I thought Sarah was so much better than strawfeminist liberals because she fully embraced being hot? I swear Rich Lowry advanced that argument every time he ran out of lotion.

Frankly, I’m willing to bet Newsweek picked this photo for the reason I would pick it—because it’s sort of a distillation of all things Palin. You’ve got the fake patriotism, the fake athleticism, the fake sexiness—it’s all there in the photo.

God help me, but I think Palin has a point here. Yes, she posed for the photo, but it is out of context. Newsweek didn’t have to use it in what I assume is a serious assessment of her political potential.

This wouldn’t bother me much, except that Newsweek seems to be going over the top with their covers. Remember “Pulling the Plug on Grandma”? Someone over there needs to dial it back a notch.

Bitter - the issue I have with that, though, is that this photo was a part of her effort to capitalize on her political potential.  I’m just trying to understand how it’s out of context.

(A lot of this comes from having worked for a politician.  You don’t voluntarily take a single picture or sit down for a single reporter unless it’s going to help you accomplish something political.)

I will readily admit that Sarah Palin is a lovely woman, and she knows it too.

As such, far be it from me to suggest that Palin’s public appeal wouldn’t be anywhere near what it is were she 73 years old, and a dead ringer for Aunt Bea on “The Andy Griffith Show.”

As for the photo in question, my opinion is split: while I agree that Newsweek used it out of its original, athletic context, Palin acting offended for the use of a shot she herself approved of comes off as crying wolf (and Sarah shooting said wolf from a helicopter).

So what it comes down it is that Palin wants it both ways: to both cash in or her looks (don’t forget her Vogue cover shot), yet act exploited when others do so as well.

What it also comes down to is that Sarah Palin HAS to complain. She runs on pure resentment and nothing else (thus, she appeals to those who do the same).

The woman resigned from being the actual governor of an actual state so she could go on Facebook and complain about stuff, for God’s sake.

CHV - the original context wasn’t just athletic.  And that’s just it.  When Bush went to clear brush it wasn’t just in a lawncare context.  It was a calculated political move.  When Obama shoots hoops, I’m sure he enjoys it, but it also sends a series of very clear political messages.

It’s stupid, but these are also people with a rather heightened knowledge of how their voluntary activities will shape their public persona.

Not to mention the lakefront superhuge house that just happened to be built simultaneously with a municipal project right down the street wasn’t it? ANd you can see that lakeview as the backdrop.

Newsweek also said that it was one of the shots they had access too - it could be, and this should be something that every good freemarket capitalist finds utterly convincing - it was the cheapest available. ANd somehow, that adjective fits Sarah oh so purrrfectly.

As for the original shoot - if I remember correctly, like Sarah, it was all pose - not one shot of her actually running, and getting you know, sweaty, messed hair, no makeup like a real runner. She did the cheesecake pose with the symbol of symbols displayed disrespectfully as a prop as many pointed out at the time, and then she complains.

Mixed feelings.

It really is out of context. In the Runner’s World context, it fits. It’s “she’s a runner. She dresses like a runner.” (I suppose.) In the Newsweek context, it is “she’s supposed to be a Presidential front-runner. She dresses like a runner.”  Especially with the choices of caption, it makes what the photo is about into a problem.

On the other hand, from day one, this woman and her handlers have made it very clear that she feels that she has the absolute right to control all aspects of her media coverage. All interviews, all opinions, all photos, all analysis. Nothing anyone says is truth unless she says so.

Am I allowed to feel that she is absolutely right that the Newsweek photo comes across as a cheap shot and at the same time feel absolutely no sympathy for her about it? If Newsweek goes into some depth about her attempts to manipulate her media image, the cover might not be such a cheap shot, but I doubt they’re being that subtle.

Why do I suspect that it would never occur to her to be similarly outraged by a photo of a political opponent being similarly taken out of context? Or, say Holocaust pictures being used to portray the Obama health care plan?

Palin has never been a political figure. She’s not even a celebrity. She is a brilliant performance artist, partaking in “happenings” that resemble politics and celebrity. Palin has never offered to take a stand on legislation for a specific, well-thought-out reason. She is as Hannah Arendt portrayed Eichmann, with no original thought, to the point of not ever being able to compose an original sentence that isn’t a colloquial saying.

She went on Oprah, and got through it. She didn’t say anything about her grandson’s father, but called him Ricky Hollywood. That’s a put-down, right? Or isn’t it? There is so little substance, she’s whatever anyone wants her to be. She’s Hitler. She’s Reagan. She’s Chuck Norris. She’s Mother Mary.

When she’s asked a question, she babbles. Nonsense. Nonsense with pertinent terms tossed in to make it sound like something somebody would say.

If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin.

The take-away message here is that Sarah Palin binds her books in human skin.

Why do I suspect that it would never occur to her to be similarly outraged by a photo of a political opponent being similarly taken out of context? Or, say Holocaust pictures being used to portray the Obama health care plan?
Comment #9: Lymis on 11/17 at 06:41 PM

Wasn’t it the Palinistas who posted and tried to foist that “out of context” photo of Obama allegedly looking at a young lady’s derriere, when in actuality he was turning to help someone up the stairs? 

Hypocrisy too - aint’ it grand?

Jesse @ 7:

It’s stupid, but these are also people with a rather heightened knowledge of how their voluntary activities will shape their public persona.

I agree that candidates depicting themselves as buff (as Palin herself puts it: “Sweat is my sanity”) helps build one’s image as a regular schmo, as even Lincoln benefited from his popular image as a burly rail-splitter.

Yet unlike Bush or Obama, I don’t see this same image doing much for Palin politically. Meaning that she can flex in tight shorts all she wants, but ultimately Sarah is still her own worst political foe, and her own party knows it.

Phyo @ 8:

She did the cheesecake pose with the symbol of symbols displayed disrespectfully as a prop as many pointed out at the time, and then she complains.

Now that I think of it, Sarah’s cover shot does resemble the nose art used on WWII bombers: a sexy girl striking a slinky, Gil Elvgren-like pose beside a symbol of national pride.

Make no mistake - Palin is keenly aware of her sexy image, and knows how to use it.

Media Matters has a pretty good article about this whole flap, where they say that Newsweek has some good insight on Palin, which all can go out in the garbage, now, for the sexist way in which it was portrayed.

I agree.

Palin was a bad candidate not because she was a dumb slut who has a great rack, and we’d all fuck in a minute. She’s a bad candidate because she seems uncurious, reacts to issues instead of thinking and planning, and substitutes slogans for actual answers about policy.

Newsweek seems to put forth the former argument, here, and it ties right into what Palin’s complaining about.

I disagree.  It’s intentionally the wrong context and I call bullshit on Newsweek, regardless of what Palin’s people or the GOP do.

Last night I saw Rachel Maddow talking about Palin with (sound off) footage of Palin in the eighties with girly floppy hair doing some kind of news talk show. 

If there are stupid photos of Maddow out there, we’d all be rightly pissed if they were used as background for a discussion of her current career merits and foibles. 

When people use those “madrassa” pictures of Obama (in Somali traditional clothing), that’s also loaded and inappropriate.

This kind of thing has to fucking stop.  Now.

When people use those “madrassa” pictures of Obama (in Somali traditional clothing), that’s also loaded and inappropriate.

I’m sorry, but the comparison of the Somali garb photo to this one (and the surrounding context of those photos’ use) is ridiculous. 

You undercut your own argument - this picture of Palin is explicitly a part of her own “current career merits and foibles”.  It’s four months old.

God help me, but I think Palin has a point here. Yes, she posed for the photo, but it is out of context. Newsweek didn’t have to use it in what I assume is a serious assessment of her political potential.

I disagree.  It’s intentionally the wrong context and I call bullshit on Newsweek, regardless of what Palin’s people or the GOP do.

Ohhhh, puuuuhleze!  That photo was deliberately as cheesecakey as she could make it.  I’m suprised she wasn’t effin winking.  Newsweek is just showing her as she is, all form and no substance.  Out of context, hell.  She doesn’t have any other context.  There is no there there.

The main thing that bothers me about that cover is actually the use of her name. I tend to get wary when I see a woman’s first name used in a context where, were it a man, I feel like they would probably use his last name. Maybe I’m wrong; just to play my own Devil’s Advocate, the first-name thing is also something cultivated by conservatives themselves (of both genders) in an attempt to harness the down-home regilur Amurican image. Witness my own state of Georgia’s governor, Sonny Perdue, who is often referred to by that oh-so-homey first name of his (which is actually not his first name).

What it also comes down to is that Sarah Palin HAS to complain. She runs on pure resentment and nothing else (thus, she appeals to those who do the same).

The woman resigned from being the actual governor of an actual state so she could go on Facebook and complain about stuff, for God’s sake.

Jezebel agrees.

The main thing that bothers me about that cover is actually the use of her name. I tend to get wary when I see a woman’s first name used in a context where, were it a man, I feel like they would probably use his last name.

