Textbook paternalistic sexism
Was Trump’s revolting condescension to the Irish reporter Caitriona Perry sexist? Did Hitler have a silly moustache?
The exchange, which was captured on video and widely shared on social media, drew criticism about how Mr. Trump treats women and the message it sent about the attitude toward women as professionals in their fields.
Elisa Lees Muñoz, executive director of the International Women’s Media Foundation, said on Wednesday that she had heard about the episode in passing.
After a transcript of the exchange was read to her over the phone, she said: “Oh, Lord. I wish I could say this is a surprise.”
She said such occurrences were not limited to Mr. Trump, adding that female journalists are frequently called out for their appearance, their hair and the way they dress.
Comments like the president’s detract from a woman’s value as a professional, she said.
“We absolutely do not see that happening with male reporters,” she said. “I don’t know what the solution to this is. It does need to be called out. It does need to stop.”
But if it stops there will never be sex ever again!! Look out!!!
Kris Macomber, an assistant professor of sociology at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C., said in an email that Mr. Trump’s comments reflect “textbook paternalistic sexism,” which is often couched in a “ ‘playful’ tone, as if she should feel flattered.”
“Donald Trump’s track record for sexist remarks is well documented, and this particular case fits right in line with his previous remarks,” she wrote. “He didn’t say those things for Perry’s sake; rather he said those things to show all the people in the room (and the cameras) that he’s the kind of man who flirts with women he considers attractive.”
And bullies and attacks women he considers unattractive. He’s a Smart Consumer who Knows what he Likes.
… and yet no sane person finds this wigged person attractive.
I don’t think it’s overly fair to criticise the first part where he refers to the ‘beautiful’ press. Trump has recently waxed lyrically – OK, rambled on – about beautiful babies, beautiful healthcare, and a beautiful, beautiful wall, so we can reasonably assume that his grasp of the definition of beauty is somewhat skewed, and seems in no way actually linked to appearance. Added to his small working vocabulary exemplified by his ignorance of the existence of more than a handful of superlatives, I could see my way to giving him a pass on that part, but that’s exactly where any charitable benefit of the doubt runs out. The rest was pure projection of his own sleazy fantasies and warped opinion of women in general.
…or even waxed lyrical.
Why do these mistakes always happen in comments criticising the poor linguistic skills of others? I’m sure there’s a law covering this phenomenon but I can’t recall which one.
Murphy’s Law!
I was going to say, about “waxed” – or, more likely, flinched and not said. I’m glad you said.
It wasn’t lost on me or my husband that the journalist in question bears more than a passing resemblence to Ivanka either. Which just ramped the squick factor up 1000%. And his nudge nudge wink wink insinuations about her being nice to Leo Varadkar did make me wonder if he knew that the current Taoiseach is gay…
Acolyte: you’re looking for Muphry’s Law.
And I didn’t even hear the clip, but even I could read the leer into the man’s words. It made my skin crawl.
Thank you, Ophelia. :-)
Seth, I knew the name was a play on Murphy’s law, I just couldn’t recall the variation. Thanks for the clarification.
I hope one of these days a woman tells him to fuck off on camera.