SATURDAY: A word was missing on Fox & Friends Weekend!

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2025

But also, what Lincoln once said: A treasured word was (almost) completely missing from this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend. That treasured word was this:

Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist!

In recent weeks, it happened again and again. Rachel would call Candidate Mamdani a Communist. Charlie would then go with this:

"A full-blown Communist!"

So it would go on Fox & Friends Weekend as Charlie would make the whole thing even dumber. On various Fox News Channel shows, the personalities would tell Fox viewers how many tens of millions of people had died, during the past century, under worldwide Communist rule.

Today, the friends were pushing a newer line right from the start of the program:

Yesterday's friendly session in the Oval Office was the latest masterpiece by the infallible President Trump.

During the New York City mayoral campaign, President Trump had also routinely denounced Candidate Mamdani as a Communist. But now the transformed prince of peace had showered Mamdani with praise. 

(Our own reaction? Good!)

Suddenly, the magic word was missing from Fox & Friends. In this morning's first ninety minutes, it was mentioned only when Griff Jenkins brought on a guest at 6:25 a.m.:

JENKINS (11/22/25): New York Post columnist Karol Marcowicz, who fled Soviet Communism as a child, joining us now to react.

Eventually, the chyron said this as Marcowicz stated her views:

KAROL MARCOWICZ / FLED SOVIET COMMUNISM AS A CHILD

"We didn't come here to have Communism follow us," she eventually said, apparently referring to Mamdani's proposal to have free buses.

We're glad that Marcowicz and her family were able to leave the Soviet Unionand she's of course entitled to state her views. That said, we were surprised to see the "Communist" taunt disappear as three friends discussed yesterday's meeting during several chunks of the program's first ninety minutes.

Campos-Duffy seemed to have dropped her favorite word, but she continued to spill with praise for the masterful President Trump. As for Mayor-elect Mamdani, possibly not so much:

 "We still don't know if he can run a lemonade stand," she said of him at one point.

That claim struck us as technically accurate. Also, if less colorfully, we ourselves don't know how the mayor-elect will end up performing in office.

Soon, though, the friends were advancing the standard bogus statistics about the way President Trump has supposedly brought inflation down during this term in office. We had to chuckle when Campos-Duffy eventually complained about the way liberals won't spend time with people who don't share their views, not even on Thanksgiving Day.

Frankly, we had to chuckle! When did these three friends ever bring a guest on their show who was going to disagree with their infallible claims?  When one of the analysts asked that question, we could recall no such time!

The flooding of the zone now moves at the speed of light. Within a day, we moved from the president's furious response to a somewhat peculiar presentation by six congressional Democrats to yesterday's extremely friendly Oval Office session.

There is no way to keep up with this flow. We can say that because we've tried. 

That said, also this: We don't think a modern nation can prosper under current pseudo-journalistic arrangements, in which MAGA supporters are aggressively scripted by personalities like these while our own news orgs in Blue America agree to avert their gaze.

Yesterday, we had occasion to discuss President Lincoln with a lifelong friend. We recalled Sandburg's poetical account of the president-elect's last meeting with his stepmother, Sally Bush Lincoln.

In Sandburg's account, she knew what her stepson, the president-elect, would be thinking as he was cheered in vast parades in New York City or in D.C. He'd still be thinking about the ways of life on her small farm in Coles County, Illinois, where he'd partially been raised. 

That said, we also went back and reread the text shown below. Our friend was present, long ago, when we read that text for the first time, accompanied by a group of Baltimore City fifth graders on a field trip to Washington:

Lincoln's astounding second inaugural address is inscribed, opposite the text of the Gettysburg Address, on a wall inside the Lincoln Memorial. Reading this text for the first time, we instantly knew that Abraham Lincoln had plainly not been human.

This is the bulk of the text:

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

[...]

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let u

The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. 

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

For the full text, click here. When we first read that astonishing text, we were astounded to think that a human being had ever said any such thing in public here on this earth.

We did this too, the president said. We in the North are one of the parties "by whom the offense came."

(It's said that Lincoln added the line which starts with "It may seem strange" because he knew that many people in the victorious North wouldn't like his fuller assessment. We don't know if that's accurate.)

We did this too, that president saidand then he took things a great deal farther. In our own estimation, we Blues would do well to remember that astonishing judgment as we try to assess the devastating war of the worlds into which our two Americas, Red and Blue, have been so unhelpfully thrown, out in Coles County and everywhere else, over the past many years.

Monday: Greg Gutfeld RE President Trump, back then as compared to now. To read ahead, click here.

BACKLASH: Today, we have listing of profiles...

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2025

...of the "cable news" Gutfeld! show: It's a basic rule in the comedy world. The performer can't ignore what's happening there in the room.

For that reason, and with apologies, today we have listing of profiles—profiles of the Fox News Channel's primetime Gutfeld! program.

(Way back when, in a mordant anti-war poem, Henry Reed gave us "naming of parts.")

In the last few weeks, we've been trying to leave a bit of guidance for future generations. More specifically, we're writing for the 12-year-old kid who is going to fashion the "brilliant writing" of a later day. 

Our basic focus has been this:

In the present era, how has the American discourse been coming undone as our nation slides toward the sea?

As we've focused on the (extremely strange) Gutfeld! show, we've also been asking this question:

Does our own Blue America possess anything like a sexual politics at this point in time?

The task we've set ourselves is complexand yesterday, there it was! Another fight broke out in the room as we tried to continue those tasks. 

Sure enoughthe war of our worlds broke out again! This latest fight involved what we would describe as a somewhat odd, and perhaps self-defeating, video message from six Democrats. 

The president responded in a predictable way, and the war of the tribes was back on. We don't want to proceed along as if we haven't noticed.

With Thanksgiving hurrying forward, we'll offer our assessment of that latest skirmish this afternoon and/or tomorrow. For now, we're going to proceed with a listing of profilesthe six profiles of Greg Gutfeld, or of the Gutfeld! show, to which we've or already referred in the course of this year.

This will serve as a valuable resource for the 12-year-old kid who, in the future, is going help our flailing nation emerge from the current wilderness. Below, you five profiles which have emerged in the current year, along with one from 2023:

Profiles of Greg Gutfeld or of the Gutfeld! program:

The New York Times: July 2, 2023
How Fox News (Yes, Fox News) Managed to Beat ‘The Tonight Show’
Greg Gutfeld has installed his brand of insult conservatism as the institutional voice for the next generation of Fox News viewer. And it’s catching on.