I think the real issue here is the use of the “How do you solve a problem like Maria?” song lyric.  The “problem” with Maria was that she was whimsical and unpredictable and kooky.  It’s a cutesy song from a cutesy movie musical. 

The interesting thing, though, is that this sort of thing does to Palin what all the “George Bush is such a moron!” schtick did to Bush.  It acts as if the problem is that the person in question is stupid or nutty rather than what the real problem is, which is that they are frakkin EVIL.

I agree with Bitter Scribe on this one. Just because someone posed for a photo, or knew her photo was being taken, doesn’t mean that photo can’t be used to disparage them. Palin posed for that old Miss Alaska head shot too and that was used in a sexist context a whole bunch of times.

I just want to know - in what way is the Sarah Palin of 2009, purposefully participating in a photo shoot that only existed because her perceived appeal as a political actor and her own desire for the accompanying publicity, misconstrued by the use of a photo from said shoot for a story discussing her perceived appeal as a political actor and desire for not just publicity, but power?

I’m open to being persuaded on this, but I just don’t get the rationale for the argument.  This is what Sarah Palin does.  This is who Sarah Palin is.  This isn’t using her role as a beauty queen to typify her run for the Vice Presidency, this is using her actions as a political personality in 2009 to describe her as a political personality in 2009.

I think the real issue here is the use of the “How do you solve a problem like Maria?” song lyric.

Totally did not get the reference until you pointed it out. Shameful, I know, but The Sound of Music isn’t usually in the front of my mind. Or really even the back of it.

whew! for the briefest of moments, i thought you were going to say tomorrow’s word is horizontal! we sure as heck don’t need that.

“Tomorrow’s word?  Perpendicular.”

You undercut your own argument - this picture of Palin is explicitly a part of her own “current career merits and foibles”.  It’s four months old.
Comment #18: Jesse Taylor on 11/17 at 07:10 PM

You’re confusing context with timespan now?

If I had a picture of Barack Obama straining on the toilet *this morning*, and used it to illustrate a story about him trying to pass the universal Healthcare bill, that would be out of context and inappropriate, even though some people might say “well, he’s constipated, that is relevant to his current demeanor and therefore his functioning as President.”

Palin does a good enough job making herself look stupid with her political statements.  That photo for Runner’s World isn’t relevant to her politics. 

And the photo of Obama was from August 2006, less than a year before he announced he was running for president, when he was a Senator.  It was taken when he was on an official visit to a drought-stricken area of Kenya.

Perpendicular? Isn’t that a synonym for . . . orthogonal?

I don’t much like the GOP, but even I have to admit that there are some intelligent, erudite women in it (and, no, Michelle Bachman is NOT one of them).  So why, why, WHY is a fluff-brained weirdo with the attention span of a gnat being touted as the potential face of the Republican Party in 2012?  Can’t somebody just make her GO AWAY already?

Actually, I remember when Palin was first announced as McCain’s running mate.  One of my coworkers, a die-hard evangelical and staunch Republican, took one look at the new team and said, “Nope.  I can’t do it.  I can’t vote for them.  If it comes down to what’s best for the country versus what fits my beliefs, I have to go with what’s best for the country.”

I just want to know - in what way is the Sarah Palin of 2009, purposefully participating in a photo shoot that only existed because her perceived appeal as a political actor and her own desire for the accompanying publicity, misconstrued by the use of a photo from said shoot for a story discussing her perceived appeal as a political actor and desire for not just publicity, but power?
Comment #24: Jesse Taylor on 11/17 at 07:35 PM

There are photos inside the Runner’s World magazine showing her stretching her calves, would those be good cover shots for Newsweek?  Is every picture fair game?

http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/home.html

The point is, the cover shot is supposed to summarize something important about the subject of the cover.  Something substantive.  She’s a media whore, agreed.  But I actually didn’t know she was in the Runners World magazine until now.  And if any other political figure had shown up there, it’d be a “who cares” to me.  It would just be J Random Celebrity sharing their fitness tips and/or story.  Actor Anthony Edwards was in the November issue.  US Poet Laureate Kay Ryan was in October. 

Showing a group of photos with this, and her with the elk head, and her on her high heeled pumps on the campaign trail, and her with baby Trig, multiple shots—that might be more representative.

I’m not sure what her complaint is with this picture, but didn’t Newsweek get flak (manufactured, at least) for showing her without makeup? So now they’re doing the opposite, and still getting complaints; will Palin never be satisfied?

How many pictures are there of Palin not posing in a way that counts as cheesecake to part of her base? All accounts say she didn’t do a lot of actual sitting and thinking, or talking and listening when she was governor. And from a GOP point of view the “problem like sarah” is exactly the fact that she goes out of her way to pose like a pinup next to a rumpled Old Glory.

The article is called “How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She’s bad news for everyone.”  Is there a picture they could have used to make that better for her?  I think she’s only crying over it to distract everyone from what is probably an article filled with quotes from people who would like to see her career completely erased from the face of the earth.  And I vote with the people who say the picture is the essence of Sarah Palin - a bunch of pseudo-patriotic fluff.  She should be glad Newsweek settled for a flattering cheesecake photo; with her record they could have easily put together a far less flattering and/or more despicably sexist cover.  Newsweek should probably be given some kind of award for keeping things classy.

“Media Matters has a pretty good article about this whole flap, where they say that Newsweek has some good insight on Palin, which all can go out in the garbage, now, for the sexist way in which it was portrayed. “

Which may well be an excellent motivation for Palin’s latest hissy fit, wouldn’t you say?

“Palin was a bad candidate not because she was a dumb slut who has a great rack, and we’d all fuck in a minute. She’s a bad candidate because she seems uncurious, reacts to issues instead of thinking and planning, and substitutes slogans for actual answers about policy.”

You forgot the following: She’s vindictive, thin-skinned, quick to attack while forever crying perpetual victimood, and is as mean as a snake.

And she has a pea for a brain.

oh come off it oldfeminist @ 7:47.  Presumably that wouldn’t be a shot he intentionally posed for but some sick voyeuristic sneak.  This is a shot Palin approved of and helped to contrive and publically released-and whew is it ever contrived.  While there are candids of candidate Obama shooting hoops, there sure isn’t this kind of public created posed image.

And I vote with the people who say the picture is the essence of Sarah Palin - a bunch of pseudo-patriotic fluff.  She should be glad Newsweek settled for a flattering cheesecake photo; with her record they could have easily put together a far less flattering and/or more despicably sexist cover.  Newsweek should probably be given some kind of award for keeping things classy.
Comment #33: Kyso K on 11/17 at 08:20 PM

Yes, yes. It shows that fake superwoman ideal - doing it all and looking good doing it - Cariboo Barbie is such an appropriate nickname for her -like the Barbie Doll, it gives women an impossible to attain ideal and sends those buying it on a path to failure.  Cariboo Barbie as Superwoman is only possible if the shots are contrived, or if her failings are ignored or glossed, or if the assistance she receives is all don’t look at the man or woman or family behind the curtain.

I think that what New Sweek can’t quite say in their own defense—but it’s implicit—is that their choice of this image is deliberately commenting on Palin’s image-making.  The point of making that photo the cover, as I see it, is not that you’re supposed to say, “Oooh, teh hotnezz,” but that you’re supposed to say, “Oh, right, I remember that picture from the campaign—wow, is that tacky.  What was she thinking about how to sell an image of herself when she did that?”  It’s like Newsweek is running a Runner’s World cover as its cover, as a commentary on covers and packaging.  It’s an image of an image.

What’s that thing she’s holding in her hand, that exactly follows the line of the gray part of her top, and it’s shadow that gives her a hyper hourglass figure? I expect that’s part of the reason the flag is there: they needed a reason for her to have her arm shoved up into her ribcage like that.

Yeah Newsweek is deliberately infantalizing her, but that is the image she ran on too.

@ Hershele #31 - the last Newseek cover of Palin she did have makeup on, but it was an extreme close-up with no retouching. It was unusually harsh. It was like a Chuck Close painting. And I don’t think Palin herself said anything about it (I doubt she wanted her crows feet and facial hair to be matters of public discussion), but some people from other groups criticized it.

@ Hershele #31 - the last Newseek cover of Palin she did have makeup on, but it was an extreme close-up with no retouching. It was unusually harsh. Comment #39: snobographer on 11/17 at 09:20 PM

By what standards?  It looks as if the 5/25/2009 Newsweek photo of Obama is just as close and unretouched.

There must be something wrong with me.  I thought the Newsweek cover - the extreme close-up - was a rather nice photo.  She actually looked like a real woman and political candidate and not like Caribou Barbie.  The current cover is a more accurate portrayal of Palin:  A media whore who will do anything for attention and who is not to be taken seriously.

oh come off it oldfeminist @ 7:47.  Presumably that wouldn’t be a shot he intentionally posed for but some sick voyeuristic sneak.  This is a shot Palin approved of and helped to contrive and publically released-and whew is it ever contrived.  While there are candids of candidate Obama shooting hoops, there sure isn’t this kind of public created posed image.
Comment #35: phylosopher on 11/17 at 08:30 PM

If you looked at all the photos from Runner’s World, this is the only one that’s indoors, posed with props.  The others show her in various exercise type attitudes.  The RW article itself has little to do with politics.

