Is this a whoosh? Seriously? The answer is “God-fearing patriotic red-blooded ‘Real’ American”
Again, I don’t see how you can’t be intentionally missing the point.
The argument is “Oh, she’s not being provocative; she’s just wearing a running outfit!” But then when we see what she actually does run in, it’s something much more conservative and less revealing. So the picture is not only obviously stagecrafted, but in such a way to emphasize her physically attractive attributes. That gives teeth to the point that the picture is playing up her sexuality, which makes it fair game when the issue is “style over substance” and “exploitation of nativist jingoism” (w/the flag).
I was agreeing with you - it appears to be a very posed picture. You said that it appears kind of “stiff and pageantry-like”. I agree, and the reason that pageantry poses seem so still and unnatural is because they have a purpose. They are chosen and practiced to present a specific image, different from a natural one. Do you agree? If we agree that this is a very posed picture meant to convey a specific message in the way that it is posed, let’s move on together.
To me that means that the elements and nature of this photograph have been chosen to convey a certain message. For instance, the Blackberry is in the photograph not because it’s typical of a runner, but that it is typical of a busy person. It was selected to try to convey seriousness and accomplishment, even while taking time to keep in shape. Still with me?
Really? You don’t get it? I mean, I didn’t think it would be tough, but still. Do you have any flags lying around your house? I don’t. I don’t suspect that she does either - I think it was specifically placed there for this picture. What message would they want to convey with the flag? I can’t think of any other than that Sarah Palin is an American patriot. I was joking earlier about wondering if you would need to see her literally wrapped in it to get the point, but perhaps you do. The phrase “wrapping yourself in the flag” means to falsely appeal to patriotism, or
I love that they included “drape yourself in the flag” in that definition. How about drape your chair in the flag? Is that literal enough for you to get it?
Your post was #279 in this thread about the accusation that Newsweek was sexist in choosing this picture, and you are accusing me of being hyperfocused on what she was wearing? That’s very disingenuous and disappointing coming from you. If the issue at hand isn’t the clothing that she’s wearing in the picture, how is it “sexist” (whatever “sexist” might mean in this thread)? It sounds like you are trying to paint me as some sort of letch for participating in this discussion, so that the issue is not debatable unless you are some kind of freaky sex monster. Uncool you with the face. Very uncool.
So, if I might, let’s get back to the careful selection of the elements of this picture. I think its safe to say that Palin or her people were responsible for choosing the elements of the picture, given the image of the busy patriot, unless Runner’s World insisted on them for some reason. We can at least agree that Palin’s people approved of them, if nothing else. So when we look at her clothes for this picture compared to her other ones, we can assume that they selected these with a purpose. And the clothes, or specifically the shorts, are completely different than the other running poses, right? In what way? If they are different, and the elements of this picture were chosen by Palin’s people, what was the purpose? What message did she want to convey in choosing them?
Fine. It’s really no skin off my nose if you want to respond to Palin’s ringing of the sexism bell in a Pavlovian way. I’m sure you were just as outraged when Obama said “lipstick on a pig” and Palin wanted you to cry and scream at his outrageous sexism then as well. Bob Roberts won in the end by manipulating emotions, too.
I thought the argument raised by Hentor et al was that she was using sex to sell herself. Of course I get the “red-blooded Real American” subtext. But the complaint hasn’t been the flag draped on the chair, but the WTF?ness of having Palin on the cover of a news mag wearing workout clothes as if that by itself is grounds to dismiss her as brainless bimbo.
It’s probably also more flattering than what she wears normally. If a camera crew showed up to take a picture of me, you betcha I wouldn’t be wearing the lint-covered sweat pants I normally wear. I’d be wearing something that I actually look good in. And you know what? That would probably mean some of my skin would show. Oh noes!
I could care less that she decided to show off her legs. Gov Patterson’s hairy legs propped on his desktop don’t cause me to view him as a male vixen, and Obama’s beach pictures don’t lessen him in my eyes.
Name one politician who doesn’t do this. It’s more obvious when a woman does it, but men do it to.
Why attack her for something so silly when there’s an whole ocean of better targets? This is what I don’t get.
It’s on the cover, for pity’s sake. The main headline, as well as the huge cover photo, are all about this “one-page opinion piece.”
