I find the “context” argument completely unconvincing. The particular choice of image is not a comment on Palin’s gender (I mean really, you think Newseek is run by people with a misogynist agenda? get real), but a specific comment on her as an individual, and as a candidate. She only has two commodities to sell as a politician – her perpetual victimhood, and her ass. Shooting that magazine cover in the first place was a political choice to sell her ass. They wanted to get some sexed up images out there, and doing the cover of a running magazine was an excuse to put her in hot pants. Palin has chosen to sexualize herself as part of her political image. It is that specific choice by Palin as an individual which the Newseek cover is commenting on. The suggestion that they just hate women is too asinine to even merit a response. It’s just another example of how lousy the right wing is at trying to play the sexism card, because they don’t really know what the word means.
You all must be using some definition of sexism I just don’t understand. I just don’t understand how workout clothes that aren’t risque (on either Palin or Obama) are considered to play to sexual innuendos or stereotypes, or draw upon some other anti-female or anti-male bias. If someone can explain this to me, I’d be obliged.
ETA: maybe I just don’t find running attire to be scandalous. Honestly, I don’t see women running on the Mall here in DC with shorts, long sleeved shirts, and what looks like nylons, and think that they are sluts.
Who goes running in nylons?
If anyone dosent need any help in appearing superficial, its Sarah Palin.
Does Gov. Paterson have a book in the works?
Anyway, I’m no Palin fan but this is lame. The average reader will assume, seeing that cover, that that is how Palin chose to promote herself and her book in Newsweek. Rather than how she posed and was styled for a running magazine.
Do a Google image search for Newsweek. Very little flesh (except for three covers of very pregnant women, one of whom is completely naked). They chose these pics to make a statement. I’m shocked any photographers get to keep resale rights to their editorial work these days.
The average reader will know all about Palin’s performed outrage, and NOBODY poses for Newsweek covers. It’s a news magazine. They select all their covers from other sources. Why would anybody think Palin was an exception?
Question: what if the theme of the article is, in fact, that she’s a bimbo who has no place in public office? I haven’t read the article, but since the headline is basically: “Sarah Palin: National Poison” I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s its not a complimentary piece. If the article uses her words and ideas to demonstrate that she’s an intellectual lightweight who was only ever selected for the McCain ticket because she was a moderately attractive female, would it still be sexist to use that cover?
In other words, is it sexist to call a bimbo a bimbo?
“Decides to?” He already DID pose on the beach with a Speedo.
I think Palin is a certified moron and I don’t exactly agree with her politics. However, I ask myself - how likely, in any context, would a male politician be portrayed this way on the cover of a news magazine? Pretty unlikely. And plenty of pics are around of various male pols in things other than business suits.
On the other hand, it does make a comment about how unusual Palin was as a national candidate. She’s young enough (and attractive enough) to net a cover of a fitness magazine. She also chose to pose for said magazine. It might have hit the right notes for a governor of a small state (population- and national media attention-wise), but it probably isn’t the right tone for the second-in-line. I suppose the litmus test for me would be to see if Newsweek ever ran a picture of Arnie flexing when he ran for governor, or Reagan acting. Same kind of trajectory.
It was a different time for Reagan, at least. But Newsweek should know that if the intent was to defame or embarrass her, they essentially got a bunch of wingnuts to scratch out checks to SarahPAC. I do think her “base” is shrinking, but they’re getting more rabid.
Yeah, news magazine covers could be worse…
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1993/1101930712_400.jpg
What’s wrong with being sexy?
Thank you Sir, I was composing my own post, but I think you’ve pretty much covered it. As I don’t have access to the article, however I do suspect it talks alot about how her appeal is “empty” and based on some sort of bimbo image rather than serious and having substance behind it. Essentially that she is too frivolous to be good for the country.
If that is the case why wouldn’t you use a frivolous article to illustrate it?
How about Macho Man? Is this photo sexist? http://www.seeingtheforest.com/STFphotos/Bush-FlightSuit.jpg
The Palin photo is sexist.
The linked Obama photo, however, is clearly racist.
Click the link in post #10.
I almost choked on my rum.
I think Dio has explained it pretty well; certainly better than I would have done. I think this quote sums it up nicely as well:
Considering that that picture was one of several which was featured in the Runner’s World just this past August, and was also part of an online slideshow featuring the same set of pictures, it’s very obvious that this photo already existed, was not set-up by Newsweek, and they are simply reprinting an existing image since doing so contributes to the thrust of the article. They make their point in both words and pictures. That is effective communication.
BTW, is Sarah Palin ever not complaining?
That is not a newsmagazine.
No she isn’t and I believe would get along quite well with certain posters around who seem to exist only to criticize this place and its moderation.
She posed for it, obviously.
Photo editors tend to pick the most interesting photo, and apparently, that was it.
And as media-savvy as SP is, I’ll bet if she searched her heart she would be compelled to admit this was the best choice, even for her–because now she gets to complain about it, and get people talking about it, resulting in even more ink.
No such thing as bad publicity.