Would you consider these pictures to be a good choice for a Newsweek cover about Obama:

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cc90353ef01156f48754f970c-pi
http://media.photobucket.com/image/obama hottie/kos102/2007/05 Other/Obama/Obama-hottie.jpg

It’s also interesting how the point I made about other celebrities being in RW seems to have disappeared.  Eliot Spitzer was in the magazine too.  So was David Paterson, and there’s a photo of him with the US flag behind him, in an office, all posed and stuff.

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-410—13069-0,00.html

Palin does a good enough job making herself look stupid with her political statements.  That photo for Runner’s World isn’t relevant to her politics.

Except that it’s pretty much a perfect encapsulation of her politics:  symbolic posing without any substance.  None of the other Runner’s World photos would make sense because she’s not posing with an American flag in any of them.  That’s the point—she’s using the flag as a prop in Runner’s World.  It’s not just a background decoration—it’s prominently displayed and she’s leaning on it to draw more attention to it.  That’s not the same as there being a flag in the background of Paterson’s picture.

You’re still at the apples and oranges, aren’t you, oldfem?  THe images you linked are obviously photoshopped by others or candid.  RW was one of the first photos of Palin post GOP control, thus presumably more genuinely HER.  THE RW ones outside were equally posed - if I remember correctly there was quite a bit of guffawing here on her fake running/yoga poses. 

So, I’m calling it a brilliant editorial photo choice by Newsweek, Palin the non-sweaty athlete, Palin the “patriot” who disrespectfully uses the flag as just another prop, Palin, who looks to be desperately seeking the person behind the camera’s approval, Palin who can’t quite decide if she wants to be a sexy household name or a pol, quits on one and is left with… it is really quintessentially Palin.

I hereby pledge to stop judging books by their gender and skin color.  I was lost, but now I’m found.  Thanks, Sarah.

Oldfem?  Didn’t know we were on a nickname basis, osopher.

Seven out of 8 of the RW photos were much less pose-ish.  She is an actual runner, runs often, and has run a marathon—I doubt the poses are unnatural for her, though smiling at a camera while doing it probably is.  She said she prefers to run alone and not have conversations.  I suspect if she were making *that* up there’d be plenty of people jumping all over that, and her campaign would have made a big deal about her fun running parties, but no.

Are you really saying she isn’t a runner, now, either?

And Mnemosyne, you think Paterson’s inclusion of the US flag is not a prop, just happenstance?  I’m not sure if you’re naive or just hoping I am.  Seemingly candid shots are chosen for their inclusive symbolism, too.  The same shot with no US flag (and maybe a state of NY flag too, looks like there’s more than one) would not have been chosen, I’ll bet you.

Pretty much all the “I’m a runner” features show the runner in the milieu for which they are famous, but dressed as a runner, and more posed than any other photos in the spread.  Spitzer was posed in front of City Hall, I think.  This is part of the schtick.  It’s analogous to those Playboy spreads where the librarian is wearing glasses and going “shhh,” or the chemist is wearing a lab coat and nothing else.

It’s also reminiscent of John Kerry and George Bush’s hyper-masculine gender conforming pictures of them hunting and playing military dress-up.  Manly man men are supposed to be violent and oppressive and carry guns and go on ships.  Women are supposed to be pretty things that stand next to other pretty things and look like a pretty thing.  I was thinking the exact same thing as FlipYrWhig:  if a picture is worth a thousand words, then this picture is all you need to look at to see what the article is about.  Namely, that Palin is pretty and has the same intellectual capacity for civic responsibility as your next door neighbor who waves a flag in your face to tell you how great the US is but doesn’t think the First Amendment should be interpreted to let you burn it in protest because of the soldiers and stuff.

Am I the only one here who reflects on just how boring and amateurishly posed the pictures look?  Even leaving all other issues discussed above aside these photos are banal to an almost embarrassing level.  There’s a real sense of “yeesh, this is the best you can do for image?” about them.

I think oldfeminist is right.  Using the cheesecakey photo for your story about how stupid and worthless she is (and I understand the rest of the photos accompanying the story are also “hot” type of shots) is a blatant and deliberate appeal to the “hot women are stupid” line of sexism, just as the sexism leveled against Hillary Clinton was the opposite side of the coin, “smart/opinionated women are ugly and therefore worthless human beings.”  I can’t believe I even have to add that I despise Palin’s policies.  It’s pretty damn disappointing to see a whole bunch of ostensible feminists be so hypocritical.  Sexism isn’t an acceptable weapon to use on people we dislike.

I mean, all these comments boil down to is “she was asking for it.”  Christ, people, I thought we were better than that.

I’m trying and I can’t come up with any Hillary parallels to this image.  Hillary is a competent, terrifyingly brilliant, feminist woman.  In order to have a similar type of experience where I don’t need to read the article because the picture says it all, as in this situation, the Hillary article would need to written about how awesome she is but feature a picture of her looking uglier than she actually is or a cheesecake picture.  But I don’t think that’s happened.

Of course, I’m drowning in confirmation bias here so it’s likely I’m the wrongest person to ever say a wrong thing, but still.

I really don’t think so at all, Gavel Down.  In fact, when the Runner’s World feature came out, the first thing I thought about all the pictures, especially this one, was how brilliant they are for showing her exactly as they are.  She is a vapid person with empty interests and fake morality and those pictures feature a vapid person with a fake smile doing some empty thing for show that resembles running but not in any real way.

Frankly, I’m disgusted at the hypocrisy of people who will cry foul about sexist portrayals of Hillary Clinton as a butch dyke, and racist portrayals of Barack Obama as a muslim terrorist, but rather than even acknowledge that this is a sexist portrayal, <u>merely because they dislike her politics</u>, they will say:
“she asked for it” (Jesse’s original post saying “you’re portrayed exactly as you yourself chose to be portrayed”);
she’s “cashing in on her looks” (CHV);
she’s “crying” over it (Jesse, CHV, Kyso K, John D); and
they criticize her for “turning them off” (bad Jim).

And when someone calls them out for those statements, which we ordinarily would be aghast at, they get called ridiculous (Jesse again), get shouted “Ohhhh, puuuuhleze!” at (Magis), and told to “come off it” (phylosopher).

Yeah, remind me to have you guys in my corner next time we’re defending someone for being called a slut.

Gavel Down:

I don’t think “she was asking for it” is quite right. Part of the problem of Palin for the GOP and the rest of us is in fact her willingness to play the substanceless perky cheesecake role to the hilt when she thinks it will get her votes or attention.  That picture _is_ the problem, in many of the same ways that, say, the famous picture of Bush strutting in his flight suit was the problem (well, one of many) for his presidency.

I’m trying and I can’t come up with any Hillary parallels to this image.

See Hillary Clinton on the cover of Bazaar<A> and <A HREF=“http://rakesprogress.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/hillary-spy-magazine.jpg”>Spy Magazine (last two slightly NSFW).

But notice the distinction between the messages there and the message here:
Strong, independent woman - must be a dominatrix or hiding a penis
Incompetent “problem” woman - must be a pigtailed running shorts-wearing fluff

I don’t think “she was asking for it” is quite right. Part of the problem of Palin for the GOP and the rest of us is in fact her willingness to play the substanceless perky cheesecake role to the hilt when she thinks it will get her votes or attention.

Wait, you mean the patriarchy can adversely affect people who go along with it, too? And so therefore we should not be hypocritical merely because we disagree with their political beliefs and instead call out the sexist, misogynist bastards on both sides of the fence?
I agree completely.

She is a vapid person with empty interests and fake morality and those pictures feature a vapid person with a fake smile doing some empty thing for show that resembles running but not in any real way.

Which differs from any other politician’s posed photo exactly how?  Because you don’t like her.  Fine.  But you do realize that there is a predominant cultural narrative of “how women are dumb,” don’t you?  One that is reinforced as an appropriate vehicle for denigrating humor, humor which most people consider sexist, such as the “dumb blonde” joke, yes?  And how illustrating an article about how a female politician is stupid or unqualified with pictures selectively chosen to show her as attractive and/or sexy is playing into that? 

Then I don’t care how much you like the pictures, it’s still sexist, and inappropriate.

HTML Fail.
Anyways, Google “Hillary Clinton magazine cover” and you’ll see significantly more than you want to.
Unless, apparently, your politics disagree with hers, in which case we’re throwing common decency out the window.

Part of the problem of Palin for the GOP and the rest of us is in fact her willingness to play the substanceless perky cheesecake role to the hilt when she thinks it will get her votes or attention.

Ahh, so it’s ok to be sexist to women who buy into the patriarchy and obey the monstrously overwhelming cultural message that, if you’re a woman, you’re worthless if you’re not sexually appealing to men and not too threatening intellectually.  It’s what they get for going along with it, the dumb sluts.

Sorry, not buying today.

