Apparently, they’ve come to the point that they can stand in very awkwardly posed photographs with ridiculously incongruent content, like wearing running attire and holding a blackberry while leaning on an American flag oddly draped over the back of a nearby chair but they can expect to be free from criticism for doing so because the critics will be smeared as sexist sex-freaks.
This is a poor thought experiment. Firstly because the pictures simply aren’t equivalent. Again, you’re ignoring the absurdity of the picture, which Hentor conveys well. Secondly, because JFK Jr. was neither a vice presidential candidate nor the holder of any public office. Thirdly, nobody, not even Newsweek, is saying that Palin’s being attractive is a bad thing. Fourthly, because it didn’t happen, and conjectures based on what might have happened to a man in a non-equivalent position who posed for a non-equivalent picture isn’t particularly instructive.
Frankly, the argument for sexism is becoming less coherent and more hysterical (and in itself sexist) the longer this conversation goes on.
Palin is the one putting herself out there painting herself in a sexual light; the photo in question is all the proof we need of that. Those arguing sexism are implicitly acknowledging that with statements like…
If Palin is putting herself out there in a manner that encourages people to gawk at her nice legs and beauty queen-looks, then she can’t complain when people do just that, notwithstanding the fact that no other politicians, male or female, are stupid enough to pose for the same type of photo.
And as Hentor points out, the picture is ridiculous enough for political satire. The image is utterly absurd and in the context of the Newsweek cover paints Palin as a preening buffoon.
The only ones bringing up Palin’s being a woman at all are those crying sexism and chastising anyone who could possibly see something sexual in the picture of the pageant queen posing in her short-shorts (while simultaneously claiming that the image is so obviously sexual that it was specifically chosen for that reason to discredit her) and Palin herself, who uses her sex as a shield against criticism.
Right. People like her because she’s “a breath of fresh air.” Since all she does is parrot back talking points and repeat the same thing over and over again (“How are you well versed in foreign policy?” “You can see Russia from my house!” “How does that affect your views of foreign policy?” “You can see Russia from my house!”), what else are they responding to? She’s the dumb hot bimbo cheerleader who gets elected president because guys want to ogle her.
If she really had something to say, she’d be doing that. Do you see Hillary or Michelle Obama or Condi Rice or any woman in the public eye who’s articulate and intelligent posing in short shorts? This is all she has, and I think it’s fair to call her out on it.
Again, why must the fact that some people want to put their penis inside her be what she’s being called out on, rather than her being an idiot? If she has been rewarded for her youth and beauty rather than her skill, than McCain and Republicans should be ashamed.
I am still trying to figure out where this leaves other female politcians of varying IQs, skill sets and attractiveness. How will they know when they are being too attractive? How will they know when they are being too dowdy? What if they see a colleague, male or female, who is generally considered attractive – should they warn them to tone it down, maybe get a facial tattoo? Which non-pornographic magazines should they and should they not be in? What if they are in Pulp & Paper Monthly in a muumuu but also giving ‘that look’ to the photographer and you’re desperate for a wank and you see the word ‘ream’ and it just… happens? Are they still using their feminine wiles to get what they want? Inquiring minds need to know.
It’s just the kind of thing she does.
Running for office, are we? 
You do realize that’s a fake, don’t you? Probably not, given the content of this thread. :rolleyes:
She is being called out on for being an idiot; the picture makes her look like a stereotypical beauty queen bimbo. The fact that she’s an idiot is the only reason the photo even works in this context; if Palin was smart (or even widely perceived as anything but an imbecile) then the attempt to paint her as a bimbo wouldn’t work regardless of how hot she is.
This attempt to portray female politicians and Palin in particular as naive and unwilling participants in a media that will unfairly sexualize everything they do is absurd and, in itself, sexist.
Believe me, I am far too young and hot, plus I’ve had my picture taken. Several times. And in shorts. I am surly as all get out, but I’m sure someone somewhere would interpret that as playing coy.
You know, “young, hot chick who isn’t a porn star” would be a totally new dynamic in the electoral-candidate field. I think we may be on to something here.
Wait, you’re not a porn star, right? 'Cause that’s been done.
