Is this Newsweek cover of Palin sexist?

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

First you compared the use of the photo to rape, and now you’re comparing holding a door to female genital mutilation? You might want to dial down the hyperbole just a tad. You might start sounding a little hysterical.

Of course I sound hysterical–it’s that ol’ wandering uterus choking off the blood supply to my brain. :rolleyes:

If you’ll read carefully, you’ll see that I never once said these things were equivalent–merely that they fall along the same continuum. The FGM comment was simply an example of something that, by your reasoning, would be “okay” because it’s “traditional.” “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is not a valid excuse for sexist, racist, classist, whatever-ist behavior. Ever.

It might be the best excuse you can come up with, but it’s not good enough.

Do you thing that everyone involved in choosing the photo is consciously or subconsciously sexist? Yes or no?

Yes, I think they have subconscious attitudes about what’s “acceptable” for women, how women should behave, or how you can treat a female public figure that are different than their attitudes about a man in the same position. I do **not **think they have some kind of crazy woman-hating agenda.

Palin is complaining because it brings her attention, but the article is NOT about her political stances, it’s about her populism.

No, it’s about her populism combined with her stances. Show me anything in that article that would even suggest it thinks that a populist **moderate **would be dangerous.

@Kaio

And in my honest opinion – if Obama did a professional, styled, posed photoshoot with him in nothing but boxers lying on a bearskin rug, damn straight Newsweek would run it. So would everyone else. And they’d be (rightly) pointing out that the existence of such a photo points to a severe lapse in judgment on his part.

You’re absolutely right–but that’s not what this article is about. God fucking damn, can’t any of you people fucking read? There is **nothing **in the article that says “taking these kind of photos makes Palin look like an ass.” People like **Dio **keep harping about their personal interpretations, but **none **of you can pull **anything **from the article that supports your reasoning as to why that photo was associated with that article. None. What. So. Ever.

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

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.

Some things are based on actual physical differences–like clothing. Some things are based on outdated attitudes–like offering a woman a hand out of a car but not a man. Can you understand the difference?

Is this LIFE magazine cover of Ted Kennedy sexist?

http://store.jfklibrary.org/jfk/product.asp?prod_name=Original+LIFE+Magazine+Ted+Kennedy’s+Recovery&pf_id=PADCABGHAFIKFKHJ&dept_id=3077&s_id=0&

It’s an article about his physical recovery from a broken back… that shows him physically recovered from a broken back. Compare to the Palin article about the dangers of political extremism… that shows her in short running shorts. If you can’t see the difference, you’re either blind (in which case, smack whoever’s describing the scene to you) or retarded (in which case, I’m impressed that you’re able to put together such complex sentences).

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

a) Again, the picture is what the Newsweek article is about.

Show me. Don’t tell me. Don’t say, “Uh, it is because I think it is.” Show me anything in the article that says, “Palin is making an ass out of herself by constantly pushing herself in front of the camera,” or whatever your pet theory is. Do it. Please.

@Algorithm

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.

Beeeecauuuuuse gay men are somehow exempt from being sexist? How’s that supposed to work?

It’s not “any time someone even makes a hint at an undesirable situation being partially the fault of the woman.” It’s any time someone says that when a woman chooses to sexualize her image, it means that she gives up all control as to who else gets to sexualize it. That she is forever and always reduced into a pair of tits that can be conveniently disregarded simply because she committed the (gasp) cardinal sin of being a sexual creature. So now, you don’t ever again have to point out why her political positions are misguided and ill-informed–you can just say, “Well, look at her. You can just *tell *she’s an idiot.”

@saoirse

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.

Thanks for being the single person in this entire thread to pull out anything remotely resembling a similar situation. Do you happen to have a copy of the article in question? I’m very interested to see if it in any way directly references the photo (in which case it would support my point) or if the photo is included without commentary (in which case it would support the point of those who content that the same treatment would be given to a male political figure).

