# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/361 "2009-11-20T04:06:03Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > be insisting that violating [Title 4 \> Chapter 1 of the United States Code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code) is an impeachable offense. > (Questioning whether that display of the Flag is in fact in violation of USC 4 \>1, let alone a “High Crime and/or Misdemeanor”, would be prima facie evidence of one’s lack of Patriotism™.)(Missed one, not visible in the _Newsweek_ cover but very visible in the _Runner’s World_ [photo](http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/slide7.html)) > her [Blue Star Mothers of America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Star_Mothers_Club) [Service Flag](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_flag) prop. > > CMC fnord! > Really think we’d be having the exact same discussion if the pic was of Sarah Palin, liberal Democrat? We would not have elected her. She would not be famous. We would not have dug her out of Alaska to be next in line for the president. I get chills when I think of it. Sarah Palin could have been president due to the republican need to cobble together groups of disparate political groups into a voting bloc. I wish she would go on Celebrity Jeopardy. ---
**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 20, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/362 "2009-11-20T04:32:21Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > If Palin wants to be picked to be supreme commander of the military because she is pretty and stupid, and the McCain camp hoped enough voters would find her vapid personality appealing enough to give her control of the economy and military then she shouldn’t complain when that vapidness and shallowness she oozes has bad effects too. Again, should she have turned down the nomination, assuming she was being picked because she wasn’t an old man? And if so, how attractive must a woman be, and how little must she think of her own capabilities, to do the same? I know she’s an idiot, you may know, but what evidence is there that she knew? Or even if she did see herself as a token, why wouldn’t she use that to her advantage? And why should she be blamed for this over McCain, his people, the GOP and voters apparently dumb enough to go for beauty over brains? It’s weird to critique someone for using their looks to get what they want. Instead of looking down on whatever dolt hopes his penis might get played with in exchange for a high-level job, they criticize the person who managed to get that job without the necessary schooling or track record. It’s shitty, they don’t deserve it as much as other people do, but why on Earth would they turn down opportunities that might not otherwise be present (say, through family connections or golf partners)? ---
**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 20, 2009, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/363 "2009-11-20T04:56:05Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Again, should she have turned down the nomination, assuming she was being picked because she wasn’t an old man? No, she should have turned it down because she wasn’t qualified. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/364 "2009-11-20T04:58:31Z")
Can’t we criticize both the person who picked her for being a hot woman, and the dumb hot person? ---
**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 20, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/365 "2009-11-20T14:12:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, she should have turned it down because she wasn’t qualified. Nobody would have turned it down. Her mistake was trying to remain a prominent national figure after the election, when it was already clear that she was batting out of her league. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/366 "2009-11-20T14:14:17Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Some of this talk about Palin flirting sort of reminds me of guys who think the stripper at their bachelor party really connected with them. I’m glad you made that connection. The stripper has reasons to be working to give them that feeling, and is probably not doing it by accident. Needless to say, this is well over and above how all but a few women are acting in their everyday lives. > [@](#): > > But being attractive, even taking action to make oneself attractive to some segment of the population (unless you assume everyone has a united concept of beauty and hotness) is not a crime and to be offended by it or to treat it like some sort of scarlet letter – if you didn’t want to be treated like an object, you shouldn’t have tried to look attractive – is pretty disgusting. WTF? Are you suggesting that a lot of women strut around like a stripper, and do the things a stripper might do to make the guys in the room think she’s got the hots for them? Stripper behavior in no way resembles normative female behavior in the workplace, on the street, whatever. What you appear to be saying is that guys are reading Palin’s presentation of herself in a way that is like the way they’d read a stripper - and that somehow suggests that we read everyday women in everyday situations