# 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:** 8
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/141 "2009-11-18T18:47:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Again, _what_ flirting? Did she blow Biden a kiss? Make lingering eye contact with Gwen Ifill? What? The winking is flirting. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/142 "2009-11-18T18:48:47Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Are you acknowledging here that she used sex to sell her politics? If so, you’ve got no beef with Newsweek. If that’s your point, you haven’t read anything I’ve written here. If Palin trades on her appearance to advance her political positions (and I agree that she does), it is perfectly acceptable to comment on that. Laudable, even, I’d say. What is not acceptable is to recycle those same sexualized images and juxtapose them, **without relevant commentary or analysis** , on an otherwise unrelated article. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Only in a non-serious way. Someone as opposed to capital punishment as I am would never advocate killing anyone, even such a waste of carbon as Sarah Palin. If this is against the rules, my apologies. AFAIK, it’s only against the rules to wish death on another member of the SDMB. Somebody was doing a (bad) job of junior modding if they were trying to suggest you were breaking the rules, unless I missed something. > [@gonzomax](#): > > The latest talk is a Palin/Beck ticket. Our conservatives will boner up about that. How much better could it get? They would have to find a way around presidential debates. Now **that’s** a debate I’d actually love to watch. ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/143 "2009-11-18T18:55:10Z")
It’s got to be Obama’s people themselves trying to get the Palin/Beck talk going. That would be like somehow getting to play the Detroit Lions in the Superbowl. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/144 "2009-11-18T18:56:49Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > If that’s your point, you haven’t read anything I’ve written here. > > If Palin trades on her appearance to advance her political positions (and I agree that she does), it is perfectly acceptable to comment on that. Laudable, even, I’d say. What is not acceptable is to recycle those same sexualized images and juxtapose them, **without relevant commentary or analysis** , on an otherwise unrelated article. Perhaps you ought to read the article, because you’re wrong on every count here. ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/145 "2009-11-18T19:00:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Again, _what_ flirting? Did she blow Biden a kiss? Make lingering eye contact with Gwen Ifill? What? [From the Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/03/sarah.palin.debate.feminism): > [@](#): > > At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night. From [The National Review](http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=): > [@](#): > > Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/146 "2009-11-18T19:02:10Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > I think the Canadian politician Stockwell Day was pictured in a tight wetsuit, at least enough times for it to be parodied on _The Royal Canadian Air Farce_ (RIP). Just once, which was more than sufficient. (“Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!”) ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/147 "2009-11-18T19:04:58Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > If Palin trades on her appearance to advance her political positions (and I agree that she does), it is perfectly acceptable to comment on that. Laudable, even, I’d say. What is not acceptable is to recycle those same sexualized images and juxtapose them, **without relevant commentary or analysis** , on an otherwise unrelated article. 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. If you’ll notice, there’s even a caption on the cover saying, in small type in the bottom left corner: “A photo taken for Runner’s World, June 2009,” as if to admit that the editors knew people would be a bit fooled and taken aback by the photo. Normally, photo credits for cover go on the inside of the magazine. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/148 "2009-11-18T19:11:35Z")
Since when does anybody pose for the cover of _Newseek_ at all? They _always_ use photos from other sources. Why would anybody think Palin would be an exception? ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/149 "2009-11-18T19:15:32Z")
deleted irrelevant joke regarding Detroit Lions ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/150 "2009-11-18T19:19:43Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > 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. WTF? Where did you “find” that out? Folks, it’s not that hard to actually go and read the damn article before making false statements about what is in the article or not. There’s an explicit reference to how Palin looks in running clothes, and the gist of the whole thing is that Obama is probably happy to have a vapid attention grabber like Palin overexposing herself while also vying for the nomination in 2012. Now, I think most of what Evan Thomas writes is complete shit, and this is no different, but at least we can agree about what is in the article or not. You have to read it first, though. Edited to provide a link to the article: [How Sarah Palin Hurts the GOP And the Country - Newsweek](http://www.newsweek.com/id/222786). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/151 "2009-11-18T19:20:03Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > You’re alone in your opinion. Not so. Winking can be a sexual gesture. It can also be interpreted as a sexual gesture where no such connotation is intended. It can also be completely harmless and devoid of any reasonable sexual association. So no, he (or she?) is not alone in his opinion. ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/152 "2009-11-18T19:20:11Z")
