when the personal isn't political.

i know it's soon to disprove my own title, but this week on bill maher sexism watch (it sure is great to be a lady in election 2008), i can't imagine anything more appropriate.

proceeded by the statement "i don't want to bash hillary too much", maher brought up a section of living history (while also infantilizing the title) to contend with clinton's ad which puts forth the idea that she should be the person in the white house to handle a crisis. the quote from the book is her reaction upon finding out that bill clinton had truly been cheating on her with monica lewinsky, which is as follows:

i could hardly breathe. gulping for air, i started crying and yelling at him, "what do you mean? what are you saying? why did you lie to me?"

maher uses this passage as an illustration of how she handles her biggest crisis. what he uses as comedy is an extremely intimate and personal event between two married people, not an actual worldwide or nationwide crisis which would undoubtedly inspire a much more level-headed and rational reaction. what maher fails to realize, or possibly does realize and just wants to perpetuate, is that his example only further cements the belief held by some in society that women are not fit for the presidency because they are too emotional.

during the show, joe scarborough attempts to shut down this little comedic gag by pointing out that finding out your husband has been unfaithful to you and, say, getting a call about musharraf's assassination are two completely different arenas. while clinton has every right to cry and be enraged by her husband's actions, i cannot fathom that it would be her reaction to, for example, another terrorist attack on the united states. i also doubt that clinton would sit for seven minutes with a copy of my pet goat like certain other leaders.

while maher's montage last week was disturbing, this strikes me as almost more so, because it plays further upon the stereotype of women being too emotional. adam goldberg (another panelist), upon hearing her reaction, agrees with maher's supposition and claims that the bit is valid because musharraf's assassination is 'worse' than finding out that your spouse is cheating on you. my initial reaction to that is to want to slap him in the face, but that's fighting irrationality with irrationality.

what goldberg should consider before making these statements is that there is no conceivable way that he would not have an emotional reaction to such a personal scenario. he may hide it, but unless he has no soul, he would not be able to take that news without reaction. in this case, there is a differentiation between how one would react to their own personal life crisis, and how one would react to a nationwide political crisis. i do not believe in any way shape or form that any of the candidates would react the same way to both. a personal crisis and a political crisis cannot be judged on the same metrics because they are not comparable.

goldberg goes on to say a bunch of other opinionated and ridiculous statements that clinton is "genuinely troubled" and lauds obama with a string of adjectives that could apply to a zillion politicians and therefore, in my opinion, have the weight of air. (historically literate? smart? articulate? he could be describing most of the people i know, it doesn't mean we should all be the president.) goldberg seems to want to deify obama, buying into the idea that he is changing the level of political discourse in a way that clinton and mccain never could. that may have seemed completely true two weeks ago, but recently it has come to light that when it comes down to it, obama is a politician too - one from chicago, no less. no one is infallible.

here is the video of said real time episode:


part of me wonders when this will stop. when will i be able to watch a political show without the stereotypes of women becoming the forefront of "coverage" on that candidate? when will other female (and male) pundits and newscasters really stand up to the sexism that permeates not only the media, but society? when will keith olbermann really just tell chris matthews to shut the fuck up? there is no way to answer any of these questions, but i want answers sooner rather than later. it's gone on too long as it is.