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, she should have turned it down because she wasn’t qualified.

In case you hadn’t noticed, Sarah Palin is a glory-hogging mental defective. She’s neither smart nor classy enough to turn an offer like that down.

@kidchameleon

You seem to be hell bent on making everything a black or white, yes or no issue. Not a shade of grey, resulting in ludicrous statements, such as that one is necessarily a misogynist if one is sexist. Or that in order for Newsweek to publish a sexist photo on their cover there must be a unanimous sexist conspiracy amongst the entire staff. Perhaps there is some area in between that you should acknowledge.

Very well said.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Calling the cover sexist IS a categorical, “black and white” statement. If there was no sexist intent, there was no sexism. You can’t have it both ways.

You can absolutely have sexism without sexist intent. Take, for example, the time I had lunch with my manager and her manager. Three women, ranging in age from mid-20s to probably mid-50s. The server referred to us as “girls.” He was certainly no older than I am, and probably a couple of years younger. If we were three men in business dress, would he have called us boys? Fuck no, it would be insulting as hell. Did he mean, “I hate all women, and I think men are superior to you in every way–in fact, what the hell are you doing wearing pants?” Of course not. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t being sexist, even unintentionally.

[you_with_the_face]

@RTFirefly

Well, if I’d never run into another woman outside of intimate one-on-one settings or strip clubs who I felt was asking to be stared at, there’d have to be something very different about that particular woman wearing that particular sweater, wouldn’t there?

Why can’t you come up with evidence more substantive than past feelings towards other women? There’s no way I can verify any of it; so it’s completely unpersuasive to me.

Let me tell you, if a guy were hitting on me, even subtly, as a politician on my TV screen, I’d be able to cite something that explains why he is setting off my radar.

Is she touchy-feeling with people? (Excessive touching is a flirtation sign, no? I seem to recall Bush doing that with Merkle, but whatever.)

Does she show a lot of neck when she talks? Twirl her hair? Bite her lips? Bat her eyelids? (All classic flirtation signs.)

Does she call people honey or sweetie? (Women use terms of endearment when they flirt…anyone got a transcript excerpt that shows her doing this?)

Are her clothes non-conservative? (No, actually they aren’t. She dresses well, but nothing revealing or excessively tight.)

So what else is there? At a certain point, it should strike you as strange that you can’t put your finger on anything and yet you are so confident in your position.

[Sinaijon]

@Freudian_Slit

But do you really think she’d have gotten where she was if she were an overweight, ugly woman? If she were dumb AND unattractive.

Pelosi managed it just fine.

But seriously, she was a highly rated governor of state. Maybe you forgot that though.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Something else I’ve been wondering about, and perhaps a question that could be answered by one of those who are arguing that the link between the story and the picture on the cover is demonstrably not about how Palin is marketing and promoting herself: What is the purpose for the selection of the interior picture?

How Sarah Palin Hurts the GOP And the Country

For those of you who can’t or won’t look, the picture associated with the story on the inside page (or at least when you click through to the article online) is a side shot of Palin conducting an interview. She’s sitting in what appears to be her home (looks like the same windows as the cover shot), opposite bright lights and a crew with a camera.

To me, it is in accord with the story and the picture on the front, and the idea that these are about Sarah Palin’s self-promotional activities, and at odds with the “sexist” argument, whatever that means here.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Pelosi isn’t dumb, and Palin was an abject failure as Governor, in case you didn’t notice. She resigned in disgrace in case you forgot.

[shy_guy]

@Shot_From_Guns

You’re absolutely right–but that’s not what this article is about. God fucking damn, can’t any of you people fucking read? There is **nothing **in the article that says “taking these kind of photos makes Palin look like an ass.” People like **Dio **keep harping about their personal interpretations, but **none **of you can pull **anything **from the article that supports your reasoning as to why that photo was associated with that article. None. What. So. Ever.

