On the cover of this week's issue of Newsweek is a photo that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner's World, in which Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly "I'm a Runner" back page. Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission.One more thing--I think if you're really concerned about equality, be that gender, ethnic, religious whatever, you have to come terms with the fact that this means equality even for individuals you don't much like. It means equality for people who you feel consciously exploit inequality for their own individual gain.
You don't get to infer that Juan Williams is a porch monkey because you disagree with him. You don't get to objectify Sarah Palin because you think she's an awful person. Not if you expect people to take your concerns seriously. I said this already, but it bears repeating--a principle applied only to people you like, mocks that principal. We don't raise these questions about gender for Sarah Palin's benefit--we do it for our own.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
You don't get to objectify Sarah Palin because you think she's an awful person.
But that's clearly not what's happening. There are lots of people we don't like. Michelle Bachmann. Glenn Beck. Rush Limbaugh. Lots of other people, men and women. They aren't being objectified. It's only Palin. And it doesn't have to do with her gender. It has to do with *Sarah Palin*.
I don't want to keep beating this same drum over and over because it'll probably get annoying, but I feel you're being a little unfair here, TNC.
Well that's exactly what's happening she's being objectified, and we're fine with it because we don't think she has much to offer. I can't cosign to that. You may disagree, but how is that unfair?
Because you are misidentifying *why* she's being objectified in that photo.
It's not because she's an awful person. It's because in the opinion of Newsweek she's an object. She's an empty vessel. That's not true of Michelle Bachmann. Or Condi Rice. Or lots of other conservative women. It's true of Sarah Palin, and they are going after Sarah Palin on that issue.
You may find that very sentiment offensive, but its not the photo which is the problem. There are lots of awful people, but being awful isn't what earns objectification. It's being an empty vessel who cares too much about appearances which earns it for you.
I think you're missing the real thrust of the insult, and thus mischaracterizing the motivations of the people who are insulting her.
Sorry, I was unclear. I'm not saying they're doing it because she's an awful person, I'm saying we're comfortable with it because she's an awful person.
Politics is filled with empty vessels--men and women. I don't think we've advanced far enough where we can mock women, for being empty, based on their looks. Again, the history should warn us away.
Sorry, I was unclear. I'm not saying they're doing it because she's an awful person, I'm saying we're comfortable with it because she's an awful person.
Ah. I'll grant that then.
I am curious, though, in what manner we are supposed to criticize people who actually are political 'objects'. If the point of Newsweek is to say "Sarah Palin is a superficially attractive person who only cares about her national appearance and is totally empty and worthless on the inside."
I don't really know how you make that point without being accused of sexism. Same thing with Prejean. When your political opponents trot out beauty queens to be mouthpieces for their ideology, I'm not sure how you push back at that without being accused of sexism in one way or another.
It's something I need to think about more.
Being an empty vessel is not the same as being a hot chick. You're eqating hotness with vacuousness.
What would you say about a man who's all style and no substance? I've never seen a photo that focused on a male politician's legs. It's not like Palin doesn't offer plenty of material!
Being an empty vessel is not the same as being a hot chick. You're eqating hotness with vacuousness.
In the case of Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean, though, that is the case. That's my point. These are specific circumstances. You are generalizing it out to all women, when I don't see that as warranted.
Part of how Sarah Palin sells herself is her physicality - starbursts and winking. It's not a random attack.
Persia
Do you not think that the pictures of Kerry wind surfing were at leas a little about how goofy his chicken legs look?
@Persia:
"What would you say about a man who's all style and no substance?" I would call such a man an empty suit. Now that I think about it, that's too good a phrase to save for men only. It fits Palin, who might well be the Platonic ideal of the empty suit.
The photo is a cheap shot, though. Newsweek should have known better.
There are plenty of unflattering photos of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Neither of them posed in work-out clothes with an improperly cared-for American flag next to them. Because neither of them are that self-absorbed or frivolous. They understand that they're public figures and need to maintain a public image. If this is the image Palin wants to maintain, why is it off-limits to show it?
I don't think she's being objectified. I think she's being stupid. That's her fault. I don't really find your "objectification" argument very compelling. She uses her special-needs baby as a talking point, but family is off-limits? She can use the flag as a prop, but she can accuse people of being crypto-fascists? She can pose for a photo (which she doesn't get ownership of) and its owners can't use it? I'm not seeing how it's unfair.
It's like complaining about the objectification of models - it's entirely compelling as a structural critique of society, but disregards the agency of the models themselves.
Here's what Palin told Runner's World about how she looks when she runs:
There's simply no way to square that with this glamorous photo shoot. It's not as if she invited Runner's World along for a jog, to take candid photos of a real woman exemplifying a healthy lifestyle. The photos were glamour shots - heavy makeup, carefully articulated poses, a selected wardrobe, staged scenery, and the works. There isn't a single bead of sweat on her brow. They bear no relation, by Palin's own account, to the way she looks while she's actually running. (I'm reminded of 1950s ads for housegoods, with perfectly coiffed wives wearing strings of pearls as they vacuum.) Compare this to Obama's emphasis on his own athleticism during the campaign. His team repeatedly invited photographers to snap shots of the candidate playing basketball. But they didn't go for a Tom Brady-style glamour shoot with Annie Liebovitz, with an athletically-attired senator cuddling a basketball. He looks fantastic with his shirt off, but the beach photos that appeared during the campaign were snapped by papparazzi, over his vociferous objections.The most charitable reading I can offer of this photo shoot is that Palin was deliberately and subversively exploiting our society's objectification of women, in a sly structural critique of sexism. But there's nothing in her statements or public speeches to suggest such a view.
The cover raises hackles because it portrays Palin as an object, not a politician. But Palin herself has embraced that role. Gisele Bundchen doesn't get to complain about the objectification of her image; neither does Sarah Palin. I respect and sympathize with those readers who are horrified by Newsweek's choice, but would suggest that they direct their ire at Palin, instead. The systemic critique of objectification is entirely compelling, but to ignore Palin's own agency in crafting her public image is to miss the point. Objectification is wrong, and Palin is wrong to exploit it for political gain.
"The cover raises hackles because it portrays Palin as an object, not a politician. But Palin herself has embraced that role."
I'm a woman and I'm a feminist and I agree with this 100%. It seems to me that Palin has objectified herself because she has nothing else to offer other than her good looks and she knows it. In the world of actual political ideas she's empty. But she has her legs. She has her ass. And she will flaunt both until she gets what she wants. She is using her power -- her attractiveness -- to its greatest advantage and it's working. She's on the cover of Newsweek! She's being talked about in all manners of media! We are comparing her to actual politicians, but she is not a politician. She willfully gave up that role when she resigned from office. She's a self-sustaining PR machine and clearly a very successful one. She should be compared to other celebrities, and in that comparison, she's no more objectified (self-objectifying or otherwise) than any other attractive woman who has put herself in the limelight.
