Tag Archives: sexism

Trump apologizes for ‘distraction’


Well, there it is.

Donald J. Trump has issued — seemingly — the first full-blown, unqualified apology of his life.


“I apologize” for saying and doing “foolish things,” he said.

I’ve watched the video — it’s only about 90 seconds long — three times already. I do not perceive a sense of actual shame for the things he said in 2005 about women, about his attempt to have sex with a married woman, the access his star power had in allowing him to start kissing women whenever he felt like it, his desire to grab them in their private areas.

No, he called it a “distraction” from other issues. Those ghastly comments don’t reflect his true character, Trump said.


I … don’t think it’s quite that easy to dismiss.

Maybe that’s just me. My gut tells me I’m not alone.

The video was obtained by a major newspaper and aired in the past 24 hours. It reveals to me the character of an individual who’s said some pretty hideous things about women over a number of years.

It’s part of a pattern that the Republican presidential nominee has exhibited.

I do not think this issue is going away.

How do you define a presidential ‘look’?


NBC News’s Lester Holt sought an answer Monday night to something that Donald J. Trump had said about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Trump had declared that Clinton doesn’t have “the look” to be president, Holt said. What did he mean?

The Republican nominee then said he meant to say “stamina.” Democratic nominee Clinton, of course, beat his brains out with her response about her stamina near the end of the 90-minute joint appearance at Hofstra University.

Back to the “look” issue.

I have to ask: What does a president look like?

I believe I know what the “look” issue is meant to convey. It’s all about Clinton’s gender. To suggest it means anything other than a sexist attack on a candidate is to commit yet another lie.

Stamina? Let’s not go there, either.

If presidents these days are supposed to have some kind of mysterious “look,” then Trump needs to define it for us.

Well, Donald? Do you have the “look”?

Trump faces fabulous irony: losing to a woman

clinton and trump

There’s more than a touch of irony in the prospect of Donald J. Trump losing the presidential election to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It rests in Trump’s view of women and the undeniable probability that he’s about to get thumped by one of them on Nov. 8.

You’ve heard about Trump’s consistent references to the female anatomy. You even have heard him refer to his own daughter’s looks and how if he weren’t her father, he’d be dating her.

Then, of course, we have the well-chronicled Trumpish description of women as “fat pigs,” which Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly brought up in that notable first Republican primary debate this past fall.

One of the many undercurrents of Trump’s reputation preceding his entry into national politics has been his view of women as something less than his equal. It’s a curious and troubling trend that has come from Trump over many years.

The sexism is apparent — if not outright blatant.

So here we are. We’re two months exactly away from the vote-counting for the presidency.

Sure, the polls — which Trump loves to tout — are tightening. Trump has done a masterful job of casting all shades of negative light on Clinton. Don’t forget, too, that some of that negativity has centered on her “physical stamina” and his contention that she isn’t up to the job of becoming commander in chief.

Is that a sexist campaign ploy? Well … I believe it is.

Oh, the irony.

Trump dishes out another insult … poll standing to rise?


Donald Trump has added another Republican presidential primary rival to his list of personal insult victims.

And, hey … it happens to be the only woman in the field of 17 GOP candidates.

On the receiving end of a Trump insult is Carly Fiorina. Trump decided to make fun of her physical appearance.

Look at that face,” Trump said. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Trump reportedly bellowed while watching his Republican presidential rival on the news. “I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”

OK, here’s the point of this brief post: If the public response follows form, Trump well might see another spike in his poll numbers. That’s how it’s gone for this guy: He says something patently nasty, the victim of the barb responds … and Trump gets a poll boost.

My question now is this: What in the world has become of American voters, most notably Republican Party primary voters who think it’s all right to be personally insulting?

Doesn’t the Golden Rule apply any longer? Do we no longer seek to treat others the way we’d insist that they treat us?

And what about the notion among some of the more conservative voters out there that the United States is a “Christian nation” comprising people of deep faith who are committed to religious principles?

Are these same folks now going to applaud Donald Trump for tossing aside “political correctness”?


