Oh, and “She did it first!” is not an effective defense against sexism.
ETA: RNATB, **SA **has no need for your “cites.” He already knows what they say–and if they disagree, well then, they’re just wrong, and he can safely ignore them anyway.
If you read the article, you’ll see that the “problem” is that she’s got enough populist appeal among masturbating hillbillies to have an influence on things, but not enough to get elected (nor anything like the ability to do the job even if she did). She can bring enough morons out in the primaries to make things tough for legit GOP candidates in 2012, and might possibly be able to get enough teabaggers elected in the House to clog things up and cockblock dialogues even more than they already are, but she can’t actually do any GOOD for either her own party or her country.
In that sense, the image is perfect. A superficially seductive nitwit. A meritricious con.
Actually, the distinction seems to be that Newsweek doesn’t like Sarah Palin. The article on her is not meant to be complimentary, so the photo they run with it is likewise not complimentary. The article on Biden, on the other hand, appears to have been laudatory. Therefore, they found a picture of him that makes him look like a serious politician. Making a female politician look bad because she’s a female is sexist. Making a female politician look bad because she’s actually bad at her job is not.
Now you’re just being obtuse about the whole thing. Here’s the bit you alluded to but didn’t quote from later:
So, it opens with a discussion about how she’s promoting herself now, being out there on display, and then indicates that no matter how well she can do those things, she’s not likely to win a national election.
Bringing up Runner’s World specifically isn’t necessary - her picture (wearing less than business attire while leaning against an American flag draped over the back of a chair) from that magazine perfectly illustrates the point being made.
The damn thing isn’t that long of an article, but really, all you have to do is read two paragraphs. It shouldn’t tax you greatly.
Rather, it emphasizes the need some people have of *believing *her success is based on her sex rather than anything else. It’s the only way they can rationalize their sexist opinion of her. That’s why you stretch and stretch to claim her completely normal behavior sexualizes her image. She could be wearing a burqa, and you guys would still be criticizing her for winking. “She’s using her evil feminine wiles to beguile America! She must be stopped!”
You guys just cling hard to your sexist hate of Palin. You can’t let it go, because doing so would admit that it’s possible to be a successful conservative woman that also looks good. And successful attractive woman are democrats, if they know whats good for them. Right?
Yeah, you’re right. I didn’t read it because your words seemed to convey its meaning. Still, if 45% dislike her, it means that 55% either like or at least don’t dislike her. And considering the politics involved, and that many of that 45% are like lots of liberal women around here who hate her no matter what she looks like simply because she’s a conservative – and worse, an effective conservative with a loyal following – I’d say that’s pretty good.
And I still maintain that the popularity she enjoys to the degree whe enjoys it is due much more to her attractiveness (and the values she espouses) than it is to sex appeal.
Not really. I certainly wouldn’t bang Hilary, Pelosi or Geraldine Ferraro.
I think it’s certainly fair to say that Palin’s success is largely dependent on her looks, especially when you consider how incompetent she has proven. However, I don’t think it’s at all fair to say that Palin played up her sexuality in any way.
There aren’t enough eyerolls in the world for this.
This whole thing is Palin’s own fault. She chose to pose for such pictures, to use her attractiveness as a tool of her campaign. All Newsweek is doing is pointing this out; pointing out that one of the problems with Palin is that she’s all style over substance. This cover conveys that perfectly. Palin’s upset because this cover implicitly calls her out on her bullshit. If it’s sexist that’s because Palin chose to appeal to the Joe Sixpacks of the world in a sexist manner.
a) She’s not successful.
b) It is completely abnormal for someone involved in a debate during a race for national office to wink at the camera.
c) I’m perfectly happy for her to continue making an ass of herself while also somehow continuing to represent Republicans. She is quite unpopular, especially among women, and her unpopularity (among an array of other factors) helped turn the White House over to the Democrats. I hope she continues this kind of “success” for a long time.
Posing for Runner’s World = using her attractiveness as a tool of the campaign?
Come on, now. You really think anyone, anywhere might have voted for her because of a hot little spread in a magazine with a circulation of ~500,000?
