In my view, what happens to women in politics and the media is no longer a matter of isolated insults, but an entire power tactic played out in public. When an influential man chooses to reduce a woman to a degrading word, it isn't a moment of anger it's a practice that dictates who gets to appear and who is expected to stay silent. I've watched this pattern repeat itself so many times that I no longer see it as individual acts of rudeness, but as a coordinated assault on the very possibility of women participating equally in public life The recent incident aboard Air Force One crystallized this reality. When Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey asked a legitimate question about the Epstein files, the president pointed at her and said, "Quiet. Quiet, piggy." Two words. In those two words, I heard the entire architecture of exclusion that has kept women from equal participation in public discourse for centuries. This wasn't a slip of the tongue or a moment of frustration. It was the sound of power protecting itself by degrading the person asking uncomfortable questions I need to be clear about something: when those in power use gendered insults as a weapon, they are not targeting the woman as an individual they are targeting her very possibility of participating in public life. A degrading word is not an opinion it is a tool of social engineering that pushes half the population out of politics and media, normalizing verbal violence as a mechanism of power. This isn't an exaggeration. It's an accurate description of how a single word can shift the balance of power and turn public participation into a hazardous space for those who are meant to belong in it [ 1 ]
The Mechanism of Exclusion
I've spent years analyzing political discourse, and what strikes me most about these public degradations is their efficiency. They accomplish multiple objectives simultaneously First, they humiliate the individual woman in front of her peers. Second, they signal to other women that this could happen to them if they dare to ask difficult questions or challenge authority. Third, they invite the public to participate in the degradation, creating a permission structure for harassment that extends far beyond the initial incident Consider the research that shows when politicians use hateful or demeaning language, hate speech and harassment increase among their supporters. This isn't theoretical it's documented, measurable reality. When a president calls a woman "piggy," it doesn't stay confined to that airplane cabin or that press conference. It travels into homes, social media feeds, school hallways, locker rooms, and workplaces. It becomes permission. It becomes instruction The language of animal slurs deserves particular attention because of what it accomplishes psychologically. Calling a woman a pig, a dog, a cow—these aren't just insults about appearance. They're acts of dehumanization that place women outside the category of full human beings deserving of respect, dignity, and participation in civic life. When you reduce someone to an animal, you're making an argument about their status as a moral and political agent. You're saying they don't deserve to be heard I've noticed something else about these animal metaphors: they almost always relate to the body, to consumption, to discipline and control. A pig is undisciplined, excessive, uncontrolled The insult carries an implicit instruction: women's bodies must be controlled, disciplined, made smaller, made quieter. The command "quiet" paired with "piggy" makes the instruction explicit. Be smaller. Be silent. Disappear from public view
The Pattern Is Not Accidental
What disturbs me most is the casualness with which these degradations now occur. The president didn't plan this insult it rolled straight from thought to word without hesitation. That tells us something crucial this is how he thinks about women who challenge him. This is his default mode of response when a woman asks a question he doesn't want to answer. The White House's subsequent defense of the remark, suggesting the journalist deserved it for being "unprofessional," reveals the second layer of the pattern: blame the victim, normalize the abuse, make it her fault I've studied enough cases to recognize the broader pattern. When powerful men face uncomfortable questions from women, they reach for one of several well-worn tactics. They question her competence, her professionalism, her appearance, her emotional state. They suggest she's hysterical, nasty, emotional, aggressive all coded language that says "this woman has violated the boundaries of acceptable feminine behavior And what is acceptable feminine behavior in these contexts Deference. Silence Compliance The pattern extends beyond individual incidents Look at the treatment of women senators who faced racist and sexist abuse after a political leader shared their contact information with hundreds of thousands of followers. Look at women journalists targeted with rape and death threats after politicians encouraged followers to "play dirty" with them. Look at the cascade of threats and harassment that follows whenever a powerful man publicly degrades a woman for asking questions or challenging his authority
What we're witnessing is not a series of unfortunate incidents. It's a system. It's a mechanism of exclusion that operates with brutal efficiency to make public life unsafe for women, particularly women who refuse to be silent, who ask difficult questions, who challenge power.
The Stakes Are Democracy Itself
Here's what I believe many people miss: this isn't just about individual women being insulted. This is about democracy. Democratic governance requires accountability and accountability requires people willing to ask difficult questions of those in power When asking those questions makes you a target for public degradation and subsequent harassment, we've created a system where power can operate without oversight The research on hostile sexism the belief that women present a danger to men and therefore deserve scorn and anger shows it's among the strongest predictors of support for political violence. Stronger than most other forms of prejudice, including racism and antisemitism. The only comparable predictor is Islamophobia. This should terrify us, because it means that the degradation of women in public life is closely linked to the willingness to use violence to achieve political ends When a leader demonstrates open contempt for women who ask questions, when his supporters defend this behavior, when harassment campaigns follow inevitably from his words, we're watching the construction of a permission structure for political violence. We're watching democracy being dismantled one insult at a time I find myself thinking often about the young people watching these interactions. What are teenage girls learning when they see a powerful man call a woman "piggy" for doing her job? They're learning that their worth is tied to their appearance, that their dignity is disposable when it inconveniences powerful men, that if they're abused, people will say they brought it on themselves. They're learning to be smaller, quieter, less ambitious
And what are boys learning ? That real men dominate and degrade. That power means never having to apologize. That empathy is weakness. That women who challenge you deserve whatever verbal violence you choose to inflict upon them.