I think Palin is very attractive. I don’t think she’s sexy. There’s a difference, and I think what Palin does is play up her attractiveness. I also think that accounts for much of her popularity with women. Women in general don’t seem to care much for sexpots. Personally, I don’t have a problem with her doing this. If the Democrats had any attractive female candidates I’d be happy to see them playing that up as well. 😉 All this talk about her sexuality is, IMO, sexist in and of itself. It’s an attempt to explain and dismiss her popularity by portraying her as a one-dimensional sexpot when she is in reality a woman of considerable accomplishment compared with most people, starting out as a sports reporter (a job beyond the capabilities of many) and moving on to involvement in local government and culminating in her becoming her state’s governor. Now, you can be dismissive all you want as to the relative importance or difficulty level of these various jobs, but it’s undeniable that she’s accomplished much more than your average everyday soccer mom. (Or dad, for that matter.) If you want to argue that she isn’t qualified for high level national politics, that’s one thing. If you only want to make fun of and dismiss her by characterizing her as a sexpot, that is indeed sexist. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/153 "2009-11-18T19:23:29Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > There’s an explicit reference to how Palin looks in running clothes. Actually, no. It was an explicit reference to how she looked in a skirt. The running attire was parenthetical. That sentence only served to emphasis the sexism in play. ‘She’s just a good looking broad, no way will she make it to the top’. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/154 "2009-11-18T19:28:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Since when does anybody pose for the cover of _Newseek_ at all? They _always_ use photos from other sources. Why would anybody think Palin would be an exception? Would you happen to have a cite for that? Newsweek has a staff of photographers. Why would you assume that they don’t use them for covers? Note the difference between Palin’s cover and [Biden’s.](http://www.anatreptic.com/images/biden-newsweek1.JPG) I wonder why they didn’t use [this one](http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/joe_biden_home_depot.jpg) instead. ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/155 "2009-11-18T19:31:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No matter how you want to characterize the picture, it is not debatable that it’s an image SHE CHOSE, therefore she has no case for complaining that a newsmagazine referenced an example of an image she had already self-selected. She got to choose what images ran in _Runner’s World_? Cite? And while it may be clear from past covers or to anyone in publishing that _Newsweek_ doesn’t hold photo shoots, I don’t think it’s common knowledge. Doing a Google image search turns up several collages, what looks like stock photography (but could have been shot in-house) and some covers that look like they could have been shot exclusively for the magazine. ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/156 "2009-11-18T19:31:38Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Actually, no. It was an explicit reference to how she looked in a skirt. The running attire was parenthetical. 😕 What in the hell are you saying here? Did the words “running clothes” appear in the article? Then they were mentioned explicitly. Contrast with implicitly. Consult Webster’s as needed. > [@](#): > > That sentence only served to emphasis the sexism in play. ‘She’s just a good looking broad, no way will she make it to the top’. It emphasized the point that Sarah Palin is marketing her politics, such as they are, on her appearance, such as it is, which will likely not win her the presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/157 "2009-11-18T19:33:39Z")
Haven’t read the thread, so I’m posting at my own peril. That said, I think the picture makes Palin look silly and cutesy, rather than a serious political thinker, and that may well have been the intent. I don’t see anything sexist about it. ---
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/158 "2009-11-18T19:33:57Z")
In Palin’s case, it was pageant flirting. ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/159 "2009-11-18T19:34:56Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I think Palin is very attractive. I don’t think she’s sexy. There’s a difference, and I think what Palin does is play up her attractiveness. I also think that accounts for much of her popularity with women. Women in general don’t seem to care much for sexpots. Palin is significantly [more popular among men than among women](http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846443,00.html). What do you think accounts for her _unpopularity_ with women? ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941/160 "2009-11-18T19:36:09Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > WTF? Where did you “find” that out? Where did I find what out? The Runner’s World thing? In the article linked to and the thread. It wasn’t obvious from the cover photo as shown on the linked-to site. I’m uncertain what you’re getting at. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-newsweek-cover-of-palin-sexist/517941.md?page=9)