Ouch on the first one.  Is that actually her?

But the other two being so obviously photoshopped is pretty different than this obviously photoshopped image of Palin.  Palin doesn’t see the problem with being a person who can bullshit about being “a real American” and yet stands next to a wrinkled flag looking like grinning idiot wearing running shoes until that picture is featured for an article talking about how she’s the type of person who can bullshit about being “a real American” and yet stands next to a wrinkled flag looking like a grinning idiot wearing running shoes.

And no, it’s not that Palin *must* be a pigtailed running shorts-wearing fluff.  It’s that she *is* a pigtailed running shorts-wearing fluff.  The comparison to Bush in his flight suit that Paul made is spot on.

It’s that she *is* a pigtailed running shorts-wearing fluff.  The comparison to Bush in his flight suit

Well, let’s just step back and compare the two stereotypes:
Pigtailed running shorts-wearing fluff
Heroic flight-suit-wearing Navy stud

I guess you’re right. I see nothing sexist about those portrayals. Obviously, our society values them equally, and thus we can focus like a laser beam on the politics of the people involved.

I have to say, I’m disappointed with the OP and many of the comments posted here about this article. I remembered going to my mom’s office as a little kid and reading her Newsweeks, begging her to bring them home with her, etc. I recently picked one up at a Dr.‘s office and was pretty shocked at the garbage I read in there. This cover photograph illustrates that quite well. As for my problems in, ahem, feminists and progressives declaring this Newsweek 100% Not Sexist (TM)...read this and see if you’re still so sure of yourselves: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/11/sarah-palin-sexism-watch-part-28.html

Theatetus - I generally use the term “crying” to refer to female and male complainers equally, but thanks for the scolding.

Pigtail running shorts-wearing fluff = extreme gender conformity
Heroic flight suit wearing navy stud = extreme gender conformity

So yes, they are equally valid.  They both looked completely ridiculous and both pictures are perfect representations of why they were/are horrible people to choose to lead a country.

Oldfem?  Didn’t know we were on a nickname basis, osopher.

Seven out of 8 of the RW photos were much less pose-ish.  She is an actual runner, runs often, and has run a marathon—I doubt the poses are unnatural for her, though smiling at a camera while doing it probably is.  She said she prefers to run alone and not have conversations.  I suspect if she were making *that* up there’d be plenty of people jumping all over that, and her campaign would have made a big deal about her fun running parties, but no.

Are you really saying she isn’t a runner, now, either?

And Mnemosyne, you think Paterson’s inclusion of the US flag is not a prop, just happenstance?  I’m not sure if you’re naive or just hoping I am.  Seemingly candid shots are chosen for their inclusive symbolism, too.  The same shot with no US flag (and maybe a state of NY flag too, looks like there’s more than one) would not have been chosen, I’ll bet you….

Comment #46: oldfeminist on 11/17 at 11:07 PM

I’m a lazy typist, so shoot me - and most people do shorten it to phylo, which you are welcome to use.

Uh, no, all the photos were pose-ish.  Not saying she isn’t a runner - saying in these photos, she’s posing as a runner - difference.  On the above thread there’s a discussion about fundies lying - this is fundie lying in pictures when the context is the original RW post.  It becomes an expose of fundie lying and the problem it’s causing the GOP when the context is newsweek - again, brilliant. 

The woman likes her privacy when running - but for runners world you think a bit more really running couldn’t be a onetime exception? 

Patterson looks as if he just flopped down after a run, baggy sweatshirt, ugly socks- could it be posed - sure, but there’s a willingness to be less perfect. Same for the Jennifer Beal feature. 
And am I surprised that there’s a US and state flag in what looks like the governor’s office? Again, c’mon.

But she just happens to have one draped over her kitchen barstool….tacky and contrived and disrespectful.

“And when someone calls them out for those statements, which we ordinarily would be aghast at, they get called ridiculous (Jesse again), get shouted “Ohhhh, puuuuhleze!” at (Magis), and told to “come off it” (phylosopher).

Yeah, remind me to have you guys in my corner next time we’re defending someone for being called a slut.
Comment #54: Theaetetus on 11/17 at 11:48 PM

Did you actually read the oldfem post that I was referring to?  Please do so and then tell me what a great, fair analogy that was - which is what I was commenting on.

Kyso, I’m glad that you use the term “crying” equally for male and female complainers. Tell me, what is your estimation of what society thinks of “men who cry” vs. “women who cry”? And be honest, now…
As a follow up, there’s a term for genitals that is also used in our society to describe one who cries. Do you think the term is one for male or female genitals?

Pigtail running shorts-wearing fluff = extreme gender conformity
Heroic flight suit wearing navy stud = extreme gender conformity
So yes, they are equally valid.

And our society thinks those two sterotypes of extreme gender conformity are equally valid?
You do know that women didn’t get to vote until 1920, right?

God I can’t stand semantics arguments.

What’s your point Theaetetus?  That because some random guy on the street thinks men who cry are pussies that Kyso shouldn’t use it to dismiss tedious bitching by an attention whore on an online forum?  Christ.

Yes, our society does think those two stereotypes are equally valid.  You *do* know that 30% of the country wants Palin to be president and that Bush had a 30% approval rating, right?  And look!  My stats are more relevant to the discussion at hand!

Pigtail running shorts-wearing fluff = extreme gender conformity
Heroic flight suit wearing navy stud = extreme gender conformity

So yes, they are equally valid.

Ah.  So men and women are valued equally by society.  And yet women could not hold credit cards in their own names until 1970ish.  I…am sorry, I was under the impression that you were a liberal.

Those other Runner’s World pictures of her aren’t any less posed. They crack me up. Shouldn’t there have been some pictures of her, I don’t know, running? Or at least presumably doing *something* other than standing around with flawless makeup, unmussed hair and her trademark beauty-queen fake smile? She’s not even stretching anything in the “stretching” photos. It’s all just so ridiculous and obvious, she’s posing more than Bettie Page.

My god this conversation is getting retarded.  Seriously, Gavel Down?  I really look forward to your comments and you pull out credit cards in the 1970s?  I’m disappointed.  Also, take your condescending attitude toward my feminism and shove it up your ass.  YOU do not get to decide what is and is not the Proper Feminist Reaction.  Share your opinion, sure.  Call mine stupid, go for it.  Ad hominem’ing me is ridiculous.

What are we arguing here?  Whether putting this image on this cover is sexist?  Of course it is.  Is there another layer to the image and to the decision to put it on the cover that’s worthy of a deeper conversation?  Without a doubt.  Fact:  Sarah Palin should not be taken seriously as a politician or whatever it is she is.  She’s a joke.  When looking around for an image to illustrate what a fucking joke she is, this one sums it up as much as the image of Bush in his codpiece highlights what a joke he was.  They’re both brilliant because you need to have a little deeper understanding of the issues.  Palin wraps herself in a flag every chance she gets while hypocritically attempting to force us into a theocracy.  Bush dressed up in cowboy and soldier gear every chance he got even though he never saw war and grew up with a silver spoon shoved up his ass.  They are equally valid images on those grounds.  Men need to look tough and powerful, women need to look like things.  Bush looked like a strong person about to do something useful, Palin looks like someone who shouldn’t be in charge of a mop let alone a state let alone a country.

Just because the picture is sexist, btw, doesn’t mean that Palin’s REASON for complaining it’s sexist is a valid one.

The reason it is sexist is because of our culture’s dismissal of attractive women as incompetent and stupid.

But the reason Palin is whining about it being “sexist” is the same reason the GOP only ever whines about something being “sexist”: it involves a lady somehow and they don’t like it. (Similarly “racist” means it involves a brown person somehow and they don’t like it). They seem to literally have no understand of what sexist or racist actually mean, so it’s a mistake to read legitimate criticism of sexism into Palin’s complaints.

@ kristin #73 - glad to see we can agree on something.

The whole point of the Newsweek cover is that the Runner’s World picture was inappropriate in its original context. Newsweek is pointing and laughing and saying “Who DOES this?” Because it’s absurd. I was shocked when I saw it in Runner’s World.

When the picture was taken, this woman was a sitting governor with presidential aspirations. She decided it was good PR for her as an elected official to pose as a pinup girl with an American flag. Look at her body language: Hands on hips, front knee bent like a swimsuit model. She’s not just striking a cheesecake pose, she’s referencing the fact that she’s the governor striking a cheesecake pose (what with the Blackberry and the flag and the home office setup). As a political pro pointed out to me, it’s just as much an indictment of Palin’s staff that the photo was available to Newsweek. Any competent staff would have read the Runner’s World contract and realized that this image could be bought by anyone.

Kristin, I really don’t see how this is an example of Palin being dismissed as incompetent and stupid because she’s attractive.  I see it as an example of her being dismissed *because* she’s incompetent and stupid and it’s pointing out that the only reason we are aware of her existence is because she’s attractive.  Similar to how anytime Michael Steele is going to be accused of being a crappy spokesperson for the Republican party, they’re going to accuse people of racism.

