# 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:** 6
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/101 "2009-11-18T16:18:48Z")
How is it sexist? Please explain. Here are some defintions of “sexism” pulled off a [Google definition search](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=mA8&q=define%3A+sexism&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1): > [@](#): > > # discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn > > # Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th centuryShorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edition, refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other. … > > [Sexism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism) > > # The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender; Unfair treatment or discrimination based … > > [sexism - Wiktionary, the free dictionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism) > > # sexist - male chauvinist: a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women > > # sexist - discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men’s attitude toward women) > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn > > # sexist - A person who behaves in a sexist manner; Unfairly discriminatory against one sex in favour of the other; in particular, treating women less favourably than men > > [sexist - Wiktionary, the free dictionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexist) > > # Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on gender. Like the other “isms,” sexism can be both personal and institutional. > > [www.adl.org/children\_holocaust/more\_resources.asp](http://www.adl.org/children_holocaust/more_resources.asp) > > # Bias against a certain gender. > > [www.sex-ed101.org/s\_terms/s.html](http://www.sex-ed101.org/s_terms/s.html) > > # is a manifestation of stereotypical attitudes towards women. Inappropriate treatment based on sex constitutes sexism. Sexism is a form of discrimination. > > www.acadiau.ca/president/equity/glossary.htm > > # Behaviour and beliefs that rank the sexes (the physical characteristics that define male and female) and genders (cultural and psychological definitions of femininity and masculinity), placing more value on one over the other. … > > www.students.ubc.ca/access/race.cfm > > # An ideology that assumes a hierarchy of human worth based on the social construction of gender difference Sexism was developed to claim … > > [PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates](http://www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html) > > # defines the ideology of male supremacy, of male superiority and of beliefs that support and sustain it. Sexism and patriarchy mutually reinforce one another. source > > [www.ruralwomyn.net/define.html](http://www.ruralwomyn.net/define.html) > > # Discrimination based on gender, although sexism is most often understood as discrimination specifically against women. See bi-sexism, feminism. > > [Postmodern terms – SACCADE to TYPOLOGICAL STUDY | Wonder of the World - thebookmann](http://thebookman.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/postmodern-terms-saccade-to-typological-study/) > > # is an attitude toward a person based on that person’s gender rather than on objective knowledge of the person. > > [www.lamed.org/Diversity\_Concepts.htm](http://www.lamed.org/Diversity_Concepts.htm) > > # All attitudes, procedures and patterns – economic, social and cultural – whose effect, though not necessarily whose conscious intention, is to create, maintain and extend the power, influence and privilege of one group of people over another. In what way does the photo on Newsweek express or endorse a point of view matching any of these definitions? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/102 "2009-11-18T16:18:49Z")
Actually, the picture sums the problem up perfectly. Palin is indeed attractive and beguiling, but she’s _soooo_ fucked up that while Americans might pursue her as some hottie who they assume will solve their problems, they get burned when instead she multiples them. _And yet they keep going back to her!_ Heck, even I, a Canadian, finds her appealing on some level, even if I’d never seen a photo of her - a female politician who climbed the ladder to run the last frontier state sounds almost ideal, a pragmatic leader with a fresh perspective, hardened by a tough environment, with no time or patience for nonsense. In the early days, I even looked more favourably on McCain for choosing her, showing an ability to do the unexpected and interesting in what was otherwise a dull campaign. All of which made it the disappointment greater when she actually started talking and didn’t have _any_ of the qualities I’d imagined for her. Sexist? Sure, maybe. Accurate? Absolutely. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/103 "2009-11-18T16:31:55Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > There certainly is when it’s used to portray her in a superficial light and to accompany a biased declaration stated as fact that she’s bad not only for the GOP but the entire country as well. > > No, she isn’t. Somewhat like Caroline Kennedy (only not quite that bad) she lacks political depth and sophistication in dealing with the media. But she is not stupid. As usual twisted thinking. Kennedy graduated Columbia Law School. She cowrote 2 books on civil liberties. And then when suggested for Hillary’s vacant senate seat, withdrew from consideration. If only Palin had the sense to refuse the VP opportunity, she wouldn’t have degraded the Republicaln party so much. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/104 "2009-11-18T16:43:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > She’s full of shit, and she’s also hypocritical. She uses the cheesecake imagery when it suits her – remember the inane winking and primping during the debates – but then she wants to say that the “meda” is being sexist when it publishes photos that she herself dressed and posed for. She chose to sexualize her own image. The media didn’t do it. This comes off to me an awful lot like blaming the victim. “She’s such a slut–she was asking for it.” > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Click my link in post #10. Can you find another cover \*\*from _Newsweek or a comparable news magazine_ that shows an article about a male politician and has a similar photo? (I.e., the article is about his politics, but the photo is unrelated and its relevance never discussed in the article?) > [@DianaG](#): > > You’re absolutely correct. The picture of Obama is not sexist, and the picture of Palin wasn’t sexist when it ran in whatever running magazine it was taken for. The picture \*is \*sexist _in this context_, where it is clearly meant to convey “bimbo”. She is being dismissed on the basis of her legs, rather than her ideas. Which is awfully silly in addition to being insulting, given that her ideas are a much better reason for dismissing her. Well put. > [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > So Weiner’s voluntarily posing for “the Rockaway Beach Gazette” in a Speedo to publicize, oh, let’s say, cleaning up the beaches in his district. A few months afterwards, say there’s talk of Weiner running for higher office. Are you seriously telling me that that revealing publicity shot of Weiner will be scrupulously suppressed by all media on grounds of good taste? Scrupulously surpressed, no. Used as the cover photo to go along with an article in a reasonably reputable news magazine about his politics, also no. And I wouldn’t put it past Fox or comparable right-wing media to use the photo that way, but I also wouldn’t put it past an incontinent old woman to piss her pants. That doesn’t mean that pants-pissing is now socially acceptable. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s just another example of how lousy the right wing is at trying to play the sexism card, because they don’t really know what the word means. 👋 Hi. Me. Over here. One of those posting in the thread whom you’ve been so conveniently ignoring. I’m very, very liberal, I would like few things better than to punch Ms. Palin in the face until she realizes what a fucking retard she is, and I think it’s sexist. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Do those who are calling the picture sexist believe that _Newsweek_ has a sexist agenda, and that it doesn’t like Palin only because she’s a woman? I don’t think that they have a sexist agenda. I \*\*do \*\*think that there is a lot of “stealth” sexism in this country–the insidious kind that people don’t see because it’s so built into our culture. When a major publication uses a photo of a female political figure in a way that they’d never use a similar photo of a male political figure, that’s sexism. To clarify my position: if the photograph were somehow referenced in the article, such that it were relevant to the point the Newsweek journalist was trying to make, it would not be sexist. That point could even be, “Sarah Palin plays off her looks instead of actually addressing issues.” But **if such a point is not made** , the photo has no reason to be associated with the article.\* \*Note: I have not read the article in question, so if anyone can bring up a cite from it that shows the photo is directly relevant, i.e., it supports a point being made in the article, I’ll retract my position that it’s sexist. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/105 "2009-11-18T16:50:51Z")
I think it was a deliberate ploy to portray her in an unflattering light. ---
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/106 "2009-11-18T16:59:59Z")
**Diogenes** is right on. First, from this point on, anyone who wants to call this photo sexist must state what definition of sexist they are using. To me, this seems almost like a perfect inversion of the incident in _Spinal Tap_. Secondly, for those of you arguing context, please explain why Sarah Palin would be featured in _Runner’s World_. Is she particularly expert in running? If she hadn’t appeared in _Runner’s World_, I don’t think I would have ever thought of running and Sarah Palin together in the same sentence. I don’t recall hearing much about her running, trying to run, being photographed while running, etc., during the campaign. So, unless she has some unique contribution to a discussion on running, I can only regard her appearance in the magazine as a calculated attempt to play upon her physical appearance. I see that as manupulative and self-promoting and iconic of the entirety of her presence on the national stage since John McCain first uttered her name. Thus, it’s a perfectly legitimate picture to sum up an article of the type that I understand the Newsweek article to be. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/107 "2009-11-18T17:03:36Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > This comes off to me an awful lot like blaming the victim. “She’s such a slut–she was asking for it.” She’s a victim of what? She was asking for what? I’m blaming her for what? What happened to her? > [@](#): > > Can you find another cover \*\*from _Newsweek or a comparable news magazine_ that shows an article about a male politician and has a similar photo? (I.e., the article is about his politics, but the photo is unrelated and its relevance never discussed in the article?) Can you find a male politician who has intentionally posed in a beefcake photo on the cover of a magazine to sex up his image? Unless you can, then the question is not valid. That pictire of Palin was not taken through a window. She posed for it. The fact that she posed for it is what makes it newsworthy. > [@](#): > > 👋 Hi. Me. Over here. One of those posting in the thread whom you’ve been so conveniently ignoring. I’m very, very liberal, I would like few things better than to punch Ms. Palin in the face until she realizes what a fucking retard she is, and I think it’s sexist. Great. Please explain how. What about the photo expresses or endorses a point of view that women are inferior to men? > [@](#): > > I don’t think that they have a sexist agenda. I \*\*do \*\*think that there is a lot of “stealth” sexism in this country–the insidious kind that people don’t see because it’s so built into our culture. When a major publication uses a photo of a female political figure in a way that they’d never use a similar photo of a male political figure, that’s sexism. Two things: 1. Lots of news organizations DID run the pics of Obama in swim trunks and no one called it “sexist.” 