Variety: February 19, 2025
How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

Mediaite: July 19, 2025
Greg Gutfeld’s Disruptive Rise: How a Fox News Prankster Broke Late-Night TV

Mediaite: August 26, 2025
How Greg Gutfeld Went From Fox’s Most Irreverent Host to Its Most Servile

The New York Times: September 28, 2025
A Baby. A Double Mastectomy. Many Opinions From Fox News Viewers.
Kat Timpf got pregnant, got breast cancer, then got back to work on the political comedy show “Gutfeld!”—all as a culture war brews over ambition, motherhood and women’s health.

The New York Times: November 26, 2025
The Interview: Fox News Wanted Greg Gutfeld to Do This Interview. He Wasn’t So Sure.

We don't believe we've ever cited that August 26 profile before. In part, we include the 2023 New York Times profile because that August 26 effort provides a perspective on what we were told back then.

Greg Gutfeld and the Gutfeld! show have become extremely big. This Fox News Channel "cable news" program is playing a significant role as the war of the worlds has devoured our struggling nation.

In the future, some kid who is only 12 today is going to straighten this whole thing out. According to several major oracles, he or she will provide "brilliant writing" about the questions we've posted above, including that awkward second query:

Does the Blue America of today possess anything like an actual sexual politics?

We're willing to guess that youth will be servedthat today's unheralded 12-year-old kid will help us find our way back to status as an actual nation. When he or she does that, he or she will use those profiles to help us see where we've gone wrong.

As we noted in Monday's report, Susan Faludi thought she saw a backlash. Amid the chaos which rules the Fox News Channel, we think we keep seeing one too!

Tomorrow: The latest dispute in the war of the tribes

Monday: We return to this year's soft-soap profilesand to the one which hit hard


THURSDAY: Tarlov was making a decent point!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025

A road map for "brilliant writing:" Yesterday afternoon, on The Five, Jessica Tarlov, the designated non-MAGA co-host, was making a decent point.

That, of course, was the problem. This imitation of a discussion show isn't designed for outcomes like that. 

Inevitably, Jesse Watters knew what to do. He's one of the four pro-MAGA hosts whose job is to overtalk Tarlov.

Order was quickly restored! Applying the principles of Tarlov Interruptus, Watters broke in on what she was saying, He successfully overtalked the lady as only he and Greg Gutfeld can do.

We wish we could link you to videotape, but the invaluable Internet Archive is a bit behind on its postings today. But with respect to this week's search for those elusive examples of "brilliant writing," any such writing may have to address itself to such points as these:

  1. How is it possible that a four-on-one pig-pile show of this type could possibly be this flailing nation's most-watched "cable news" program?
  2. How is it possible that any such imitation of public discourse could seem like a legitimate "news show" to millions of fellow citizens?

That said, also this:

3) How is it possible that the clowning which dominates the programs ruled by Watters and Gutfeld goes unreported and undiscussed within the vast realm of Blue America? 
What explains the failure of news orgs like the New York Times to report and discuss the foolishnessand even the apparent misogynyso widespread on these three (3) primetime "cable news" propaganda programs?

Our nation has been sliding into the sea over the past quite a few years. Over at the New York Times, they've barely said a word. 

("Wouldn't be prudent," as George H. W. Bush often said.)

We'll try to provide a link, and a fuller discussion, when the invaluable if little-used Internet Archive gets its postings back on track.


BACKLASH: Like horses, cattle, "livestock" and cows!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025

Blue America looks away: Way back in 1991, Susan Faludi believedwe'll guess correctlythat a backlash was going on.

For the record, she hadn't spotted just any backlash. She'd spotted the backlash she described in a major best-selling book:

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women is a 1991 book by Susan Faludi, in which the author presents evidence demonstrating the existence of a media-driven "backlash" against the feminist advances of the 1970s in the United States.

That's the start of Wikipedia's report on Faludi's massive best-seller. Some critics challenged the scholarship in Faludi's book. Other observers showered her work with praise.

How about it? Was some sort of "backlash" really underway at that time against the advances of feminism over the previous three decades? We'll assume that the answer is yes. 

Also, was the mainstream media somehow involved in driving this backlash forward? More than thirty years later, we can't exactly say. 

We can't really tell you about the mainstream media of that distant time. But it seems to us that the mainstream media of this daythe high-end news orgs in our own Blue Americaare deeply involved in disappearing another such attempt at pushback:

We refer to the ugly backlash you can see every night on the Fox News Channel's extremely strange Gutfeld! TV program.

What sorts of conduct on that show has been ignoredhas been disappearedby the mainstream media? For today, let's refresh ourselves on that key question.

In late September, the New York Times' Amanda Hess wrote a profile of Kat Timpf, one of Greg Gutfeld's two nightly sidekicks on his primetime "cable news" program. Hess seemed to portray Timpf as a type of feminist, a framing we ourselves found strange for reasons we'll describe below.

We remain puzzled by the overall framework of Hess's portrait of Timpf. But very late in Hess's profile, readers were finally given an idearight there in Blue America's leading newspaper!of what viewers see and hear each night on this garbage can of a TV program.

Hess has attended a taping of a Gutfeld! show. Here's what she said she saw:

When I attended a taping last month, I sat in the back row of the studio audience and looked down upon a circle of tufted armchairs arranged around a central coffee table...

[...]

At the top of the show, Mr. Gutfeld delivered a battery of topical jokes in which he matched pieces of the day’s news with verdicts on liberal women’s bodies. Hillary Clinton is ugly. Joy Behar is old. Nancy Pelosi is old. Rosie O’Donnell is fat, Whoopi Goldberg is fat, Lizzo is fat, a professor of political science you’ve never heard of is fat...Ms. Timpf calmly waited her turn, then sarcastically congratulated Mr. Gutfeld for managing to call not just one, but multiple women fat. “What a segment,” she said.

“Greg chooses the topics,” Ms. Timpf told me. “When I host, the topics are different.”

According to Hess, that's what she saw and heard as she sat in the studio audience. She was describing extremely unusual behavior on the part of the program's host.

