How is it sexist? Please explain.
Here are some defintions of “sexism” pulled off a Google definition search:
In what way does the photo on Newsweek express or endorse a point of view matching any of these definitions?
Actually, the picture sums the problem up perfectly. Palin is indeed attractive and beguiling, but she’s soooo fucked up that while Americans might pursue her as some hottie who they assume will solve their problems, they get burned when instead she multiples them.
And yet they keep going back to her! Heck, even I, a Canadian, finds her appealing on some level, even if I’d never seen a photo of her - a female politician who climbed the ladder to run the last frontier state sounds almost ideal, a pragmatic leader with a fresh perspective, hardened by a tough environment, with no time or patience for nonsense. In the early days, I even looked more favourably on McCain for choosing her, showing an ability to do the unexpected and interesting in what was otherwise a dull campaign. All of which made it the disappointment greater when she actually started talking and didn’t have any of the qualities I’d imagined for her.
Sexist? Sure, maybe. Accurate? Absolutely.
As usual twisted thinking. Kennedy graduated Columbia Law School. She cowrote 2 books on civil liberties. And then when suggested for Hillary’s vacant senate seat, withdrew from consideration. If only Palin had the sense to refuse the VP opportunity, she wouldn’t have degraded the Republicaln party so much.
This comes off to me an awful lot like blaming the victim. “She’s such a slut–she was asking for it.”
Can you find another cover **from Newsweek or a comparable news magazine that shows an article about a male politician and has a similar photo? (I.e., the article is about his politics, but the photo is unrelated and its relevance never discussed in the article?)
Well put.
Scrupulously surpressed, no. Used as the cover photo to go along with an article in a reasonably reputable news magazine about his politics, also no. And I wouldn’t put it past Fox or comparable right-wing media to use the photo that way, but I also wouldn’t put it past an incontinent old woman to piss her pants. That doesn’t mean that pants-pissing is now socially acceptable.
Hi. Me. Over here. One of those posting in the thread whom you’ve been so conveniently ignoring. I’m very, very liberal, I would like few things better than to punch Ms. Palin in the face until she realizes what a fucking retard she is, and I think it’s sexist.
I don’t think that they have a sexist agenda. I **do **think that there is a lot of “stealth” sexism in this country–the insidious kind that people don’t see because it’s so built into our culture. When a major publication uses a photo of a female political figure in a way that they’d never use a similar photo of a male political figure, that’s sexism.
To clarify my position: if the photograph were somehow referenced in the article, such that it were relevant to the point the Newsweek journalist was trying to make, it would not be sexist. That point could even be, “Sarah Palin plays off her looks instead of actually addressing issues.” But if such a point is not made, the photo has no reason to be associated with the article.*
*Note: I have not read the article in question, so if anyone can bring up a cite from it that shows the photo is directly relevant, i.e., it supports a point being made in the article, I’ll retract my position that it’s sexist.
I think it was a deliberate ploy to portray her in an unflattering light.
Diogenes is right on. First, from this point on, anyone who wants to call this photo sexist must state what definition of sexist they are using. To me, this seems almost like a perfect inversion of the incident in Spinal Tap.
Secondly, for those of you arguing context, please explain why Sarah Palin would be featured in Runner’s World. Is she particularly expert in running? If she hadn’t appeared in Runner’s World, I don’t think I would have ever thought of running and Sarah Palin together in the same sentence. I don’t recall hearing much about her running, trying to run, being photographed while running, etc., during the campaign.
So, unless she has some unique contribution to a discussion on running, I can only regard her appearance in the magazine as a calculated attempt to play upon her physical appearance. I see that as manupulative and self-promoting and iconic of the entirety of her presence on the national stage since John McCain first uttered her name. Thus, it’s a perfectly legitimate picture to sum up an article of the type that I understand the Newsweek article to be.
She’s a victim of what? She was asking for what? I’m blaming her for what? What happened to her?
Can you find a male politician who has intentionally posed in a beefcake photo on the cover of a magazine to sex up his image? Unless you can, then the question is not valid. That pictire of Palin was not taken through a window. She posed for it. The fact that she posed for it is what makes it newsworthy.
Great. Please explain how. What about the photo expresses or endorses a point of view that women are inferior to men?
Two things:
-
Lots of news organizations DID run the pics of Obama in swim trunks and no one called it “sexist.”
-
No male politician has intentionally posed for a photo comparable to the Palin cheesecake shot. If they did, you can bet your ass newsmagazines would run it.
It’s not very long, but it does contain this one reference to the cover photo:
Like it or not, Palin’s sexuality is something that she herself has chosen to exploit as part of her political image, and that in itself is fair game to comment on. The cover is not a statement about her sexuality per se, but her deliberate USE of it. That is an undeniable part of how she tries to sell herself, and it’s not sexist to recognize it.
JFK used his “hunkability” factor too, and that would have also been fair game to comment on.
How is it unflattering? Amusing, yes. But unflattering? Eh, not so much. She looks healthy and vibrant. Doesn’t say much about her intelligence, but how many cover shots do that? In the days during which we’re focusing on the high rate of obesity and American over-indulgence, perhaps she should embrace the image *Newsweek *is selling… and run with it. 
I’ll give Palin the sexist cover accusation if she will accept the accusation that she is a vapid, hate mongering idiot.