That’s why I’m saying the specific magazine wasn’t the point, or the reason for the shot. The point of the shoot was to sex her up with the full knowldege that the photos would be widely picked up and carried by the rest of the media. If they’d thought it would only be seen by people who read that magazine, they’d have never wasted their time with it.
The problem is that she is populist and divisive. You’ll notice the article gives equal criticism to the other side of the fence. In fact, so little of the article actually has anything to do with Palin herself that I question why the hell she’s on the cover.
There. Is. No. Discussion. No discussion. Whatsoever. Things are mentioned, but they are not discussed. The Runner’s World photo has no relation to the subject of the article, which is about Palin’s divisive politics making her dangerous to the GOP because she represents a fringe of the party that is not generally respected. **All **of that has to do with her (IMO shitty) political views; **none **of that has to do with the length of the shorts she wears to run. And while Palin shoving herself in front of any camera that will have her is exacerbating the problem, that is not the focus of the article: it’s the politics themselves.
Palin isn’t a success. She’s a laughingstock.
“It’s her own fault. She was asking for it. Flaunting herself like that, she had it coming.”
Oh yeah, I’m totally off base–this isn’t sexism at all. :rolleyes:
But they’re not pointing it out, and that is exactly the problem. **Nowhere **do they say, “Palin relies on the appeal of her looks over the appeal of her politics.”
I’m not sure what your point is, here. Nothing in the article about Palin being a bad politician or bad for the GOP in any way directly related to the photograph. You could delete the three-word parenthetical about it with **absolutely no impact **on the content of the article.
Here’s one photographer’s blog:
I confess I’m more familiar with Time magazine and I have a colleague, Steve Liss, who has done 43 covers for them.
That’s… well, still a bit specious. What if the images were picked up for the cover of Seal-Clubbers Weekly or Used Panty Trader?
Quoted for agreement.
I do not like Palin. I don’t like the views she does have. I don’t like her lack of knowledge on topics she should have views on (and presuming she does ever bother to come up with an opinion on those topics, I’ll probably disagree with her there). I don’t like the way she’s marketed herself. And I don’t respect her.
The last time she cried “sexism,” to a Newsweek cover, it was a picture of her face in close-up. That was a ludicrous claim. This time, there’s something to it. To me, that image with that title doesn’t say “Don’t take her seriously because she sells herself using bimbette imagery,” (if they’d done a collage of “Stupid Palin Photo Ops” with this among them, I’d have gotten that impression). Instead, it comes across as targeting her because she’s a woman and in a way that they would only target a woman.
Finally, I do realize that she brought it on herself, Edwards was also profiled in Runners World in late 2007 during his last candidacy, but he and/or his handlers were smart enough have his picture in a plane, looking thoughtfully out the window and not in spandex. But Newsweek’s use of Palin’s photo was not the right way to highlight that Palin continually makes dumbass decisions with regard to everything, including her image.
The two are not mutually exclusive
Count me in the camp who doesn’t see how Palin has actively used her sexuality to promote herself. There are plenty of things I can fault her for (namely, being a rambling idiot), but it would be dishonest of me to include that complaint among them.
Winking politicians is a cliche that goes right alongside their reputation for tireless handshaking and baby kissing. If it were an unattractive woman winking, or a man, I seriously doubt people would be so quick to accuse her of exploiting sexuality. But because Palin is cute and her winks have an arousing effect on some segment of the population, the perception is different. Instead of people accusing her trying to pander and appear folksy and downhome (which is what her winks communicate to me), they accuse her of playing up her hotness.
So how else has she sexualized her image? Posed for Playboy? Made a cameo performance in a porno? Did a strip tease on Conan or something? I hate to say it, but it looks like some of yall I’ve fallen prey to thinking that any physically attractive woman must be using her looks in a manipulative way, just because men are aroused by her. Anyone have a burka, perchance? Yeah, I’m going there.
I’m not saying her looks have nothing to do with her popularity. But faulting her that is ridiculous.
Laughingstoccess? :dubious:
He (?) has a point. For all that she talks like a [del]pirate[/del] doofus, she was also the governor of a state and probably accomplished many great things during her incumbency that did not involve killing moose.
Cool, I was wondering how long until this thread would godwinize in to rape-equivalency. Congratulations, you lose.