Sarah Palin has control over how she is portrayed in ways that most models don't. Was she 'dressed' for this shot? I doubt it. She chose that setup, I bet. Was she asked which shot should be used for the cover? Probably. The woman is savvy. She has agreements with the press and she has contractual restrictions. She is controlling her image and though it might upset some of us that she is presenting herself as a sex object, that is how she is choosing to present herself. In fact, we can say that she is contributing to the objectification of women by presenting herself this way, and in this way be critiqued. She isn't an exploited teenager. She's a businesswoman who is making a mint off of all of this press.
DamnYankees,
I think you're onto something. I'm still not down with how Newsweek went about this, but the point remains that Sarah Palin is pretty much an empty vessel. It's objectifying her AS A WOMAN that frustrates me.
One other thing, I'm going to assume that you're a dude, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that. This cover very clearly bothers a lot of smart women--they're in the thread below us. I think, sometimes, it's worth understanding that everything doesn't translate.
I know this as a black person--there's certain pain that I can't communicate to most white people, as much as I've tried. Sometimes it's worth just taking the point, and understanding that people walking in those shoes may be seeing things that we aren't.
I'm a guy, yes. But I've participated in other discussions on this in other boards, and there are lots of women who also find the cover not sexist.
I'm very open to taking the point - I did so in the thread below a bit about the different nature of men and women's view of themselves. But I like to discuss and argue! If I didn't I wouldn't be here. :)
And argue on. I'm not trying to shut down debate.
I had to read half of this thread just to see what the big deal was.
I am a smart woman (I'm not self-promoting, just qualifying based on the previous post), and I don't see much of a problem with the photo. If Runner's World can use a similar photo (they shot it, anyway), I think it's fine that Newsweek did. Maybe it wasn't the most tasteful approach, but as a woman I'm not offended by it.
However, I am bothered by the fact that she's going out for a run (supposedly) and has her hair all done-up. Who does that? For the record, at this moment I'm glad I no longer have a subscription to Runner's World.
Adding to Angie's point regarding magazine subscriptions, I have been on the fence about Newsweek since the relentless Sarah Palin series last year where subscribers wrote to the magazine to demand she not be on another cover.
Someone at Newsweek has a Sarah fetish. That person needs to ask Sarah for a date (or whatever) and leave the rest of us out of it. Today, I decided I will not renew my Newsweek subscription because I am tired of sharing dreams of Sarah that belong to someone else.
If Barack Obama, or another male politician were foolish enough to pose in a Charles Atlas or Superman pose next to a flag, do you not think we would use it against them? Her pose is the female equivalent.
Ta-Nehisi, thanks for this post. It's entirely 100% true that feminism/womanism are about embracing equality (including equal treatment and portrayal by the media) of all women, whether or not they feel like granting that right to others and no matter how reprehensible we might find their personal politics.
As a woman and a very very left democrat, I find it incredibly sad how frequently I have to fight my supposed allies who believe (apparently) that it's ok to make sexist comments or embrace sexist tropes if it's about someone I disagree with. This is a standard way of shaming, silencing and demeaning women. It is against everything progressives are supposed to stand for.
I see these kinds of things all the time, and I'm glad that someone else sees it too. Because we ultimately lose sight of the issues, discourse gets dirty, and everyone loses.
Point taken, TNC, but also allow that your comparison (in a previous post) to Quayle and Edwards is flawed for one simple reason: neither of those men had the poor judgment to do a photo shoot that gave the world pretty compromising and ridiculous photos.
No one is ganging up on her because she's a woman. No one is attacking her because she's stubbornly (and cartoonishly) rural and "Real American"-y. They're attacking her because she's demonstrably a fame- and attention-seeking proto-addict.
She's no different than Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears misbehaving; if you're going to go out with no underpants on, someone's going to get a shot of that and someone's going to post it. I take that back, actually. There's one and only one difference. Sarah Palin chose politics instead of entertainment as her platform for fame and attention.
The lesson here isn't about tolerance: it's about temperance. Don't do stupid and frivolous photo shoots if you want to be taken seriously in the world of politics. Or, you know, in general. Politicians lead such buttoned-up lives for a reason. It's not because they're stuffy old white men. It's because mis-steps become cannon fodder.
Dukakis in the tank. Plenty of politicians have done dumb photo shoots.
I also thought about this. It's always open season on women like Spears and Lohan. I understand that from a feminist (or feminine) point of view, there is an important difference between female politicians and female popstars. Still, the question remains when and why legs are off-limits. A lot of commenters think they are ok in a Runner's Magazine but a cheap shot on the cover of Newsweek. That point implies that legs are ok as long as the context is somewhat natural and/or the women agrees with it. The former view does not convince me, I thought that photo series was very strange when I first saw it (aprox. one year ago). The latter view probably represents the consensus: The woman decides. I'm fine with that. However, I suspect that it won't eradicate what we call sexism.
neither of those men had the poor judgment to do a photo shoot that gave the world pretty compromising and ridiculous photos.
I don't see how this was a terrible idea for her -- the photo is unfortunate because of the juxtoposition of the flag. But props like that are usually the photographer's call. Otherwise, in a running magazine, the photo is non-controversial, certainly not compromising and ridiculous. And I'd think practically any pol would be happy to do a feature emphasizing their athleticism and love of healthy living.
Still, the question remains when and why legs are off-limits. A lot of commenters think they are ok in a Runner's Magazine but a cheap shot on the cover of Newsweek. That point implies that legs are ok as long as the context is somewhat natural and/or the women agrees with it. The former view does not convince me, I thought that photo series was very strange when I first saw it (aprox. one year ago).
Of course context is everything, for goodness' sake. We don't expect Obama to wear a three-piece suit to go to the beach in Hawaii, and if you're doing a shoot in a runner's magazine, it is to be expected that they're going to photograph you in running gear. I don't think it's the mere fact that she's wearing shorts that's scandalous. But Newsweek is using it as an illustration for a piece whose theme and title is "Sarah Palin is a big problem." The photo is intended to illustrate that theme by making her appear vapid and bimbo-ish. If Newsweek chose to illustrate a cover on why Arnold's egotism was destroying the California GOP with a seemingly contemporary shot of him posing before a mirror in his bodybuilding days, it'd be the same cheap shot.
@C.
Just to clarify. I didn't defend the Newsweek cover, I just said that the photo series seemed strange to me, but I can easily accept another opinion on this.
You're wrong about Arnold. The guy is constantly using weak bodybuilding analogies to describe everything that happens in California politics. And he's as vacuous as Palin. He has created his own aura of unseriousness. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer don't get insulted because they don't insult the offices that they hold. Palin and Arnold, on the other hand...
You're wrong about Arnold. The guy is constantly using weak bodybuilding analogies to describe everything that happens in California politics. And he's as vacuous as Palin.
He may be, but it wouldn't be a cheap shot because he is in fact serious, it'd be a cheap shot because they were using an image which is appropriate in one context, and placing it in another, implying that the image was taken for different reasons than it was. If you took a photo of my laughing poolside during my honeymoon, and used it to illustrate a story whose theme was whether I was ready to take over a company, that would also be the same kind of cheap shot. At least, that's my take.
