I don't follow every media outlet, but amid all of the commentary on this man's interesting racial opinions, has there been a word about the perhaps more immediate sexist context in which these comments were made?

Maybe I don't know the whole backstory, but this guy's treatment of women seems more directly abusive than any effect his attitudes may have had on his employees.

On edit: and no, I am not inviting nor making a "what's worse" comparison. I'm merely surprised that the well-roundedness of his odious character is being lost in the emphasis on one strand of it.

The Vatican press office quietly confirmed what many close observers had suspected since yesterday's unusual dual canonization ceremony. In revising the liturgy of canonization, which is ordinarily performed on one person at a time, priests had inadvertently cribbed portions of the marriage liturgy into the script read by Pope Francis before a crowd of over 800,000 of the faithful in attendance. Fortunately, read the statement issued earlier today, "most Catholics have no idea what is going on during a Latin mass" ironically due to the reforms instituted by Pope John XXIII, "so we're looking at it as a 'no harm, no foul' situation."

However, many Catholic scholars admit that by failing to actually canonize the two former popes, and by joining them together in holy matrimony, they are indeed now married as far as the church is concerned. As a safeguard, they have petitioned the Pope to grant an annulment as soon as possible, lest the now departed popes proceed to consummate the union.