How might Trump bow out?


This might require a bit of imagination, but I’ll pose the question anyway.

How do you suppose Donald Trump is going to end his futile campaign to be nominated by the Republican Party for president of the United States?


Much of the chatter now is that Trump’s latest detestable insult — delivered to Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly — has put his campaign at a “crossroads.” Does he continue on or does he start looking for a possible way to bow out?

The latest polling information suggests he hasn’t been hurt by that hideous statement about Kelly having “blood coming out of her wherever.” Kelly had asked Trump to respond to contentions that he’s a sexist. That particular statement from Trump tells us all that Kelly’s question — which she posed during this past week’s joint appearance with the 10 leading GOP candidates — was spot on.

Candidates often merely suspend their campaigns when things go badly. In this social media age, one forum might be to just put out an Internet message, post it on Twitter, or Facebook, or on some website.

Then they’re gone.

Trump? He isn’t wired that way.

My guess is that once his support begins to crater — and I believe it will — that he’ll make some kind of big show about it, blaming everyone under the sun except himself for the amazingly stupid things he has said about fellow politicians, media representatives, other GOP candidates, the president of the United States … you name it, he’s hurled an insult in every direction possible.

I’ll be waiting with bated breath. Something tells me his withdrawal from the race might be worth the price of admission all by itself.



Sexism alive and well … in U.S. Senate

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has revealed what many folks knew already: the Senate is full of sexists.

The New York Democrat has written a book in which he chronicle how her male colleagues have said patently offensive things they’d never say to another male.


This is a kind of “Ball Four” moment, or at least I hope it is. “Ball Four” was a book written by former New York Yankees pitcher Jim Bouton that revealed to the world that Yankee great and baseball Hall of Famer Mickey Mantle was a drunk, carouser and womanizer. Who knew? I didn’t.

Perhaps Gillibrand’s book is likely to peel the hide off the Senate’s pretense of being this distinguished deliberative body full of noble statesman who take themselves oh, so very seriously.

Gillibrand’s memoir, “Off the Sidelines,” talks a bit about how senators would say things to her about her weight, her appearance, the weight she gained and lost during pregnancy. One senator told her how he likes his women “chubby.”

Is this the kind of thing a woman would say to a male colleague? I’m trying to imagine Gillibrand or any other female senator talking to an overweight male senator and telling him how she likes her men with meat on their bones.

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who’s been covering the Capitol for a lot of years, thinks there’s hope that change might be coming to Capitol Hill. She writes that “the older fanny pinchers are giving way to a new generation of male senators with more experience of women (including their often high-powered wives) in the workplace.”

The question has come out: Why not identify the senators? No need to do it. They know who they are, as do their colleagues, male and female. It’ll come out in due course and then public opinion will take over.

Good job, Sen. Gillibrand.




Who's Lauer kidding?

NBC talking head Matt Lauer is facing stout criticism for a question he asked of General Motors chief executive Mary Barra.

The question: Can you be a good parent and a good chief executive of a major company?


Lauer, host of the “Today” show, said he’d ask a male CEO the same question if given the chance.

Interesting, yes?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that question posed to, say, Lee Iacocca, Ted Turner, Malcolm Forbes, Rupert Murdoch or, heck, even Jack Welch, the ex-General Electric boss and Lauer’s former boss.

USA Today reports: “Lauer notes on his Facebook page that Barra addressed the difficulty of balancing her work and home lives in a Forbes magazine article. He says if a man in a high-level job had publicly discussed the issue he’d have ‘asked him exactly the same thing.'”

Umm, I don’t think so, Matt.

The sad fact of today’s world is that Corporate American remains a Man’s World.

I have no doubt that Barra will do a good job as she grapples with the issues facing a leading automaker. Is it relevant that she’s also a mother?

Maybe, maybe not. It would be were it to become known that her job interfered with her parental responsibilities.

Matt Lauer’s insistence that he would have asked a male CEO the same thing is almost as insulting as the question he asked Mary Barra.