Why Silence Equals Complicity
The response to these incidents often frustrates me as much as the incidents themselves. Too often, there's a collective shrug That's just how he is It's not that big a deal She should have thicker skin Maybe she was being aggressive." This normalization is precisely the point when we accept degradation as just part of the rough-and-tumble of political life, we've already ceded the ground that matters most I believe that when journalists, editors, political leaders, community figures, and ordinary citizens stay silent in the face of this behavior, their silence sounds like approval. Every person who shrugs this off, who changes the subject, who treats public degradation of women as just another news cycle, is participating in the system that keeps women from equal participation in public life The silence is strategic too. It allows the pattern to continue uninterrupted. It signals to other powerful men that this behavior carries no real consequences. It tells women considering careers in journalism, politics, or public advocacy that they should expect this treatment and that no one will defend them when it happens I'm particularly troubled by the argument that women in public life should simply develop thicker skin, that they should be able to "take it" if they're going to "give it This fundamentally misunderstands the power dynamic at play. A journalist asking a president about his documented connection to a convicted sex offender is doing her job. The president calling her a pig is an abuse of power designed to prevent her from doing that job. These are not equivalent acts, and framing them as such is a deliberate distortion of reality.
The Real Weapon Is Permission
Let me be direct about what I believe is happening: these public degradations function as permission structures for broader campaigns of harassment and violence against women. The mechanism is straightforward and well-documented. A powerful man publicly degrades a woman. His supporters, taking their cue from his behavior, amplify the attack. They flood her social media with threats. They call her office with abuse. They create memes depicting violence against her. They dox her, exposing her home address and putting her physical safety at risk This isn't speculation it's the documented pattern that follows these incidents. Women politicians report receiving sledgehammer memes and threats to come to their homes. Women journalists report rape and death threats, racist abuse, and campaigns designed to destroy their careers. The initial degradation by a powerful figure serves as the spark that ignites these broader campaigns of harassment.
And here's the crucial part: the powerful men who spark these campaigns rarely face consequences. They can claim they didn't intend for their supporters to harass anyone. They can distance themselves from the worst of the abuse while continuing to use the same degrading language that triggers it. The system allows them plausible deniability while giving their supporters clear instructions about who deserves to be targeted I want to quote something I believe captures the essence of this dynamic Exposure to derogatory language from elites normalizes prejudice and harassment. Hate speech can spread through networks rapidly when it is modeled by those in power This is not about free speech or political incorrectness. This is about powerful people weaponizing their platforms to make public life unsafe for women, particularly women of color who face the intersection of sexism and racism in these attacks.
Reclaiming the Power to Participate
What do we do with this knowledge? How do we respond to a system designed to exclude women from equal participation in public life? I believe the answer starts with refusing to accept degradation as normal. It continues with naming the pattern clearly every time it occurs. It requires holding powerful people accountable for the harassment campaigns their words enable But I also believe we need to fundamentally shift how we think about these incidents. We need to stop treating each one as an isolated moment of rudeness and start recognizing them as part of a broader system of exclusion. We need to understand that every time a woman is publicly degraded for asking questions or challenging authority, we're watching democracy being weakened The women who continue to ask difficult questions despite knowing they'll be targeted for it are heroes in the truest sense. They're defending democracy by refusing to be silent. They're insisting on accountability even when it makes them targets. They deserve our support, not our shrugs
I think often about what it means to participate in public life as a woman. It means accepting that you might be called a pig, a dog, a nasty woman, a bitch. It means knowing that your appearance, your age, your weight, your voice will be used against you. It means understanding that asking difficult questions could make you the target of harassment campaigns that threaten your safety and your career. This is the tax women pay for participation and it's a tax no one should have to pay But I also think about the women who refuse to pay it, who keep showing up, who keep asking questions, who keep challenging power Catherine Lucey returned to work two days after being called a pig by the president. She kept asking difficult questions. That courage matters. That refusal to be silenced matters. That insistence on accountability matters
The Choice Before Us
We stand at a moment where we must choose what kind of society we want to be. Do we want one where half the population can be degraded into silence by powerful men who face no consequences for their abuse? Or do we want one where everyone can participate fully in public life without fear of harassment, threats, or violence The answer should be obvious, but the daily evidence suggests it's not. Every day, women in politics and media face the choice between staying silent or becoming targets. Every day, we collectively choose whether to defend them or look away. Every day, we decide whether degradation will be normalized or confronted I'll end with this When a culture permits its leaders to publicly degrade women without consequence, it has made a choice about whose voices matter and whose bodies can be policed. That choice reverberates through every institution, every workplace, every home teaching the next generation that power means the right to silence those who question you This isn't just about politics or media. It's about the kind of world we're building and who gets to live fully in it
The degradation of women in public life isn't an unfortunate side effect of rough political discourse. It's a tactic, a weapon, a mechanism of exclusion that operates with brutal efficiency. Recognizing it as such is the first step toward dismantling it. Refusing to accept it is the second. Defending the women who refuse to be silenced is the third. We all have a role to play in this work. The question is whether we'll play it.