She also seemed to say that the sidekick Timpf had pushed back that night against Greg Gutfeld's conduct. To us, that seems like a major stretch, but the most remarkable fact is this:

Hess's description of what she saw was a welcome departure from years of total mainstream silence about the contents of this primetime show. That said, Hess's account actually understated the types of "verdicts on liberal women’s bodies" to which a viewer of this gruesome program is exposed on a nightly basis.

It's true! For reasons Gutfeld himself has weirdly explained, liberal women are persistently mocked on his show for allegedly being too fat; for allegedly being too ugly; for allegedly having had too many facelifts; or for allegedly having used too much Botox. Women who are over 80 years of age are mocked for failing to be sexually attractive in a way that's pleasing to the program's extremely peculiar host.

Quite correctly, Hess recorded the fact that these women are persistently attacked for allegedly being too fat. She didn't mention the persistent way this program's host attacks the five women of The View

Those particular aren't attacked for any views they might express. Instead, they're persistently mocked for allegedly being too fatalthough there's one key difference in the way they get attacked.

In their case, they are repeatedly compared to horses, to cows, to cattle, to pigs, to dogs, to whales and to "livestock." Sadly, these ugly denigrations routinely occasion cheering and applause from the Gutfeld! studio audience.

For whatever reason, Hess didn't mention this astounding behavior on the part of this program's host. On the other hand, and to her credit, she did quote the author of a book on "the conservative comedy scene" who brought the eternal note of sadness in as he characterized the role Timpf plays on this garbage can TV program.

In the passage shown below, Hess acknowledges the limited pushback which comes from Timpf in the face of Greg Gutfeld's conduct. Hess then quotes the academic, and he employs a key word:

Ms. Timpf is not a Trump supporter, or a tradwife, or a typical conservative, but she is also not a scold...In the place of outrage, she offers neurotic self-deprecation, which has earned her a fan base of her own. “Her problems are problems like: ‘Oh, I farted in the office of Greg Gutfeld. What if he finds out?’” said Gerd Buurmann, a German fan who streams the show from the Fox News International app on his phone. (“I have never farted in Greg’s office,” Ms. Timpf clarified.)

Even as she provides an alternate perspective or a polite rebuke, she radiates an air of relaxed tolerance for whatever invective is currently being flung across the set. “I think she’s there to soften the base line misogyny of that show and that universe,” said Nick Marx, an academic who studies the conservative comedy scene. Mr. Gutfeld characterized that criticism itself as “deeply sexist and inaccurate,” adding, “Kat is on the show because of her fearless humor, intelligence and connection with the ‘Gutfeld!’ audience.”

We apologize for the dumbness which floats around in that passage. On the other hand, Hess (gently) notes the fact we've long observed about Timpf:

Timpf sits on the set, night after night, failing to push back against the ugly conduct of the program's host.

Other women of the Fox News Channel also seem to see no evil in Gutfeld's behavior when they serve as panelists on this show. As for Marx, he was allowed by Hess to voice a fairly obvious judgment:

Misogyny is the base line of the Gutfeld! show! 

That's what Marx is quoted sayingand it's very hard to disagree with that assessment. Beyond that, it's hard to avoid seeing this garbage can of a "cable news" show as part of the latest backlash of the kind Faludi described.

In our view, it's astounding to see the extent to which this show seems to run on "woman hatred." At one point, Timpf herself is quoted saying this about members of the Gutfeld! audience who are dissatisfied with her role on this throwback program:

Ms. Timpf has a theory about the women who come for her. “I am not ladylike,” she said. “I’m a little rough around the edges. I think that a lot of women are told that they should be ladylike. And I’m successful, career-wise, not being ladylike. I also have a man who loves me, and a baby, not being ladylike.” As for the men, she said: “I think sometimes men just hate women.”

“I think sometimes men just hate women," Timpf instructively said. (For our money, we think Hitchcock masterfully explores that theme in Notorious, his extremely well-constructed 1946 thriller.)

That's only true of some men, of course. But night after night, we're puzzled by the source of the apparent loathing which bubbles up from this program's host as the studio audience cheers and as Timpf politely looks on.

We're puzzled (and saddened) by Greg Gutfeld's apparent loathing of women. We're struck by the way the various women of the Fox News Channel seem to find nothing strange about the host's bizarre behavior when they serve as panelists on this heavily watched cable show. 

Possibly more than anything else, we're saddened by the way the Blue American press corps has agreed to avoid reporting or discussing this ugly, unusual conduct. At this point, we've barely begun to describe the coarseness of this appalling showbut the major news orgs of our own Blue America have chosen, in the past many years, to avert their gaze from the ugly conduct which does in fact form the base line of this show.

Within the past year, we've perused five major profiles of the Gutfeld! show. Hess is the only writer who had even seemed to notice the ugly woman hatred which lies at the heart of this program

Even she made a very limited attempt to wonder why a person like Timpf sits on the panel, night after night, and "radiates an air of relaxed tolerance for whatever invective is currently being flung across the set."

The monkeys fling their poo all around. We've never seen Timpf push back.

What explains that insouciance in the face of this ugly, dim-witted conduct? It seems that Hess didn't bother to ask, and Timpf wasn't forced to tell.

As you may have noticed by now, we ourselves are overwhelmed by the challenge of describing this "cable news" program. It isn't just the apparent woman hatred. It's also the astonishing dumbnessthe sheer stupidityput on display each night.

Rising above this spectacle is the massive indifference of Blue America's eternally deferential mainstream press. Can a modern society function this way? We'll guess that the answer is noand we Blues continue to play a key role in this fairly obvious problem. 

Tomorrow: We try to wrap this up



WEDNESDAY: "Only when we share the same facts..."

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025

But how can we hope to do that? Given the journalistic and cultural chaos within which our nation now flounders and flails, what sorts of problems would "brilliant [political / cultural] writing" surely have to address?

It's as we've noted in the past two days. In this interview with the New York Times, Tina Brown said that there surely must be some "brilliant writing" out there. But she said it can be hard to find, given all the dreck and the dross which "comes careening at you" under current arrangements.

Under the weight of current arrangements, we're not sure that any "brilliant writing" is actually out there! Consider Clark Hoyt's new essay in The Atlantic.

