Donald Trump Disses J. Lo’s Butt—And More Misogynistic Comments From the GOP Leader

Here are other examples of the Republican front-runner’s long history of oafish remarks about women.

<a href="">Andrew Harnik</a>/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Donald Trump says he loves and respects women. Yet for decades he has uttered boorish comments that undermine that assertion, and in recent weeks his misogynistic remarks have become fodder for journalists (see here and here). Moreover, Trump’s attitude toward women has been a campaign issue—and it could become a major battlefront should he win the Republican presidential nomination. When Fox News host Megyn Kelly at a debate in August pressed Trump about his past derogatory remarks about women, he launched a feud against her and the conservative network. This week, a super-PAC run by a former Mitt Romney operative released a commercial in which a series of women quote ugly comments about women attributed to Trump. In these statements, Trump derided women as “dogs,” said he wouldn’t help raise his own children, and declared his preference for women with large breasts. On Wednesday, Trump posted an attack video showing Hillary Clinton barking like a dog.

As reporters and opposition researchers continue to dig into Trump’s past, they are likely to find more evidence that he harbors a negative or chauvinistic view toward women. Here are other examples—so far unreported or not widely noticed—to add to the list:

“it’s sick, isn’t it?”

In the early 1990s, shock jock Howard Stern hosted an interview show on the E! network, and Trump was the featured guest on one episode. Stern, no surprise, wanted to discuss—and drool over—Trump’s active dating life, and the tycoon obliged him. Trump acknowledged he judged women on their looks: “I tend to like beautiful women more than unattractive women. I don’t know, maybe that makes me bad.” But what was more telling was an exchange in which Trump indicated he believed there was something “sick” about women that caused them to be attracted to men who treat them poorly.

Stern began this part of the discussion by saying to Trump, “You once said that the best way to treat a woman is to treat her like doody.” The conversation continued:

Trump: No, I never said that…It was attributed to me.

Stern: But I’ll tell you something: I agree with that statement.

Trump: [Laughter]

Stern: They don’t listen otherwise. I tell you, women are troublemakers…So you never did say that?

Trump: No, I never said that, but it was attributed to me.

Stern: So you treat women with respect?

Trump: I can’t say that, either.

Trump quickly added, “I treat women with great respect.” Yet the two were not done with this subject. A few moments later, Stern asked Trump whether Marla Maples, his girlfriend at the time, would be upset if he were to see other women. Trump said, “Probably not.” Stern exclaimed, “Unbelievable!” And Trump tried to explain:

Trump: You said that women like being treated badly.

Stern: Yes, so the more they think you’re desirable, the more they will go for you.

Trump: There’s something to that. It’s sick, isn’t it?

Trump appeared to be saying he thought Stern was on to something with his treat-women-badly theory—even if he had not said the quote attributed to him. Later in the show, at Stern’s request, Trump ranked women he has “had” and women he had been linked to in the gossip press.

“That ass is too…”

In 2003, Trump went on Stern’s radio show, and the discussion was the usual fare. Stern discussed having hot-tub oral sex with Melania, Trump’s wife-to-be. Trump bragged that he could estimate a woman’s weight within half a pound. Stern asked Trump to name the “three hottest chicks you’ve seen.” Stern declared that Jennifer Lopez couldn’t be on the list because “her ass is too fat.” Trump replied, “You know, I really like J. Lo, but that ass is…” Trump then asked,” Do you really want me to do this?” Of course Stern did. “I’m very, very good at it,” Trump said. And he cited Keira Knightley, Paris Hilton, and his daughter Ivanka. He noted that he had watched Hilton’s sex video.

“You never get to the face because the body’s so good.”

A year later on Stern’s radio show, Trump boasted that the National Enquirer recently had published a story saying, as he put it, “that in the history of the world, nobody has gotten more beautiful women than I have.” Moments later, he and Stern were discussing tennis pro Steffi Graf. Trump called her a “great girl,” and Stern replied, “She’s not hot.” Trump responded, “She’s got one of the greatest bodies ever.” Stern shot back: “But what about the face?…[The] body’s a 10. What’s the face?” Trump had an answer: “Well, you never get to the face because the body’s so good.”

“how do the breasts look?”

In 2005, Trump was back on Stern’s radio show. The conversation ranged toward the juvenile, and at one point Stern asked Trump if he would still love Melania if she were disfigured in a horrible car accident. Trump replied, “How do the breasts look?” Stern said that in this scenario the breasts were not injured, and Trump responded, “Okay, well that’s important.” He did say he would “stay with her 100 percent.” (It was during this interview that Trump said he wouldn’t take care of any kids Melania would have; he’d just pay for them.)

“They Want to torment me.”

A video posted on YouTube in 2007 showed Trump entering a large auditorium in Toronto to give a seminar on success. Loud music was blaring. The crowd was applauding. And a squad of enthusiastic, fist-pumping cheerleaders—men and women—greeted his arrival on the stage. Trump’s first words were to tell the guys to leave the stage. The women could stay, he said. But he didn’t call them women. He said, “And the girls—we’re supposed to call them women, but they’re girls to me—the girls, you can stay the entire speech.” He then did request the women to leave, too: “They want to torment me, and they always have beautiful women over here, and I’m sitting up making this speech, and I can’t stand it. Girls, get off this stage right now.”

“i find women to be much more aggressive than men.”

In 1997, Trump appeared on Conan O’Brien’s show, and the host asked about his dating life. Trump didn’t provide many details, but he did expound on his views on women and sex. As he put it:

I find women to be much more aggressive than men. In fact, many of the people that are in my company and that I hire are women. I find women to be far more aggressive—and, sexually, far more aggressive—than men.

Moments later, he showed O’Brien what was in his jacket pocket: a condom.

Objectifying women, judging them based on appearance, suggesting they like being mistreated—all of this has been part of Trump’s long-running playboy schtick. His history of oafish remarks will certainly continue as a campaign controversy, especially if he snags the GOP nomination and ends up facing Clinton in the main event.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate