Partially because it is something at least partially different. Palin’s beauty queen poses, gestures, and winks are different from what we see from male politicians or even other female politicians like Hillary Clinton. Palin’s affectations are noticeable to agree that those of other politicians’ aren’t because they’re weird and silly in comparison.
And partially because she simply has no substance to back her up whatsoever. If Palin was the intellectual equal of Colin Powell or John McCain, we wouldn’t be concentrating on her image so much. But she isn’t, and she’s trading on her image rather than policies or criticisms because she’s so intellectually vacant.
So again, she shouldn’t be surprised when she’s called on it. Not that I think she is, mind you. The perennial “victim” persona she has created for herself means that she’s always going to be the poor, delicate flower being crushed by the heavy boot of the liberal media.
The definition of sexist as “treating women differently from men” doesn’t help much. It doesn’t draw any lines between societally acceptable and not acceptable. Of course women are treated different from men, because women are in fact different from men. That’s why there’s different restrooms, and different sections of clothing stores, and different athletic teams in schools and communities, and on and on.
Of course you’re different because you have a vagina. Generally that means you do not have a penis.
What’s the definition of sexist that makes this Newsweek cover sexist?
Is this LIFE magazine cover of Ted Kennedy sexist?
I’m sure Kennedy purposely wanted to portray himself as fit, hale and healthy (not that the contraption he’s wearing really helps in that regard). Of course, a respectable magazine would never show a female politician bare chested on their magazine cover.
You honestly think that’s simple? That women don’t get called into their boss’s office for wearing something ‘too revealing’ when they thought they looked fine? That they don’t find something wrong about having to ‘butch it up’ to be taken seriously when their male colleagues get to be the default in suits and quiet ties? Please, define sexy for you and every other man and post the qualifications in the lunch room of every office building on earth. And put your money where your mouth is. No complaining about how ugly female politicians are, either.
You think she should have turned it down? Maybe in some sitcom-ish turn she could have gained 20 pounds and frizzed out her hair, turned up in sweats with no make-up and said, ‘NOW, do you want me as your running mate, McCain?’ How should other ‘attractive’ (by whose standards?) working women take this advice, exactly? Only work for gay male bosses, or straight female ones? Double check before accepting positions that they are being hired based on their qualifications rather than their looks? Wear a burqa to every interview?
I am still having trouble figuring out how her winking and stupid comments were any worse or more sexual than George W. Bush’s (who, I might add, was not horrible looking), except that his female fans didn’t feel the need to make a porn about him.
No, because it used in context. The article is about his recovery. The photo is about his recovery.
That’s the same reason the photo we are talking about was not sexist when it was published in Runners World.
On the other hand, if that same photo was coupled with an article in Newsweek about how Ted was nothing but a playboy and the only reason he got elected was his looks, then we could have a discussion.
a) Again, the picture is what the Newsweek article is about.
b) How is this picture in the appropriate context for Runner’s World? It’s just simply not. She’s inside, holding a Blackberry and leaning against an American flag. she’s not running anywhere like that.
The only thing I’m here to do is point out how asinine it is to draw a parallel between your opposition and rapists any time someone even makes a hint at an undesirable situation being partially the fault of the woman. I never said you were “wrong”, just an idiot for making the argument you did. Though it is pretty funny that the person you were initially responding to is a gay male.
I’m assuming that you didn’t watch the VP debate. It wasn’t just the wink, although that was certainly not a small-town-Chevy-dealer wink. It was also the fact that, when Joe Biden criticized her energy policy as “drill, drill, drill,” she made sure to correct him: it was “drill, baby drill.” As she recited this, she shimmied back and forth.
Also, she was not photographed in her workout clothes. She has been photographed running before, and she wears sweats and a t-shirt, like a normal person. She has said that she doesn’t wear makeup when she runs. No pantyhose, or stripperdust, whatever that is on her legs. Remember, too that this is not an obscure photograph of her. It was all over the internet, and was shown in articles about the Runner’s World article, as well as slide shows about her career in magazines that are both liberal and conservative.
One other thing, in 1992, when he ran for president, Paul Tsongas posed in nothing but a Speedo. Newsweek used that picture to illustrate its article about him. You couldn’t really call it a skin-pic, since it was Paul Tsongas and the only skin visible was on top of his head. Also, it wasn’t on the cover, but then he didn’t merit a cover.