As part of a long journalistic career, Hoyt performed brilliantly in his three years as New York Times public editor, a stint which started in June 2007. As a tribute to ignoring water which has spilled over the dam, we won't revisit the long-overdue, aggressive critique he directed at one major New York Times columnist.

Hoyt is highly experienced and highly capable. That said, it seems to us that he skips a major beat in the key rumination with which he ends his new essay. The passage in question starts as shown, dual headline included:

Why Trump Gets Away With It
The institutional checks that got the country through Watergate are far weaker now.

[...]

Many explanations have been offered for how we got here, among them the hollowing-out of the middle class, which left millions of Americans angry and disillusioned with the political system and ready for a Trump to tear it down; a broad collapse of trust in virtually all institutions, including the news media; a president who stirs culture wars in an ever more polarized society, while diverting attention away from the threat he poses to democracy. For Trump, politics isn’t about principle or serious public policy. It’s entertainment—getting and holding attention through any means possible.

I’m not prescient enough to know if we will return to a healthier society with a properly functioning federal government. The most recent election results, which featured high turnout and led to Democrats sweeping into state offices in Virginia, New Jersey, and even Mississippi and Georgia, suggest that a backlash against Trumpism is under way. But one thing that my long career as a journalist tells me is that restoring civility and community will require rebuilding a trusted news system.

We need to rebuild "a trusted news system," Hoyt perhaps sensibly says. But as he continues directly, it seems to us that he blows past a very large obstacle which stands in the way of that goal:

Local media should be a particular focus. National media may have their problems with trust, but local news, where engagement with community and the larger world begins, is disappearing altogether. Over the past two decades, according to the State of Local News Project at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, nearly 40 percent of all local newspapers have shut down, leaving 50 million Americans with little or no reliable news about their communities. That includes Friday-night high-school football scores, official decisions at city-commission meetings, and data about local crime. The result is that people are disengaged from their communities. Politics is more polarized, voter turnout in local elections is lower, and fewer public officials are held accountable. Some initiatives are trying to fill the gap. The American Journalism Project, for example, gives grants to local nonprofit news organizations, helps communities start new outlets, and provides coaching for newsroom leaders.

Only when we share the same facts can we begin to have a healthy debate about what they mean and what should be done about them. And then, hopefully, we can start rebuilding the other institutions that have undergirded our democracy for nearly two and a half centuries, and that got us through the Watergate years...

We need to return to a world in which "we share the same facts," Hoyt says. But in that passage, Hoyt focuses on local media while blowing right past the enormous problem afflicting national media.

We refer to the so-called "democratization of media," and to the practice called "segregation by viewpoint." Almost surely, we will never return to a world in which Americans largely "share the same facts" as long as major media entities are devoted to the practice of preaching to one particular choir, while refusing to share the valid points being advanced by the other political tribe.

Also, Hoyt blows past the problem to which Brown herself seemed to allude:

Thanks to podcasts and web sites and blogs and the like, every nitwit and his best friend is now out there peddling content. As Brown seemed to suggest, people have a hard time knowing where to turn in the face of this blizzard of content.

Last night, at the start of The Five, the Fox News Channel's "recite-alike" hosts cranked out one factual misstatement after another. Viewers had no obvious way to know they were being misled. 

Tons of money are now being made by telling different groups of people only the things they long to hear. Misinformation is now big business, and it won't want to go away.

Brilliant writing will have to confront this huge institutional problem. Over here in Blue America, our stars tend to flee from this task.

In our view, Hoyt was superb in his stint at the Times. The leading authority on his career gives you the overview here.


BACKLASH: We shouldn't normalize this, they said!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025

It's been normalized for the past many years: We interrupt our Backlash retrospective to report what Jim VandeHei said.

He spoke at 6:20 Eastern on today's Morning Joe. This is what he said:

"In what world is that OK?"

In what world is that [conduct] OK? VandeHei sensibly asked. He directed his question at President Trump's latest unusual conduct. 

The president had done something unusual. In this case, even the somewhat permissive New York Times has reported the conduct in question:

Trump Berates One Reporter and Tells Another, ‘Quiet Piggy’

President Trump assailed an American journalist in the Oval Office on Tuesday for asking Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, about the violent death of a Washington Post columnist at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018. U.S. intelligence has said the attack was carried out on the prince’s orders.

“You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that,” Mr. Trump told the journalist, Mary Bruce of ABC News, later referring to her query as “a horrible, insubordinate, and just a terrible question.”

“A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about,” Mr. Trump said, referring to the murdered journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. “Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.” The prince has denied involvement in the killing.

It was the second time in a week that Mr. Trump had leveled a fierce insult at a woman who was covering him.

For better or worsewe'd say for worsethere he had gone again! The president had assailed Mary Bruce (ABC News) for asking a fairly obvious question about Mohammed bin Salman. 

That said, it was the "fierce insult" directed at a second female reporter which generated VandeHei's question on today's Morning Joe.

Last Friday, the president had said "Quiet, Piggy" to Catherine Lucey (Bloomberg News) during a scrum on Air Force One. As the Times report continued, it described that bit of unusual conduct on the commander's part. For Mediaite's report of that incident, you can just click here.

For reasons which so make obvious sense, the Times report had stressed the fact that this insult had been directed at a female reporter. Mediaite filed several reports describing pushback within the mainstream press against this cutting remark. Headline included, one such report started like this:

‘I Just Don’t Understand How Somebody Acts Like This’: Anderson Cooper at a Loss After Trump’s ‘Piggy’ Insult

CNN’s Anderson Cooper expressed bafflement at how President Donald Trump can keep lobbing juvenile insults at others, only for “everyone” to essentially shrug in response.

On Friday night, Trump took questions from reporters aboard Air Force One, where Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey asked the president about the Epstein files. When Lucey tried to ask a follow-up, Trump grew irritated and said, “Quiet, quiet, piggy!”

"I know diversity and actually treating people with decency and human kindness is not, you know, what’s popular today in some quarters," Cooper was quoted saying. "But I just don’t understand how somebody acts like this time after time, and everyone just pretends like, 'Oh, that’s just what this guy does.' ”

In response, Navarro was quoted saying this: "We’ve grown numb to it. And I think we have to fight that urge to normalize it and get numb to it."

Lucey has long been a highly regarded Washington reporter. She has worked an array of high-end news orgs, including the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press.