"The lesson here isn't about tolerance: it's about temperance. Don't do stupid and frivolous photo shoots if you want to be taken seriously in the world of politics. Or, you know, in general."
I'd love to hear your take on politicians visiting The Tonight Show or David Letterman.
I do want to say I hate arguing with you, TNC! I'm a white, Jewish guy with a completely different upbringing than you, but I find myself agreeing with you so, so often. On these rare occassions when I disagree, I genuinely do look inward to see where the break is coming from. Maybe it's just me being here in Greenwich Village and you being way uptown - different worlds!
Oh it's fine. This should be a place for us lefties--and the occasional righty--to hash out what we actually think. The clash is essential to that. Gotta lock swords, man. How else do we know who we are? Again, I wasn't trying to kill the debate. But I do think that sometimes, it's worth recognizing the limits of our experience. This may not be one of those times, you're free to reject that notion. I just was putting it out there.
My spouse is the smartest woman I've ever met. She hates Palin, and thinks that she brought this on herself. But she's also really bothered by the cover. I have to think about that. I can't just dismiss it because I don't see the sexism. (And, again, as I said in the first post, I don't.)
I put this in the last post, but in case it's gotten buried, Media Matters did a very good exigesis on Newsweek's Palin illustrations and why it's an incredibly regressive way to depict high-profile women:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911170027
Just kicked this up. Nice catch.
As an active duty member of the Air Force, I was bothered by Mrs Palin posing with the flag. Newsweek using any of the other photos in that shoot (thank you for providing the link) and we would have the same discussion. However, her use of the flag, IMO, is a political statement. If Pres Obama, Sec Clinton or any other political figure did the same thing, they should get the same scrutiny. Unfortunately, it's unclear if Newsweek got "lucky" in their choice of pics as they gave a lame explanation.
Yeah. I'm not typically one to get upset about flags and flagpins, but it seemed like such a cheap show of patriotism. And honestly, she has a son in the military. She doesn't need a flag on draped carelessly on a chair.
This isn't about her gender. This is about serious vs. unserious people. Unserious depictions of women do not equal sexism, especially when the person being depicted is silly.
She lives her life attacking 19 year old former boyfriends of her daughter, making false claims about her former running mate and his staff, and having tween autobiographies ghostwritten for her. She deserves a silly picture on an attack piece in Newsweek.
The actual shot used in Runner's World is one I can see dozens of sitting politicians or serious business professionals doing. It seems very in line with that whole "we must promote healthy living for our citizens, especially young people" vibe. I could easily see GWB doing something like it, especially before being president.
The photo of her by the flag is kind of awful, but I doubt she was providing the artistic guidance. It seems very unfair to take a fitness shot and use it to make a point about how unfit for office she is.
I'll say it again: the winking shot. In the debate. Use that one and no one can cry sexism, because she pulled that starburst move in a serious political forum.
They took a photo of her being non-political (promoting jogging) and put it in a political context. They seem to have been hunting for a shot of her being as sexy and unserious as possible, which this meets--because you can see her legs in exercise wear, and because she was talking about exercise to an exercise magazine. It's something I can see Newsweek trying on Bachmann or Pelosi for a similar "is this gal serious? No!" story, and it would be sexist. I don't see them doing the same to a male politician to demonstrate that he must be unserious.
I still can't believe she winked in that debate.
You are correct in saying that they do not use photos of male politicains at their most attractive and sexy to make them look unserious. They use pictures of them being goofy for that purpose.
A sexy man is virile and heroic, a sexy woman is vapid and ditzy.
A picture of her winking at the debate would have served the editors better. But no one is perfect.
But this woman is vapid and ditsy. That's the problem.
They took a photo of her being non-political (promoting jogging) and put it in a political context.
This.
Absolutly nothing one does during a campaign is non-political. She did the spread for the running magazine in the context of a political campaign thinking it would help her politically. The flag and the timing make this a political statement from her. It was not as big a political error Dukakis in that CVC helmet, but it is just as much a political photo op.
As others have noted, this was after the campaign was over.
@ Persia
I was in error about the timing. That is my faulty memory.
But any politician who wishes to persue office at any point in the future wether male or female would do well not to pose for beffcake or pin-up photos next to a crumpled flag.
Nail. Head.
When the Newsweek cover first surfaced, I recall some talking head attempting to compare it with an old Life cover with Walter Conkrite on his sailboat. I doubt that the accompanying story was about him being a "problem" for CBS and network news, though.
I also doubt that--had Palin herself been consulted--she would've ok'd Newsweek's use of the photo. As much as I hate defending her, this is lousy journalism on Newsweek's part. I can't see how she's being blamed for taking the photos when they were CLEARLY for a magazine of a different type.
All that said, I stand by my assertion that she wrote her first draft in red, white and blue crayons.
ack. Cronkite. Me Grimlock get tripped up by that always.
I have no doubt in my mind that Palin, given the option, might very well have chosen that photo for the cover. She has tight control over her image and the sex object thing pays. I still don't see this comparison between Palin and politicians. She's not a politician anymore, she's a PR machine like any other celebrity. The world of celebrity is driven by attractiveness. She is making her millions off of her looks which is exactly what she wants to do. She won't let reporters in to hear her speeches, but she'll let them photograph her in running shorts. If she wanted to stay in politics she would have stayed governor. If I were to predict her future, I'd expect her to be a host of a TV show or something else high-profile and looks-centric in the next decade.
She may not consider herself a politician anymore, but she (and an alarming amount of the GOP)definitely considers herself a political activist. And I'm guessing that anyone who fashions herself as such would not be thrilled with that cover.
ITA with the rest of your post, though.
I think that we have to be very careful here about generalizing and losing sght of the particularity and context of this matter. With the very deliberate choice/use of Palin (remember that John Mc needed to sure up the base elements in the party), as the anti-Hillary, the culturally conservative right has begun to co-opt the rhetoric of feminism, which they abhor as the un-American anti-family lesbian/too-ugly-to get a man and so angry/bitter women's agenda, please look into some of the 700 Club and or the Family Research Council, for some context. And if we except their bizarro world use of the language as being the same as the progessive use of the language than we will find ourselves being coopted into their politics. Just think of their use of civil rights language to dismantle programs like affirmative action.
The culturally conservative right includes millions of working mothers. It's our national reality now. The continued assumption that anyone with R after their name thinks women belong in the kitchen does not serve liberals/progressives/Democrats well.
Deb, as I specifically said this wasn't about all Republicans it was about a particular group of R-epublicans of which Palin is one, so I'm not sure if you are responding to my comment or just taking off on a different point.
Plenty of conservative women also think that women 'belong in the kitchen'. Remember the anti-suffragettes? Legions of women protested to keep women out of the voting booth.
Are you trying to say that all "liberal" women don't like to cook and keep a clean house? It must be all take-out and maid service for the Democrat women. (too literal?)