Everyone seems to say Palin was asking for it because of her previous prtrayal of herself. So if a woman is a slut, she can’t be raped, right?

The same with Prejean.

This feels like reading dailykos comments

Rachel@78: I haven’t read the article, so I don’t actually know that it uses sexist reasoning to dismiss her (rather than a straight-up analysis of all the ways she is loony and incompetent). But the image in combination with the headline does evoke sexist cultural assumptions, and I think the old rule applies: it doesn’t have to have sexist intent to have a sexist effect.

bay of arizona@79: But Palin did literally ask for it; she was in control of the photo shoot that this image came from and it was how she chose to have herself represented in the public eye. So I don’t find the Prejean situation to be equivalent at all. I think the cover is sexist, yes, but I think Palin’s whining about how it’s sexist is 100% dinsingenuous bullshit. It’s not anyone’s fault but hers that the cheesecake representation she chose to make of herself backfired on her instead of paying off like she thought it would.

Lindsay Beyerstein:  The whole point of the Newsweek cover is that the Runner’s World picture was inappropriate in its original context. Newsweek is pointing and laughing and saying “Who DOES this?” Because it’s absurd. I was shocked when I saw it in Runner’s World.

That’s what I was trying to get at @ #37 when I said “you’re supposed to say, ‘Oh, right, I remember that picture from the campaign—wow, is that tacky.  What was she thinking about how to sell an image of herself when she did that?’”

You know, this is similar to the discussion about the New Yorker cover with Barack and Michelle Obama in terrorist and militant garb.  There the question was, is the cover racist or a commentary on racist imaging—and would the intent of being the latter not get it off the hook for cuing the associations of the former?  Here the question is, is the cover exploitative or a commentary on exploitative imaging?  (A crucial difference is that the target of the New Yorker was how the Obamas are seen, and the target of Newsweek is how Palin wants to be seen.)

SweetT:  As for my problems in, ahem, feminists and progressives declaring this Newsweek 100% Not Sexist (TM)...read this and see if you’re still so sure of yourselves: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/11/sarah-palin-sexism-watch-part-28.html

Sorry, but I don’t read Shakespeare’s Sister anymore because I didn’t enjoy the environment.  Is the gripe that the image itself is sexist, or that re-using the image is sexist?  I think there’s a difference.

And do we have to start firing insults back and forth and likening other people’s—other regular readers’—arguments to rape apologist rhetoric because of a disagreement about interpretation?  Honestly, really?  Because that’s the kind of thing that makes some blogs unreadable.

I think the image is totally sexist. I think it is totally sexist because Sarah Palin intended it to be sexist. She wallows in sexism. It’s part of her raison d’etre—she isn’t one of those ugly old feminists who wear sweatpants to jog and expect their husbands to help around the house. No, she’s a beautiful model sparkly princess who also can be governor and supermom, all at the same time, and it’s all because she’s a conservative. That’s an image that she has aggressively cultivated since day one, and one that this photo neatly encapsulates for me.

I don’t see this as Newsweek using sexism against Palin. I see this as Newsweek using Palin’s own sexism against her. That doesn’t mean the image isn’t sexist. It just means that the responsibility for that lies with Sarah herself.

(And the reason I don’t view this as a “she was asking for it” because Palin, unlike Prejean, made the decision to sit for this photoshoot, and was pleased with the results. This wasn’t an accident—the Blue Star banner is too perfectly placed for this just to have been accidental, for Palin not to know what she would look like. The difference between Prejean and Palin is that Prejean’s private messages are being disseminated against her will. With Palin, her public photographs are being repurposed. Prejean is a celebrity, but wasn’t at the time, and she has every right to maintain control of intimate videos. Palin did the photoshoot as Governor of Alaska, she had every reason to expect these photos would be reused forever. Prejean was violated. Palin’s pictures were consensual.)

FlipYrWhig, I read the link until I got to the part about how the song “How do you solve a problem like Maria” on the Sound of Music was about an “assertive woman”.  What’s that internet law about how the ridiculous things that religious fundamentalists do equal the fake things that are said that religious fundamentalists do?  Because Shakesville is the feminist version of that.  It’s a parody of what feminism is.

And thank you also for teasing apart that difference between whether the image is sexist or whether reusing the image is sexist.  I think that’s the larger question.

@ Rachel,II:  Thanks for the kind words.

@ Jeff Fecke:  Right, it’s an image about image-making.

And, just generally, the fact that “she was asking for it” is a horrible thing to say about someone who has been harassed or assaulted doesn’t mean that it’s a horrible thing to say _in every conceivable circumstance_.  If you’re throwing rocks at a hornet’s nest and the swarm comes after you and stings you, well, you _were_ asking for it.  If you refuse to clean the catbox and the cat gets sick of it and poops in your shoe, you were kind of asking for it.  I don’t know if Sarah Palin did anything comparable to that, but I don’t think it’s _always_ quoting a rape-apologist line to wonder if someone was asking to be treated a certain way.

Lindsay at #77 didn’t link to what she had to say about this on her blog, but she should have.  It’s pretty much what I was thinking, too.

@ Rachel, II:  Actually, on further reflection, I think that the “How do you solve a problem like…” tagline probably is sexist, insofar as it implies that Sarah Palin is a whimsical free spirit; Newsweek probably wouldn’t create a cover story on NY-23 Conservative Party candidate and give it a tagline “How do you solve a problem like Doug Hoffman?”  Because the Tea Party dilemma for the Republicans isn’t a cutesy-poo problem, it’s An Important Political Story. 

Of course I have a bad feeling the original tagline was something like “Does Sarah Palin Have Legs?”

***Ah.  So men and women are valued equally by society.  And yet women could not hold credit cards in their own names until 1970ish.  I…am sorry, I was under the impression that you were a liberal. ***

Where do you get that from? My mom had credit cards in 1963. My families credit history was built off of the cards that she got her senior year in college. Your point was actually good, but that crappy example destroys it.

@ Bruce, I think I had heard that _married_ women had trouble having their own credit cards and credit histories even as recently as the 1970s.  That’s not true?

It’s a riff on the Sound of Music, where Maria was an overgrown child who couldn’t take her responsibilities seriously.  Maybe it’s sexist in that context, but again, I’m suffering from confirmation bias so I have a hard time taking Palin, Tea Partiers, and their ilk seriously and looking at it like an Important Political story.

@ Rachel,II:  To clarify, I meant that the media doesn’t tend to view Tea Party stuff through the lens of “fluff” or “celebrity!”; they do view Palin that way, as entertainment story or Celebrity Trainwreck.  But I find it hard to take anyone on that side seriously these days either.

And I also think that Palin, from all available evidence, _likes_ to be an entertainment story.  She’ll make a mint from it, too.  She’s canny.  I fault her views on just about everything, but her approach to this moment is quite understandable.

Warning, late night manifesto follows. Feel free to tl;dr the heck out of it.

I started trying to craft a response to this discussion by imagining how Newsweek could present an image mocking Palin’s complicity with and exploitation of sexist images without sexism. I don’t think it’s possible. It’s easier to comment on the hypocrisy of a Schafly, I think—a picture of her looking stern, speaking to a crowd, and the caption “Phillis Schafly defends traditional role of women in home.” But Palin’s complicity with the patriarchy is of a different stripe: rather than violating its norms to espouse them, she assumes its norms to benefit from them. So any image showing her assuming patriarchal norms will, necessarily, be a pro-patriarchy image. It HAS to be—that’s her schtick.

I’ve no problem accusing an image or text of retrograde or harmful ideas. I feel much more reluctant to declare any image bearing a given idea harmful. Obviously, some ideas are intrinsically harmful. But I feel like “Palin exploits her sexual image” is not intrinsically harmful, and, further, deserves public comment.

Now, obviously, if she’d posed specifically for the cover of Newsweek, she’d not have a leg to stand on. But of course she wouldn’t agree to be photographed for a mocking article. Using an image she deliberately posed for, rather than a cartoon, edited image, or misleading candid shot, was the closest they could approach to this.

At the same time, the image certainly has both sexist causes and effects. I’m sure one of the reasons it was chosen is because magazines with covers of sexy women sell. Likewise, I’m sure some consumers of this magazine purchased it for sexist reasons, and had their opinion of Palin lowered due to their sexist notions, explicit or unconscious.

I think the difficulty of this image boils down to the problem of collaboration with the patriarchy. We recognize, of course, that there are times when such collaboration was necessary for survival. A woman who chose to marry an unpleasant man or a woman who forswore sex utterly as an attempt to hold on to her power (c.f. Elizabeth I) are properly understood as victims of patriarchal notions, not true collaborators. While of course no one can have it all, there’s no reason that, for example, Elizabeth should have had to choose between the physical pleasures of sex and the personal pleasure of autonomy. (Except, you know, the whole Divine Wrong of Kings issue. But </selfthreadjack>, posthaste!)

