# 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:** 11
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/201 "2009-11-18T21:43:29Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > Cool, I was wondering how long until this thread would godwinize in to rape-equivalency. Congratulations, you lose. Tsk tsk, you’re not keeping up. I’d made the comparison once already. And I never said it was equivalent–simply that it was disturbingly close to the same kinds of arguments. If you’ll note, the specific post you’re replying to doesn’t say a word about rape. That you were able to so easily make the inferral kind of proves my point, though, so thanks. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/202 "2009-11-18T21:51:02Z")
The word is inference, not “inferral.” ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/203 "2009-11-18T21:53:03Z")
Maybe she’s talking about the INFERRAL FIRES OF HELL! Did you think of _that_, smart guy? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/204 "2009-11-18T22:00:59Z")
Or maybe she is talking about housecats that are now out on the streets, inferral cats. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/205 "2009-11-18T22:01:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The word is inference, not “inferral.” Thanks for catching that. I was typing quickly 'cause I wanted to get a reply out before I lost my train of thought, but I had some work to get back to–I knew it didn’t sound quite right, but I didn’t have the time to look it up to see if it was one of the words I just made up in my head. I’ll also note that you didn’t actually respond to the substance of the post. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/206 "2009-11-18T22:24:22Z")
It’s not sexist. It’s Palinist. The only way you can think it is sexist is if you think Palin (or what she is doing) is representative of all women. It only degrades her. I for one would like to see more sexy male politicians on publication covers. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/207 "2009-11-18T22:33:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In that sense, the image is perfect. A superficially seductive nitwit. A meritricious con. Which of these ad hominems would you use to describe someone that wears running clothes? Now that I’ve read TFA I consider the image even more sexist. (Somehow I missed the part on masturbating hillbillies) TFA is about populism in general and what we can learn from history in that regard. Although I’m not much of a student of history, I don’t recall any skin shots of Teddy Roosevelt, Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan. Maybe they just didn’t wink enough. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/208 "2009-11-18T22:48:25Z")
To those that think Palin should have foreseen the pictures being used by other outlets: [QUOTE=Daily Finance] That photographer, Brian Adams, could not immediately be reached, and his agent, Kelly Price, declined to comment, saying, “I keep all of my clients’ business private.” But a spokeswoman for Runner’s World confirms that Adams’s contract contained a clause stipulating that his photos of Palin would be under embargo for a period of one year following publication – meaning until August 2010. “Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image,” the spokeswoman said. “It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission.” The spokeswoman declined to say whether Runner’s World intends to respond to Adams’s breach of contract with legal action. [/QUOTE] From [here.](http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/18/palin-photographer-breached-contract-with-sale-to-newsweek/) IANAL but Newsweek doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong unless it can be shown that they knew about the exclusivity period. However, the photographer’s agent might be in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/209 "2009-11-18T22:52:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > She posed for them specifically for that article. Whether she chose the particular cover shot or not, I don’t know, but what difference does it make? Beyond your stating the opposite (that it is ‘not debatable that it’s an image SHE CHOSE’), it’s important to know whether she and her team got to approve the shots used in Runner’s World (anyone who’s been involved in photo shoots and publishing knows that this is unlikely, even for high-profile celebrities). Even if she knew what she was wearing and how she was posing, with digital photography she was likely getting 1000+ shots out of one session, some when she didn’t know she was being photographed, some when she was just fooling around between ‘real’ poses. So unless there’s proof she got to approve the magazine at the printer’s you cannot state without a doubt that she had full control over what image she was projecting. And that was just for the running magazine. As mentioned, the average person might assume that she was asked to pose for _Newsweek_ and decided that they should shoot her in shorts. Or that her people (or even Runner’s World) had approved the re-sell of the shot (apparently [they didn’t).](http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/18/palin-photographer-breached-contract-with-sale-to-newsweek/) I would feel the same way if she’d dressed as, I don’t know, a farmer for Martha Stewart Living and they’d used that pic for the cover. Or, likely, if they’d used a pageant photo. Didn’t Dubya used to wink quite a bit? At the Queen of England, even? Did anyone ever call him out for using his sexuality? And again, I hope Gov. Paterson puts out a book or runs for president so _Newsweek_ can, naturally, run [this photo](http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/patterson_shorts.jpg). No word on whether he approved that shot. ETA \*\*Nars \*\*beat me to the link. ---
**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, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/210 "2009-11-18T22:57:13Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Which of these ad hominems would you use to describe someone that wears running clothes? I use it to describe politicians who wear short shorts and oil up their legs to appeal to dim-witted yokels for votes. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/211 "2009-11-18T23:00:25Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Beyond your stating the opposite (that it is ‘not debatable that it’s an image SHE CHOSE’), That’s NOT debatable. It IS an image she chose. She greased up her legs and shot those pictures specifically for that magazine. None of that is disputed or debatable. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/212 "2009-11-18T23:00:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I use it to describe politicians who wear short shorts and oil up their legs to appeal to dim-witted yokels for votes. I think those are nylons. Which could be interpreted as prudish, a la Janet on _Three’s Company_. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/213 "2009-11-18T23:01:59Z")
Who wears nylons to go running? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/214 "2009-11-18T23:02:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s NOT debatable. It IS an image she chose. She greased up her legs and shot those pictures specifically for that magazine. None of that is disputed or debatable. Wait, when you say ‘image,’ you mean projecting an image or the specific photo (that could project a certain image)? ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/215 "2009-11-18T23:02:45Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > If you’ll note, the specific post you’re replying to doesn’t say a word about rape. That you were able to so easily make the inferral kind of proves my point, though, so thanks. No, it didn’t prove shit. “She’s asking for it” is a commonplace buzzphrase that implies rape, regardless of context. Say the same words in a context free of Palin and the inference is the same. Your rape-equivalency argument has no validity here - it’s just a stop thought technique to avoid actual discussion of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/216 "2009-11-18T23:03:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I use it to describe politicians who wear short shorts and oil up their legs to appeal to dim-witted yokels for votes. I wish I had a brush that broad. I’ve got a house that needs painting. ---
**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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/217 "2009-11-18T23:08:27Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Wait, when you say ‘image,’ you mean projecting an image or the specific photo (that could project a certain image)? Well, she knew exactly what photos were being taken, so any photo she agreed to take, she approved of., by definition. She hasn’t DENIED that the original cover had her approval. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/218 "2009-11-18T23:10:36Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > I wish I had a brush that broad. I’ve got a house that needs painting. Really, you think the category of politicians who pose for magazine covers in hot pants is a broad one? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/219 "2009-11-18T23:14:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Really, you think the category of politicians who pose for magazine covers in hot pants is a broad one? No. I think a populist that only appealed to masturbating dim-witted hillbilly yokels (that’s the broad brush in case you missed it) wouldn’t have much of an effect on national politics but somehow Palin seems to have done it. I can’t stand the bitch BTW. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/220 "2009-11-18T23:23:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Who wears nylons to go running? Even if her legs are bare and shiny (is moisturized skin considered sexually provocative now?), so what? She is wearing clothes consistent with what most people wear when they are running. If she were plain-faced and scrawny, sexual manipulation would be the last thing you’d be accusing her of. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=12)