Fellow reporters were pushing back against the latest bit of unusual behavior by President Trump. But in fact, this type of conduct has been widely "normalized" in recent years, in part with respect to President Trump, but also on a nightly basis by the Fox News Channel.

We've noted it here again and again, and then again and again. In a late September profile of the Fox News Channel's Kat Timpf, Amanda Hess of the New York Times finally had the courage to report what she saw and heard when she sat in the studio audience watching a taping of the nightly Fox program, Gutfeld!

In last Friday's report, we posted what Hess said about the Gutfeld! show in question. What did Hess see as she sat in the studio audience? We refresh you with these excerpts:

Mr. Gutfeld’s style mixes anti-liberal insult comedy with relentless punchlines about women’s bodies—their age, their weight, their sexual attractiveness. Each night, Ms. Timpf sits at his right-hand side, playfully challenging him while staking out an alternate style of physical humor—one that centers her own experience inhabiting a woman’s body.

I met Ms. Timpf on a Tuesday morning in August, on her second day back at “Gutfeld!” after a reconstructive surgery in which the tissue expanders inserted behind her chest muscle during the mastectomy she underwent in March were replaced with permanent breast implants.

[...]

The night before, Ms. Timpf had made her return to “Gutfeld!” just as the backlash to the backlash to Sydney Sweeney’s campaign for American Eagle jeans was fomenting on the right. A former heavyweight pro wrestler known as Tyrus offered his take on [Sidney] Sweeney’s female critics: “They look like a bag of oatmeal and they’re ugly and mean,” he said.

[...]

At the top of the show, Mr. Gutfeld delivered a battery of topical jokes in which he matched pieces of the day’s news with verdicts on liberal women’s bodies. Hillary Clinton is ugly. Joy Behar is old. Nancy Pelosi is old. Rosie O’Donnell is fat, Whoopi Goldberg is fat, Lizzo is fat, a professor of political science you’ve never heard of is fat...

Fat fat fat fat fat fat fat, but also ugly and old. Last Friday, we offered links through which you could watch this stream of insults yourself. 

That said, this sort of thing takes place, night after night after night after night, on the primetime "cable news" program. Over here in Blue America, our news orgs have agreed to help normalize this.

In the final passage we've posted, Hess offered an explicit account of what she saw in the Gutfeld! show she attended. In the half dozen profiles of Gutfeld and the Gutfeld! show which have appeared this year, it was the most explicit account of the program's persistent insult culture as directed at "women's bodies." 

That said, even this account understated the extent to which the primetime program feeds on insults of this type. And Hess's account came very late in her lengthy profile of the Gutfeld sidekick, Timpf. 

To her credit, Hess reported this building-block of this braindead show in a way which exceeded the accounts offered by other profiles. But even Hess, we'd have to say, under-reported the extent of the misogyny-adjacent insult culture which is one of the principal building blocks of this highly unusual program.

Quite sensibly, Cooper and Navarro voiced concern about the way the president's insulting treatment of female reporters has perhaps been normalized. But as we've been noting for years, no one within the Blue American cultural sphere has ever chosen to report what Greg Gutfeld actually does, on a nightly basis, on his heavily watched Fox News Channel program.

On Gutfeld!, he insults directed at liberal women go on and on, on a nightly basis, as Timpf just sits there and watches. The program's large "cable news" viewership is told that these liberal women are too old and too ugly, but mainly that they're just too fat fat fat fat fat.

This braindead conduct goes on and on, and then it goes on some more. Over here in Blue America, no one says a word. 

In Hess's profile of Timpf, she described this conduct in a way other profiles haven't done. Indeed, other journalists who have profiled Greg Gutfeld and his braindead show have possibly seemed to go out of their way to misdescribe, or to disappear, this highly unusual conduct. 

Based on appearances, it looks like no one really wants to report or discuss this unusual conduct. Thinking back to Susan Faludi's Backlash, we repeat our question:

Why not?

VandeHei asked an excellent question on today's Morning Joe. "In what world is that [conduct] OK?" the gentleman sensibly asked.

Tomorrow: "Misogynist," one observer said, midway through Hess's profile. But this fraudulent, stupid "cable news" program is also remarkably coarse.


TUESDAY: Further thoughts about "brilliant writing"...

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2025

...in the wake of the flood: With apologies, connectivity was gone for a good part of the day. This interrupted our ability to continue contemplating what Tina Brown recently said.

In yesterday afternoon's report, we posted her comment. In an interview with the New York Times' Lulu Garcia-Navarro, her comment went like this:

Garcia-Navarro: I have a theory for why there is so much nostalgia: Even as the internet has democratized the way that people get information and who gives information, people are craving a bit more authority. People want a guide through the muck.

Brown: Of course they do. I mean, the gatekeepers have gone. Everyone goes, Yes! As if the gatekeepers were some kind of terrible inhibition to doing anything good. The gatekeepers were also the tastemakers. Lacking those gatekeepers now, it’s just this big blob of stuff and dross that comes careening at you, and you don’t know where to find the good stuff. I think that’s the biggest problem of our time. There is brilliant writing out there. But finding it is like the needle in the haystack. 

We've long regarded Tina Brown as sensible and sharp, but is the highlighted comment accurate? Given the strangeness of the times, is there really any "brilliant writing out there?" And given the strangeness of the times, what sorts of phenomena would any such writing have to identify and try to wrestle with?

We've long regarded Tina Brown as highly sensible and thoroughly sharp. But we're not sure that she was right in what seems like a sensible thought.

That said, we want to take a bit of time to ponder this as a topic for a week-long review. Much as Macbeth once murdered sleep, it seems to us that President Trump has put an end to "brilliant writing," if we're prepared to assume that there was ever some such critter within our American discourse.

Given the damage which has been caused by the flooding of the zone, what sorts of problems would brilliant writing have to address at this point? For ourselves, we can think of no one who is addressing the sweep of the catastrophe into which we've all slid in the past fourteen years. 

For that matter, was there ever any such thing as "brilliant writing" within our public discourse? Did any such creature ever exist in the decades before the flood?


BACKLASH: Hall said he doesn't like Gutfeld's work!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2025

But he never said why: Who the heck is Colby Hall? We thought you'd never ask!