In this case, it’s clear that Palin would not have risen to the level of prominence she has without exploiting patriarchal notions. I’m fairly certain, for example, that Geraldine Ferraro would not have posed for this sort of photo, and she nevertheless retained a political career (of sorts) after her run. Palin has deliberately forgone that political career, in an attempt to make money off of celebrity in general and a mindless, sexualized image in particular.

However, it’s hard to blame someone who collaborates with such a powerful set of assumptions. It’s easy to deal with martyrs: hooray for them! Thank goodness I didn’t face that choice! In Palin’s position (which would require changing my gender, upbringing, politics, and residence, but oh well) I can’t guarantee that, faced with the option to exploit my sexiness or accept the collapse of my career, I wouldn’t have exploited my sexiness.

At the same time, nobody is entitled to be famous. Palin (and I keep typing Sarah instead of Palin, which I blame on sexists and the ex-Governor (and her staff etc.) about 50/50. Both/and blog!) chose to seek high office, office for which she was not qualified. She chose to make up her glaring policy, character, and intellectual deficiencies with slathered-on sexiness, and that’s a decision worthy of comment. It may not be possible to do so in image form without implicit sexism, but by using an image the Governor herself agreed to and agreed to the public distribution of, I’d say Newsweek did a fair to middling job.

The above assumes that the article does not answer its title’s question with “because she has boobs, and boobs make you stupid, and the GOP can’t afford to have a STUPIDhead running for public office.”

My solution to the Obama-terrorist cover: Use the same image, but put it in the thought-bubble of a paranoid loser watching the perfectly-normal Obama couple appear on TV. That IMMEDIATELY brings the perpetrators (right wing liars and dupes) into the image, rather than reporting merely what they think.

Also, a solution for the Newsweek cover: either blank, or with a silhouette of Palin’s head(&shoulders;?)
Title:

<u>Sarah Palin Wants Her Picture Here</u>
Because She Doesn’t Have Anything to Say

Now, that would be A) a lot more of a hit piece and B) ignore the sexiness angle which was no doubt popular for both good and bad reasons. But I think the cover would do a fairly good job of getting the point across.

I think if it was a positive article about a politician I liked, and the photo was similar, I wouldn’t see the problem. It’s a fluffy picture, yes, but politicians do fluff all the time. Brings to mind the Yes, Prime Minister episode where he wanted to be photographed at a children’s city farm, with an animal, and he and his handlers were fussing over what type of animal could NOT be used in a photo against him: that is, not a pig (to be captioned about political pork), nor an ass(obvious reasons). {They ended up posing him with a sheep, if you’re curious}

Yes, it’s a bit cheesecake-y, but it isn’t extremely cheescake-y. Honestly, I think she looks more intelligent in it than she did in a lot of interviews, where her terror at not knowing the answers bled through. She’s posed with electronics to make her look ‘serious’, and plenty of other politicians have done fitness poses. I’ve never minded Obama being photographed in his swim trunks, even though he was on vacation and supposedly not posing for it.

It wouldn’t be the least bad for her career, imo, if she actually *had* a career. If she was a hard-working governor doing her best for her state, rather than someone who wants to be a politician, but lacks focus, or even an apparent plan, it would be just one more photo op. As it is, it’s a photo from a photo op that is far more interesting to look at than someone standing behind a podium.

And if I was an editor? I would want an interesting photo for the cover. Because people are visual, and boring covers don’t sell magazines.

The whole point of the Newsweek cover is that the Runner’s World picture was inappropriate in its original context. Newsweek is pointing and laughing and saying “Who DOES this?” Because it’s absurd. I was shocked when I saw it in Runner’s World.

When the picture was taken, this woman was a sitting governor with presidential aspirations. She decided it was good PR for her as an elected official to pose as a pinup girl with an American flag. Look at her body language: Hands on hips, front knee bent like a swimsuit model. She’s not just striking a cheesecake pose, she’s referencing the fact that she’s the governor striking a cheesecake pose

Lindsay, yes.

I’ve been thinking about both arguments for a while, and I’m coming down (gingerly) on the side of Newsweek, here.

The magazine were trying to make the point that in the eyes of the Repubs, especially men, she was a sex object first and foremost.  This particular photo—and the bent-knee, hands-on-hips pose—called to mind those WWII pinups of women wearing the swimsuits of the era, which had the same conservatively sexy and not-that-revealing boy-short bottoms.  There are actually plenty of photos of Palin that would have accomplished the same thing,  too—Newsweek didn’t have to use the running gear one.  There are any number of shots floating around of her wearing knee-high stiletto boots or strapless gowns or tight skirts, all current images from the past year, too,  while Palin was still the governor.  (And people would be freaking out just the same).  All are images of a woman who, if nothing else, is obsessed with, and masterful at, crafting and controlling her image.

To me, the draped flag, the double-Blackberries, and the spray-tan-shiny legs in that photo just shouted “I am a RIDICULOUS PERSON!”  But then I’m just a straight chick who also likes to run, albeit one who doesn’t wear full-face makeup and bouffant hair and carry two Blackberries when so doing, and lean on a conveniently-positioned Union Jack when I stop to catch my breath.

Jesse: I’m just trying to understand how it’s out of context.

Standard problem of playing to the audience: If the audience isn’t the one you planned to play to, you look silly or dishonest. (Saruman provided a textbook case of that.) Showing a posture created for audience A to audience B is a comment on the posture. So it’s out of context, it’s on-topic, and it’s relevant.

Newsweek seems to put forth the former argument, here,

You think this is about hotness? I’d have put it as self-description. (But I come from a very different background to this.)
Joschka Fischer did a full length campaign advert that consisted of him jogging. “Here’s what I do in my free time, and my PR people are going to nudge you towards seeing it as a good thing.” Of course the opposition mocked it. It’s their job.

So she runs, shoots wolves, uses a flag-towel and feels comfortable projecting a cheerleader image. Some people see it as a good thing. The opposition mocks it. In which way is that not business as usual?

Gavel Down: I mean, all these comments boil down to is “she was asking for it.” Christ, people, I thought we were better than that.

Don’t know if someone who’s making a mess out of the job they are supposed to do is *asking* to be criticised. They might just be honestly imcompetent. Ed Wood was trying his damn best.

Theatetus: I’m disgusted at the hypocrisy of people who will cry foul about sexist portrayals of Hillary Clinton as a butch dyke, and racist portrayals of Barack Obama as a muslim terrorist,

If Clinton gets herself photographed with an army haircut, engineer boots and a flannel shirt, dancing with a woman, or Obama has press photos taken with an AK47 and a green flag (or whatever is the current fashion among muslim terrorists), I would not feel it foul play if those pictures made covers as “this gal/guy missed the clue train”. Again, having these types of photos taken can be chalked up to incompetence,  like going to a masquerade in Nazi uniform. But incompetence in politics is not widely regarded as a desirable trait in a politician.

Samantha Vimes: {They ended up posing him with a sheep, if you’re curious}

Now I’m laughing. I am spending too much time on the internet.

What’s your point Theaetetus?  That because some random guy on the street thinks men who cry are pussies that Kyso shouldn’t use it to dismiss tedious bitching by an attention whore on an online forum?  Christ.

You know, it’s a little funny.  In my original comment I had a bit about how Sarah Palin is such a temptation for people, even feminists, to use knee-jerk sexist epithets, and how most threads involving her devolve into one feminists calling out other feminists for language, deserved or sometimes not.  Then I deleted that part because my comment was too long, and missed my chance to look witty and insightful.  Anyway, it’s true that in my area, we use “crying” on anyone who is complaining about something they really shouldn’t be, especially work related.

And how about “bitch” and “whore”, as Rachel,II used, Kyso? Are those also gender-neutral?

The photo is not out of context.  It is an ample demonstration of what a silly person she is.  The flag draped over a chair, her athletic gear perfectly chosen to show she’s one of the people (though hotter), etc.  Bush did it all the time.  No one was complaining when photos he took to show that he was Jes Folks were taken out of context to mock him.

I fail to see, seriously, why anyone is going to buy the idea that a politician has a right to keep an image from taken “out of context” to mock a persona they’ve created.

It was ridiculous in its original context. Newsweek is making fun of Palin for thinking that this picture was a good idea in Runner’s World. The article is about why she’s a problem for the GOP and that picture sums it all up. Whatever you think of her policies, Sarah Palin is a trainwreck of a politician who is constantly making a spectacle of herself in ways that make it hard for the Greed-centric Republicans to take her seriously, as much as some of the God-centric Republicans like her.

The flag draped over a chair, her athletic gear perfectly chosen to show she’s one of the people (though hotter), etc.  Bush did it all the time.  No one was complaining when photos he took to show that he was Jes Folks were taken out of context to mock him.

I believe the claim is that it’s sexist, Amanda, not that Palin should be immune from mockery.  Why did the same complaints not come up with regard to Bush?  He’s not female.

People keep focusing on the fact that Palin posed for these photos to be used in Runner’s World, as if that makes a difference.  Personally, I don’t believe in blaming women for unforeseen consequences of actions by third parties, merely because they chose to go out in public in something attractive.

