# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/261 "2009-11-19T11:18:56Z")
> [@](#): > > In his own opinion, Irby said, “It’s a pretty underhanded shot at her credibility.” Fortunately for Palin, her credibility is such a small target that Annie Oakley probably couldn’t hit it at 20 paces. Fortunately for the rest of us, Palin herself, working at point-blank range, routinely pokes new holes in it. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/262 "2009-11-19T13:10:21Z")
> [@cerberus](#): > > This. > > I’ve seen all of this stuff at running events - it’s standard gear, and I’ve seen it on women much less … svelte than Palin. The clothing is about functionality. The context for these photos is running. > > The problem with arguments about image is that it distracts from arguments about substance. A politician’s state of disrobe should not be an issue. In my ideal world nobody would care if a politicians showed up to a debate stark naked, insofar as it did not reflect on his/her sanity and he had his issues straight. Europeans have managed to elect people that have been photographed/filmed in far less than Palin. The point is, those pants are appropriate for running, bikinis are appropriate for the beach and naked is appropriate for a shower. That doesn’t mean that she should complain if a photo photo of her naked for Showers Monthly Mag is then used in another publication for whatever reason. She should be smart enough to refrain from purposely creating images that could be misused or be damaging to her. If Obama had posed for all those swimming trunks pictures and he is then put in a cover of Liberal Haters Quarterly as an example of how empty-headed and vacuous he supposedly is it would be his own damn fault. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/263 "2009-11-19T13:42:20Z")
I’ll break it down for those people who still don’t understand. 1. The article in Newsweek is clearly a negative article about her. 2. They coupled the article about her with the cover picture. 3. Standard common sense logic says that they would pair a negative article with a picture that they believe portraits her in a negative light, not a positive one. Therefore, they believe the cover picture portraits her in a negative light. 4. Since they removed all of the original context from the photo, the first and strongest impression one gets from the photo is “Palin is a woman who appears attractive”. 5. In conclusion, Newsweek believes that being an attractive woman is a negative thing, and is therefore sexist. It’s not a whole lot different than writing a negative article about Obama and finding a picture of him deep in a shadow so that he appears very black. Just as that would be race-baiting, this is sex-baiting, if you will. It loudly proclaims “Here is an attractive woman who disagrees with you! Attack her! Attack her!”. It’s bugle call for people like \*\*Diogenes \*\*who might have enlightened attitude towards woman who agree with him, but feel the need to attack and marginalize women who show enough independence to disagree with him and break from the mold of how he feels women should act and behave. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/264 "2009-11-19T13:50:50Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > Palin’s primary appeal is the way she looks. It’s the only reason anyone has ever heard of her. I wouldn’t take it that far, but if she looked like Maggie Thatcher, the wingnuts would be a lot less interested in her. She has been more than happy to use her sex appeal to market herself politically, so AFAIAC it’s quite reasonable for a discussion of her political appeal to include pix that show her selling herself in that way. I don’t think she has a damned thing to complain about. ---
**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 19, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/265 "2009-11-19T13:55:58Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > 1. In conclusion, Newsweek believes that being an attractive woman is a negative thing, and is therefore sexist. I agree with your analysis. If Palin were a man, I strongly suspect that Newsweek would have not lampooned him in this manner. They would have used some other device, like a caricaturized portrait. A male politician in running clothes does not scream “this is a bimbo so you should not listen to him”. For some reason when an attractive woman poses in running clothes, all her credibility goes out the window and she gets accused of selling sex. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/266 "2009-11-19T14:07:59Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > I’ll break it down for those people who still don’t understand. > 4) Since they removed all of the original context from the photo, the first and strongest impression one gets from the photo is “Palin is a woman who appears attractive”. Perhaps you’ll explain to us what the context of the picture had to do with running - her beauty-queen posing in a political office surrounded by political accouterments etc? The picture was of her in a political context, done for a political reason. And maybe you could explain both how ‘negative’ and ‘sexist’ are the same thing? So what if the article was negative - of course it was - truth has a liberal bias. She is a vacuous, stupid, airhead with only a coincidental relationship with the truth using her appearance as a political tool. She is a shit, useless, vacuous waste of space promoting herself through lies and waggling her ass. She is so stupid she posed for that picture. If Palin wants to do cheesecake poses in the running equivalent