Hall is the founding editor of Mediaite.com, a news site which records the types of (significant) nonsense the New York Times may choose to disappear. In the past few months, we've read a lot of sensible opinion pieces by Hall right there at Mediaite.

We were less familiar with Hall's work back in July, when he published a profile of the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld and his primetime Gutfeld! show. 

The headline referred to Gutfeld as a "prankster." Hall's profile started like this:

Opinion
Greg Gutfeld’s Disruptive Rise: How a Fox News Prankster Broke Late-Night TV

Stephen Colbert’s Late Show is over, and while the official reason has yet to be confirmed, reports suggest CBS was hemorrhaging money to the tune of $40 million a year. The show reportedly employed more than 220 staffers and cost an eye-popping $100 million annually to produce. Yes, there is the whole corporate fealty to Trump at play, which I went into great detail on Friday, but this blockbuster-movie money for a nightly talk show. In an age of media belt-tightening and digital fragmentation, that model may simply no longer be sustainable.

Which brings us to Greg Gutfeld.

Yes, Gutfeld—the often smirking, occasionally cringeworthy Fox News host who somehow emerged as a legit force in late-night-style comedy. And while I’ve personally called his brand of humor “witless” (and stand by that), it’s impossible to deny: Gutfeld has cracked the code, disrupting a TV genre once defined by Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Jay Leno, and yes, Colbert himself.

Let’s be clear: Gutfeld! airs at 10 p.m. ET, which technically makes it a primetime show. But in tone, structure, and format, it’s a late-night show—monologue, roundtable, recurring gags, rotating co-hosts with semi-celebrity status, and alt-right bona fides, with a wink toward absurdist commentary on the day’s news almost always at the expense of libturds and lamestream media.

[NOTE: As of this morning, the Mediaite site seems to be down. For that reason, we can't provide a link to Hall's essay.]

As the profile started, Hall engaged in a bit of the standard sleight-of-hand according to which the Fox News Channel has branded Gutfeld as "the king of late night" comedy. Because he knew that Gutfeld! actually isn't a late night" show, Hall began by describing the show as "a force in late-night-style comedy" (our emphasis).

Hall then acknowledged the fact that Gutfeld! isn't a "late night" show at all. Even there, an obvious corner was cuthe noted the fact that Gutfeld! airs at 10 p.m., failing to say that it airs at that time only in the Eastern time zone.

(We're assuming he would have known that.)

In fact, the show airs at 9 p.m. in the Central time zone, at 7 p.m. out on the coast. For whatever reason, it's been standard behavior for mainstream journalists to fuzz those facts as profiles of Gutfeld have appeared this year. This misrepresentation helps Fox extend the claim that Gutfeld's viewership numbers have established him as "the king of late night"as the reigning monarch of the late-night comedy wars.

Gutfeld! actually is a heavily watched "cable news" show; it has the third highest viewership in all of cable news. On its face, that's a striking achievementbut the Fox News Channel likes to claim a higher glory, and one mainstream journalist after another has seemed to play along with this channel's vastly misleading claim, to greater or lesser degree.

As he continued, Hall continued to fuzz the claim that Gutfeld! actually is a "late night comedy" show. We would dispute both parts of that description, but here's what Hall's profile says:

(Continuing directly from above)
What sets it apart isn’t just that it’s on Fox News, but that it’s doing all this with a staff reportedly no bigger than maybe twenty people? Gutfeld’s creative team is small, tight, and far from bloated.

That lends something to his show that late-night hasn’t had in a long time: authenticity. You might not like the jokes (I usually don’t), but the DIY spirit is palpable. Gutfeld honed his voice back in the Maxim and Stuff magazine days, where the “laddie” culture prioritized irreverence, irrelevance, and low-fi swagger. He sharpened his satirical chops further hosting Fox’s cult-classic Red Eye, a weird, smart, surreal show that quietly built him a following among insomniac media nerds and libertarian night owls.

The result is a show that, while not for everyone, clearly resonates with a large audience—an audience that often feels condescended to or outright ignored by mainstream comedy. Much of that can be attributed to Fox News’ built-in viewership who, judging by the network's dominant ratings, seem eager to watch every hour of programming on the network 

Suzanne Scott, Fox News CEO, deserves credit for greenlighting the 10 p.m. shift that let Gutfeld own a bold new time slot—a gamble that paid off big. Launching a late-night show on a cable news network was risky, but she recognized the post-pandemic appetite for smart, fun, non-lecturey comedy.

By the end of that passage, Gutfeld! is being described as "a late-night show" all over againbut a second point of curiosity has now appeared:

Hall has started saying that he himself doesn't especially like Gutfeld's humor. ("You might not like the jokes," he says. "I usually don't.")

Hall doesn't care for Gutfeld's comedybut he has twice described Gutfeld's work as "smart!" For reasons we'll discuss as the week proceeds, we're amazed to think that he would have selected that particular term as he describes Gutfeld's work.

We're amazed to think that Hall would describe Gutfeld's work as "smart!" But then, there's also this:

in the course of the profile, Hall says or suggests, again and again, that he himself isn't a fan of Gutfeld's "smart, fun" comedy. Beyond that, he suggests that you, the reader of Mediaite, may not care for this "smart, fun comedy" either. 

Here's how the profile ends:

It’s ironic, maybe even darkly comedic, that Fox News—once seen as antithetical to comedy—now produces the most-watched “late-night” show on cable. While the other networks trim costs or shut down completely, Gutfeld’s frugally produced, stripped-down format thrives. The jokes might be cheap—but so is the overhead.

To be fair, there’s room for everyone. Comedy is subjective. Gutfeld’s not for me, just as Colbert was never going to win over the Hannity crowd. But TV is a business, and in the end, the audience decides. And right now, more viewers are tuning into the scrappy, sarcastic conservative guy—notorious for his ill-advised bit in trying to reclaim “nazi” for conservatives—on Fox with a dozen writers and a former pro wrestler.

Restaurants have menus for a reason. You may not want what Gutfeld’s serving—but a whole lot of people clearly do.

Once again, Hall is fashioning Gutfeld! as "a late-night show," even though he knows that isn't accurate. Having said that, it's true:

A whole lot of people do seem to like Gutfeld's "comedy stylings." But Hall has said, again and again, that he himself isn't one of those peopleand he closes his profile by saying that his readers may not like Gutfeld's "smart, fun" comedy either.