that way. That’s just plain dumb. ---
**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 20, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/367 "2009-11-20T14:17:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nobody would have turned it down. Nonsense. Many people would and have turned it down. Anyone with a savvy sense of strategy who really wants to vie for national office during their career would avoid trying for office too early and consequently appearing, and developing a reputation for being, unsuited for office. Dan Quayle was dogged by his initial appearance of being a goofball at the moment that George H. W. Bush introduced him for the rest of his career. Of course, his apparent unsuitability throughout that time did not help him to undo that first impression. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/368 "2009-11-20T14:45:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Strawman. I didn’t call her a whore. I said she’s chosen to sexualize her image, and she has. This. I utilize my genetic assets to win a popularity contest and that’s okay…you utilize my genetic assets to sell a magazine and it’s sexism. Shades of gray. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/369 "2009-11-20T14:58:44Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > She’s coming on to you just like any other politician comes on to you. Why don’t I feel like she’s trying to slip her hand down _my_ pants when she’s on the tube? Probably because I’m not inclined to. I’m not seeing her through that particular lens. Straight men are. Exactly - _straight men are_. The ‘starbursts,’ to use Rich Lowry’s word, are aimed at us. > [@](#): > > I keep hearing people say that Palin flirts on camera. Did any of you get that particular impression from Bush? I swear, if you were take the words that come out of her mouth and put them in his, what is “flirty” would almost certainly be called “downhome, good ole boy tossin’ back a beer with his buddies”. This may surprise you, but I wasn’t paying that close attention to the 2000 race until very late in the going. I thought that Gore would win, and even if he didn’t, I thought that the country was in good enough shape that even Bush couldn’t fuck it up too badly. So much for my talent as a prognosticator, huh? 🙂 > [@](#): > > But why exactly? Because of how you felt looking at her, or because of what she actually did? Good question, and beyond my ability to discern. All I can really say is that, of all the women I’ve ever known personally, I can’t think of any who made me feel that way, other than in one-on-one situations well away from work and the like. Between that, and the fact that a lot of other men seem to pick up this same vibe from her that I essentially never pick up from other women, I have to assume it’s her. > [@](#): > > I’m wondering how much of your impression comes from the fact that she sounds like an endearing idiot when she talks. Men probably get sucked into that, but I doubt she’s doing it on purpose. I can’t say I find idiocy very endearing; I find it frustrating. ---
**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 20, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/370 "2009-11-20T16:07:20Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Between that, and the fact that a lot of other men seem to pick up this same vibe from her that I essentially never pick up from other women, I have to assume it’s her. No, you don’t _have_ to assume that. A lot of men think if a woman wears a form fitting sweater, that means she is asking to be stared at. A lot of men think that if a woman doesn’t practically club them over the head with a rejection, that means they are just playing coy and hard to get. A lot of men also think that it’s a given that an attractive woman uses her looks to manipulate people and get away with crappy behavior (I’ve seen the sentiment expressed many a time on this board). As a woman, I can tell you that men very often reach the wrong conclusions about women. Particularly if it’s an attractive woman. So no, you don’t _have_ to assume anything like that. No offense, but if you can’t point to something more concrete than just your inner feelings, perhaps you shouldn’t be so sure that Palin is consciously pulling your sexual puppet strings. I can usually tell when a woman is flirting (being a woman kinda gives one that insight…women learn from each other), and she doesn’t seem to be doing anything differently that a man does. It may be a feminized version of what her male counterparts do (a man wouldn’t shimmy his shoulders [because “that’s so gay!”] as was mentioned earlier, but he’d probably pump his fist or do some other macho move), but _that doesn’t make it sexual_. And that’s the thing that I’m trying to get yall to see. Feminine does not equal sexual. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/371 "2009-11-20T16:12:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Do you thing that everyone involved in _choosing the photo_ is consciously or subconsciously sexist? For all we know, it could be one person choosing the photo. And maybe, like you, they hate Palin more than they care about sexism. Perhaps that the photo could be/is sexist didn’t pop up in their minds because of another agenda. Are you going to lump McCain in with the KKK because of his unintended racist comment while correcting the accusation that Obama was a Muslim? You seem to be hell bent on making everything a black or white, yes or no issue. Not a shade of grey, resulting in ludicrous statements, such as that one is necessarily a misogynist if one is sexist. Or that in order for Newsweek to publish a sexist photo on their cover there must be a unanimous sexist conspiracy amongst the entire staff. Perhaps there is some area in between that you should acknowledge. ---
**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 20, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/372 "2009-11-20T16:14:22Z")
I don’t think it makes much sense to equate how a woman acts in a bar dealing with being hit on with how one acts during a VP debate or through a campaign. I would hope that there’s a lot more thought given to appearance, behavior and overall stagecraft for the latter than the former. If not, Palin’s team needs a good talking to. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/373 "2009-11-20T16:14:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Feminine does not equal sexual. But do you really think she’d have gotten where she was if she were an overweight, ugly woman? If she were dumb AND unattractive, I doubt McCain would have dug her up. Sexual or not, she got picked for being eye candy. Are we supposed to just shrug? If beloved bimbo Carrie Prejean decided to run for public office several years down the road, would it be wrong to portray her as someone capitalizing off her looks with nothing to back it up? This is starting to remind me of the debate about the Ethicist column with the “Hot wife getting freebies.” Some people found it wrong to criticize the woman for taking free stuff when we should be blaming the system that rewards attractiveness. It’s a fucked up situation, I agree. But I think Sarah Palin’s an adult here–we can call her out for being an empty headed pretty bobble head with nothing to say. Personally I think the only reason Newsweek was wrong to run that picture was that it’s giving fodder to people who want to think she’s so persecuted when I’m sure deep down she’s cackling with glee over it. And she must be having the biggest laugh of all that the feminists she normally decries are also defending her. She’s got wily PR people, I’ll give her that. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/374 "2009-11-20T16:25:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > No, you don’t _have_ to assume that. A lot of men think if a woman wears a form fitting sweater, that means she is asking to be stared at. Well, if I’d never run into another woman outside of intimate one-on-one settings or strip clubs who I felt was asking to be stared at, there’d have to be something very different about that particular woman wearing that particular sweater, wouldn’t there? Because that qualifier is the game-changer. If I’m seeing something unique across the thousands of women I’ve known in the four decades since my mid-teens, that’s a bit different from a guy who thinks a woman wearing a tight sweater is asking to be stared at. Because he obviously thinks _a lot_ of women want to be stared at; the fact that he thinks _one more_ woman wants to be stared at is kinda meaningless. No offense, but conflating the unique with the routine isn’t going to lead to a productive conversation. ---
**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 20, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/375 "2009-11-20T16:31:28Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > For all we know, it could be one person choosing the photo. And maybe, like you, they hate Palin more than they care about sexism. Perhaps that the photo could be/is sexist didn’t pop up in their minds because of another agenda. > > Are you going to lump McCain in with the KKK because of his unintended racist comment while correcting the accusation that Obama was a Muslim? > > You seem to be hell bent on making everything a black or white, yes or no issue. Not a shade of grey, resulting in ludicrous statements, such as that one is necessarily a misogynist if one is sexist. Or that in order for Newsweek to publish a sexist photo on their cover there must be a unanimous sexist conspiracy amongst the entire staff. Perhaps there is some area in between that you should acknowledge. Calling the cover sexist IS a categorical, “black and white” statement. If there was no sexist intent, there was no sexism. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**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 20, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/376 "2009-11-20T16:42:59Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I don’t think it makes much sense to equate how a woman acts in a bar dealing with being hit on with how one acts during a VP debate or through a campaign. I would hope that there’s a lot more thought given to appearance, behavior and overall stagecraft for the latter than the former. If not, Palin’s team needs a good talking to. Despite my stripper patron comparison, I think it makes much more sense to keep the comparisons to other, male politicians. So when people say she should have turned down the position because she was underqualified or being chosen for her looks or as a token, they have to believe any man of substance would do the same (and be self-aware enough to think he could never be VP). If they think she shouldn’t be posing in ‘revealing’ clothes in an athletic magazine, that goes for all male politicians (and someone’s got to decide what’s revealing for a man or attractive to many women). They’ve got to distinguish between Palin’s hokey language and winks and inexperience and people like Dubya’s. And they’ve got to come up with comparable \*Newsweek \* covers. ---
**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 20, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/377 "2009-11-20T16:55:19Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Despite my stripper patron comparison, I think it makes much more sense to keep the comparisons to other, male politicians. So when people say she should have turned down the position because she was underqualified or being chosen for her looks or as a token, they have to believe any man of substance would do the same (and be self-aware enough to think he could never be VP). Why do we have to believe that? I don’t think an equivalent, vacuous male would turn it down either. > [@](#): > > If they think she shouldn’t be posing in ‘revealing’ clothes in an athletic magazine, that goes for all male politicians (and someone’s got to decide what’s revealing for a man or attractive to many women). No one has said she _shouldn’t_ pose however she wants, but she then has no right to complain about how her own self-contstucted image is used sunbsequently, and no one is saying it should be any different for a man. > [@](#): > > They’ve got to distinguish between Palin’s hokey language and winks and inexperience and people like Dubya’s. Dubya didn’t try to use ham-handed pageant flirting techniques in debates, so that’s an easy distinction. > [@](#): > > And they’ve got to come up with comparable \*Newsweek \* covers. Um…no…you’ve got to come up with comparable _photos_ first. _Newsweek_ can’t run cover photos that don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/378 "2009-11-20T16:58:19Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > If they think she shouldn’t be posing in ‘revealing’ clothes in an athletic magazine, that goes for all male politicians (and someone’s got to decide what’s revealing for a man or attractive to many women). They’ve got to distinguish between Palin’s hokey language and winks and inexperience and people like Dubya’s. And they’ve got to come up with comparable \*Newsweek \* covers. There’s no point in comparing Palin’s winking to G.W. Bush’s in the first place, since the same gesture made by a man and a woman often means something completely different. Bush clearly wasn’t banking on his looks like Palin is because he isn’t attractive; his resemblance to a monkey was pointed out frequently. We also saw _lots_ of goofy-looking pictures of Bush taken out of context to make him look stupid. Also, pretty much everyone in this thread has invited the introduction of male politicians who have posed for pictures similar to the one in question. That there aren’t any just demonstrates further the unusual degree to which Palin is trading off her looks and then crying about it when someone uses a ridiculous picture she posed for to imply that she’s a bimbo. ---
**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 20, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/379 "2009-11-20T17:03:23Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But do you really think she’d have gotten where she was if she were an overweight, ugly woman? No, but I also don’t think she’d be getting attacked in the particular manner that she’s being attacked if she were unattractive. My whole argument is that both her fan and detractors are inordinately focused on her looks. > [@](#): > > If she were dumb AND unattractive, I doubt McCain would have dug her up. Sexual or not, she got picked for being eye candy. Are we supposed to just shrug? I’m not sure you understand my point. I’m not denying that some if not most of her popularity comes from being pretty. But I take issue with saying 1) she’s actively exploiting her sexuality in order to get ahead and 2) that’s why it’s fair to criticize her on this basis. If point 2) follows from point 1), then point 1) needs to be strongly supported. And yet when I ask people exactly how they come to arrive at the conclusion that Palin is being sexually manipulative, there’s nothing but weak evidence cited. Just about everything offered as proof is routinely demonstrated by male politicians who are not villified in the manner that she’s been. And everything else mentioned falls in the category of “my feelings say it’s so, therefore it’s so”. ---
**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 20, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/380 "2009-11-20T17:06:51Z")
It’s supported to whatever degree it’s objectively true by the picture itself. If the picture is not at all sexual, then how can it be inappropriate or sexist to use it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=20)