Why is this relevant? If they chose the image because they wanted to call Palin out on being a superficial moron and that has insufficient relevance to the opinion piece within, what does that have to do with sexism?

Is your complaint that the image is beside the point, or that it’s sexist? What does one have to do with the other?

[Sinaijon]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

For those of you who can’t or won’t look, the picture associated with the story on the inside page (or at least when you click through to the article online) is a side shot of Palin conducting an interview. She’s sitting in what appears to be her home (looks like the same windows as the cover shot), opposite bright lights and a crew with a camera.

To me, it is in accord with the story and the picture on the front, and the idea that these are about Sarah Palin’s self-promotional activities, and at odds with the “sexist” argument, whatever that means here.

That’s actually her Governor’s office. So it’s misleading in that event as well. You have no idea what that interview is about. It could be about a recent bill she signed, it could be a public service announcement. It’s impossible to know. But you immediately leap to the conclusion that she was self-promoting. Sarah Palin got interviewed! Oh Noes! What a self promoting bitch!

[RedFury]

Judging by the number of posts/hits to this thread, sexist or not, the cover is clearly achieving its intended purpose for both parties, Newsweek and Palin.

Controversy sells. Who would have thunk it?

[Shot_From_Guns]

@shy_guy

Why is this relevant? If they chose the image because they wanted to call Palin out on being a superficial moron and that has insufficient relevance to the opinion piece within, what does that have to do with sexism?

Is your complaint that the image is beside the point, or that it’s sexist? What does one have to do with the other?

She’s dressed in running clothes that are considerably more revealing than professional attire. The article says “she’s dangerous because her positions are polarizing,” but the image says “she’s dangerous because she’s a woman who’s popular because of her physical attractiveness.”

[RTFirefly]

@you_with_the_face

Why can’t you come up with evidence more substantive than past feelings towards other women? There’s no way I can verify any of it; so it’s completely unpersuasive to me.

Didn’t say I could. Like I said, your original question was a good one, and I wasn’t sure how I could answer it.

I feel like you’re raking me over the coals for giving it the college try. I’m not claiming my answers are proof positive of anything. I’m working within my own experience. I told you what I had to assume, on the basis of what I know. And yes, that was what I had to assume.

Is that transferable? Only to the extent that you think I’m credible.

Let me tell you, if a guy were hitting on me, even subtly, as a politician on my TV screen, I’d be able to cite something that explains why he is setting off my radar.

You know, if I was watching her live or on YouTube, I might be able to do that. Can’t say for sure.

Am I going to watch a bunch of YouTube clips of Palin, just for purposes of this discussion? Never occurred to me that I might have to, until now. And I can’t see that it’s worth it; I watched her enough last fall.

Is she touchy-feeling with people? (Excessive touching is a flirtation sign, no? I seem to recall Bush doing that with Merkle, but whatever.)

Hell, I recall Bush holding hands with whatever Saudi prince it was during their walk together.

Does she call people honey or sweetie?

“She calls me baby, she calls everybody baby.” - Mellencamp, “Lonely Old Night”

[shy_guy]

@Shot_From_Guns

She’s dressed in running clothes that are considerably more revealing than professional attire. The article says “she’s dangerous because her positions are polarizing,” but the image says “she’s dangerous because she’s a woman who’s popular because of her physical attractiveness.”

I don’t agree that’s what the image says (it says “She’s a problem because she’s clearly a buffoon; look at her.”), but even if it does, how is that message sexist?

*Edit: Also, that still doesn’t answer the question. What does it matter that the image is, in your opinion, insufficiently connected to the article within?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shot_From_Guns

Of course I sound hysterical–it’s that ol’ wandering uterus choking off the blood supply to my brain. :rolleyes:

If you’ll read carefully, you’ll see that I never once said these things were equivalent–merely that they fall along the same continuum.

No they don’t. At all. The comparison is asine, even as examples of extremes on some imagine continuum.

