, although the charges laid out against her have been in the open for almost two decades, I have yet to find conclusive evidence of Hillary’s involvement in the activities she is alleged to have partaken in, despite reading dozens of interview transcripts and articles. In fact, the most damning piece of evidence appears to be Mrs. Broaddrick’s account of her interaction with Hillary some weeks after she was raped, in which she makes a fairly lengthy assumption about Hillary’s intentions. Now, is Hillary innocent? As far as I’ve been able to tell, yes, but perhaps there is something I missed. Without confirmation, though, condemning her based on hearsay would be the equivalent of spreading conspiracy and gossip, which I have no wish to do.

      In short, Mr. Trump has an enormous amount of evidence, most of it self-inflicted, to suggest his role in promoting rape culture, so I called him out on it. Hillary has a great deal of speculation, but as far as I can tell, little if any evidence, so I was hesitant to do the same for her. Judge that how you will, but this is my rationale.

    • of course it is, but don’t expect this partisan post to even begin to reconcile domestic wedge politics with the exploitation of vulnerable populations in places like Libya, where extremists dictate the reality on the ground.

      • You may very well be right, given your level of sophistication, one that dwarfs the rest of ours combined.

        That being said, given your former defense of Libya under Qadafi as a model for African democracy, you may want to choose your examples better.

        Just a thought.

      • The last time I visited your site, Skink (something I swear I’ll never do again) and I made a critical comment on one of your anti-refugee posts, you answered:

        “I have a solution, Pete, don’t like it, don’t read it.”

        Perhaps you could practice a little quid pro quo.

        • Hello Turner.

          You bring up an interesting point. I think that depends on whether or not you believe the United States possesses a war culture. Hillary has been cited on multiple occasions as being a politician whose policies tend to reflect the current social and political climate. Although she is usually criticized for this, I believe it is imperative that an elected official charged with representing the will of his/her constituents act in a manner in alignment with current public sentiment. Granted, this has exceptions, especially in cases where politicians must take direct action or act on information not available or too detailed for the public, in which case we are meant to trust that our elected officials will act in our best interest. Now, back to your original question. Since you have provided no context for your assertion/question, I will impart my own, but you are free to correct me. One example which you may be referring to is Hillary’s support of US involvement in the Iraqi Conflict (by definition, it was not a war, so I will not refer to it that way), which has been mentioned several times throughout the course of this election. There is no doubt that Hillary did indeed support US engagement in this conflict with her support of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (since this blog is based in Montana, you might also remember that both MT senators, Max Baucus and Conrad Burns, voted in support of the resolution as well). Did Hillary do this because she supported violence in the Middle East? Perhaps. But such an assessment of the situation fails to take into consideration the fact that in 2002, when the resolution was passed, the majority of the country was in support of the conflict. Despite a lack of evidence to support this, I would imagine this support was especially notable for those in New York, the state for which Hillary was serving as senator, who were most directly affected by the events of 9/11 that catalyzed the national reaction. Thus, it would have been a poor reflection of the nation for this resolution to have failed. Granted, the Iraqi Conflict turned out to be severely flawed and was based on misleading information, so I am not claiming that it was right. What I am claiming, however, is that Hillary and every other senator acted in the interest of their constituencies, regardless of personal feelings, and that this is something they should be lauded for. After all, what purpose do elected representatives serve if not to represent us? I think this is an important question to ask when we seek to blame politicians for their actions, particularly those in times of abnormal public sentiment.

          • I would also like to make a few comments in response to William Skink. First, you claim that my post was partisan. What exactly to you mean by that? I have taken the liberty of looking up the term on

            partisan (adj.)
            of, relating to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.:

            Now, in order to be partisan, my post would have to meet one or more of the described characteristics, meaning it would have to be partial to a specific party, person, etc. Based on this, I would assert that my post was anything but partisan. Upon repeated reading, you will find no mention of either political party, nor will you find any statements suggesting support of any particular person. It was assumed in various comments that I support Hillary, but this is not grounded in any evidence from the original post. Additionally, the sentiment that I conveyed regarding an opposition to rape culture has no association with any party or individual platform. Rather, it is a cultural value that is embedded in modern society and reflects the notion that women are both equal and deserving of respect. Thus, instead of being partisan, I would contend that my post was exactly the opposite.

