Democrats have a misogyny problem.

No, we’re not talking about Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner or Harvey Weinstein. We’re talking about the entire Democrat Party leadership, including Hillary Clinton.

Democrats have long been obsessed with identity politics — categorizing and labeling Americans based on race and gender, all in an effort to divide and conquer. Somehow, many people still think that Democrats are the party of women, but if women only knew just how much Democrats detest women who fail to take up their leftist causes…

Only in the narrow minds of Democrats are women who think for themselves not considered women at all. As Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) stated a few years back, Democrats “believe you can’t be a real woman if you’re conservative and you’re female.”

It’s easy to understand why so many women fall for the Democrats’ brand of misogyny. We live in an age of emotion over reason, and being part of a group is more appealing than standing up for one’s individual values. As a result, many women are willing to be defined by a party that demands their allegiance to a very narrow set of beliefs so long as they feel like they “belong.”

Charlotte Hays opines in the Washington Examiner, “[Democrats] used the gender card to bamboozle or guilt-trip women into believing they had to vote for Hillary Clinton. Prime among these attempts was one by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who threatened women who weighed the issues and decided how to vote on their own, with fire and brimstone. ‘Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,’ Albright told us.”

Hays adds that “you don’t talk to people you consider thinking adults this way. But Albright was hardly alone in employing condescension as a way to corral women into supporting Clinton. Gloria Steinem went so far as to chastise women who were supporting Bernie Sanders over Clinton as being boy crazy.”

Sounds like the Democrats have a cult mentality, doesn’t it?

As it turns out, that’s what Donna Brazile thinks, too. The former DNC chair told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough that the Clinton campaign “felt like it was a cult. You could not penetrate them.”

When the former chair of the Democratic National Committee calls the Clinton campaign a cult, it might be time for supporters of Hillary & Co. to start doing some soul-searching. And maybe if Hillary and other Democrats cared so much about attracting support from women, they’d give a voice to millions of women who found more in common with the brusque, in-your-face politics of Donald Trump than with someone who claims to be the voice of American women.

As long as Democrats continue to embrace the idea that marriage between a man and a woman is oppressive, that killing an unborn child is the ticket into progressive paradise, and that childbirth itself is anathema to true femininity, tens of millions of women will look elsewhere.

In the 2016 presidential election that’s what millions of women did. Sure, Hillary Clinton won 54% of women’s votes, but that’s pretty abysmal considering that 42% of women voted for a man who just a month earlier was heard in that infamous Access Hollywood tape bragging about groping women. Indeed, 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump.

It’s likely that many women who voted for Trump might actually like to see a female president of the United States someday, but they’re not going all in for a female candidate whose party denigrates the institution of marriage, traditional families and a range of other issues important to women.

Of course, Clinton has devised a theory as to why she lost so many women to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign: Significant men in their lives pressured them to vote for Trump. During a recent stop on her book tour, Clinton recounted that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told her prior to the election that women “will be under tremendous pressure — and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl.’”

Setting aside the privacy of the voting booth and the ballot, nothing could be more insulting or condescending to women. No wonder they rejected Hillary’s brand of feminism.

Lucia Graves writes in the Guardian, “People might scoff at the idea that women vote based on what husbands and fathers tell them to do. And tens of millions of dollars in political messaging has been spent based on the assumption that women will vote collectively on equal pay, abortion, and other salient issues regarding women’s autonomy.”

Graves also asserts, “Despite the fact that the Democratic Party is generally considered to have policies more favorable to women, Republicans have traditionally won the votes of married women,” apparently due to overbearing husbands demanding political obedience from their wives, if Clinton is correct. Clinton and her fellow Democrats believe that married women are ignorant dupes rather than thoughtful voters looking out for the best interests of their families and their children.

Most Democrats don’t shy away from their insistence that women fight for abortion rights, or else. Writing in The Atlantic, Clare Foran considers, “Democratic leaders have tried to walk a fine line by emphasizing that the party stands for protecting women’s access to abortion, while signaling that there is still room for Democrats who oppose abortion. It’s not clear, however, whether and to what extent party leaders will tolerate any deviations, in either personal beliefs or policy stands, from full-throated support for the pro-abortion rights party platform.” At least someone on the Left is willing to hint at the truth.

Democrats want us to think they’re the party fighting for women’s issues, but the party doesn’t care about women as much as it does about blind political allegiance from tribal identity groups. Millions of women with different political and social beliefs could bring fresh ideas to the so-called party of diversity.

But the misogynists who run the Democrat Party won’t have it.