Yes, I think they have subconscious attitudes about what’s “acceptable” for women, how women should behave, or how you can treat a female public figure that are different than their attitudes about a man in the same position. I do **not **think they have some kind of crazy woman-hating agenda.

I think this is ludicrous. Also utterly baseless.

No, it’s about her populism combined with her stances. Show me anything in that article that would even suggest it thinks that a populist **moderate **would be dangerous.

A moderate populist wouldn’t be dangerous. It’s the combination of populism and extremism that’s dangerous. And the article is not about her policy positions (she has none to speak of other than bumper sticker slogans on issues like abortion and taxes), but about her potential to damage her own party by dividing it. her appeal to the far right is not policy based, but comes from exactly th kind of superficial artifices and heavy-handed symbology portrayed in the cover photo.

[quote]
You’re absolutely right–but that’s not what this article is about. God fucking damn, can’t any of you people fucking read? There is **nothing **in the article that says “taking these kind of photos makes Palin look like an ass.”[.qyuote]
There doesn’t HAVE to be. The photo speaks for itself. It’s not necessary to comment on it explicitly.

Some things are based on actual physical differences–like clothing. Some things are based on outdated attitudes–like offering a woman a hand out of a car but not a man. Can you understand the difference?

You have not shown that Newsweek IS treating Palin any differently than it would treat a man. Neither has anyone else.

It’s not “any time someone even makes a hint at an undesirable situation being partially the fault of the woman.” It’s any time someone says that when a woman chooses to sexualize her image, it means that she gives up all control as to who else gets to sexualize it.

Change “woman” to “person.” It’s true of men too.

You can absolutely have sexism without sexist intent.

No, you really can’t. Sexism, by definition, is an attitude or opinion. It’s something a person actually has to THINK on some level, even a subconscious one.

Take, for example, the time I had lunch with my manager and her manager. Three women, ranging in age from mid-20s to probably mid-50s. The server referred to us as “girls.” He was certainly no older than I am, and probably a couple of years younger. If we were three men in business dress, would he have called us boys? Fuck no, it would be insulting as hell.

Why would that be insulting? Guys call each other “boys” all the time. I’ve never heard of anyone being insulted by it (well, not unless there’s a racial component).

Did he mean, “I hate all women, and I think men are superior to you in every way–in fact, what the hell are you doing wearing pants?” Of course not. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t being sexist, even unintentionally.

It sounds like you have a pretty low bar for what you want to call sexism.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Sinaijon

That’s actually her Governor’s office. So it’s misleading in that event as well. You have no idea what that interview is about. It could be about a recent bill she signed, it could be a public service announcement. It’s impossible to know. But you immediately leap to the conclusion that she was self-promoting. Sarah Palin got interviewed! Oh Noes! What a self promoting bitch!

I don’t give two shits what she was actually doing. The picture was chosen because it goes along with:

This week she’s going on-air with Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey to flog her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life, and to promote her brand of in-your-face, power-to-the-people conservatism. President Obama is no doubt happy to have her out there on full display.

So, yeah, she’s heavily involved in self-promotion. The picture above the story looks like a picture of her involved in an interview. The picture on the front cover encapsulates the image she has tried to put forth during her time on the national stage.

It’s all of a piece.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Pelosi isn’t dumb, and Palin was an abject failure as Governor, in case you didn’t notice. She resigned in disgrace in case you forgot.

No, she definitely resigned in a skirtsuit.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Shot_From_Guns

She’s dressed in running clothes that are considerably more revealing than professional attire. The article says “she’s dangerous because her positions are polarizing,” but the image says “she’s dangerous because she’s a woman who’s popular because of her physical attractiveness.”

Actually, I’d interpret that last part as America is dangerous because large segments of it would seriously consider voting for an attractive candidate over a qualified one. It’s not an indictment of Palin per se, just her followers.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Shot_From_Guns

No, it’s about her populism combined with her stances. Show me anything in that article that would even suggest it thinks that a populist **moderate **would be dangerous.