Anti-suffragettes? From the turn of the (last) century? Come on! Really?
How is that relevant today? I'm trying to grasp your point but I think that connection is reaching a bit. Just a bit.
smilly124, did I say ALL conservative women? No. I used the anti-suffragettes as an example of the fact that there have been, and still are, plenty of women who are against women having rights, and you can define 'rights' as having the right to run for governor, receive equal pay for equal work, or have control over their reproductive health, etc. Does this mean that ALL conservative women are like this? No. Just as not ALL 'liberal' women abhor cleaning or housework. As a progressive, liberal woman I've never had a maid and I love to cook. But that's not the point. There are many, many conservative women who love Sarah Palin. They love her for a bunch of different reasons. They love that she's promotes 'traditional' values (whatever the hell that means). They love that she's a mom. They love that she's sexy. They love that she's got power. They love that liberals hate her. There are probably several hundred other reasons beyond these. Just as there are many, many reasons why some liberals don't like her. I can name a dozen myself.
Kate,
Sorry about the sarcasm. Just trying to stir the pot a little.
Don't take it personally.
I 'm not a big fan of Palin, either. I think a lot of her following has to do with the same "hero worhship syndrome" that swept a good number of people into voting for Obama, just in the GOP.
I follow the "what-have-you-actually-accomplished" not the "you-can-charm-people-so-I'll-like-you-too" line of thinking.
What is being done to palin here is no different than what publishers did to Kerry when they showed him in his hunting gear or wind surfing, or Dukakis in a CVC helmet (an embarasing picture that I am sure he regrets posing for more than Palin does this one). It is picking the shot that portrays a political person in the least flattering way. If it is unfair to use her appearance against her, it is unfair to use their appearance against them.
All politicians must avoid looking like lightweights. For men this means not looking goofy and for women not packaging themselves as eye candy.
If you do not want to be portrayed in way that plays up your sexauality then do not use it to answer questions in a debate. Using your sexuality in the package of cute smile and a wink in lieu of an answer will undercut your future claims that others using your your gender unfairly.
A person's political opinons should not affect our outrage when people use their sexuality against them but how they use it themselves cannot help but. I have seen attacks and pictures of Palin that were clearly wrong. MSNBC showing those photoshopped bikni-gun pictures comes to mind, but a picture she posed for that is actually of her does not. Her sex appeal is even part of the problem she poses for the GOP. If she were less attractive fewer men would be blinded to her glaring flaws.
Kerry's campaign released the hunting photos to demonstrate his gun bonafides and, in one of the most politically inept moves ever, the windsurfing footage. Dukakis's tank was a campaign shoot. Had Palin taken this photo as part of running for office ("Here you see the candidate in running gear in her kitchen, next to a flag....") then I would have zero objections to its coming back to haunt her.
But the photos were taken in the "you should totally make time to go out and get some exercise, which even I, a busy governor, make time for" context.
Yeah, but as I pointed out above, she's not actually running. Every other example I've seen cited in this thread is of a politician engaged in an athletic act. Palin agreed to a photo shoot in for which she was dressed and made up, and then posed as if she were engaged in such an act. That's just tremendously important.
Ditto. It was unseemly for Newsweek to use the photo, but when she did the shoot for Runner's World she could have actually had some picture of her, you know, running (one of those blurred action shots with her in the focus?). Everything is arranged, posed. At some point she needs to be responsible for taking part in that.
The photo shoot was exactly the same sort of campaign photo op. It is as if a male politician flexed up in a body building pose next to a flag for Flex magazine to show what a body builder he is durring a campaign. We would rightly ridicule him and no one would cry 'sexism'. It was stupid and if anything her gender is protecting her from the kind of ridicule she deserves for this kind of trying to use sexapeal as a political selling point.
If I'm not mistaken, the RW shoot was after the election.
Stacy
You are correct. If I had checked the date I would have seen that. My bad.
But would the timing have mattered if a male political figure posed for beefcake with a flag in the manner of the Palin pin-up?
My take on Sarah Palin is that she is a person who wants to have it both ways. When being in a beauty pageant and parading around in a swimsuit, or winking at the guys at home in a debate furthers her interests, she'll do it... same as all those poses at Runner's World. No one can be so naive as to assume they would not spread around the media, and have some effect on making her more popular based on physical attraction. There's a continuum that goes from hard porn to soft porn to beauty pageant photos to these, and what is sexist is based on context and intent.
What's certain is that Palin has always tried to cash in on her attractiveness when that works, and is quite ready to bash anyone else who seems to be doing so, as sexist. It's the same gig as parading her family at the convention, photo ops with John McCain and Levi and Bristol, but declaring them off limits when it suits her, as well. Win/win for whatever her money and fame agenda is.
That said, whether the Newsweek thing is actual sexism or not depends on what the articles are really about. If one or both of those articles makes the point that here is someone with very little political substance or accomplishment who has a track record of exploiting her appearance when it suits her, and running away from it when it doesn't... then this picture would help to make that point. I don't see anyone near her with a gun pointed in her general direction in that photo, you know? However, if those are not points made in the articles, you can make the case that the photo is a sexist device to sell magazines.
In short, it depends.
This is a twig of the limb of the whole issue around porn and beauty pageants, where you have dissent among feminists, some of whom say it is horrid objectification that should be banned and shunned, and others who say it is healthy adult behavior about free will and empowerment and sex not being dirty. Same thing here. And since I am not a woman, this is one of those cases where I defer to reasonable people of the type involved... not unlike what I do as a white guy when certain words about certain genetic makeups are involved. That's because in essence I can easily live without the photo, the word, whatever, and that's a way small price to pay for what someone else perceives as their dignity and social comfort. So I leave this one to the hypothetical 'reasonable woman' to decide, and go along with that. Ain't like there aren't about 50 more serious things going on in this world...
This is what I'm feeling.
I won't lie, as soon as I saw that picture on Newsweek's cover I thought "oh god", and more or less threw the thing out of my sight. I do think it was a tasteless move on the magazine's part (especially since my second thought was "how is this news? this photo was in Runner's World like three months ago").
But I agree that this debate (outside of Newsweek being sensationalist and slightly shady in aquiring a photo used by another magazine) kind of falls back on Palin having her cake and eating it too. If she's doing a light-hearted piece in Runner's World, great: but don't lean on an American flag. We know she considers herself a patriot, but we don't need to have any pictures of her running with a giant cross to demonstrate that she is a Christian as well.
Also, Palin cannot expect to be a real public figure (as opposed to a celebrity) with 100% control of her image. She needs to realize that a photo shoot in Runners World can come back to bight her, especially when its essentially the ONLY published interview with her between the election and Oprah. Yes, it's different for men. And yes, plenty of politicans (Kerry, Dukakis, etc.) have been in embarassing photos. There is that photo of Obama in Hawai'i in the swimtrunks somewhere...but the point is that he is in countless photos taken every day. Because, you know, he is a public figure.