Colby Hall doesn't like Gutfeld's "smart, fun comedy!" Along the way, he has offered hints as to why that might be the case, but he never explicitly unravels this conundrum. Nor does he ever quote the sort of "smart, fun" material a reader might encounter if he or she decides to tune in to this primetime show.

Why doesn't Colby Hall enjoy Greg Gutfeld's "smart, fun" comedy? We can easily guess at the answer to that, but the answer is never spelled out.

In our view, Hall's failure to unpack this riddle raises a set of questions about the prevailing values of our own Blue American world:

In yesterday morning's report, we refreshed you as to the claims made in Backlash, Susan Faludi's 1991 "feminist classic." As almost anyone should be able to see, an obvious type of angry backlash seems to be involved in Greg Gutfeld's "smart, fun" comedyan angry, extremely coarse backlash which has long struck us as the swill which might emerge from an overturned garbage can.

That said, mainstream profiles of the Gutfeld! show have persistently failed to describe the essence of his angry, coarse offerings. Routinely, journalists have refused to quote samples of Gutfeld's comedy stylings, just as Hall has done.

We've seen a lot of good work by Hall. Back in July, we were puzzled by this profile.

Our questions go like this:

Does Blue America have a sexual politics at this point in time? Did we ever have a sexual politics? We'll ponder such questions all week.

Tomorrow: A smart, fun start to the show


MONDAY: Did Tina Brown (possibly) get it wrong?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2025

In search of brilliant writing: On this campus, we've long admired Tina Brown for her smarts and for her good sense.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published an interview with Brown, an interview conducted by Lulu Garcia-Navarro. Along the way, we'd say that Brown got it right, but we'd say that she also might have gotten it wrong.

The latter assessment on our part involves a somewhat gloomy thought. Headline included, here's the part of the interview where Brown describes the current lay of the land:

The Interview 
Tina Brown Thinks the Über-Rich Have It Coming

[...]

Garcia-Navarro: I have a theory for why there is so much nostalgia: Even as the internet has democratized the way that people get information and who gives information, people are craving a bit more authority. People want a guide through the muck.

Brown: Of course they do. I mean, the gatekeepers have gone. Everyone goes, Yes! As if the gatekeepers were some kind of terrible inhibition to doing anything good. The gatekeepers were also the tastemakers. Lacking those gatekeepers now, it’s just this big blob of stuff and dross that comes careening at you, and you don’t know where to find the good stuff. I think that’s the biggest problem of our time...

Garcia-Navarro is describing the "democratization" accomplished by the Internet (and by other forms of new media). Brown agrees with her description, perhaps saying something like this:

Once we had a limited number of journalistic gatekeepers. 

Such people and organizations weren't perfect; obviously, no one is. That said, the high-end gatekeepers weren't stupid, and they weren't crazy out of their heads. But under the new regime, many of the podcasters and "cable news" pundits who have adopted the role of "gatekeeper / guide" may not be able to offer such assurances.

All in all, there's a giant "blob of stuff and dross" available for people to choose from! Many times, it isn't all that easy to know whose guidance we can trust.

That may not be exactly what Brown meant. Still, we'll say that she was basically right at this pointbut we're not sure we completely agree with where her rumination went next:

(Continuing directly from above):
Lacking those gatekeepers now, it’s just this big blob of stuff and dross that comes careening at you, and you don’t know where to find the good stuff. I think that’s the biggest problem of our time. There is brilliant writing out there. But finding it is like the needle in the haystack. I’m always feeling, What have I missed? Because somebody will say, Oh, did you read that great piece? It’s like, Where? I’ve got a thousand Substack things, I’m reading social media, I’m reading the old-guard stuff, but my head is exploding. And unfortunately what it’s leading to is a lot of people checking out. So it’s a very demoralizing time.

"There is brilliant writing out there," Brown says. Gloomily, we're inclined to think that that assertion may not, at this point, be accurate.

Is there actually any "brilliant writing" out there? It may seem odd to suggest that the answer is no. Tomorrow, we'll continue our thought.


BACKLASH: Faludi wrote a major best-seller!

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2025

Today, the backlash is hard to miss: Who the heck is Susan Faludi? We thought you'd never ask!

Long ago and far away, when grandmother was still a little girl, Faludi wrote and published a book which became a major best-seller.

The book was published on October 1, 1991. It debuted on the New York Times best-seller list on November 24 of that year

Half a year later, in May 1992, it was still appearing on those weekly lists, often listed at #2 or #3 among best-selling non-fiction booksIn short, it was a major best-selling bookand the lengthy volume's one-word name was accompanied by a challenging subtitle.

Backlash produced some negative commentary, but also a great deal which wasn't. The leading authority on the book offers this overview:

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women is a 1991 book by Susan Faludi, in which the author presents evidence demonstrating the existence of a media-driven "backlash" against the feminist advances of the 1970s in the United States.

Faludi argues that the backlash uses a strategy of "blaming the victim," which suggests that the women's liberation movement itself is the cause of many of the problems alleged to be plaguing American women in the late 1980s. She also argues that many of these problems are illusory, constructed by the media without reliable evidence.

Faludi also identifies backlash as an historical trend, recurring when women have made substantial gains in their efforts to obtain equal rights. The book won the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction in 1991. A 15th anniversary edition was released in 2006.

And so on, at length, from there. The authority offers links to commentary about the bookto the commentary which was laudatory, but also to that which wasn't. 

In late October of 1992, Faludi was interviewed by Brian Lamb for the C-Span program, Booknotes. Lamb asked about the book's commercial successand Faludi tracked its origins to a previous well-known book:

LAMB (10/25/92): How many copies of this hardback version have you sold?

FALUDI: The last time I checked it, it was more than 200,000, but I haven't looked in a while.

LAMB: When you started the project, did you dream that it would sell 200,000?

FALUDI: No! I imagined it would sell as many copies as my mother bought. At the time when I was writing in the depths of the mid-'80s and late-'80s, people weren't talking about feminism except to say disparaging things about it.

[...]

FALUDI: My mother is a product of the feminine mystique era in a way. She was a journalist who gave up her career to marry and move to the suburbs and is someone who in another era would have been a professional journalist. In many respects the book has been formed by observing her experience and the experience of women of her generation who discovered the second wave of feminism.