of a french maid’s uniform then she deserves whatever she gets. And you lot whining away just makes things both worse and funnier. ---
**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 19, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/267 "2009-11-19T14:10:12Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > She has been more than happy to use her sex appeal to market herself politically, so AFAIAC it’s quite reasonable for a discussion of her political appeal to include pix that show her selling herself in that way. How do you think she would be acting if she wasn’t using her sex appeal? What does “using her sex appeal” even mean? This is an honest question. As an attractive woman who doesn’t go out of my way to uglify or desexualize myself in the workplace, I’d hate to be accused of using my sex appeal simply because I’m not walking around with a bag over my head. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/268 "2009-11-19T14:18:24Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > How do you think she would be acting if she wasn’t using her sex appeal? What does “using her sex appeal” even mean? > > This is an honest question. As an attractive woman who doesn’t go out of my way to uglify or desexualize myself in the workplace, I’d hate to be accused of using my sex appeal simply because I’m not walking around with a bag over my head. Do you stand around posing like that for pictures in your office and then make them available in the media? ---
**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 19, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/269 "2009-11-19T14:23:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you saying one must be a misogynist to be sexist? Or was this just a strawman? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yeah, pretty much. They are one and the same. You dispute that? > > Do you think that _Newsweek_ is run by people who think women are inherently inferior to men? So people who hate men can’t be sexist? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/270 "2009-11-19T14:25:25Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > So what if the article was negative - of course it was - truth has a liberal bias. Not an acceptable stance for a supposed “newsmagazine.” ---
**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 19, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/271 "2009-11-19T14:26:42Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Do you stand around posing like that for pictures in your office and then make them available in the media? Maybe if she was standing with her legs splayed open, you’d have a point. But her pose does not seem provocative to me. It looks stiff and pageantry-like, though. ---
**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 19, 2009, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/272 "2009-11-19T14:54:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So people who hate men can’t be sexist? What kind of question is this? People who hate men are sexist by definition, but what does that have to do with _Newsweek_. Do you think the editorial staff of _Newsweek_ supports or endorses a view that women are inferior to men, yes or no? Do you think their motive in choosing this picture was to promote a message that women are inferior to me, yes or no? ---
**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 19, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/273 "2009-11-19T14:56:09Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Not an acceptable stance for a supposed “newsmagazine.” It was an opinion piece, not a news piece. ---
**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 19, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/274 "2009-11-19T14:59:38Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Maybe if she was standing with her legs splayed open, you’d have a point. But her pose does not seem provocative to me. It looks stiff and pageantry-like, though. It does, doesn’t it. It’s also kind of odd because she’s got a Blackberry in her hand. Does she go running with a Blackberry in her hand? It’s also really weird because she appears to be inside and to have a flag draped over the back of a chair, which she is leaning against. Do you think that she has a flag draped over the backs of chairs in her house, and that she kind of casually leans against them? It’s also kind of weird because in all the other pictures of her actually, you know, outside, stretching and posed in activities that are remotely like jogging, she’s wearing clothing that is less skimpy and tight. Hmmm… So, if I were writing a story about how Sarah Palin is exposing herself in the media left and right in a manner that suggests there’s relatively little chance of her actually ever being elected president but that seems to appeal to a particular base, and I wanted a picture that encapsulated that, where might I find one. It’s kind of like Bob Roberts incarnate, or at least as close as we’ll hopefully get in real life. Here’s a pic if you don’t remember: [Bob Roberts (1992)](http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1538890752/tt0103850). Here’s the wikipedia introduction of the description of the movie: > [@](#): > > Bob Roberts is a 1992 film written and directed by Tim Robbins. It is a satirical mockumentary, chronicling the rise of Bob Roberts, a conservative politician who is a candidate for an upcoming United States Senate election. Roberts is well financed, due mainly to past business dealings, and is well known for his music, **which presents conservative ideas as rebellious**. Bolding mine