Hillary would be equally mocked if she was in such a photo shoot, and it would be because for the same reasons: some people just intensely dislike her. But Hillary could just as easily point to photos of her with Hu Jintao, Benjamin Netanyahu, students in Indonesia etc., etc. and say "What? I'm AM a serious public figure." But when your year before Oprah consists of you only giving speeches behind closed doors, awkwardly resigning from your public office, and only going on record with the runner interview and photo session, you can't act all surprised when people use exactly those images to say you're not a serious public person.
but we don't need to have any pictures of her running with a giant cross to demonstrate that she is a Christian as well.
Oh my god, that's funny. Thanks.
Well, the problem is that part of Sarah Palin's appeal to conservatives is her physical attractiveness ("starbursts" and all). The picture doesn't objectify her, it merely accurately represents who she is and what she's about.
I have nothing against pointing out that this cover objectifies Sarah Palin, and that such objectification clearly diminishes women. None. But picking out this cover photo of Sarah Palin as a prime example strikes me as a bit disingenuous. I'll go back to that pose. I am a father of daughters and when my girls were little I saw that pose struck to gain attention. That pose did not begin with this cover; little girls in America are flooded daily with such images, even on the cover of Runner's World.
More than that, Sarah Palin has spent her career playing that pose to gain attention. I get Newsweek did something incorrect there; have you seen the latest videos of our young pop female stars? Who our preadolescent girls look up to? Sarah Palin is part and parcel of our popular culture that pimps that image over and over to make money, and in her case accrue political power and to avoid pointing out her complicity and hypocrisy is as egregious in my opinion as taking Newsweek to task for something that simply gives this nonsensical politician more attention and a rationale to back her victim of the media persona bait and switch from real substantial issues.
to whom our girls look up to. Wouldn't want to dangle in a fit of ire a preposition.
It's a hard truth, but a truth nonetheless. TNC is correct. Still...
I don't disagree that Newsweek's use of that photo is shady--it encourages the magazine's readers to point and laugh at Palin. But here's the problem I have with the photo itself. The photo, in its original context, shows us a busy, driven woman who runs to keep her body and mind sharp. Why is she leaning on the American flag? What does that have to do with fitness?
Had that one element been left out of the photo, and Newsweek used it anyway, I'd cry foul as loudly as she has--it's a relatively provocative photo, and the magazine's goal seems to be to ridicule her. But Palin has a tendency to use symbols--family, patriotism--as props. Newsweek's use of the photo does take it out of context, but the original context was kinda weird to begin with.
wasn't the original context a political campaign and wasn't her appearance in RW a deliberate part of that campaign? as she says herself she was being tightly managed/scripted in this process. Newsweek is a crummy tabloid/propaganda rag, always has been, but if a campaign is cashing in on objectifying a woman candidate how does one report on it?
I agree. I get the editors coming to that photo, because it's one that has always bothered me. Even in the original context, that particular photo doesn't signify "Governor Runner" so much as "Hot Babe, Flag Prop". And I don't think that's an unfair assessment of Palin's deliberate style of self-representation.
Question I hope isn't OT: In those shots for RW, where are the shots of her running?
I think a good cross-example of this phenomenon in recent media is the infamous, and utterly tasteless cartoon of police officers shooting an ape in a highly offensive political cartoon. (Most of you probably remember it.) It could have been funny, or at lest made the point, if the cartoonist had chosen a lion to represent Obama. You know, a noble beast and all. But no. He chose an ape. Why? It was an overtly racist image whether it was intended to be or not, so why isn't important. Why didn't he choose a lion? Personally, I don't think the intended audience would have gotten the punch line without the dog whistle pointing it out.
The photo being discussed here, if used IN context was not sexist. I would also argue that it was not bad judgment on Palin's part to do a photo shoot in appropriate sports attire for Runners World magazine. If Newsweek wanted to make the point that she is an unserious poltical celebrity it was wholly unnecessary to do so by placing this photo on the cover of their magazine. I can't believe that these very smart people at Newsweek wouldn't see the inherent problem with using THIS particular photo on the cover. They used this photo because a good portion of the intended audience wouldn't get the "punch line" without the dog whistle pointing out that she is just "another dumb broad," as it were. I don't need some cheap shot like this inappropriate use of a photo to point out to me that she is n't ready to be anything other than a celebrity. I can go to Youtube and find plenty of video of her own dog-whistling at potlical rallies and the debate videos with Biden.
TNC, I tend to agree, but...well, it'd be a lot more troublesome for me if she wasn't blatantly using sex appeal to further her career. Referring to Nancy Pelosi as the DC Madam or Pussy Galore, telling Hillary Clinton to get back in the kitchen...yes, infuriating. But Letterman making jokes about her "slutty flight attendant" dress sense...well, that's pretty accurate.
And I'm not a woman, but, quite frankly, it should be more infuriating to women that Palin is using sex appeal to cover up a complete absence of intelligence or capability, than any attempt to call her out on it.
Why does one have to be more infuriating to women than the other? Her attempt to use sex appeal to elevate herself and Newsweek using it to bring her down are two sides of the same coin. Similarly, her choice to parade her children around and exploit them for political gain doesn't make it ok for the media to follow her kids around and harass them at school (not saying that this happens, just offering it as a hypothetical).
Doesn't matter who you work for, the ends don't justify the means. Sleazy tactics are sleazy tactics.
For better or worse, we are a society that talks about things like Michelle Obama's arms, and Sarah Palin's looks. It's the society we've grown up in the last 20 or so years.
She really has become a logical extension of the aesthetic sense of the right wing machine. For instance, Fox News. You will never see an ugly blonde on that network, and you can be sure they were hired based on their gender and not their skills. Affirmative action for pretty news readers as far as I'm concerned.
Palin really is trying to have it both ways here. She wants to take the politically inappropriate glamour shots, to wink at the camera, but not have to face up to any of the consequences of her actions. She knew crying foul on Letterman's joke about Arod and Bristol would get her into the headlines, but Palin would trot her kids out instantly for political gain.
She was selling the sexy MILF working American mom image from the get-go and that's consistent what the cover was attempting to show.
At this point, she's just selling outrage. The lady doth protest too much. She wants the attention. It's hard to tell when she's actually outraged at this point or if she's just trying to get media attention.
I've already said a lot over in the other thread (I like to think that I'm one of the "smart women" to whom TNC refered @ 10:09!), so I won't go over that again, but framing the conversation this way reminds of a really wonderful book:
In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action, by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/In-Our-Defense/Ellen-Alderman/e/9780380717200/?itm=2
Alderman and Kennedy illustrate the bill of rights with various cases brought before the courts, some stories really dramatic, some less so -- but the overall arc is: You don't have to agree with people to apply your values to them.
Indeed, our values are most challenged -- and thus, best exemplified -- when they are applied to those who would reject them. When we grant the Nazis free speech in Skokie, or when we treat Sarah Palin with respect (another odd juxtaposition. I am just full of those today!)
