I have a bone to pick with Entertainment Tonight. Yes, I know. Self-respecting people don’t even admit that they watch the show, but sometimes I just want background noise, so I turn on the TV while I make dinner. Unfortunately for me, ET always seems to be on at exactly the same time.
In any case, the other night I was halfway listening to the show’s mindless celebrity blather when a clip of an “interview” with Hillary Clinton came on. I put the word interview in quotation marks because the “reporter” was not asking questions of any substance or direct relevance to her Presidential campaign, so in my opinion it doesn’t really qualify. I began to listen with just a touch more attention, because I haven’t yet decided on which Democratic candidate for Presidency I will vote in the primary, but Hillary is definitely up for personal consideration.
About three questions in, the interviewer flashed his over-bleached smile and in very serious tones asked Mrs. Clinton what I can only assume the show’s writers thought was an important question to people of the country:
“Mrs. Clinton, if you win the Presidency, do you have any plans to redecorate the White House?”
Hillary smiled back patiently and calmly said, “I think Mrs. Bush has done a wonderful job maintaining the White House and it probably does not need redecorating.”
Yeah, dumbass, because if she wins the Presidency she’s going to be too busy RUNNING THE COUNTRY to spend any time wondering whether the drapes wouldn’t look better in chartreuse.
This question and its underlying implications completely offended me as a woman and, in my opinion, should infuriate any other intelligent, career-focused woman with ambitious goals. As I interpret it, the question can imply two things: either people do not take Hillary Clinton seriously as a Presidential candidate or they expect her to fill not one, but two prominent public roles—those of both President and First Lady.
In the first instance, the redecorating question sounds patronizing; in other words, “Yes, Mrs. Clinton, sure you’re running for President. But let’s talk about the real issues you’ll be facing: does the Chinese ambassador prefer red of white wine?” Does the public really think that Bill will actually be orchestrating the Presidency from the wings? Do people really think that she is only running because Bill has already served two terms and this is a nefarious way for him to get back into office? Or are they not asking her serious questions just because she is a woman—hey, it’s “nice” that she’s running but no one really takes her seriously?
The second implication would suggest a blatant double standard. Excuse me if I’m incorrect, but aren’t activities such as White House redecorating and Christmas tree trimming typically the duties of the spouse of the President? If this assumption is true, then if Hillary becomes President, wouldn’t Bill be the person in charge of selecting new rugs and organizing Easter egg hunts? Maybe, though, I am grossly mistaken, and in reality the person who assumes responsibilities for these tasks is the woman who lives in the White House. Is the expectation of the people that Hillary will assume all the responsibilities of the Presidency while also filling her old support role? Has any male President in the past been expected to both fulfill his official duties and manage the more unofficial responsibilities of his spouse? Why, then, would Hillary be expected to do both?
Whether or not she is the best possible Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic ticket is a step toward changing the perception that the U.S. Presidency is a man’s job. Women hold top offices in other countries around the world, but for some reason, the United States, which prides itself on being an advanced nation, is still stuck with the archaic notion that it ultimately takes a man to lead. I believe that this country needs more women like Hillary—intelligent, successful women who challenge the status quo.
However, shows like ET seriously undermine efforts to change gender perceptions in politics and the workplace by refusing to acknowledge the positions that characterize Hillary’s endeavor and focusing instead on what they think people want to know about her (Will she redecorate? What will she wear to the next debate?). Instead, ET reinforces the idea that a lot of people probably carry—it’s nice that she’s running and all, but really, what does she know about politics?
What’s truly unfortunate is that for some people, shows like ET serve as a primary news source. Some people don’t take these programs for what they are—televised tabloids—and are actually influenced by what is presented. Frighteningly, such influence has the potential to sway opinions at the polls and to ultimately negatively impact the welfare of the country. I don’t know about you, but I for one am appalled that “fluffy” questions about matters unrelated to politics (like decorating, or even religious affiliation) can influence a vote. I wish that so-called journalists would take the initiative to use their public influence to educate rather than to distract for the sake of “entertainment.”