to highlight the mavericky irony. You bet your ass I’d use that picture to represent Sarah Palin - she’s clearly chosen even skimpier clothes to pose in than her other fake posed jogging pictures while disrespecting an American flag in a manner that she probably thought was reflective of patriotism. It’s too bad so many liberal women can’t get past their own issues to recognize reality imitating art. Get the fuck over yourselves and open your eyes. Or would she actually literally have to wrap herself in the flag naked before you’d start to think twice about it. ---
**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 19, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/275 "2009-11-19T15:01:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What kind of question is this? People who hate men are sexist by definition, but what does that have to do with _Newsweek_. Nothing - but you said one must be a mysogynist to be sexist. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/276 "2009-11-19T15:05:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It was an opinion piece, not a news piece. Okay, so it’s a newsmagazine, but the cover photo and the main headline are all about an opinion piece. In other words, it’s the main focus of the issue. Objective and unbiased indeed. ---
**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 19, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/277 "2009-11-19T15:18:38Z")
Honestly, if there were some kind of himbo politician out there who fit some of the same cirtcumstances, _Newseek_ wouldn’t do the same thing. It’s not that hard to imagine. He never ran for anything, but remember JFK Jr. and the kind of super hunk status that he had? Imagine if he’d been selected as a Hail Mary choice for a running mate by a desperate Democratic Presidential candidate, only to subsequently be exposed as a vacuous, uneducated, incurious, inexprienced, self-obsessed narcissist and pathological liar, trading shamelessly on his looks, but who nevertheless possessed some kind of native, populist appeal to a sizeable part of the liberal electorate. If he had posed in speedos for a fitness magazine cover, you think _Newseek_ wouldn’t use it? Of copurse they would. This cover choice was specifically about Palin, not about any kind of larger, “sexist” agenda. That’s just absurd. It’s not that hard to imagine. ---
**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 19, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/278 "2009-11-19T15:20:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nothing - but you said one must be a mysogynist to be sexist. I’m not understanding these questions. That’s correct. So what? I don’t understand what kind of hair you’re trying to split. ETA, wait, so you’re saying that hatred of women is not the only kind of sexism? Ok. So what? What does THAT have to do with the accusations against _Newseek_? Do you think that the editorial staff is trying to promote a view that women are inferior to men? Yes or no? ---
**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 19, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/279 "2009-11-19T15:21:38Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Okay, so it’s a newsmagazine, but the cover photo and the main headline are all about an opinion piece. In other words, it’s the main focus of the issue. > > Objective and unbiased indeed. It’s not the main focus of the issue. It’s a one page opinion piece. ---
**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 19, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/280 "2009-11-19T15:28:23Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s also kind of odd because she’s got a Blackberry in her hand. Does she go running with a Blackberry in her hand? It’s also really weird because she appears to be inside and to have a flag draped over the back of a chair, which she is leaning against. And? A blackberry in her hands means…?? I’m trying to figure out the subtext you’re trying to get me to see. Don’t politicians have blackberrys? The blackberry therefore is part of her politician uniform. But look, she’s also wearing workout clothes! That establishes her as a runner. Gee, that makes her a politician and a runner. What else do you see? > [@](#): > > Do you think that she has a flag draped over the backs of chairs in her house, and that she kind of casually leans against them? Again, help me see the picture that you’re trying to paint. A flag draped on the back of chair is supposed to indicate \_\_\_\_\_\_. You fill in the blank. > [@](#): > > It’s also kind of weird because in all the other pictures of her actually, you know, outside, stretching and posed in activities that are remotely like jogging, she’s wearing clothing that is less skimpy and tight. Hmmm… You’re paying way too much attention to what she’s wearing, don’t you think? Because if someone held a shotgut to my head and asked me describe the clothes she works out in, I’d have to take the bullet. Ask yourself why these details register in your awareness so much. It’s not necessarily because she’s making you. > [@](#): > > It’s too bad so many liberal women can’t get past their own issues to recognize reality imitating art. Funny, I was just thinking it’s too bad that so many liberal men are letting partisanship infect them with punkass cattiness. “She’s winks at townhall meetings is proof that she’s trying to get into America’s pants!” Yall jumped the shark with that bit, I’m sorry. Bush winked so damn much in his 8 years I thought he was showing CNS signs. So come off it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=15)