Anyway. It all seems of a piece, to my mind.
But this presupposes that Sarah Palin is passive in all of this, that she is being objectified rather than presenting herself as an object. I think Palin is incredibly savvy and a brilliant businesswoman. She is making millions off of her looks, just like any other celebrity. Do we think of Madonna as a victim because during much of her career she presented herself as a sex object? Or do we accept that she had control over her image and her career and exploited her 'strengths' to get what she wanted? Sarah Palin is a celebrity, not a politician, in my opinion, and in the realm of celebrity she's extremely successful. Women have been just as successful not objectifying themselves. Sarah Palin has a choice. She is choosing to do this. This is why I am far more disturbed by the obsession with Michelle Obama's arms, for instance, or the attempts to de-feminize Hillary Clinton. Sexism abounds, but when it comes to Palin, it's mostly being directed by her, not at her.
Exactly. I think Madonna is an excellent analogy. Palin is in control of her image here. She is not a victim. I would object to a magazine cover that attempted to objectify Hillary or Michelle, because they have not marketed themselves that way. Palin has.
Like TNC, my guide on matters like this is to ask my wife what she thinks. She's not as political as I am, and she's not consciously feminist -- she's feminist in the "of course women should have equal opportunity and pay" sense. Anyway, I have little doubt that when she sees that cover, she's gonna feel pissed off, that the treatment of Palin is sexist. You have to pay attention to reactions like that.
As for dmf's point -- And if we except their bizarro world use of the language as being the same as the progessive use of the language than we will find ourselves being coopted into their politics -- couldn't you even more easily conclude that they have been coopted by our politics?
I welcome conservative complaints about sexist treatment of Palin because it boxes them in -- in the future, they can't benefit from sexism without their hypocrisy made manifest. It's a conversion experience, like the law-and-order conservative who is arrested and suddenly discovers the value of due process.
I also don't like this cover because it implies that this is the best criticism of Sarah Palin we've got (because, of course, Newsweek is part of the 'liberal media'). And seriously, there's so much crazy around Sarah Palin that she uses her legs in a photo shoot is about #3,482 on the list.
agreed,
the barrel of FAIL is so deep, why pass up so much just to get to the bottom of it?
Some people don't want to shoot fish in the fail barrel, they think it's faster just to drink the brine the fish swim in. Thing is, that shit is way less healthy than fish.
Did I take that metaphor too far?
Any of the three pictures that Newsweek used might - MIGHT - have been ok to make a point about what is clearly one aspect of Palin's unseriousness, her use of sex appeal as a substitute for policy knowledge. But by ONLY using 'sexy Sarah' shots, they weaken their critique of her. She claims a good part of her governing experience was from being mayor of Wasilla - why not a picture of the tiny, part-time Wasilla City Hall? Or something from the bizarre event when she resigned as Governor? By exclusively emphasizing her physicality, Newsweek seems to be saying that is the only problem. If Sarah Palin started wearing a burkha, would we have to take her seriously? No. But glancing at Newsweek might suggest something different.
I'm reminded of a Palin quote from over 10 years ago:
http://www.eandppub.com/2008/09/when-sarah-pali.html
"'We want to see Ivana,'' said Palin, who admittedly smells like salmon for a large part of the summer, ''because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture.'"
Having done some magazine cover art direction myself, I do think Newsweek is going for "edgy" with their use of this photo as part of their redesign, and probably edged too far. However, if a picture tells a thousand words I can't think of a better one to communicate the seeming shallowness of Palin, as portrayed in the quote above: Someone who prizes glamour, and equates culture with Ivana Trump.
At a minimum, Palin needs a better agent so she can obtain rights to promotional photography taken of her.
Grandma always used to say, "you made your bed, now you gotta sleep in it." Palin wants to be in the national spotlight, but doesn't want the heat that comes with it. I don't recall either of the Obamas complaining publicly about the numerous unflattering and out-of-context magazine cover images of them, before and after the election. (I'm particularly thinking of some of the cartoony depictions on NR and TWS.)
One thing that amazes me about that cover is that Palin isn't getting slammed for tossing the American flag over the back of a chair and leaning on it while posing in runner's shorts. It's totally offensive - I'm assuming she was Governor when she posed for that picture. It's amazing that she would let that happen. Consider if there was a magazine cover with Obama posing in a warm-up suit with the flag tossed over a chair and him leaning his arm on it. Conservatives would go ballisitic. A lot of liberals and moderates would be offended and Obama would be apologizing like crazy. It wouldn't die in the media, and frankly would betray a lack of dignity and decorum that would make me wonder if his head was totally screwed on and he was up to dealing with the spotlight. But nary a peep about Palin's disrespect for the American flag. I guess I would think that was weird if I didn't know that there's a racist and partisan double standard.
And I know that some art director tossed that flag over the chair and asked her to lean on it, but she's an adult, she was responsible for allowing the image to be created with her full participation. Unless the flag was photo-shopped in (which she would have been squealing about, so I'm sure it wasn't) she's responsible for an unbelievably tawdry public image that no other "politician" could have gotten away with without being excoriated by the Right. Another example of their utter dishonesty.
I agree with this.
Iconography is an obscure but fascinating analytical toolkit, used mostly in the study of Medieval art -- often to decipher the symbolism of objects in images of the Virgin Mary!
Sarah P. composed the iconographical elements of this photograph, so let's deconstruct them:
1. Not only does she use the American flag as a crumpled accessory to lean her elbow on, she uses the "Blue Star Mother" flag which represents her son's service in the armed forces (hanging in the window). Newseek's type covers it a bit, but in the original photo it's very prominent. Blue Star Mother flags (you get a gold star if your son dies) are supposed to be displayed proudly but with deep reverence, and to induce reflection, patriotism, gratitude, and humility in those who see them displayed by others. Highly inappropriate in a political come-on, but part of her brand (and she often wears her Blue Star Mother pin in photos, too, which is perhaps not so objectionable.)
2. See, on the windowsill in back of her hip, what appear to be fur-rimmed little Alaskan slippers? I'm embarrassed to repeat what fur-rimmed slippers traditionally symbolized. Sigmund Freud would have been all over this, and rightly so.
3. She's also displaying her material goods (class markers). Her house is on a lake; we can see her seaplane and what I think is a motorboat out the window; she owns the sort of high-legged chairs one uses at a somewhat fancy, elevated, kitchen island; she has very clean wall-to-wall carpeting. The setting and props draw a careful picture of a highly-specific social niche: VERY prosperous, but proletarian (the hyper-clean wall-to-wall carpeting). The chair alludes to her large family, as well.
4. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but to me the pose screams, not "runner," but "beauty-pageant runway." The hand on hip, the slight turn of the lower torso away from the camera, the ankles together, toe pointed, knee-bent leg positioning -- all accentuate an hour-glass figure and are Beauty Queen 101. BTW, it's not a comfortable pose and is not supposed to be. Her arm-on-chair is not supporting her. She's working hard, in fact, to keep her balance, and the tension slightly shows (and, in beauty pageants and traditional feminine sex appeal -- think, high heels and corsets -- it's part of the point). She has been moved away from the supporting chair to better outline her figure.