            I also noticed your assertion that this post cannot possibly hope to reconcile the “domestic wedge politics,” as you put it, involved with exploitation of vulnerable populations. This is in agreement with the sentiment at the end of your article on the blog “Reptile Dysfunction” in which you quoted my post, describing the figurative rape of other nations at the hand of the United States ( Interestingly enough, I am actually inclined to agree with you on that, since I cannot nor have any wish to deny the atrocities committed by the US in the name of Imperialism and control. And while I feel that your comment regarding the situation in Libya is somewhat out of context in response to Turner’s comment, I think you bring up an important point that absolutely should be addressed, particularly in this election cycle. That being said, I also think that you missed the point of my original post. You are correct that it cannot reconcile a great deal of issues, but nor was it meant to. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you’re mistaking my lack of commentary on other issues for an oversight of these issues. This was not the case at all, as I am well aware of and have plenty of opinions about those and others. The goals of this post, though, were simple: to call out Mr. Trump for his grotesque dissemination of sexual assault rhetoric and to frame that issue in the context of his responsibilities as a leader, as well as the responsibilities of his supporters. It is debatable whether or not I accomplished those goals, but claims that the ideas presented in the post cannot apply to topics outside their scope are irrelevant, since they cannot reasonably be expected to do so anyway.

            • the platform for this post is a partisan blog that attacks Republicans. you may not see your post as partisan, but the timing and limited focus of your piece on a site like this undermines your assertion.

              • Hello William. That’s a good point. I had originally posted this on Facebook with no connection to any other pieces, so that did not occur to me. I still stand by my assertion that the message of the post is nonpartisan, but I concede that, given the context, it could be interpreted as being partisan.

    • Delusional? How so, Sonny? For you see, I’ve seen Hitlery ravaged on lefty sites too. You see, it’s not that I like Hillary, it’s just that the status quo, be it as it may, seems MUCH better than fascism right now. BTW, are you familiar with Spain about 1936? Franco, the little dicktater like the Donald, didn’t believe in election results either. And we should ALL know how that turned out! It’s just that the Donald has nothing to offer the country other than violence. And I don’t think that that’s what we need right now.

      BTW, the mafia called. They want their Don back, for he is making them all look bad! And stoopid! True story. I have relatives in the southern mafia. The Croation mafia. They don’t like the Don. He’s gone rogue!

  • Jordan, I am not certain if you will see this because Don has been deleting and blocking my comments.

    I shared your article and your responses with several of my close female friends. One of these women was forced to leave a profitable professional position due to sexual harassment and rape by a person of authority within her company. Another is a woman who was raped by an athlete when she was a college student years ago. I also shared it with a family member who was forced to quit a job she loved when she was 17 because of constant sexual harassment by her manager.

    None of these women are Trump supporters. All of these women say that you, your comments, your dismissal of Hillary’s actions and dismissal of her refusal to denounce her husband’s sexual assault of women are perfect examples of rape culture in this country.

    All of these women said they would never vote for Hillary Clinton because of how she has defended and enabled her husband. They all pointed out that Hillary has never publicly condemned her husband for his sexual harassment of Paula Jones or any of the other women who have come forward to accuse him of sexual assault. They all mentioned the well documented dismissive attitude, name calling and insults Hillary and her team threw at the women who have claimed for decades that Bill Clinton sexually harassed or raped them.

    They all say that Hillary’s actions and statements towards these women remind them of the dismissive attitudes, insults, threats and attacks they received when they announced they had been sexually harassed or raped. They listed the comments ( some of which sound a lot like yours) from co-workers, friends, supervisors and even law enforcement officials intended to discourage them from taking action against the men who assaulted them: you are just “assuming” he intended to sexually harass you; you don’t have conclusive evidence; perhaps you misinterpreted his actions; yes other women have complained to management about Mr. X but that is just gossip; he is my boss and if you say anything and he gets fired then I won’t get my promotion; if you go forward with this accusation people will say you are a slut / crazy / a liar / looking for attention. The list goes on and on.

    All three women point out from their own personal experiences, that the refusal to denounce both the rapist and the rapist’s defenders is one of the most damaging parts of rape culture.

    All three of these women say excusing Hillary and “blowing it off” because Bill isn’t running for President is a hateful misogynistic excuse because Hillary continues to deny his guilt, continues to defend him without hesitation, attacks his accusers and refuses to publicly condemn his actions. And this they say, makes you a part of rape culture.
    To paraphrase your comments,………..”Bill Clinton is not going to stop his puerile behavior just because Hillary is elected. He’ll keep doing these things and worse Hillary will never condemn Bill’s sexual assault of women. She will continue to defend him and attack his victims because so far they’ve discovered that no one will stop them or call them out on it. And every time they do, you will have to answer for it because you knowingly helped put these two misogynistic, cruel people back in the White House.”

