David French's Potential Third Party Run and the Female Vote

So now the cat is out of the bag, as to who Bill Kristol’s “impressive” third party candidate may be.

If you’re not very familiar with the name, David French, don’t feel like a low info rube. Just the fact that you may be looking for a third party option over what the GOP is offering already shows you’re miles ahead of the gilded toad’s gullible tadpoles.

While some are underwhelmed with the reveal, others, myself included, are genuinely curious. In fact, in just the 1-day span of the name leaking out, not only has a short bio been put together, but the media knives are already sharpening for the attack, as well.

For starters, we know David French is a constitutional lawyer, working with the ACLJ, and one of the attorneys who represented Tea Party groups in a lawsuit against the IRS and its targeting of conservative groups. He is a veteran of the Iraq war. He has received the Bronze Star, authored seven books, writes for National Review, and has received the American Conservative Union’s Ronald Reagan Award.

In other words, he’s a firm and unashamed Conservative.

While I was doing my own research on French, who has yet to formally announce any intentions to run, I began reading what different outlets were writing. My quest being, as every voter’s quest should be, to really build my base of knowledge on the guy.

I expected that what I would find out there, beyond his own words in NR (which are impressive, actually), would be a mixed bag of pluses and minuses.

That’s exactly what I found, but probably the most unintentionally humorous bit I found was from Time.com, in what I’m sure was meant to be a flashing, neon warning sign, declaring that French’s comments could hurt him with women.

I’ve been a woman for well over 40 years. I’ve raised a son alone, worked jobs that would normally be considered “men’s” positions, provided for myself and my child without government assistance, then struck out to earn two degrees, graduating with Honors. I’ve lived a pretty independent life as a woman.

With all that in mind, when I saw the title of the Time.com piece on French, “David French’s Writing Could Hurt Him With Women Voters,” it piqued my curiosity. I’m a woman. Let’s see how offensive it could be.

“First, French holds views about feminism that could anger some women voters. In November 2014, he took aim at modern feminism, calling it ‘appalling stupidity backed by hysterical rage.’ French also wrotes that feminism is ‘less a true ‘women’s movement’ than the public face of hysterical leftist intolerance—combined, of course, with utterly bizarre (and bizarrely stupid) ideas.’”

As a woman who has had to actually work and pay bills, with no time to burn my bra in public or parade down Main Street topless, in order to promote so-called “equality” in how society views acceptable forms of undress, I see nothing wrong with French’s statement. In fact, he’s right. What feminism represents today is not only appalling, but embarrassing for those of us with real lives.

The story goes on to give the examples used by French to make his case. One of those examples was the story of so-so actress, Lena Dunham, and how she wrote in her book that at age 7, she was grooming her little sister to be the victim of incestuous abuse, by examining her vagina and offering her candy for kisses.

Some feminists defended the despicable Dunham for that behavior.

In other words, French was right.

Another article that the writer of the Time piece pointed out had to do with a young woman who had complained that her college hookup experience wasn’t what she’d hoped it would be.

French made his case about her complaints in his article, but pointed out the reasons for the dissatisfaction in such a way that any left leaning publication would certainly be taken aback.

“’Indulging in sexual desire without considering the underlying virtue of the relationship or the morality of the desire itself is a recipe for human suffering—leading to the paradox where many of the most sexually-active people are the most heartbroken and most lonely,’ he wrote. ‘For those who understand biblical truth, the notion of slavery to sin is hardly new—and it turns out that redefining sin as freedom doesn’t make the slavery or sorrow any less real.’”


He sounds suspiciously like a Christian, there. Not one of those “Two-Corinthians-never-asked-God-for-forgiveness-because-he-hasn’t-done-anything-to-require-forgiveness” type of Christians. But an actual, washed in the blood, repentant, true believer.

The article also goes on to point out that French and his wife had agreements of what was acceptable and not acceptable in the time they spent apart, while he was deployed.

She wasn’t allowed to carry on “meaningful” communications with other men. Things like e-mails or phone calls, where they discussed politics, religion, or anything more than surface-deep conversations.

French was quoted:

“’…the most intimate conversations a person has are about life and faith’ and ‘…spiritual and emotional intimacy frequently leads to physical intimacy.’”

As a woman, I can say for a certainty that some of my most passionate emotions have been sparked by deep, meaningful conversations about faith, politics, and just life, in general. There is an oft-overlooked, but nonetheless effective tool of seduction men have at their disposal, should they seek to cultivate it.

Women are emotion-driven, whereas men are mostly visual. Therefore, an appeal to a woman’s need to connect, talk, share, and giving her a feeling that her thoughts and opinions matter are powerful.

Again, French was right, and if he and his wife agreed to this arrangement, what outsider should say it was wrong? Their marriage is obviously working, so the commonsense safeguarding of the marriage bonds is not a bad idea.

French also has some thoughts about women in combat. Most notably, he objects to turning our military into a laboratory for social justice experimentation and gender studies.

If feminists really wanted to celebrate their womanhood, it should be to celebrate the differences between men and women. One of those differences is the biological fact that men are naturally more muscular and possess more physical strength, making them more suitable to combat than women.

I’ve worked at lumber mills, textiles mills, and a series of other tough, sweaty, physical jobs. I drove forklifts and front end loaders to do most of the heavy lifting. If it was something I couldn’t do with a machine and it was heavy or difficult, guess what? I asked one of my male colleagues for help.

So are French’s comments damaging to his chances to win over women?

Not with this woman, and to the 74% that find Donald Trump to be a loathsome sack of bad hair, I’d be willing to bet most would be far less offended by French’s even handed, but decidedly conservative Christian approach.