2. No male politician has _intentionally posed_ for a photo comparable to the Palin cheesecake shot. If they did, you can bet your ass newsmagazines would run it. > [@](#): > > To clarify my position: if the photograph were somehow referenced in the article, such that it were relevant to the point the Newsweek journalist was trying to make, it would not be sexist. That point could even be, “Sarah Palin plays off her looks instead of actually addressing issues.” But **if such a point is not made** , the photo has no reason to be associated with the article.\* > > \*Note: I have not read the article in question, so if anyone can bring up a cite from it that shows the photo is directly relevant, i.e., it supports a point being made in the article, I’ll retract my position that it’s sexist. [Here’s the article](http://www.newsweek.com/id/222786). It’s not very long, but it does contain this one reference to the cover photo: > [@](#): > > 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. Like it or not, Palin’s sexuality is something that she herself has chosen to exploit as part of her political image, and that in itself is fair game to comment on. The cover is not a statement about her sexuality _per se_, but her deliberate USE of it. That is an undeniable part of how she tries to sell herself, and it’s not sexist to recognize it. JFK used his “hunkability” factor too, and that would have also been fair game to comment on. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/108 "2009-11-18T17:09:04Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > I think it was a deliberate ploy to portray her in an unflattering light. How is it unflattering? Amusing, yes. But unflattering? Eh, not so much. She looks healthy and vibrant. Doesn’t say much about her intelligence, but how many cover shots do that? In the days during which we’re focusing on the high rate of obesity and American over-indulgence, perhaps she should embrace the image \*Newsweek \*is selling… and run with it. 😉 ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/109 "2009-11-18T17:23:30Z")
I’ll give Palin the sexist cover accusation if she will accept the accusation that she is a vapid, hate mongering idiot. Is she worried that the sexualized cover will make people take her less seriously? Because if that’s the case I got some news for ya, Sarah. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/110 "2009-11-18T17:25:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Can you find a male politician who has intentionally posed in a beefcake photo on the cover of a magazine to sex up his image? Uh - yeah. Basically what I’ve asked for twice already. I realize that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but . . . ---
**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, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/111 "2009-11-18T17:31:15Z")
I have this strong recollection of a jogging photo on the cover of a news magazine circa 1980 - maybe discussing John Anderson’s candidacy? I can’t find anything through google to help me confirm this vague recollection. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/112 "2009-11-18T17:33:40Z")
The photo is fair game, IMHO. The original intention of the photo was clearly designed to (a) emphasize her youthfulness and general physical attractiveness, and (b) play up her jingoistic temperament and patriotic character. Dio makes a good point that, unlike Bill Clinton or W, she’s never been associated with physical fitness as a part of her daily routine, so the photo (while not immodest or “cheesecake”) seems even more transparently designed to play up her more glamourous and vigorous attributes. It’s not a candid, fly-on-the-wall shot; it’s posed and stagecrafted meticulously. Now, plenty of conservatives love her. But these superficial qualities (style over substance, empty-headed nationalism over informed policy-making) also drive some conservatives nuts, since they’re a formula that may spell out the spiritual death of the GOP, at least through the next few election cycles. And this photo exemplifies these tendencies perfectly. She is a former beauty queen who is self-conscious of her image to the point that she’s barely ever willing to engage with journalists or media gauntlets that are not of her political stripe. [I couldn’t put it better myself–](http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-center-of-attention.html) > [@](#): > > Let’s face it: if Palin looked like Golda Meir, there’s no chance McCain would have picked her. And no one would currently give a damn. The accusations about context aren’t looking at the Big Picture–within the trajectory of her political fortunes, there is a genuine argument to be made that this picture embodies everything Sarah Palin is and stands for. Just because it’s not what she intended doesn’t mean it can’t be interpreted in that larger framework. I haven’t read the article–maybe it’s fair and maybe it’s a hit piece. But either way, it’s well within the right of the editorial arm of the magazine to assert a viewpoint, and that’s exactly what they’ve done. She doesn’t have to like it, but the queen of self-promotion is a hypocrite if she really does take umbrage at it. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/113 "2009-11-18T17:39:17Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I have this strong recollection of a jogging photo on the cover of a news magazine circa 1980 - maybe discussing John Anderson’s candidacy? Hey - appreciate the shout out for the first presidential candidate I ever voted for! Would be interested in seeing the shot - as well as hearing whether the silver-haired independent viewed it as anything other than welcome pub. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/114 "2009-11-18T17:39:32Z")
