President Donald Trump has once more found himself in the spotlight following his recent remarks aimed at a female journalist. This incident unfolded during a press gathering aboard Air Force One, where Trump dismissed a reporter’s question by labeling it as “stupid.”
These comments have raised concerns among experts in American studies and mental health, who underscore the worrisome nature of his repeated behavior towards female reporters.
During the exchange, Trump was asked about the ongoing protests in Iran. According to activists, the government’s response has resulted in more than 2,000 casualties.
In answer to Iran’s threat regarding U.S. military bases as legitimate targets, Trump responded firmly, stating, “If they do that, we will hit them at levels that they’ve never been hit before.”
The journalist then inquired if Trump thought Iran would take his threats seriously, to which he snidely replied, “I think so. Don’t you think so, CNN?” with an added taunt, “What a stupid question.” This is just another instance in a series of Trump’s derogatory remarks directed specifically at female journalists.
Trump’s history with female journalists is dotted with similar incidents. In November, he labeled New York Times reporter Katie Rogers as “ugly” and disparaged Bloomberg’s Catherine Lucey as “piggy.” More recently, he referred to CNN’s White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins as “stupid and nasty,” and called ABC News’ Rachel Scott “the most obnoxious reporter.”
Kari J. Winter, a professor of American studies at the University at Buffalo, asserts that Trump’s scornful language reflects a broader spectrum of prejudices beyond just his attitude towards women. According to Winter, his disparaging comments highlight an inability to provide rational answers. “His explosive demeanor suggests an unhinged mind, especially for someone with access to a nuclear arsenal,” she explains.
Licensed counselor Alexandra Cromer highlights that Trump’s frustration is more evident when faced with challenges from women, attributing this response to ingrained misogyny.
Cromer postulates that he views women as having lesser self-worth, which fuels his disparaging comments regarding their appearance. Trump’s remarks, Cromer argues, aim to undermine women’s worth based on conventional standards of attractiveness.
Experts concur that allowing Trump’s conduct to become normalized could pose a substantial risk. While there are many domestic and international issues that need attention, Trump’s alarming behavior also requires scrutiny. As Winter notes, “violence breeds violence,” and Trump’s incitations are particularly dangerous. She warns against the silent compliance witnessed in the face of past tyrannical figures.
Many emphasize the importance of vocal opposition to avert potential regression in women’s rights and social respect. “If the president’s misconduct goes unchecked, the ramifications could lead to a broader societal violence against women,” Cromer warns.
In conclusion, both Winter and Cromer advocate for collective opposition to prevent normalization of such behavior, championing a society that firmly rejects Trump’s harmful rhetoric and the adverse precedents it may set.