If anything, that makes the bias all the more egregious. You’ve got an entire magazine, supposedly devoted to news, and what do they use as the cover feature? A brief opinion piece talking about “the problem with Sarah,” with a photo that – in this context – was clearly selected to portray a negative image of her.
Please. The last time Palin complained about Newsweek, I rolled my eyes. So to was my reaction to the “pig in lipstick” whining. Just because we’re in disagree over this current flap, doesn’t mean I’m unable to assess things on a case by case basis. But hey, thanks for the baseless assumption there.
I’ve read this whole damn thread, and have gone back and forth on the question. Obviously, I’m not cut out for the Dope.
OK, this is an interesting question. Is that really the first and strongest impression which people have? If it were, then maybe your logic may stand*, but what if the strongest impression is not that?
As a card-carrying, liberal man, I both think that Palin is extremely unqualified for higher office, and she’s an attractive woman. However, the strongest impression I get from that photo is that she’s trying to sell her attractiveness in a way not appropriate for someone who wants to be taken seriously.
I think Newsweek sees this the same way and is mocking her for selling her looks and patriotism rather than your conclusion that they are slamming a woman for being attractive.
If they ran a photo of her in skimpy swimsuit taken by paparazzi in what should be a private setting then yes, that would be similar.
However, if Obama where to have posed in ghetto clothes to sell his blackness, and if Fox picked up that photo to mock him, would it be race-baiting? Or would it be a plague on both their houses? More likely some of each.
There is no doubt that sex sells, and Newsweek capitalized on a stupid – IMHO – idea for a photo shoot which was begging to be exploited. I wouldn’t feel it was as cheap from magazine which took itself less seriously. (Or did back when I used to read it more often, I can’t say how they are lately.)
I would more vigorously defend the cover if the article where about Palin and her marketing herself. But it’s not. It’s nominally about the death of the center in which Palin is one of many players. In that, I see something which I’m not completely comfortably with.
*I’m not sure I buy your logic. If they were to have shown a photo of her in a suit then most people would still find her attractive. Would this still be seen as sexist?
I suppose it depends on your definition of “political reason.” If I had to guess, it was done for an editorial reason. Most likely, either the photographer or art director at Runner’s World wanted a photo that sums up all the elements of the Runner’s World story in one picture, in addition to the pictures of Sarah in the field. “Give us a picture that says Palin, governor of Alaska, woman on the go, etc.” For a story for a running magazine, this would not be an odd request. The execution of the shot, well, let’s just say I would have gone about it differently, but my eye and style are not Brian Adams’ (the photographer.)
I spent a while constructing that post to clarify the points of argument that I think support my interpretation of the purpose of Newsweek using that photo, and this is all you have to say in response.
I’m not sure you really want to debate, discuss or even think through the issues at hand here.
I think the superficial “patriotism” in the photo is a significant point to note. It isn’t just the shorts which make the picture emblematic, it’s the whole thing. The pageant pose, the fake, chipper grin, the cell phone prop to try to make herself look “busy” and “professional,” and, course, the stupid, omnipresent flag. The suggestion of sex is only part of the whole gestalt. The photo, as a whole, perfectly encapsules her entire political image. Utterly superficial, contrived, meritricious and phony to the point where it’s virtually insulting to the audience.
Because you finished your post with a gratiutously snide remark and I have neither the time nor patience to waste on someone who is coming at me like that this morning.
Wait, what? Even if that is the strongest impression most people are getting from that (which I somewhat doubt), does this mean that it isn’t sexist against unattractive women? I mean if they said ‘she is attractive, therefore she is stupid’ then maybe you’d have a point. But…at the moment I don’t see any attack against gender whatsoever.
The first and strongest impression one gets from the photo is, “Palin is a woman who appears absurd.”
That’s why that picture was chosen - because it’s absolutely ridiculous. It’s bizarrely staged, Palin sports a goofy beauty-pageant grin, and it’s exactly the opposite image you would expect a serious politician to present of herself.
Equally absurd is the contention that “Newsweek believes that being an attractive woman is a negative thing.” What on earth? Palin’s looks are, in this picture, almost beside the point except insofar as her using them to get ahead is what led her to pose for such a ridiculous picture in the first place.
Obviously the photo is being used to make her look like a buffoon. Her being a woman is not an integral element of this. If someone wanted to write a damning editorial about Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock, images like this would be fair game.
See, it’s this assumption that’s the root of the sexism. You guys start with the assumption that she is using her looks to get ahead. That, in and of itself, is sexist.