Not sexist. The photo is fair game. Politics is a rough business. The only thing I object to is that it’s keeping Palin squarely in the public eye, when she should have been totally forgotten months ago. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/115 "2009-11-18T17:46:52Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I loathe Palin, but it’s totally sexist. When was the last time you saw a \*Newsweek \*cover of a \*\*male \*\*politician in revealing exercise clothes? I can’t say whether the photo was in Newsweek or not, but I know for a fact that George Bush had little presidential seals on his biking socks and rode a Trek Fuel 98. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/116 "2009-11-18T17:56:16Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I can’t say whether the photo was in Newsweek or not, but I know for a fact that George Bush had little presidential seals on his biking socks and rode a Trek Fuel 98. Much as I despise the guy, I suspect he was likely the fittest president we’ve ever had. Ran several marathons substantially under 4 hours. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/117 "2009-11-18T18:02:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > She’s a victim of what? She was asking for what? I’m blaming her for what? What happened to her? The post I was replying to seemed to take the position, “She has chosen to portray herself in a sexualized way, so she can’t complain when she is portrayed in a sexualized way even in combination with an unrelated, serious article.” To me, that’s edging uncomfortably close to, “She was wearing a low-cut top and a tiny skirt and high heels in this neighborhood and walking alone, plus she totally fucked my friend, so I know she wanted it.” > [@](#): > > That pictire of Palin was not taken through a window. She posed for it. The fact that she posed for it is what makes it newsworthy. Only if they **actually comment on the photo**. If it is offered without comment to make it relevant, it’s sexist. > [@](#): > > Great. Please explain how. What about the photo expresses or endorses a point of view that women are inferior to men? It’s portraying a female politician differently from how a male politician would be or has been treated in the same context. It’s using her physical appearance to draw readers into an article that has nothing to do with how she portrays herself. And, potentially, it’s obliquely discounting her for using sex to sell her politics, instead of discounting her politics on their own merits (or rather, lack thereof). > [@](#): > > 1. Lots of news organizations DID run the pics of Obama in swim trunks and no one called it “sexist.” Show me a news magazine, newspaper, or television news program that juxtaposed an Obama swim trunks photo with a story about, say, his visit to China, and I’ll agree that it’s entirely inappropriate. > [@](#): > > 1. No male politician has _intentionally posed_ for a photo comparable to the Palin cheesecake shot. If they did, you can bet your ass newsmagazines would run it. Can you find me an article from a news magazine that has a cover photo (or even an article photo) of Schwarzenegger half-nude and oiled up juxtaposed with a discussion of his policies? > [@](#): > > [Here’s the article](http://www.newsweek.com/id/222786). It’s not very long, but it does contain this one reference to the cover photo: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. I just read the article (thank you for the link). Aside from the parenthetical, there is no mention of the photo or how it relates to “How Sarah Palin Hurts the GOP and the Country.” In fact, very little of the article is about Palin, per se. It’s about the dangers of polarization, across the board. The cover image has literally nothing to do with the article’s subject matter–it’s eye candy. It’s a female politician (albeit a morinic, incompetent one) being used in a sexualized way to draw in readers, in a way that I’ve never seen a male politician used for a similar article in a similar medium. If the article were about how Palin uses sex to sell herself, I would 100% agree that it’s not sexist. But in an article about the dangers of political extremism, a photo of her in running clothes does nothing to exemplify that. > [@](#): > > Like it or not, Palin’s sexuality is something that she herself has chosen to exploit as part of her political image, and that in itself is fair game to comment on. The cover is not a statement about her sexuality _per se_, but her deliberate USE of it. That is an undeniable part of how she tries to sell herself, and it’s not sexist to recognize it. As I have said, it is not sexist to recognize it… **if you recognize it**. They are not recognizing it. They are making no overt statement or commentary on Palin’s use of her own attractiveness to push her agenda. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/118 "2009-11-18T18:05:07Z")
If Palin looked like Debbie Stabenow or Olympia Snowe, she wouldn’t have been picked for VP and none of us would have heard of her. McCain should have been checking out her brain [instead of her tush.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qUVQDmLf7s) She poses for a photo and whines about it being published. She goes on television more than the Shamwow guy and then whines about the media not leaving her alone. She uses her kids as campaign props and whines when the media mentions them. Can’t we just push her off on an ice floe? ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/119 "2009-11-18T18:07:46Z")
In what sense has Palin sexualized her image, **Dio**? She dressed well - too well, as it turns out - on the campaign trail, but I don’t recall her ever having engaged in any activity I’d call sexy. I mean, she’s got a bunch of kids, so you know she puts out, but other than that… You can call Palin out for any number of idiocies both grand and minor, but other than being somewhat attractive - for which I’m disinclined to blame her personally - I don’t see what’s sexualized about her. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/120 "2009-11-18T18:13:10Z")
Well, [there was this.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-once-greeted-mccain_n_141394.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=7)