LAMB: What is "the feminine mystique era?"

FALUDI: The '50s and early '60s. Really, I guess we'd have to date the discovery of the feminine mystique to 1963, when Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique was published. It was an experience that women in the suburbs had of waking up and wondering, "Well, I have every kitchen appliance known to man, but something very basic is missing in my life."

As Faludi noted, The Feminine Mystique was published in 1963, describing "the problem that has no name." Twenty-eight years later, Faludi was alleging that a widespread backlash had formed against the ideas about gender roles which had emerged in the wake of that book.

Backlash was a major book. Like Friedan's earlier book, it's rarely discussed today.

That said, how accurate were the various claims Faludi made in her book? We won't be trying to settle such questions this week. 

That said, how big a splash did the volume make? It even penetrated one major Hollywood romcom, as Molly Fischer recalled at the start of this retrospective for The New Yorker.

Fischer's essay appeared in July 2022. This is the way it started, dual headline included:

THE REAL BACKLASH NEVER ENDED
Three decades later, Susan Faludi’s 1991 feminist classic still shows us how to read between the lines.

“It’s easier to be killed by a terrorist than it is to find a husband over the age of forty,” a man tells Meg Ryan’s character, Annie, in the 1993 movie “Sleepless in Seattle.” He’s parroting a statistic that was, at the time, a favored object of media hand-wringing—the dramatic results of a 1986 study on marriage patterns that had exploded onto magazine covers, TV-news specials, and movie screens. Annie, however, knows better. “That statistic is not true!” she says. “There is practically a whole book about how that statistic is not true!” The book in question didn’t even need to be named: it was “Backlash,” by Susan Faludi.

Good grief! As of 1993, Backlash was even lurking in that very popular Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan film!

That was the start of Fischer's retrospective. As the headline on her piece said, she was arguing that the backlash against so-called "second wave feminism" has never actually stopped.

How accurate were Fischer's claims? We won't be attempting to make that assessment either! That said, there's little doubt that a serious pushback against certain tenets of feminism is quite visible, at the present time, within parts of the MAGA cosmos.

In some arenas, the extent of this pushback can seem almost hard to believe. This has generated remarkably little reporting, discussion or commentary from the Blue American world. 

We refer, in part, to the remarkable news about the religious movement to which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth belongs. (He has every right to do so.) Back in August, PBS reprinted this somewhat surprising report by the Associated Press:

What to know about the archconservative church Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says he’s proud to be part of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, an archconservative network of Christian congregations.

Hegseth recently made headlines when he shared a CNN video on social media about CREC, showing its pastors arguing women should not have the right to vote.

Pastor Doug Wilson, a CREC co-founder, leads Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, the network’s flagship location. Jovial and media-friendly, Wilson is no stranger to stirring controversy with his church’s hard-line theology and its embrace of patriarchy and Christian nationalism.

[...]

Hegseth, among President Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet picks, attends Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a CREC member church in a suburb outside Nashville, Tennessee. His pastor, Brooks Potteiger, prayed at a service Hegseth hosted at the Pentagon.

CREC recently opened a new outpost in the nation’s capital, Christ Church DC, with Hegseth attending its first Sunday service.

The AP report goes on at some length about the views of Pastor Wilson. We'll stress the fact that a Pentagon spokesman has said that Hegseth does support the right of women to vote. 

Still and all, the AP report includes this:

Wilson’s church and wider denomination practice complementarianism, the patriarchal idea that men and women have different God-given roles. Women within CREC churches cannot hold church leadership positions, and married women are to submit to their husbands.

Wilson told the AP he believes the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote “was a bad idea.” Still, he said his wife and daughters vote.

He would prefer the United States follow his church’s example, which allows heads of households to vote in church elections. Unmarried women qualify as voting members in his church.

“Ordinarily, the vote is cast by the head of the household, the husband and father, because we’re patriarchal and not egalitarian,” Wilson said. He added that repealing the 19th Amendment is not high on his list of priorities.

Like everyone else, Pastor Wilson has every right to formulate and state his views about the appropriate roles of men and women in civil society. He has every right to base such views on his reading of religious doctrine, if that is the case in this instance.

Still, when pushback extends all the way to the view that married women shouldn't be allowed to vote, the pushback is taking us well beyond what Betty Friedan was writing about in 1963. It's moving us back toward views about men and women which track to the dawn of time.

Did European literature really begin with Homer's famous poem of war, the Iliad? If so, then European literature began with a famous work in which all major events turn on the assumption that human society was built around the subjugation of women, including the sexual subjugation which forms the basis for the fury of Achilles and Agamemnon at the very start of the text.

Over the past (roughly) three thousand years, the western world has struggled toward a different set of understandings concerning such social relations. But in certain parts of the MAGA world, angry pushback against even the simplest kinds of "feminist" notions may occasionally seem to be visible at the present time.

Faludi used the term "backlash" as the title of her book. We're using a kinder and gentler termthe less abrasive term "pushback."

That said, the noxious pushback to which we refer can be seen on a nightly basis on the Fox News Channel. To our reckoning, the nightly presence of this strange behavior is startlingbut so is the way our own Blue America seems to be unwilling to report or discuss that startling conduct.

We refer to the nightly trashing of women which occurs, on a nightly basis, on the Fox News Channel's Gutfeld! show. We also refer to the way major Blue American journalists seem to go out of their way to avoid reporting what happens on this show.

The conduct itself strikes us as remarkable. The Blue American silence may be even worse.

As the Gutfeld! show has gained popularity, profiles of the show, and of its host, have been appearing with some frequency in this calendar year. But over here in Blue America, we've yet to see a serious attempt at describing this program's nightly contents.

In last Friday's report, we showed you what the New York Times' Amanda Hess said she saw when she sat in the studio audience for a Gutfeld! taping last August.

To her somewhat limited credit, Hess didn't exactly seem to be pulling her punches. On the other hand, we'd have to say this:

The ugly reality of this program's backlash strikes us as substantially worse that what Hess described. 

The apparent backlash on this "cable news" program strikes us as deeply depressing. Blue America's apparent inability to see this behavior for what it is seems more startling still.  

Last week, we barely scratched the surface of Blue America's silence concerning this nightly pushback. If only for the sake of history, we'll offer more detail this week.

 Tomorrow: Persistently left unsaid