[…]

You’re absolutely right–but that’s not what this article is about. God fucking damn, can’t any of you people fucking read? There is **nothing **in the article that says “taking these kind of photos makes Palin look like an ass.” People like **Dio **keep harping about their personal interpretations, but **none **of you can pull **anything **from the article that supports your reasoning as to why that photo was associated with that article. None. What. So. Ever.

This irony is delicious. If you could read and comprehend the article, you could not claim that it is about her being a moderate populist.

Bzzzt. So sorry, but thanks for playing!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shot_From_Guns

She’s dressed in running clothes that are considerably more revealing than professional attire. The article says “she’s dangerous because her positions are polarizing,”

No it doesn’t. The article says she’s dangerous to her PARTY, because of her populist appeal to the moron base.

but the image says “she’s dangerous because she’s a woman who’s popular because of her physical attractiveness.”

The picture doesn’t say she’s “dangerous,” at all, it’s just emblematic of how superficial and insubstantial she is (and those things have nothing to do with her being a woman).

[you_with_the_face]

@shy_guy

Is your complaint that the image is beside the point, or that it’s sexist? What does one have to do with the other?

I see them as two different complaints. The image is beside the point, but people keep asserting otherwise in their eagerness to defend it. Which is a strike against their objectivity and credibility.

But the image also looks sexist because it conveys that Palin is not to be taken seriously because she’s poses in running shorts and therefore is a bimbo. This is not as editorial angle that a male politician is as likely to contend with, and to deny this is to be blind, deaf, and dumb. To be honest, the problem with the picture is that it actually isn’t ridiculous enough given the critical tone of the piece. There really is nothing wrong with the picture in an absolute sense. Meaning, it’s not a joke as a stand alone picture. It only becomes a joke given the context of being on Newsweek’s cover. Again, to deny this is be blind, deaf, and dumb.

The picture’s main “crime” is that it highlights Palin’s physical attributes…which on the scale of 1-10 on the “why should I give a damn” meter, ranks about a 1.5. The paper deserves to be criticized for doing what it did.

[you_with_the_face]

@RTFirefly

Didn’t say I could. Like I said, your original question was a good one, and I wasn’t sure how I could answer it.

I feel like you’re raking me over the coals for giving it the college try. I’m not claiming my answers are proof positive of anything. I’m working within my own experience. I told you what I had to assume, on the basis of what I know. And yes, that was what I had to assume.

Thanks for acknowledging that I raised a good question and thanks for giving it the college try. I’m not raking you over the coals, just asking you and other men to consider your own biases a little.

Seriously, though, I hate defending Palin.

[shy_guy]

@you_with_the_face

But the image also looks sexist because it conveys that Palin is not to be taken seriously because she’s poses in running shorts and therefore is a bimbo. This is not as editorial angle that a male politician is as likely to contend with, and to deny this is to be blind, deaf, and dumb.

But that doesn’t make it sexist. It isn’t Newsweek’s fault that there isn’t a male equivalent of Palin running around doing goofy photo shoots and saying idiotic things. If there was, and he was as big a media figure as Palin, I’m sure they’d be only too happy to have the opportunity to do a similar cover.

To be honest, the problem with the picture is that it actually isn’t ridiculous enough given the critical tone of the piece. There really is nothing wrong with the picture in an absolute sense. Meaning, it’s not a joke as a stand alone picture. It only becomes a joke given the context of being on Newsweek’s cover. Again, to deny this is be blind, deaf, and dumb.

I’d actually argue that the picture on its own is a joke, but even if Newsweek made it a joke, that still doesn’t make it sexist.

The picture’s main “crime” is that it highlights Palin’s physical attributes…which on the scale of 1-10 on the “why should I give a damn” meter, ranks about a 1.5. The paper deserves to be criticized for doing what it did.

What did it do?