A couple of weeks ago, while visiting my parents' local brew pub for Happy Hour, an argument broke out between some of their friends over some current events. I was mostly quiet at the time, but I thought I'd share my thoughts here. The argument was about whether the words Bill Maher used to describe Sarah Palin are comparable to those that Rush Limbaugh used to describe Sandra Fluke. The issue clearly struck a chord with several of the participants and positions were expressed with a healthy dose of fervor and emotion. Here's my analysis:
Before we get started, just to clarify for those who prefer the under-rock lifestyle, Sandra Fluke was/is a Georgetown Law School student who had been called to testify before a congressional committee to support a federal mandate that insurance coverage include contraception. In his coverage of this, Rush Limbaugh used words like "slut" and "prostitute" to describe Fluke and summarized her argument by saying that Fluke "want[ed] to be paid to have sex." Meanwhile (kind of) Bill Maher had been criticizing former Alaskan Governor, former VP candidate, and current -- I don't know, commentator? -- Sarah Palin. In doing so he used words like "twat" and "cunt". To make a long story short, an argument has arisen over whether these two examples are similar enough that they illustrate a hypocrisy on the Left, which was quick to criticize Limbaugh's comments while rationalizing Maher's. Got it? Great, let's begin.
First of all, since both sides have down-played their comments because he who uttered them is "just doing comedy", I want to take a moment to utterly reject that point of view. I believe, as Jon Stewart expressed about himself, that neither of these comedians (if they can be so-called) are "just" doing comedy. They may do comedy, but it isn't "just" comedy. The kind of political commentary that these two practice is a serious business. They attempt to speak truth to power and their words mean more than a Knock, Knock joke. Furthermore, speaking truth to power is vital to the health of a democracy like ours: it's one of the ways we try to keep people in power accountable. Satire is part of the Fourth Estate.
That brings me to my first point: Rush Limbaugh was not speaking truth to power. First, he wasn't speaking truth. He misrepresented Ms. Fluke's argument to an absurd degree when he said she wanted to be "paid to have sex". This is like saying that supporting insurance-covered bypass surgery is the same as wanting to be paid to eat cheeseburgers. There are many reasons to receive the treatment, all of which are no one's business but the person who gets it. Second, Sandra Fluke was not in a position of power. In fact, the issue he was commenting on was that she had been barred from testifying in what became an all-male panel which was entirely against the measure for some poorly-explained procedural reason. It's not hard to see why supporters of the measure would be shocked and outraged at her exclusion, but the larger point here is that Fluke had already had her voice diminished and nearly-silenced. This brings me back to my beliefs about comedy: Again, I refer to Jon Stewart who said that there are a lot of good Goliath jokes but very few good David jokes. Kicking someone when they're down isn't usually seen as funny and Limbaugh, who has something like 45 years of broadcasting experience, should and probably does know that.
To discuss Bill Maher's comments, I want to first look at whether they are essentially the same as Limbaugh's and then move on to whether they are defensible. It should be fairly clear by now that I believe that his comments about Sarah Palin are demonstrably different than Limbaugh's regarding Fluke. Context is everything and, in our minds, Sarah Palin is already a well-defined media/political personality. She has had many opportunities to express herself and her beliefs and continues to do so for a living. So, whether you love her or hate her, Bill Maher's petty words probably aren't going to change your mind about Palin or her stance on issues which are relevant to you. This brings up another important difference: Sarah Palin's job, what she does every day, is express her opinions in the public sphere. Implicit in that is the understanding that some people will not agree with, and will criticize, her and/or her opinions.
To address whether his comments are defensible, let's look at whether those words ("twat", "cunt") hold some intrinsically misogynistic meaning, and here I'm more sympathetic to the affirmative argument. The casual use of words, like these, that carry disparaging gendered meaning should be avoided. Obviously, "twat" and "cunt" are maledictions that mean that the target is stupid/wrong and is female. Worse, they often mean that that person is stupid/wrong because she is female. The context seems to show that Maher only meant the former, that Sarah Palin is stupid and a woman, but it doesn't help the progressive cause with which Maher seems to ally himself to use a gendered word rather than a neutral one. Even then, though we routinely use such words to criticize people in places of power, it's a reductionist and ad hominem argument to just say someone is, essentially, stupid. Should we have put pressure on Maher to apologize and use different language? Yes. I'm sure you'd find many organizations that did make that request, but maybe it should have been more widespread.
Finally, if I can be so bold, I'd like to claim this bit of justification for the Left that may have let Bill Maher slide. Whether we like it or not, those of us on the Left who care deeply about feminism are still a part of the culture that we seek to correct. It's easy to let things, like Maher's choice of words, slide when words and opinions, like Limbaugh's that are much more damaging to the feminist movement seem to be uttered all the time and without rebuke from the politicians he supports. Mitt Romney said that it was "not the language [he] would have used" while Rick Santorum said, simply, that Limbaugh was "being absurd" and that "an entertainer can be absurd." Newt Gingrich refused to even comment on Limbaugh's words. To many on the Left, the shaming of a private citizen whose only crime was to try (and nearly fail) to have her voice heard is far worse than Bill Maher, a professional envelope-pusher, using some offensive words to describe a very public figure and her very public opinions. Should we be more vigilant? Perhaps, but it usually seems to us that, if a woman can't voice her own opinion in the first place, she'll never even get to the level of power where someone like Maher will call her a "cunt", even if he shouldn't.