5. Two Blackberries -- we have seen her point this out before, betokening her multi-tasking. As displayed here, fanned out like a deck of cards, they depict a person much in demand with high-status responsibilities. They are also held in a traditional posture of offering.
6. Darn, I wish I could see that thing on her wrist better -- looks like a bracelet of come sort. I would have expected a watch. Can't comment much except to say that her jewelery is always very tasteful. She's not as much of a corn-pone as she would like some of us to think. She respects her self and also knows how to dress. For people who identify with her as, at heart, downscale like them (wrongly, IMHO, given her parents' line of work and her college degree), her careful grooming is a sign of respect for them as well.
7. Fire engine red. This color has come to be worn by female politicians (and Chicago futures pit traders) to stand out in a sea of men. It's a sexy color, but has other overtones as well, including professionalism. Interesting choice.
8. The clothing ensemble: from where I sit (Princeton, NJ), she looks like a rich woman. Back here in the East, semi-tailored running wear is the look of choice for formerly career-track college-educated women who no longer need to work (or never did). Don't know if that's true everywhere. P.S. -- only us geeks wear socks that show. Imagine if she had ankle socks on -- would change everything. Bad as a sweatshirt. In fact, to me, it's the lack of (showing) socks that perhaps most loudly proclaims: I may be a runner, but I'm also style-aware and looking good.
9. The hairstyle/makeup/glasses: Sarah Palin has said that when she's not being photographed she enjoys going out incognito for runs without all the pancake and hairspray. It would be unfair to expect her to be professionally photographed without makeup. Our trained expectations for how people are supposed to look in marketing photographs include a "natural" look only achievable with very expert make-up (especially if you're a woman). Anything else looks (ironically) "contrived."
All in all, this photograph presents Palin precisely as she presents herself: beautiful to look at, rich but of-the-people, intelligent (I do NOT agree that she looks vapid here), willing to employ patriotism in the service of marketing, very sexy, and highly in control of her image. What's to get mad about?
Excellent analysis. This is, if nothing else, a photograph of a woman in control.
Anne: An excellent analysis, and covering everything I thought over the past 24 hrs.
Thank you both! And I'm rethinking my former omission of the black, shiny, casino-cocktail-waitress-style shorts. Not really so Princeton, after all (though the top is). Particularly at her age, around here she'd have those gams covered in black, slightly flared, long clingy pants of a thickish but smooth and matte knit material with plenty of Lycra in it. Still shows off one's trophy-wife-firm butt and thighs, but without violating one's husband's right to keep the entire view to himself. Bare legs would suggest one was perhaps a divorcee. That may be part of what's appealing about Palin as a person -- she's loyally married (to a man her own age!), and yet not as a consequence at all inhibited or matronly.
Oh, and for the record, the porch monkey nature of Juan Williams can easily be inferred, from the from the vast archive of 'tommed out' nonsense he has said - independent of any disagreement with it.
I don't think that was the inference. I think it was an allusion to "If you're going to run with the big dogs, you have to get off the porch".
I'm copying this from a Gawker post yesterday about this issue, not just because I'm lazy but because it says exactly how I feel about this. The bold part is mine and stresses my point>
Aside from the fact that, according to a Newsweek insider we talked to, it was two female staffers who found the Runner's World picture and presented it to editor Jon Meacham as a cover candidate, the problem here is that, yes, the photo was taken out of the context in which it was taken. It was taken in the context of a content-free lark over which Sarah Palin had control and was engineered to make her look good by showing off the fact that she looks good.
It was recontextualized by Newsweek into the real world, a world in which a staged photo of the woman who hijacked the 2008 presidential election beaming goofily into the camera and holding her two Blackberries and American flag like random iconography thrown in to justify the fact that she's modeling her legs is frightening and laughable. The reason Palin posed for the Runner's World photo is that she wanted people to see her legs and think of her as youthful, vibrant, fit, and in control, and she thought that a good way to do it was to just throw any old American flag around and let those gams loose. The reason Newsweek chose it for the cover was to communicate that this is how Sarah Palin sees herself. Sarah Palin likes the imagery, and her adherents like the imagery; the problem emerges when people who don't reflexively and unthinkingly love Sarah Palin encounter the imagery. Then it's sexist.
It was also sexist when Newsweek ran an unretouched photo of her in closeup where you could make out her facial hair. And it will be sexist next year when they run another photo that references the fact Palin is a human being with a body, and it will be sexist so long as Newsweek, or anyone else who dares gaze at Miss Sarah, isn't sufficiently deferential to her image of herself. She wants to be the hot mom, and she wants to be the emerging political power center. She wants those two identities to reinforce one another, but she doesn't want anyone to screw with the messaging.
and by "mone" I meant - emphasis was added by me, not that I actually wrote it...no more posting with my iPhone
Thanks for this post.
I haven't read through all these posts, nor have I read any of what Newweek wrote about why it used the Runners World photo. So I may be repeating what someone else has already said. But FWIW:
Whatever else Sarah Palin is, she's a public figure. She has sought that public attention, and she has benefitted greatly from it.
Public figures have always been held to different standards because of the presumption that they sought public attention and have benefitted from it, and because of their stature the public is allowed to comment about their lives. Among those differing standards is the expectation of privacy that everyone else has. If you constantly seek to put yourself in the public's view, you don't get to cry foul when something goes public that you don't like. It's a different story if you're not a public figure.
Yes, when Sarah Palin posed for the Runners World photos, she did so with the understanding that the photos would appear in a special interest magazine devoted to runners. And yes, had the photos been shot for another magazine, she would have dressed differently. But as of today, she's still seeking the attention, she's still a public figure, and she's still fair game for public comment. When you're in her league as a celebrity, you don't always get to control how your image is used.
I'm a little puzzled by Newsweek's choice of photos. I read somewhere that someone suggested that the photo of her winking might have been more appropriate and I agree with that, but I'm not sure how the winking photo is any less "objectifying" than a photo of her in rather modest running togs. Plenty of busy working moms like her wear this kind of outfit to the grocery store.
Seems to me that Sarah should know by now that any time she steps in front of a camera and allows her image to be reproduced, it's out there. To those who are complaining about Newsweek using this photo, what was their reaction to the infamous New Yorker cover cartoon of the Obamas last year?
No doubt there are people who disagree with my opinion that there's nothing wrong with the photo that Newsweek used. I understand that. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk decision here that Sarah Palin has somehow been wronged by Newsweek.
I do not see the 'sexism' here at all. Sarah is a runner, she wears running clothes (shorts and sneakers). What did you expect, skis and a parka? The author is suffering from delusions. Please spend your talents on writing about topics of grave concern to all of us - hunger in this country, costly wars, etc. I am not a Sarah fan. But you display a mental disorder, not a political opinion, when you see this as 'sexist'.