Is she worried that the sexualized cover will make people take her less seriously? Because if that’s the case I got some news for ya, Sarah.
Uh - yeah. Basically what I’ve asked for twice already. I realize that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but . . .
I have this strong recollection of a jogging photo on the cover of a news magazine circa 1980 - maybe discussing John Anderson’s candidacy? I can’t find anything through google to help me confirm this vague recollection.
The photo is fair game, IMHO. The original intention of the photo was clearly designed to (a) emphasize her youthfulness and general physical attractiveness, and (b) play up her jingoistic temperament and patriotic character. Dio makes a good point that, unlike Bill Clinton or W, she’s never been associated with physical fitness as a part of her daily routine, so the photo (while not immodest or “cheesecake”) seems even more transparently designed to play up her more glamourous and vigorous attributes. It’s not a candid, fly-on-the-wall shot; it’s posed and stagecrafted meticulously.
Now, plenty of conservatives love her. But these superficial qualities (style over substance, empty-headed nationalism over informed policy-making) also drive some conservatives nuts, since they’re a formula that may spell out the spiritual death of the GOP, at least through the next few election cycles. And this photo exemplifies these tendencies perfectly. She is a former beauty queen who is self-conscious of her image to the point that she’s barely ever willing to engage with journalists or media gauntlets that are not of her political stripe. I couldn’t put it better myself–
The accusations about context aren’t looking at the Big Picture–within the trajectory of her political fortunes, there is a genuine argument to be made that this picture embodies everything Sarah Palin is and stands for. Just because it’s not what she intended doesn’t mean it can’t be interpreted in that larger framework. I haven’t read the article–maybe it’s fair and maybe it’s a hit piece. But either way, it’s well within the right of the editorial arm of the magazine to assert a viewpoint, and that’s exactly what they’ve done. She doesn’t have to like it, but the queen of self-promotion is a hypocrite if she really does take umbrage at it.
Hey - appreciate the shout out for the first presidential candidate I ever voted for!
Would be interested in seeing the shot - as well as hearing whether the silver-haired independent viewed it as anything other than welcome pub.
Not sexist. The photo is fair game. Politics is a rough business. The only thing I object to is that it’s keeping Palin squarely in the public eye, when she should have been totally forgotten months ago.
I can’t say whether the photo was in Newsweek or not, but I know for a fact that George Bush had little presidential seals on his biking socks and rode a Trek Fuel 98.
Much as I despise the guy, I suspect he was likely the fittest president we’ve ever had. Ran several marathons substantially under 4 hours.
The post I was replying to seemed to take the position, “She has chosen to portray herself in a sexualized way, so she can’t complain when she is portrayed in a sexualized way even in combination with an unrelated, serious article.” To me, that’s edging uncomfortably close to, “She was wearing a low-cut top and a tiny skirt and high heels in this neighborhood and walking alone, plus she totally fucked my friend, so I know she wanted it.”
Only if they actually comment on the photo. If it is offered without comment to make it relevant, it’s sexist.
It’s portraying a female politician differently from how a male politician would be or has been treated in the same context. It’s using her physical appearance to draw readers into an article that has nothing to do with how she portrays herself. And, potentially, it’s obliquely discounting her for using sex to sell her politics, instead of discounting her politics on their own merits (or rather, lack thereof).
Show me a news magazine, newspaper, or television news program that juxtaposed an Obama swim trunks photo with a story about, say, his visit to China, and I’ll agree that it’s entirely inappropriate.
Can you find me an article from a news magazine that has a cover photo (or even an article photo) of Schwarzenegger half-nude and oiled up juxtaposed with a discussion of his policies?
I just read the article (thank you for the link). Aside from the parenthetical, there is no mention of the photo or how it relates to “How Sarah Palin Hurts the GOP and the Country.” In fact, very little of the article is about Palin, per se. It’s about the dangers of polarization, across the board. The cover image has literally nothing to do with the article’s subject matter–it’s eye candy. It’s a female politician (albeit a morinic, incompetent one) being used in a sexualized way to draw in readers, in a way that I’ve never seen a male politician used for a similar article in a similar medium. If the article were about how Palin uses sex to sell herself, I would 100% agree that it’s not sexist. But in an article about the dangers of political extremism, a photo of her in running clothes does nothing to exemplify that.
As I have said, it is not sexist to recognize it… if you recognize it. They are not recognizing it. They are making no overt statement or commentary on Palin’s use of her own attractiveness to push her agenda.
If Palin looked like Debbie Stabenow or Olympia Snowe, she wouldn’t have been picked for VP and none of us would have heard of her. McCain should have been checking out her brain instead of her tush.
She poses for a photo and whines about it being published. She goes on television more than the Shamwow guy and then whines about the media not leaving her alone. She uses her kids as campaign props and whines when the media mentions them. Can’t we just push her off on an ice floe?
In what sense has Palin sexualized her image, Dio? She dressed well - too well, as it turns out - on the campaign trail, but I don’t recall her ever having engaged in any activity I’d call sexy.
I mean, she’s got a bunch of kids, so you know she puts out, but other than that…
You can call Palin out for any number of idiocies both grand and minor, but other than being somewhat attractive - for which I’m disinclined to blame her personally - I don’t see what’s sexualized about her.
Well, there was this.