Does Vivek Ramaswamy have a woman problem? I’m not convinced.
On Wednesday, he went for the jugular in a showdown with fellow presidential candidate Nikki Haley during a Republican primary debate. Critics were quick to claim Ramaswamy singled Haley out due to her gender.
Political strategist Alencia Johnson said his “misogyny is showing.” Ainsley Earhardt called his conduct “sexist.” Chris Christie, who was also on stage, dubbed him a “misogynist.” And Haley herself has previously suggested he has a problem with women.
But I’ve yet to see any evidence that’s true; in fact, I think people claiming that Ramaswamy was motivated by misogyny are themselves being unintentionally sexist. He attacks everyone, and they’re implying Haley should be treated differently.
He’s not going after her because she’s a woman. He’s doing it because she’s a competitor — and one that’s rising in the polls.
In one particularly testy exchange, Ramaswamy accused Haley, who has supported increased American intervention in Ukraine, of not being able to name three provinces at the heart of the conflict.
“Look at the blank expression,” he taunted. “She doesn’t know the names of the provinces.”
Rather than respond with their names, Haley remained silent as Christie stepped in to her defense.
The former New Jersey governor claimed Ramaswamy was taking a dig at “her basic intelligence, not her positions.”
Sorry, but I do have to take exception to the idea that this was an attack on “basic intelligence.” He was actually challenging her on very specialized intelligence that one would hope she knows.
Then Christie brought gender into the issue: “This is a smart, accomplished woman and you should stop insulting her.”
Could you imagine him leaping in to defend a male candidate in the same way — let alone referring to him as a “smart, accomplished man?”
The subtext seems to be that Ramaswamy is digging at Haley because of her gender. And Haley, the former US ambassador to the UN, has previously said as much herself.
On the “Ruthless” podcast following the third debate, she implied Vivek had an issue with women: “He comes out of the gate, he hits the female chair of the party. He hits the female anchor on the platform and then he hits me. And I’m not saying anything, but he might have a girl problem.”
Ramaswamy shot back at her on X, “Sorry Nikki, having two X chromosomes doesn’t immunize you, Ronna McDaniel or Kristen Welker from criticism.”
He’s right. I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence that Ramaswamy thinks less of Haley because she’s a woman, let alone that he’s attacking her because she’s a woman.
None of this is to say I endorse all the digs and slights he’s flung around on debate stages. Holding a sign reading “NIKKI = CORRUPT” and suggesting Christie go “enjoy a nice meal,” as he did Wednesday, and calling Haley “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels,” as he did in last month’s debate, was all a bit much — and, frankly, just gave fodder to his critics.
But going after him for a supposed “woman problem” is entirely unfair and betrays a subconscious expectation that women should be treated with kid gloves or coddled, even on a presidential debate stage.
As a woman, I find that insulting. And, as a woman in the business of ideas and opinions, I expect to be critiqued just as much as any of my male colleagues..
Women should be criticized just as men are. That’s what equality looks like. Standing silently and allowing a man to defend your status as an “intelligent woman”… not so much.
Anyone running for president should expect to be ruthlessly grilled, regardless of their gender. And any candidate who doesn’t dish out the same treatment for male and female competitors alike is the real misogynist.