Given the PROMINENT FLAG in the shot, the one being treated improperly, I don’t think she has any right to bitch about “athletic context”.  It isn’t even pure athletic cheesecake there ... not with the implied AMURKUN subtext ... in the home of a secessionist traitor, no less!

Given the PROMINENT FLAG in the shot, the one being treated improperly, I don’t think she has any right to bitch about “athletic context”.  It isn’t even pure athletic cheesecake there ... not with the implied AMURKUN subtext ... in the home of a secessionist traitor, no less!

So, because she’s leaning on a flag, then death is too good for her?  I hadn’t pegged you as the jingoistic type, Ms Kate.

The real tragedy is that Newsweek is writing an article about Palin’s political potential. In a sane world, she would have none.

Olivia: The picture is completely out of context. When was the last time Newsweek used a photo of another politician in shorts on the cover?

How common is it for US politicians to pose in shorts?

If it was dirt common, there’d be no reason to stare, it if was one-of-a-kind, the very fact that they did is news.

Theaethetus: Personally, I don’t believe in blaming women for unforeseen consequences of actions by third parties, merely because they chose to go out in public in something attractive.

Third party would be the photographer she hired, the PR people who allowed her to have this photo taken, Runners World who published it, or the lawyer who did not realize that it would be up to grabs? Or McCain who dragged Palin into the spotlight?

And while it is perfectly acceptable to wear gym clothes in public, in many less privileged job one catches hell for wearing them in the office, because it looks “unprofessional”. But that’s entirely forseen.

I believe the claim is that it’s sexist, Amanda, not that Palin should be immune from mockery.  Why did the same complaints not come up with regard to Bush?  He’s not female.

We called Bush “Commander Codpiece.”  “Caribou Barbie” is gentle in comparison, and not terribly out of line considering her carefully-crafted persona.  She chose to make her relative hotness an issue in that campaign, and we can only mock with the tools she gives us.  We could have been calling her Governor Boobies McAmazingGams, but we didn’t, because we’re feminists.  Hell, forget Newsweek, where’s my award for keeping things classy?

Recall that Palin posed for that picture for a national magazine. There were plenty of other pictures in that photospread (although I would have lost the one where she’s sporting camel toe).

I cannot understand thea’s point that a cheesecake picture the ex-governor posed for this summer, which was published in a national magazine, cannot be published by another national magazine in the fall. Are runners somehow different from the rest of Americans?

The point made by the photo is do we want a politician who poses for cheesecake pictures and (all but) wraps herself in the flag? It’s one thing to have been a beauty pageant contestant in one’s youth’ it’s another to be a Presidential frontrunner trying to use beauty pageant techniques to get ahead.

I believe the claim is that it’s sexist, Amanda, not that Palin should be immune from mockery.  Why did the same complaints not come up with regard to Bush?  He’s not female.

Which is why Palin’s ploy is so clever.  By wrapping herself in traditional femininity, she immunizes herself from criticism.  Here she is, an incompetent politician who resigned from office so she could make better money by exploiting her sexy image on the wingnut welfare circuit, and she has people defending her because pointing out that she’s using sexist tropes to sell her image is, somehow, itself sexist.

The selling point of Sarah Palin was that she’s the VP candidate you’d like to fuck.  That’s it.  She didn’t have experience; she didn’t have ideas; she didn’t have original or interesting policy positions.  She was like every other barely competent Republican, except that she came packaged as a hot babe, and that got her a spot on the presidential ticket.

And the problem here is that Newsweek is pointing out that her image was her only selling point and that she exploited that image to the hilt?

Theaetetus :  Personally, I don’t believe in blaming women for unforeseen consequences of actions by third parties, merely because they chose to go out in public in something attractive.

Do you really think all blame is rape-blame?  Because that’s what you’re constantly implying.  If Sarah Palin was wearing a T-shirt that said “I’m With Stupid,” and people laughed about it, would you insist that that, too, was a case of people wrongly and rapist-apologist-ish-ly judging her to be “asking for it” because of “what she was wearing”?

We called Bush “Commander Codpiece.” “Caribou Barbie” is gentle in comparison, and not terribly out of line considering her carefully-crafted persona.

How “chivalrous” of you, Kyso.  I’m sure she appreciates the gentleness, because, after all, she is a woman, right?

Honestly, you really don’t see a distinction between the pig-tailed cheerleader and the flight-suited navy stud, except that the former is “gentler”? No distinction between an infantalizing sex object stereotype and a war hero and commander stereotype? As a start, do cheerleaders earn as much as navy pilots? Are they equally respected in our society?

How about this: did people mock Bush because he was a flight-suit wearing pilot? Or did they mock him because of who he was - i.e. not a flight-suit wearing pilot, but just someone dressed up like one for a photo op?
Now, are they mocking Palin because she’s a sex object? Yeah, they are. Essentially, they’re saying because of her looks, she can’t be taken seriously.

Mnemosyne:  The selling point of Sarah Palin was that she’s the VP candidate you’d like to fuck.  That’s it.  She didn’t have experience; she didn’t have ideas; she didn’t have original or interesting policy positions.  She was like every other barely competent Republican

I think the original selling point of Sarah Palin was supposed to be that she was an outsider and a common-sense battler for good government—and the fact that she was a woman was supposed to amplify the common-sense point:  she looks after her state the way she looks after her brood, she doesn’t put up with bullshit, etc.  Glamor was supposed to be the delivery system for substance.  (I actually think Dan Quayle was a case of someone packaged with _even less_ substance and _even more_ emphasis on youth and looks.)

But then the substance melted away extremely fast.  It was all an illusion to begin with.  And she hasn’t been trying to build it back.

Theaetetus: Essentially, they’re saying because of her looks, she can’t be taken seriously.

So if she looked like Margaret Thatcher, her posing in gym clothes would be perfectly respectable?

And the problem here is that Newsweek is pointing out that her image was her only selling point and that she exploited that image to the hilt?

No, they weren’t. In fact, if you read either of the two articles about her in Newsweek, there’s only one reference in each to her attractiveness, and they’re throw away lines:
“Obama knows the long odds against a right-wing populist winning the presidency, no matter how good she looks in a skirt (or running clothes), brandishing a gun.”
and
“Let’s admit that Sarah Palin is more attractive—some might even want to say more appealing—than much of her enraged core constituency”

Do you really think all blame is rape-blame?  Because that’s what you’re constantly implying.

Did I do that? Or did I imply that blaming her for being upset about an out-of-context sexist portrayal because “she chose to dress like that” treads the line?
Actually, I directly stated that. You’re the one who built this “all blame is rape-blame” strawman.

Now, are they mocking Palin because she’s a sex object? Yeah, they are. Essentially, they’re saying because of her looks, she can’t be taken seriously.

No, they’re saying that Palin relies on her looks to get by, but if you look at her actual policies or positions or experience, there’s no there there.  She can’t be taken seriously because she uses her looks as a substitute for actual knowledge.

If she really was some kind of political dynamo with great ideas who was getting put down because of her looks, your defense would make sense, but she isn’t.  She’s an empty suit.  The fact that her empty suit comes wrapped in fake femininity instead of Bush’s fake masculinity doesn’t magically fill the suit up and make her a serious politician who’s just being bashed for her looks.

inge, her posing in gym clothes in a running magazine is entirely appropriate and respectable. Someone using that image, plus an upskirt shot, plus a picture of the Palin-fetish-schoolgirl doll in articles in an alleged news magazine ostensibly discussing politics, and only mentioning the context of one photo once in a throwaway line, are inappropriate.  The people here criticizing her for complaining that it’s sexist, the ones calling her a bitchy attention whore who was asking for it by dressing that way, are hypocrites.

No, they’re saying that Palin relies on her looks to get by, but if you look at her actual policies or positions or experience, there’s no there there.  She can’t be taken seriously because she uses her looks as a substitute for actual knowledge.

Except that they never said that.

If she really was some kind of political dynamo with great ideas who was getting put down because of her looks, your defense would make sense, but she isn’t.  She’s an empty suit.

So feminism and defense from sexism are only for the women who are political dynamos with great ideas? That’s the hypocrisy. If you’re only going to call people out when they attack strong, intelligent women, but look the other way when they attack weak or incompetent ones, then you’re just as bad.

Theaetetus :  Why did the same complaints not come up with regard to Bush?  He’s not female.

A similar cover for Bush would be a picture of him taken for Brush Cutters World, one he authorized, riding in the pickup truck with a dusty hat and work gloves—which Newsweek would grab and make their cover.  And the tagline would say something like “Oh What a Beautiful Morning (In America).”  And everyone would say, What bullshit, he’s trying so hard to look like a cowboy, and he’s no damn cowboy, he’s not even Ronald Reagan pretending to be a cowboy.  And the point of the cover would be to say, Why does this guy want to sell this image of himself? 

Why didn’t Newsweek do that?  Because questioning the marketing of Bush would be, like, giving aid and comfort to The Terrorists or something.  But I wish they would have done a cover like that.

Or did I imply that blaming her for being upset about an out-of-context sexist portrayal because “she chose to dress like that” treads the line?

