To the editor:
“Gender gap widens, with more women planning to cancel out husbands’ votes,” reads the print subheadline of a piece on the differences between husbands’ and wives’ assessments of the presidential candidates. ("'Till death do us part' in life, but these married couples part ways at the ballot box," Oct. 27)
Could there be a more tone-deaf rendition of this story in an election that has brought persistent misogyny and sexism to the forefront of American life? Did The Times consider that perhaps it could be the other way around, and that a woman might have an influence on her husband? The subheadline reinforces a patriarchal and offensive notion of society and marriage.
First Lady Michelle Obama was absolutely correct to be shaken to her core by Trump’s belief in his right to sexually assault women. We should never have to minimize the effect of sexually predatory behavior, the discomfort and downright fear that we often feel, or the lack of validity our opinions elicit simply by virtue of our sex.
Enough is indeed enough, and The Times should know it.
Michelle Aberle, Signal Hill
Note from KBJ: Trump believes that he has a "right to sexually assault [sic] women"? Michelle Aberle believes that she has a right to lie.