Have you ever read Runner’s World, or other fitness/lifestyle magazines? A HUGE part of them is about fitting your regiment into your daily life. People are busy everywhere, and it’s hard to make time for it. It takes real dedication to make it part of your daily life. Just about every interview or feature article in those magazines have a common refrain. “How do you make time for running/lifting/hiking/canoeing with your busy life?”
If you actually read the Runner’s World article, you see that a large portion of it was dedicated to “How did you manage all the pressures of the campaign and still make time for running?”. The picture is a summation of that theme. She’s busy (blackberry in hand), campaigning (america flag), and still running (running attire).
Bush looks candid, but Paterson doesn’t seem to be running. Maybe he’s stretching? And why is he trying to slut it up, flashing his thigh at me? Doesn’t he know I have needs?
Some of this talk about Palin flirting sort of reminds me of guys who think the stripper at their bachelor party really connected with them. If she is pandering, fine. She’s an idiot, fine. But being attractive, even taking action to make oneself attractive to some segment of the population (unless you assume everyone has a united concept of beauty and hotness) is not a crime and to be offended by it or to treat it like some sort of scarlet letter – if you didn’t want to be treated like an object, you shouldn’t have tried to look attractive – is pretty disgusting. I shudder to think what would have happened had she dared to have double-D breasts. Imagine the jokes, the accusations, the way she’d parade them around without an oversized sweater.
They’re not saying that she’s genuinely connecting with them. They are saying that she’s trying to use her attractiveness to make herself marketable. If she can do that, what’s the harm on calling her on it and saying that other than her attractiveness and “down home charm,” she has no qualifications?
There’s no crime in being attractive. Flaunting it and then having the nerve to get huffy because those damned liberals just won’t take you seriously makes your case pretty weak. See also Megan McCain.
Nobody is doing this. The only one making an issue out of it is Palin herself; other than that the only criticism Palin gets for marketing herself based on her appearance is that it’s all she’s got. If she was also an intellectual heavyweight* and great leader, we wouldn’t be talking about this. In fact, if it wasn’t for Palin herself getting attention by whining about how she’s just a poor woman being persecuted by the vicious Liberal Media, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
*If Palin wasn’t a moron, she never would have posed for pictures like this.
This is a misperception on your part. Obviously it would be asinine to think she was genuinely trying to flirt. The feeling more that she’s a waitress at Denny’s who’s ham-handedly fake flirting to try to get a bigger tip. The flirtiness is transparently artificial. That’s what makes it insulting.
Sarah Palin is a very entitled, simple minded person like most of the teabaggers who worship her (the same ones who collect social security and medicare while complaining about welfare and universal healthcare).
If Palin wants to be picked to be supreme commander of the military because she is pretty and stupid, and the McCain camp hoped enough voters would find her vapid personality appealing enough to give her control of the economy and military then she shouldn’t complain when that vapidness and shallowness she oozes has bad effects too. It is a double edged sword. On one hand teabaggers love you. On the other most people who understand the issues do not take you seriously.
I know women who are not pretty who are amazing accomplishments. And I know pretty women who are great accomplishments.
However Palin is a vapid moron. That is the central aspect. If this newsweek cover were of a female nobel prize winning physicist and she was trying to talk about her research while the interviewer kept asking her about her breasts and showing photos of her in gym clothes then yes that would be sexist.
When a vapid moron who was only picked to run the military and economy because of what a vapid moron she is has a photo of her which focuses on her appearance more than anything else, that is her problem.
Point being, I do not take Palin seriously. I guess that is a pre-requisite for sexism. If this were a scientist or serious politician, then yes. Focusing on her appearance when she wants to talk about research, science or politics is rude, immature and sexist. Taking a woman who wants to talk about serious issues (and does not want to focus on her appearance) and focusing on her appearance instead is rude. When Angelina Jolie wants to talk about UNICEF and saving kids from famine but people focus on her breasts instead, that is extremely immature and rude.
Its hard for me to get upset when a woman who has tried to rile up her base into assassinating the president claims sexism because she voluntarily had photos of herself taken in gym clothes and someone else used them.
be insisting that violating Title 4 > Chapter 1 of the United States Code is an impeachable offense.
(Questioning whether that display of the Flag is in fact in violation of USC 4 >1, let alone a “High Crime and/or Misdemeanor”, would be prima facie evidence of one’s lack of Patriotism™.)