# Is this Newsweek cover of Palin sexist? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941 "2009-11-17T18:59:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/181 "2009-11-18T20:14:44Z")
Oh, and “She did it first!” is not an effective defense against sexism. ETA: **RNATB** , \*\*SA \*\*has no need for your “cites.” He already knows what they say–and if they disagree, well then, they’re just wrong, and he can safely ignore them anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/182 "2009-11-18T20:20:43Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > With a title of “HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE SARAH?” What is her problem that can be deduced from the photo? She likes to run? She has a Blackberry? She spray paints her legs? > > Maybe there’s something in the subtitle of “SHE’S BAD NEWS FOR THE GOP - AND FOR EVERBODY ELSE, TOO” From the “relevant” photo, I’d surmise the exorcise must be bad for the GOP and everybody else too. Perhaps we’re too dependent on technology. Leaning on a flag might be in poor taste but it hardly rises to the level of EVERYBODY PANIC! If you read the article, you’ll see that the “problem” is that she’s got enough populist appeal among masturbating hillbillies to have an influence on things, but not enough to get elected (nor anything like the ability to do the job even if she did). She can bring enough morons out in the primaries to make things tough for legit GOP candidates in 2012, and might possibly be able to get enough teabaggers elected in the House to clog things up and cockblock dialogues even more than they already are, but she can’t actually do any GOOD for either her own party or her country. In that sense, the image is perfect. A superficially seductive nitwit. A meritricious con. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/183 "2009-11-18T20:22:45Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Click back through the actual chain of discussion before you reply. Someone else asked why a photo of Biden in a Home Depot apron wasn’t used for his Newsweek cover, and \*\*Dio \*\*replied that it would be “retarded” because that picture “would have no relevance to the article.” So if it’s retarded to use an irrelevant picture of Biden for a Biden article, why is it perfectly fine to use an irrelevant picture of Palin for a Palin article? Seems to me the only distinction for \*\*Dio \*\*is that he doesn’t like Palin. Actually, the distinction seems to be that _Newsweek_ doesn’t like Sarah Palin. The article on her is not meant to be complimentary, so the photo they run with it is likewise not complimentary. The article on Biden, on the other hand, appears to have been laudatory. Therefore, they found a picture of him that makes him look like a serious politician. Making a female politician look bad because she’s a female is sexist. Making a female politician look bad because she’s actually bad at her job is not. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/184 "2009-11-18T20:23:24Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Ah yes, I very clearly see there how those sentences said anything at all about her appearing in \*Runner’s World \*or sexualizing her image to gain popularity. > > … Oh wait. Now you’re just being obtuse about the whole thing. Here’s the bit you alluded to but didn’t quote from later: > [@](#): > > Obama knows the long odds against a right-wing populist winning the presidency, no matter how good she looks in a skirt (or running clothes), brandishing a gun. So, it opens with a discussion about how she’s promoting herself now, being out there on display, and then indicates that no matter how well she can do those things, she’s not likely to win a national election. Bringing up _Runner’s World_ specifically isn’t necessary - her picture (wearing less than business attire while leaning against an American flag draped over the back of a chair) from that magazine perfectly illustrates the point being made. > [@](#): > > And yet, you can cite nothing from the article that shows that the photo has relevance. Shocking, positively shocking. The damn thing isn’t that long of an article, but really, all you have to do is read two paragraphs. It shouldn’t tax you greatly. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/185 "2009-11-18T20:26:17Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It emphasized the point that Sarah Palin is marketing her politics, such as they are, on her appearance, such as it is, . Rather, it emphasizes the _need_ some people have of \*believing \*her success is based on her sex rather than anything else. It’s the only way they can rationalize their sexist opinion of her. That’s why you stretch and stretch to claim her completely normal behavior sexualizes her image. She could be wearing a burqa, and you guys would still be criticizing her for winking. “She’s using her evil feminine wiles to beguile America! She must be stopped!” You guys just cling hard to your sexist hate of Palin. You can’t let it go, because doing so would admit that it’s possible to be a successful conservative woman that also looks good. And successful attractive woman are democrats, if they know whats good for them. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/186 "2009-11-18T20:28:12Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > See what you did there? You forgot to read my citation and instead took a wild guess at what it said. Yeah, you’re right. I didn’t read it because your words seemed to convey its meaning. Still, if 45% dislike her, it means that 55% either like or at least don’t dislike her. And considering the politics involved, and that many of that 45% are like lots of liberal women around here who hate her no matter what she looks like simply because she’s a conservative – and worse, an effective conservative with a loyal following – I’d say that’s pretty good. And I still maintain that the popularity she enjoys to the degree whe enjoys it is due much more to her attractiveness (and the values she espouses) than it is to sex appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/187 "2009-11-18T20:28:41Z")
