Tsk tsk, you’re not keeping up. I’d made the comparison once already. And I never said it was equivalent–simply that it was disturbingly close to the same kinds of arguments.
If you’ll note, the specific post you’re replying to doesn’t say a word about rape. That you were able to so easily make the inferral kind of proves my point, though, so thanks.
The word is inference, not “inferral.”
Maybe she’s talking about the INFERRAL FIRES OF HELL! Did you think of that, smart guy?
Or maybe she is talking about housecats that are now out on the streets, inferral cats.
Thanks for catching that. I was typing quickly 'cause I wanted to get a reply out before I lost my train of thought, but I had some work to get back to–I knew it didn’t sound quite right, but I didn’t have the time to look it up to see if it was one of the words I just made up in my head.
I’ll also note that you didn’t actually respond to the substance of the post.
It’s not sexist. It’s Palinist. The only way you can think it is sexist is if you think Palin (or what she is doing) is representative of all women. It only degrades her.
I for one would like to see more sexy male politicians on publication covers.
Which of these ad hominems would you use to describe someone that wears running clothes?
Now that I’ve read TFA I consider the image even more sexist. (Somehow I missed the part on masturbating hillbillies) TFA is about populism in general and what we can learn from history in that regard. Although I’m not much of a student of history, I don’t recall any skin shots of Teddy Roosevelt, Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan. Maybe they just didn’t wink enough.
To those that think Palin should have foreseen the pictures being used by other outlets:
From here. IANAL but Newsweek doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong unless it can be shown that they knew about the exclusivity period. However, the photographer’s agent might be in trouble.
Beyond your stating the opposite (that it is ‘not debatable that it’s an image SHE CHOSE’), it’s important to know whether she and her team got to approve the shots used in Runner’s World (anyone who’s been involved in photo shoots and publishing knows that this is unlikely, even for high-profile celebrities). Even if she knew what she was wearing and how she was posing, with digital photography she was likely getting 1000+ shots out of one session, some when she didn’t know she was being photographed, some when she was just fooling around between ‘real’ poses. So unless there’s proof she got to approve the magazine at the printer’s you cannot state without a doubt that she had full control over what image she was projecting.
And that was just for the running magazine. As mentioned, the average person might assume that she was asked to pose for Newsweek and decided that they should shoot her in shorts. Or that her people (or even Runner’s World) had approved the re-sell of the shot (apparently they didn’t). I would feel the same way if she’d dressed as, I don’t know, a farmer for Martha Stewart Living and they’d used that pic for the cover. Or, likely, if they’d used a pageant photo.
Didn’t Dubya used to wink quite a bit? At the Queen of England, even? Did anyone ever call him out for using his sexuality?
And again, I hope Gov. Paterson puts out a book or runs for president so Newsweek can, naturally, run this photo. No word on whether he approved that shot.
ETA **Nars **beat me to the link.
I use it to describe politicians who wear short shorts and oil up their legs to appeal to dim-witted yokels for votes.
That’s NOT debatable. It IS an image she chose. She greased up her legs and shot those pictures specifically for that magazine. None of that is disputed or debatable.
I think those are nylons. Which could be interpreted as prudish, a la Janet on Three’s Company.
Who wears nylons to go running?
Wait, when you say ‘image,’ you mean projecting an image or the specific photo (that could project a certain image)?
No, it didn’t prove shit. “She’s asking for it” is a commonplace buzzphrase that implies rape, regardless of context. Say the same words in a context free of Palin and the inference is the same.
Your rape-equivalency argument has no validity here - it’s just a stop thought technique to avoid actual discussion of the issue.
I wish I had a brush that broad. I’ve got a house that needs painting.
Well, she knew exactly what photos were being taken, so any photo she agreed to take, she approved of., by definition.
She hasn’t DENIED that the original cover had her approval.
Really, you think the category of politicians who pose for magazine covers in hot pants is a broad one?
No. I think a populist that only appealed to masturbating dim-witted hillbilly yokels (that’s the broad brush in case you missed it) wouldn’t have much of an effect on national politics but somehow Palin seems to have done it.
I can’t stand the bitch BTW.
Even if her legs are bare and shiny (is moisturized skin considered sexually provocative now?), so what? She is wearing clothes consistent with what most people wear when they are running. If she were plain-faced and scrawny, sexual manipulation would be the last thing you’d be accusing her of.