And that assumption is baseless. The only justification anybody has offered is circular reasoning. You cite every wink, every photo op as an attempt to use her looks to get ahead. Why? Because she uses her looks to get ahead.
It’s not equivalency–I’m saying it’s somewhere at the far end of the spectrum. Like hollering at and harassing women in public: it’s not rape, but it’s rooted in the same kind of basic disregard for women.
I’m saying it makes me uncomfortable to hear the same phrasing used to justify using sexualized images of a woman in an unrelated context (despite what she may have agreed to in another context) as are used to justify engaging in nonconsensual sexual acts with a woman (even though she may be dressed provocatively, have readily agreed to sex perhaps even with the same person at another time, etc.).
The only person avoiding discussion here is you. You’re not discussing anything–you’re just telling me I’m wrong. So, tell me **why **you disagree. Tell me why it’s okay to (a) sexualize a woman (b) when discussing her politics (c) in a context where she never agreed to be sexualized (d) as a means of ridiculing and dismissing her.
You’re the only one who’s saying this. It’s entirely possible for people to be sexist without thinking that they believe that women are inferior to men. Take something like “chivalry.” IMO, for a man to open a door for me or give me a hand down a stairway because I’m female (as opposed to doing the same for anyone else, even another man) is sexist. He doesn’t hate women–he thinks he’s being nice. But that doesn’t make it any less sexist.
Any time you find someone treating a person differently because of their sex, it’s sexism. There doesn’t have to be overt hatred of the sex in question.
But **nowhere **in the article do they make that point. Seriously, if this were an article about how Palin is making a royal ass of herself, I would agree in a fucking **heartbeat **that this was a perfectly acceptable photo to use. The article, however, is about the dangers of political extremism… on **both **sides of the fence. **Very little **of the article is specifically about Palin.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST WOULD YOU DROP THAT STRAW MAN ALREADY. Seriously. It’s getting old. **You **are the **only **person who is saying that Newsweek has some kind of sexist “agenda.” You. Only you.
I swear to fucking god if you don’t stop that shit I’m going to start ending every post demanding that you explain why you think it’s okay to spend so much time raping dogs.
Pretty sure everybody figured it out, seeing as it was the oppsite of everything else you’ve been saying.
Funny how convinced you are that Newsweek would post equally silly pictures of equally silly male political figures… and yet you haven’t been able to provide a single example. It’s almost like you’re making this shit up.
I look forward to seeing you pull many quotes from the article to demonstrate that the point of it was, “Palin hurts the GOP by being a moron.”
I further look forward to you being able to pull up previous Newsweek covers where articles about male politicians being morons used similar photographs.
I don’t think what you’re talking about is sexist, Sinaijon. It’s… hotist. If HRC or Bachmann were photographed that way nobody would say anything because they’re not attractive.
I think Palin would get exactly the same crap in general if she were a Democrat; people assume she’s trading on her looks because she’s good looking, not because she’s a Republican. Let’s face it, most politicians are ugly. By the same token, Erin Andrews could be the greatest sports announcer in the history of the universe but she’d still get much more attention for her rack than anything else.
Now, as time goes by, it appears more and more as though her looks are (consciously or unconsciously) partly to be credited for her success, because she’s definitely not much of a political thinker (or if so, has serious issues with communicating her thoughts).
This is not strictly true. One can argue that politicians in general use whatever assets they have on hand to get ahead. Good looks are just a subset of this. Why should we expect Palin to behave unlike any other politician?
As it turns out, most of us consider good looks to be a great asset for an actor but not so useful for a leader. It is not obvious why this should be sexist.
This is complete rubbish. You can argue that the winks and photo ops are “using ones looks to get ahead” because they are identical to the behaviors of people whom we know use their looks to get ahead. Palin just happens to be laughably clumsier at it than, say, your average C-list movie actress.
You’re male, right? Ever have a woman try to signal her interest in you? I won’t be surprised if your answer is no, but I thought I would ask all the same.
We thus approach this logically and empirically. We can conclude that she exploits her appearance because it is an asset. We can also conclude that she exploits her appearance because her behavior is characteristic of others whom we are very confident do the same.
I mean if they said ‘she is attractive, therefore she is stupid’ then maybe you’d have a point. But…at the moment I don’t see any attack against gender whatsoever.