For those less informed about the life of alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate, recent news that his ex-girlfriend, Bri Stern, has published disturbing details of their relationship was somewhat of a shock. Not so much what she alleges — threats, beatings — but that Tate even had a girlfriend. What makes a woman willing to take the title of girlfriend with someone such as Andrew Tate?
One could argue, of course, that to say “girlfriend” is meaningless nowadays. But that doesn’t change the sequence of events as given by Stern. She formed a yearlong relationship with Tate, who fooled her into thinking it was love. She received such affirmations as, “What’s the point in having you if I don’t beat you and impregnate you,” and he concussed her. And for whatever it’s worth, Stern herself works as some sort of “model.” I would think that the likes of Tate are not foreign to her. All this to say: In the Stern-Tate social arena, there are no additional benefits implied under “girlfriend.” Tate manipulated Stern, surely, but she must have, in some part of her subconscious, been aiming to be a “good” of Tate’s.
A “goodie,” if you will. I say so because it is timely: President Donald Trump, during a speech for a White House celebration of Women’s History Month this year, said that there will be “tremendous goodies in the bag for women” under his presidency, including “the fertilization and all the other things we’re talking about.”
There is, perhaps, no more animalizing way to frame the relationship of women with the administration. For Trump, the comment is little more than one of his usual flourishes. The rhetoric does speak to a diminished culture, however, and Trump is certainly driving the destruction deeper. What might be apt to condemn his administration is how it has interacted with Tate and his brother, Andrew. Several members of Trump’s team have vouched for the Tates and brushed off their very serious, obvious offenses, regardless of how the charges play out.
If unclear, the “fertilization” to which Trump refers is in vitro fertilization. He has made promises and published executive orders on the matter, seeking to expand access by way of the taxpayer dollar. The IVF procedure treats children as goods to sell or dispense with — but so does it women. That layer comes through in Trump’s instinctive way of describing the concept in terms of “goodies”: Women can be bought and sold with Trump currying their favor as he pleases. IVF poses as an answer to the deep desire women have for motherhood, and then strips the desire of its nature and its delicateness. That highest, most astounding natural calling is reduced to a matter of detached choice and grim trade-offs. On top of that, women see fit to rent out their wombs in surrogacy, an industry burgeoning alongside IVF’s inoculation. This is how women see themselves today. A culture that promotes as much — as ours does — is worse than the technological innovation of it.
WE ARE BOUND TO IVF BY INDIFFERENCE
When Bri Stern fancied the emotional stratum of being Andrew Tate’s girlfriend, I imagine she wanted to offer herself as a gift. Most do, and should — humans are great goods; to want yourself for another in that sense is to want his good, as well. These days, that sense of a good is indistinguishable from the utilitarian sense. For the sexually liberated, girlfriends are goods definitionally for selfish use, and they want to be.
The window for the Republican Party’s advantage among both men and women won’t stay open endlessly. The Trump team gathers men, but with the great propensity to mislead them. As for women: Only those already solidly conservative remain unmoved by their cultural commodification. If Republicans are going to treat them as objects, they might as well go all the way and stick with the Democrats.
