Staff Reports
A debate showdown between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump is looming just nine days away, and speculation is rampant regarding Harris’s commitment to even showing up. With Trump’s reputation for being more than a little outspoken, some are already advising him to play nice. Wilbur Ross, a figure who knows a thing or two about Trump, has suggested that the former president might need to temper his aggressive style. Apparently, one needs to err on the side of delicacy because, you know, it’s a debate featuring a woman.
Ross’s comments imply that the former president should take care not to appear “too big and strong” for the delicate sensibilities of a woman on stage. This notion raises eyebrows not just for its absurdity but because it reveals a glaring double standard. Harris is expected to act like the tough-as-nails prosecutor she claims to be, yet when it comes to facing a formidable opponent like Trump, some feel she should be wrapped in bubble wrap. The absurdity of this advice leads one to wonder: what if the tables were turned? Harris, it is assumed, will not hesitate for a moment to deliver some hot-blooded rhetoric in Trump’s direction if given the chance.
"Let's not be mistaken. Donald Trump is tall, and very loud — and he's very persistent. It's not going to be so easy to just say 'ok let's move on.' He's going to be right there"
CNN is getting worried about Kamala's chances against Trump after watching her interview 😭 pic.twitter.com/RhpiBiZhFm
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) August 30, 2024
The insistence that Trump should be cautious around Harris perpetuates an outdated and condescending stereotype that women simply cannot handle the heat of political debate. Presenting herself as the savvy and tenacious attorney, Harris has positioned herself in a manner that suggests she can indeed hold her own against Trump. If she wishes to earn trust in her purported capabilities to negotiate with world leaders, her performance against Trump should reflect that—without any cries of foul if she gets a taste of tough love on the debate stage.
Context matters. The moment Harris steps into the ring, the gloves come off. However, the implication that Trump must lessen his punch—that he has to turn down his trademark directness—creates a narrative that only serves to undermine both him and her. It suggests that she can’t handle the strain of a vigorous debate, which is frankly insulting not only to Harris but to every woman who strives for success in leadership. This is a disservice to the perception of women as capable leaders—capable of going toe-to-toe without the need for soft-glove treatment.
Regardless of how the debate unfolds, it’s all but guaranteed that the media will twist Trump’s performance into a narrative of aggression and masculinity run rampant. This isn’t just speculation; it’s a déjà vu of 2016, where every move Trump made against Hillary Clinton was scrutinized through a gender-focused lens. An elementary tenet of a just evaluation process should be that gender should not dictate debate dynamics. If Harris is to be seen as a legitimate contender, she must be viewed through the same lens that she applies to her male colleagues. If she can’t withstand the smoke of tough exchanges, what does that say about her ability to endure the real difficulties of a potential presidency?
In the end, if Harris wants to play with the big boys in politics, she cannot hide behind the flimsy veil of gender amongst steely competition. The call for Trump to cushion his blows is not just an appeal for civility; it’s a profound misunderstanding of the toughness displayed by women in all sectors. Equal treatment means no special favors. If she hopes to claim a seat at the table, she must bring the whole fork and knife set—no baby utensils allowed.
