David French’s Writing Could Hurt Him With Women Voters

Some prominent Republicans see David French, writer and war veteran, as a third-party alternative to Donald Trump. Right now, most people don’t know who French is; the top Wikipedia hit for his name is a dead Canadian playwright. But his past writing for the conservative National Review shows some positions that could hurt him with women voters.

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.”

He outlines a few examples, including an episode in which some women defended Lena Dunham over a passage in her book where she describes examining her baby sister’s vagina when she was 7-years-old and later, bribing her sister with candy for kisses. French calls this an “extended period of grotesque sexualized conduct” and says it is “conduct that would lead the Left to write any conservative woman out of respectable society.”

French has also written about what he deems the “high cost of sexual license.” In a May 2016 column, he linked to a story by a recent female Middlebury graduate discussing her unsatisfying experience in the college hookup culture. He outlined some of the author’s findings in her piece, namely that many people she talked to were unhappy with a sexual culture that does not promote monogamy.

“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.”

Then there’s French’s own relationship with his wife. In an article in National Review about marriage, Kathryn Jean Lopez paraphrased passages from the book French and his wife Nancy wrote about long-distance strains on relationships. Before French left for Iraq, he and his wife devised rules for their separation: she could not “have phone conversations with men, or meaningful e-mail exchanges about politics or any other subject.”

She could also not go on Facebook, where she might talk to “the ghosts of boyfriends past.” At one point while David was overseas, Nancy began emailing with another man about questions of faith. David asked her to end the correspondence because, as he wrote in his book, “the most intimate conversations a person has are about life and faith” and “spiritual and emotional intimacy frequently leads to physical intimacy.”

French, a veteran, also does not believe women should be allowed in military combat positions. In September 2015, he supported the Marine Corps’ position that women should be barred from infantry, machine-gunners and fire-support reconnaissance units.

“If you integrate infantry units by gender, more Americans will die, and our enemy will have a better chance to prevail on the battlefield,” French wrote, citing a Marine Corps study that found all-male infantry units out-performed mixed gender ones, and that women were injured more often than men. “Will we have to endure the broken bodies of men and women who could have been saved, of breaches in lines that never should have opened, before we acknowledge reality?” French wrote. “Men are stronger than women, and in ground combat, that strength is the difference between life and death, victory and defeat.”

Three months after French wrote this column, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter overruled the Marines and said that women will be allowed in all combat positions in the U.S. military.