    • Hello Pogo Possum.
      Thank you for your reply. You have made some good points, and I would like to try to clarify a few things if I can.
      First of all, I would like to apologize for any implication that I made of defending Bill’s sexual actions or anyone else’s involvement in putting down his victims. That was not my intention, as I hope to spell out below.
      The comment that I believe you are referring to had two purposes:
      1) To reiterate that the assertion in my original post is not undermined by what Bill or Hillary or anyone else has done. Mr. Trump’s actions and words are despicable, and bringing up an unrelated counterexample in his defense is tu quoque. I was frustrated by the fact that this type of response was the only one I had seen presented in defense of Mr. Trump, and I wanted to refute it.
      2) To attempt to explain why I did not feel compelled to condemn Hillary Clinton. It was not because I denied her involvement, nor was it because I dismissed her actions. It was because I had not seen conclusive evidence of her involvement by the time I wrote my condemnation of Mr. Trump and did not wish to partake in the thoughtless practice of brandishing assertions without evidence to back them up. Defending or dismissing these actions and admitting a lack of certainty that they took place are quite different, since the former would have required me to make excuses for them or claim that they were reasonable or irrelevant. As a result, your condemnation of me as a misogynistic promoter of rape culture based on your assertion that I dismissed her actions is a bit of a straw man argument.
      I have a couple of comments on the second goal as it pertains to your response. If, as you mention, there is conclusive evidence of her “dismissive attitude, name calling and insults,” then she certainly deserves to be called out for that. In fact, could you direct me to some sources of these allegations? I am not denying that they might be out there, but since I myself have been unable to find them, I would appreciate your help. I see your point about how refusing to denounce rapists’ defenders contributes to rape culture, and I agree, but I think that blaming someone without evidence of wrongdoing is unacceptable as well. Again, I am not denying that evidence exists, just maintaining that it would have been irresponsible for me to make that assertion without it.
      As for your parallels to the comments made to rape victims, I want to discuss two in particular: “you are just ‘assuming’ he intended to sexually harass you” and “perhaps you misinterpreted his actions.” Your implication is correct that the wording of these statements is not unlike the wording of my statement about Mrs. Broaddrick’s account. However, I think there’s an important distinction, which is the fact that I was not claiming that she was assuming or misinterpreting anything about Bill’s intentions. I was claiming that she might have assumed Hillary’s based on her body language and speech patterns. As I mentioned above, I am inclined to believe Mrs. Broaddrick when she says she felt like Hillary knew, but hers is an incredibly serious accusation to be making based on an interpretation of a conversation. You might argue that I shouldn’t be questioning whether or not she interpreted the conversation correctly, but in response, I would argue that such misinterpretations happen all the time. Even you, in your response to my comments, incorrectly assumed that I was defending Hillary’s actions, when in fact I was only saying that I couldn’t say for sure that they had happened. Now, can I prove that Hillary didn’t intend to threaten her? Of course not. I just would have wanted some more evidence to corroborate that claim. Again, please feel free to share such evidence with me.
      Regarding your argument about Bill, you are absolutely right that the two are not unconnected. I should have elaborated that I meant that Hillary should not be punished as a result of Bill’s actions, which is why those actions in particular are irrelevant to this election. Hillary’s actions, however, are absolutely relevant, so I agree with you there.
      So, you may be wondering, what’s my point? Well, I believe that your accusations against me were both misguided and premature, given the fact that I said nothing in defense of Hillary and I even condemned Bill, so I’m asserting my right to defend myself. I was not trying to comment on the morality or lack thereof of defending rapists. I was not claiming that Hillary was right in her actions. I’m here to learn more about what happened and to make sure that I and everyone else understands as well as possible what they are talking about when they refer to Hillary and her past. You may see this as hypocritical, but I am actually quite passionate about ending rape culture and would like to do what I can to help. If I made a mistake in my previous comments by saying or implying that I am defending it, then I apologize for that. In fact, I am truly sorry that that is the implication that you and your friends got, as that was not my intention at all.
      In light of this last part, I found an article in the NY Times this afternoon that I would like to get your thoughts on:

      • Jordan, paragraphs PLEASE! You have much to say, but please try throw in a paragraph now and then. For you see, I’m old. And my attention span is about as long as a good bowel movement now. So, please, throw one in now and then. Otherwise, I can’t make it to the end!

        • My apologies, LK. I wrote the comment in Word and had paragraphs in there, and I falsely assumed that they would transfer over to here. Do you know if there is a way to edit comments once they are up in order to fix such errors?

Send this to a friend