But there are pictures of Condi Rice in work out clothes. They’re not super airbrushed photos with her wearing tights and short shorts on Runner’s World, though. And despite the criticism you could level at Condi Rice, none of them involve the fact that she got where she did because of looks or sexuality. It’s Sarah Palin’s own fault that she’s being put in this position. I just think there are women who are way more worthwhile to defend. She’s just a bimbo.
Well, again, I say why not call out both McCain and the GOP and Palin? Palin’s not some babe in the woods here. She’s not some naive 18 year old secretary who’s been thrust against her will into the limelight because of her looks. She knows damn well why she’s well known. Why can’t we make fun of people who are too stupid to be interviewed/be in politics? People did it with Dan Quayle. I don’t see why just because the GOP was wrong to promote Sarah Palin, we can’t criticize her for trying to promote herself on the basis of looks. We can either pretend that the system of valuing looks above substance is okay or we can take a stand.
I don’t think it’s a question of being too attractive. When you go around posing for cutesy photos and winking and on top of that you’re dumber than a box of bricks, isn’t it fair to assume that you’re just a bimbo? If Hillary were very young, attractive, and had been trying desperately to use her looks to get into the limelight despite being completely politics illiterate, then I’d say that taking a similar photo of her and putting it on Newsweek would be fine. But let’s face it–aren’t most of the other women who have something else to offer smart enough not to pose for Runners World?
People on these very boards are objecting to the Runners World photo because it’s inappropriate for Newsweek. If you guys are saying it’s sexy, aren’t you admitting that she’s being shown as a sex object? Scenario one: it’s not a sexy photo and people are just assuming it is because she has the misfortune of being a hot woman, in which case why is it sexist? Scenario two: it is a sexy photo that makes her look like a mindless bimbo. It’s her own fault for posing for Runner’s World and making herself look sexy when she should be portraying herself as a serious politician. Which is it?
And it’s not like Sarah Palin’s upset about this. You know she loves this attention. Other than looking cute, what else does she have to say? Her ability to field dress a moose only gets her so far.
I don’t think she’s being shown as a sex object. I just don’t think the image fits with the article or the cover blurb, and I ascribe that to sexism.
You describe your opponents in this thread as raising hysterical arguments and then accuse us of being sexist? That’s one more strike against your side’s credibility.
And I’m still waiting for you to list the ways that Palin has used to market herself in a sexual manner. Seems to me that if your defense for why Palin is portrayed differently than her evil twin brother (Bush) rests entire upon that allegation, you should get around to supporting it already. And preferably before Thanksgiving of 2029.
She fucking winked at us. Who winks during a debate?
Bush did it all the time. How come I’m like the only person who seems to remember this all of the sudden? He even winked at the Queen of England, for crying out loud. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s winking at someone just this second.
Go page a few pages. I posted four links of him winking. Now if you consider how long a standard wink lasts and the difficulties of snapping a picture just at the precise moment when someone does it, it becomes clear that Bush must be a winking phenom.
That yall can’t remember this just underscores my point.
I don’t remember Bush winking during any Presidential debates.
I don’t recall Bush winking during debates, and Bush winking at the queen is totally creepy. So what? Sarah winking at us during a debate is not flirting with the audience because Bush winked at the queen and creeped everyone out?
So far the only real arguments for the Newsweek being sexist are the totally incoherent argument that Palin does not present herself in a sexual manner (rather this is foisted upon her by a lecherous public) and that the magazine cover unfairly draws attention to her attractiveness (which it somehow does even though Palin didn’t do that in the first place, despite posing for the picture), which is a bad thing because Newsweek hates attractive women, and Sinaijon’s completely loopy argument that we’re raping Sarah Palin with magazine covers and then saying she asked for it, or whatever.
Other posters have already pointed out her flirtatious affectations in inappropriate venues (the debates), but this can pretty much be expanded to all of her public appearances. This behavior is inherently difficult to describe, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. What Diogenes and other posters have said is true; it is often the case that people simply know that they are being flirted with, even if specific descriptions of what happened sound silly or inconclusive.
And again, I don’t think it’s particularly necessary or relevant to talk about how Palin has marketed herself outside of this cover in this instance. There’s a reason that we’re having this discussion about Palin and not Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice.
Is Bush was accused of flirting and using sex to get his way when he winked. No, because he’s not a woman. That’s my point.
And look, it’s cool if you can’t remember whether Bush winked during the debate. But googlingis really easy to do if you have any doubts it. I assure you Bush was not above winking at the masses.