Palin posed for these images willingly -- as part of her own self-objectification. Newsweek simply turned the image upside down, figuratively, by redisplaying it in a different context. The cover speaks volumes about Palin's image management, how she perceives herself, and how she wants others to perceive her. I thought it was a brilliant take by the Newsweek editors.
I have three thoughts on this one:
1. Sarah Palin is being portrayed as being unserious because she is unserious. Her conservative fanbase see here as a pretty, nonthreatening "pitbull with lipstick" who simultaneously reinforces traditional gender roles while making liberals mad. That cover is a perfect satire of what she is and is therefore appropriate.
2. Women in politics should not be held to different standards than men in politics, and the focus on Palin as a "hot celebrity" isn't doing us feminists any favors. Newsweek's cover is therefore wildly inappropriate, even the point being made is a bit more sophisticated than some detractors give it credit for being. (They are making fun of, not celebrating, Palin's mild flirtations with cheesecake. Thy might have been done better showing some of the rather flashy getups she wore on the campaign trail. The point could be made without the sexist undertones.)
3. TNC gets extra points for the Ice T reference.
I totally get what TNC is saying, and he's right. But I think the point being made with the cover is fair. BUT since the contents of the magazine weren't really related to the point the cover is making, the scales ultimately tip inn TNC's favor. If there were a serious exploration of the gender issues raised by the event that is Sarah Palin in that magazine, that'd be a great cover. As it is, it seems like an unfair and sexist bit of editorializing. And the fact that it's "controversial" isn't hurting Newsweek one bit, which makes it worse.
Of course, it's really hard to take the outrage of media conservatives seriously. When Rush Limbaugh makes a joke that Barack Obama is a big scary black man who is going to analy rape him (as he literally has . . . to the point where I think I know more about Rush's fantasy life than I want to), it's "just a joke! Come on guys!!! Dont' be so uptight!!" But a photo of Sarah Palin that SHE DELIBERATELY POSED FOR AFTER SHE WAS A POLITICAL FIGURE is used, it's "horrible, just horrible."
We should take offense at Newsweek's error, but on behalf of feminism, not on behalf of this absurd little person.
As a woman, did I find Newsweek's cover tasteless - yes. But I put the blame on Ms. Palin. Repeatedly during her interview w/ Oprah/Walters, she described being "handled" by the McCain Campaign. What kind of VP candidate 'lets' herself be handled?
She posed voluntarily for the cover and chose the outfit. She could have covered her legs, wore looser clothing, lost the flag. But she did not. She is ALWAYS in public in a skirt, which accentuates her appearance. She is an attractive women, yes, and if she wants to be taken seriously, she should find ways to play that down. Wear a pantsuit, cut her hair, wear less make-up, lose the 'sexy-librarian' look, tone-down the lip gloss, stop winking.
Secretary Clinton and Rep. Pelosi are taken more seriously because they are older and (relatively) less attractive. But they also present themselves more professionally. Clinton definitely moved up in professionalism when she cut her hair and started wearing pant-suits. They also don't pose in exercise gear for a fitness magazine.
Sarah is vaccuous (stupid) and a self promoter. She's a public figure and fair game to be attacked.
Newsweek is the same. This instance of self promotion, an unrelated 'sexy' cover from another magazine, used to gain attention. Not for journalism's sake but to promote an anti-conservative ideology. They are vaccuous when it comes to other views. 'See, we think Sarah Palin is personally stupid and selfish therefore conservatism itself is'. Rush, Beck, Cheney, Gingrich, et al A liberal vaccuous self-promoter? They will reather be defended. Hey, have at Palin, go for it. Newsweek, just give the same treatment to your ideological partners or change the moniker to 'Masquerading as News-Week'. Or just keep losing readers, either way.
I haven't seen this explanation so far, so I thought I'd post it here. Everyone is discussing this picture and whether or not Sarah Palin has a legitimate complaint. There's also a bashing of Newsweek for printing it, because many think it has nothing to do with the title or the point Newsweek is trying to make. The evidence being pushed for this is the fact that it came from the magazine Runner's World, and was part of a larger set of photos taken for the magazine; it would appear that there is a disparity between its intended purpose and its use by Newsweek.
But I disagree with that. I disagree precisely because of the evidence, the larger body of photos.
If you'll look through the slideshow, all of the photos, save the last two, actually depict Sarah the runner. There's the hair tied up, the stretching poses (save for #2), the background of the running environment. It is believable and an actual depiction of a runner in her running environment, dressed as one and behaving as one. But picture 7, the one that has graced Newsweek's cover, shows a Sarah Palin posing in a statue-esque pose, her hair down, leaning against an American flag, with a couple of Blackberry's fanned out in her hand. Gone is the running environment, the stretches, the form of a runner in her element, and instead is a runner in a room, surrounded by symbols of patriotism and service pride ( the flag on the window) and technology. It doesn't fit. She doesn't fit. Not as a runner. It’s confusing. It's an image of a person who is supposed to be one thing, but all the accent details don't match, and out comes this discombobulated image of a runner that's hard to take seriously or believe. If she is a runner, it will take a lot more than this photo to prove it to me.
And that is precisely the point.
The problem with Sarah is that she is a politician that doesn't act like a politician, speak like a politician, even perform or look like a politician. Her acclaim comes from those that identify with her because they see something of themselves in her; an argument can be made that they project themselves onto her and see that, they too, can aspire to the highest positions of the social hierarchy. For her detractors, everything she does is criticized because she isn't their idea of a politician; she doesn't look, act or perform the part very well at all. She even calls herself a rogue, perhaps emphasizing the point. But as roguish as she is in mentality, appearance and actions, and no matter what image she thinks she's projecting, instead Sarah Palin the politician ends up projecting the image of someone who doesn't fit in our nation's politics, a discombobulated image of a politician that's hard to take seriously or believe. It's Newsweek's point, and it's Palin's problem. I think the photo and its placement on the magazine's cover artfully portray what they intend to. And you either agree with it or you don't.
The talk of it being sexist is perhaps taking things a bit too far.
It seems to me that she is promoting her own objectification. The notion of sexism, as well as racism, has evolved over both historical time, and contextuality. If she is is 'using' her sexuality for self-promotion her problem becomes our problem simply because sex is a draw. It's interesting conundrum. The issue of her future political viability is not a function of her sexuality, however. I think most people understand the difference.
For those who think this is just fine and Palin is at fault for even posing in such manner, consider that a lot of public officials grant interviews to Runner's World. Here's one with David Paterson:
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-410--13069-0,00.html
What would you say if Newsweek did a cover story on Paterson and used that photo, along with some critical headline? Would you say that Paterson was just a vain dumbass and got what was coming to him?
TNC, I fully agree with your point, but I don't consider this a free speech issue. It's not a matter of being free to say anything - after all, am I not perfectly free to call Palin a hypocrite? - it's a matter of respectful criticism going a lot farther than pure sniping (which unfortunately, in this country, typically does not).