Not really. I certainly wouldn’t bang Hilary, Pelosi or Geraldine Ferraro. I think it’s certainly fair to say that Palin’s success is largely dependent on her looks, especially when you consider how incompetent she has proven. However, I don’t think it’s at all fair to say that Palin played up her sexuality in any way. > [@](#): > > Yeah, you’re right. I didn’t read it because your words seemed to convey its meaning. Still, if 45% dislike her, it means that 55% either like or at least don’t dislike her. And considering the politics involved, and that many of that 45% are like lots of liberal women around here who hate her no matter what she looks like simply because she’s a conservative – and worse, an effective conservative with a loyal following – I’d say that’s pretty good. There aren’t enough eyerolls in the world for this. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/188 "2009-11-18T20:30:04Z")
This whole thing is Palin’s own fault. She chose to pose for such pictures, to use her attractiveness as a tool of her campaign. All Newsweek is doing is pointing this out; pointing out that one of the problems with Palin is that she’s all style over substance. This cover conveys that perfectly. Palin’s upset because this cover implicitly calls her out on her bullshit. If it’s sexist that’s because Palin chose to appeal to the Joe Sixpacks of the world in a sexist manner. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/189 "2009-11-18T20:31:44Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Rather, it emphasizes the _need_ some people have of \*believing \*her success is based on her sex rather than anything else. It’s the only way they can rationalize their sexist opinion of her. That’s why you stretch and stretch to claim her completely normal behavior sexualizes her image. She could be wearing a burqa, and you guys would still be criticizing her for winking. “She’s using her evil feminine wiles to beguile America! She must be stopped!” > > You guys just cling hard to your sexist hate of Palin. You can’t let it go, because doing so would admit that it’s possible to be a successful conservative woman that also looks good. And successful attractive woman are democrats, if they know whats good for them. Right? a) She’s not successful. b) It is completely abnormal for someone involved in a debate during a race for national office to wink at the camera. c) I’m perfectly happy for her to continue making an ass of herself while also somehow continuing to represent Republicans. She is quite unpopular, especially among women, and her unpopularity (among an array of other factors) helped turn the White House over to the Democrats. I hope she continues this kind of “success” for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/190 "2009-11-18T20:31:50Z")
Posing for _Runner’s World_ = using her attractiveness as a tool of the campaign? Come on, now. You really think anyone, anywhere might have voted for her because of a hot little spread in a magazine with a circulation of ~500,000? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/191 "2009-11-18T20:44:10Z")
That’s why I’m saying the specific magazine wasn’t the point, or the reason for the shot. The point of the shoot was to sex her up with the full knowldege that the photos would be widely picked up and carried by the rest of the media. If they’d thought it would only be seen by people who read that magazine, they’d have never wasted their time with it. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/192 "2009-11-18T20:46:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If you read the article, you’ll see that the “problem” is that she’s got enough populist appeal among masturbating hillbillies to have an influence on things, but not enough to get elected (nor anything like the ability to do the job even if she did). The problem is that she is populist and divisive. You’ll notice the article gives equal criticism to the other side of the fence. In fact, so little of the article actually has anything to do with Palin herself that I question why the hell she’s on the cover. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > So, it opens with a discussion about how she’s promoting herself now, being out there on display, and then indicates that no matter how well she can do those things, she’s not likely to win a national election. There. Is. No. Discussion. No discussion. Whatsoever. Things are mentioned, but they are not discussed. The Runner’s World photo has no relation to the subject of the article, which is about Palin’s divisive politics making her dangerous to the GOP because she represents a fringe of the party that is not generally respected. \*\*All \*\*of that has to do with her (IMO shitty) political views; \*\*none \*\*of that has to do with the length of the shorts she wears to run. And while Palin shoving herself in front of any camera that will have her is exacerbating the problem, that is not the focus of the article: it’s the politics themselves. > [@Sinaijon](#): > > You guys just cling hard to your sexist hate of Palin. You can’t let it go, because doing so would admit that it’s possible to be a successful conservative woman that also looks good. And successful attractive woman are democrats, if they know whats good for them. Right? Palin isn’t a success. She’s a laughingstock. > [@lissener](#): > > This whole thing is Palin’s own fault. She chose to pose for such pictures, to use her attractiveness as a tool of her campaign. “It’s her own fault. She was asking for it. Flaunting herself like that, she had it coming.” Oh yeah, I’m totally off base–this isn’t sexism at all. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > All Newsweek is doing is pointing this out; pointing out that one of the problems with Palin is that she’s all style over substance. But **they’re not pointing it out** , and that is exactly the problem. \*\*Nowhere \*\*do they say, “Palin relies on the appeal of her looks over the appeal of her politics.” > [@Miller](#): > > Making a female politician look bad because she’s a female is sexist. Making a female politician look bad because she’s actually bad at her job is not. I’m not sure what your point is, here. Nothing in the article about Palin being a bad politician or bad for the GOP **in any way directly related to the photograph**. You could delete the three-word parenthetical about it with \*\*absolutely no impact \*\*on the content of the article. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/193 "2009-11-18T20:47:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite for _Newsweek_ bringing people in specifically to do photo shoots for covers? Here’s [one photographer’s blog](http://blog.avenaim.com/tag/assignment-photography/): > [@](#): > > As you might have read in a previous article, I photographed Dr. Phil for the cover of Newsweek. Since that first cover shoot I have also photographed both Dr. Phil and his wife Robin for several other magazine and book covers. And [here’s another one.](http://www.daveblackphotography.com/on-the-road/0310.htm) > [@](#): > > Another portrait, this time a stock image sale for an editorial education book. Originally shot on film for a cover assignment for Newsweek prior to the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. This image of Dominique Moceanu required a white backdrop and red leotard as are the colors of Newsweek. 2 Elinchrome strobes with softboxes in front and 2 Elinchrome strobes with wide reflectors to light the white backdrop. Although Newsweek used another shot for their cover, all my images are kept on file for potential future sales. I confess I’m more familiar with _Time_ magazine and I have a colleague, Steve Liss, who has done 43 covers for them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/194 "2009-11-18T20:51:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s why I’m saying the specific magazine wasn’t the point, or the reason for the shot. The point of the shoot was to sex her up with the full knowldege that the photos would be widely picked up and carried by the rest of the media. If they’d thought it would only be seen by people who read that magazine, they’d have never wasted their time with it. That’s… well, still a bit specious. What if the images were picked up for the cover of _Seal-Clubbers Weekly_ or _Used Panty Trader_? ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/195 "2009-11-18T20:58:32Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I have to agree. I loathe Palin, but this cover fooled me. I first thought “Why the hell did Palin agree to pose like that for the cover of _Newsweek_”? When I found it was pulled from _Runner’s World_ and put into a completely different context with no explanation and the subtext of “don’t take this woman seriously, she’s just banking on her looks,” it’s hard for me not to find this anything but sexist and, not only that, overly editorializing for what’s supposed to be a hard news magazine, not an opinion publication. Quoted for agreement. I do not like Palin. I don’t like the views she does have. I don’t like her lack of knowledge on topics she should have views on (and presuming she does ever bother to come up with an opinion on those topics, I’ll probably disagree with her there). I don’t like the way she’s marketed herself. And I don’t respect her. The last time she cried “sexism,” to a Newsweek cover, it was a picture of her face in close-up. That was a ludicrous claim. This time, there’s something to it. To me, that image with that title doesn’t say “Don’t take her seriously because she sells herself using bimbette imagery,” (if they’d done a collage of “Stupid Palin Photo Ops” with this among them, I’d have gotten that impression). Instead, it comes across as targeting her because she’s a woman and in a way that they would only target a woman. Finally, I do realize that she brought it on herself, [Edwards was also profiled in Runners World in late 2007 during his last candidacy](http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-297--12356-1-1X2-3,00.html), but he and/or his handlers were smart enough have his picture in a plane, looking thoughtfully out the window and not in spandex. But Newsweek’s use of Palin’s photo was not the right way to highlight that Palin continually makes dumbass decisions with regard to everything, including her image. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/196 "2009-11-18T20:59:57Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Palin isn’t a success. She’s a laughingstock The two are not mutually exclusive ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/197 "2009-11-18T21:03:01Z")
Count me in the camp who doesn’t see how Palin has actively used her sexuality to promote herself. There are plenty of things I can fault her for (namely, being a rambling idiot), but it would be dishonest of me to include that complaint among them. Winking politicians is a cliche that goes right alongside their reputation for tireless handshaking and baby kissing. If it were an unattractive woman winking, or a man, I seriously doubt people would be so quick to accuse her of exploiting sexuality. But because Palin is cute and her winks have an arousing effect on some segment of the population, the perception is different. Instead of people accusing her trying to pander and appear folksy and downhome (which is what her winks communicate to me), they accuse her of playing up her hotness. So how else has she sexualized her image? Posed for Playboy? Made a cameo performance in a porno? Did a strip tease on Conan or something? I hate to say it, but it looks like some of yall I’ve fallen prey to thinking that any physically attractive woman _must_ be using her looks in a manipulative way, just because men are aroused by her. Anyone have a burka, perchance? Yeah, I’m going there. I’m not saying her looks have nothing to do with her popularity. But faulting her that is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/198 "2009-11-18T21:13:27Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > The two are not mutually exclusive Laughingstoccess? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/199 "2009-11-18T21:30:50Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Laughingstoccess? :dubious: He (?) has a point. For all that she talks like a [del]pirate[/del] doofus, she was also the governor of a state and probably accomplished many great things during her incumbency that did not involve killing moose. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/200 "2009-11-18T21:38:26Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > “It’s her own fault. She was asking for it. Flaunting herself like that, she had it coming.” > > Oh yeah, I’m totally off base–this isn’t sexism at all. :rolleyes: Cool, I was wondering how long until this thread would godwinize in to rape-equivalency. Congratulations, you lose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=11)