Yes, you did, in order to shame people into seeing that judging a woman for what she wears is, by its very nature, on the continuum of rape-apology.  Because rape apologists say “she chose to dress like that,” everyone who points out that “she chose to dress like that” is thinking like a rape apologist.  That’s quite an escalation.

Essentially, they’re saying because of her looks, she can’t be taken seriously.

No. They’re saying that because of her BASIC INCOMPETENCE, she can’t be taken seriously, no matter how much she tries to fool you by looking Teh Hawt.

Theaetetus: inge, her posing in gym clothes in a running magazine is entirely appropriate and respectable.

For an athelete, yes. For a celebrity, same. For an actor, sure. For a musician? Slightly cheesy. For a CEO? Very cheesy. For a banker? Probably not a good idea. For a judge? Bad idea.

I’d put politicians more in the area of bankers and judges when it comes to “what is appropriate professional behaviour” than in the area of athletes and celebrities. But I tend to reagard politics as srs bzns, and a politician’s control over their composure and awareness of the image they project as important.

Someone who wants their professional image to be “cheerleader” or “cowboy” seems more suited to Hollywood than Washington to me.

“How about this: did people mock Bush because he was a flight-suit wearing pilot? Or did they mock him because of who he was - i.e. not a flight-suit wearing pilot, but just someone dressed up like one for a photo op?
Now, are they mocking Palin because she’s a sex object? Yeah, they are. Essentially, they’re saying because of her looks, she can’t be taken seriously. “

Now see, *that* is a decent argument worth responding to.  Not silly little commentaries on whether or not “bitch” and “whore” are sexist because women didn’t get credit until the 70s or the vote until the 20s.

I mean, yeah, I can totally see how that’s one argument.  Bush was mocked because he dressed up as a pilot whereas Palin is being mocked because she’s Carrie Prejean in twenty years.  On the other hand, we’re saying that Palin is the type of person who thinks a picture that highlights her gender conformity is a good way to get votes.  I think the same thing was said about Bush, even if it wasn’t articulated in the same manner:  Bush (and Kerry) dressed like that because they thought hyper conforming to their gender roles was a good way to get votes.  Clearly the gender roles themselves aren’t equal, but the overall effect is the same:  you are the type of person who thinks acting like this is acceptable. 

Apologies if this isn’t clear, I’m not caffeinated.

How “chivalrous” of you, Kyso.  I’m sure she appreciates the gentleness, because, after all, she is a woman, right?

Jesus, you’re tedious.  I think we may be dealing with a mythical PUMA here.  It’s like seeing a unicorn, an angry, unrelenting unicorn.

A similar cover for Bush would be a picture of him taken for Brush Cutters World, one he authorized, riding in the pickup truck with a dusty hat and work gloves—which Newsweek would grab and make their cover.  And the tagline would say something like “Oh What a Beautiful Morning (In America).” And everyone would say, What bullshit, he’s trying so hard to look like a cowboy, and he’s no damn cowboy, he’s not even Ronald Reagan pretending to be a cowboy.  And the point of the cover would be to say, Why does this guy want to sell this image of himself?

How is a cowboy perceived in our society? Manly.
And how is a pigtailed-woman in running shorts perceived in our society? Girly.
And you really think that a news article with a picture portraying Bush as manly is similar to this one?

No - that article would be about how Bush isn’t a cowboy, and isn’t living up to the stereotype. Unlike this one, which is about how Palin is just a girl. Even the title is a reference to the song, which has the lyrics:
She’d outpester any pest
Drive a hornet from its nest
She could throw a whirling dervish out of whirl
She is gentle! She is wild!
She’s a riddle! She’s a child!
She’s a headache! She’s an angel!
She’s a girl!

That’s a far cry from Bush in a pickup truck with a dusty hat and work gloves.
And you still haven’t addressed the upskirt shot or the fetish action figure.

Jesus, you’re tedious.  I think we may be dealing with a mythical PUMA here.  It’s like seeing a unicorn, an angry, unrelenting unicorn.

Kyso, if that’s the best you can do to respond to my arguments, then I think we’re done here, particularly since you’re ignoring where I’ve called Palin weak and incompetent. Have you noticed the number of people in here who agree that it’s sexist, and are torn because they hate Palin’s politics so much?
There’s so much to hate her for - her anti-choice policies, her anti-rape-kit policies, her anti-evolution and anti-sex education policies, her corruption and political scheming, etc. - so why are you attacking her for being a woman?
And having been called out on this, your response is to call me a PUMA? Really?

Hey, Theaetetus, if you don’t like how we’re responding to you, maybe you should do something about the image you’re projecting.

Comment #40: phylosopher

By what standards?  It looks as if the 5/25/2009 Newsweek photo of Obama is just as close and unretouched.

All the Obama Newsweek covers I’m seeing in GIS fit in his entire face with room to spare. The Palin cover to which I and Hershele were referring was squeezed in so tight it could only fit about 2/3 of her face.

I mean, yeah, I can totally see how that’s one argument.  Bush was mocked because he dressed up as a pilot whereas Palin is being mocked because she’s Carrie Prejean in twenty years.

That’s exactly it.
Bush was mocked for falsely playing at manliness.
Prejean and Palin are mocked for being female.  We should be criticizing their substantive arguments and policies, because there’s so much to criticize there.  We should not be calling them bimbos or barbies.

And you really think that a news article with a picture portraying Bush as manly is similar to this one?

OK, this is all hypothetical, but, yes, I can easily imagine an article portraying Bush as a manipulator of hypermasculine imagery like cowboys and fighter pilots and gauging how well that persona was serving his political career.

I didn’t read the Newsweek article and my comments have been restricted to the cover.  If by “upskirt shot” you mean the picture I’ve seen before of men looking up at Palin, with the camera positioned behind her, I would say, yes, the intent of that picture is to create an equivalency between Palin on stage and a strip club dancer—the point is supposed to be to focus on the enraptured male faces but, yes, it’s dicey. 

But in general, as Mnemosyne and litbrit and The Erl and others have been saying, the degree to which the cover is “sexy” or “sexist” (hat tip to Spinal Tap) is an effect of how it’s supposed to be ABOUT sexiness as sales strategy, ABOUT how projecting an image of hawtnezz may or may not work to the advantage of what she says she believes in politically. 

Can’t we just say that it’s hard to talk about sex appeal as sales strategy without presuming that sexist assumptions are operative, and then talk about it?  The sexist reaction to the cover would be to talk about whether it was Hot Or Not.  I don’t think it’s sexist to talk about whether Palin works a sexy image.

Thea—that picture screams I Love the Patriarchy, from the child’s teddy bear to the Blue Star Banner to the American flag draped over the barstool to her perky, leggy stance. (She has in fact borne many children for the Fatherland.) Newsweek is merely retransmitting the message that Palin originated.

Hey, Theaetetus, if you don’t like how we’re responding to you, maybe you should do something about the image you’re projecting.

If you think the image I’m projecting is that of a PUMA merely because I’m saying that we should criticize Palin for her actual failings rather than being her being upset over a sexist portrayal in a news magazine, then all I can suggest is that you get over your tribalism.  Just because she’s a conservative doesn’t mean that we, as liberals, can attack her in sexist or misogynistic ways.  It’s worse than when conservatives do it, because they truly don’t believe that women are equal.  They’re not hypocrites, just assholes.  But we’re supposed to know better - so the “but she puts herself out there as a sex object, so therefore we’re justified in calling her merely a sex object” is just wrong.

I totally see what you’re saying now, Theaetetus.  I still disagree, but I better understand the nuances of your point.

Bush was mocked for falsely playing at manliness.
Prejean and Palin are mocked for being female.

I have to go Judith Butler on this and say that Palin is mocked not for “being female” but for how she _performs_ femininity.

Prejean is a different case:  nobody faults a pageant contestant for glamming it up.  She’s mocked for concluding that she was a victim of political bias.  And everything that has happened since then has been the dogpile of how she reconciles her image of principled martyrdom with the rest of what she does with her life.  Male entertainers who have complained about career damage because of their conservative politics don’t get a lot of sympathy either.  (Keith Olbermann running bikini pics every night, now _that’s_ sexist.)

I don’t think we’re calling her “merely a sex object”.  We’re saying she’s a generic tool of the patriarchy who *wants* to be seen as a sex object because she knows that’s how women get power under a patriarchy, especially if they are vapid assholes otherwise.  It’ll be funny/great if she turns into a feminist because she realizes from this that sex object power is not real power.

@ Theaetetus:  But, here’s the thing, don’t we have to decide if the image (or article, but I’m more interested in the image so I’ll keep it there) is sexist first before we can figure out to do with Palin’s “being upset over a sexist portrayal”? 

The idea of Palin’s being upset over sexist treatment is AOK—just days ago here there was a discussion about defending Carrie Prejean’s sense of grievance about the release of the videos.  Being upset over sexism is totally legitimate regardless of the politics of the upset person. 

But _has_ Palin been treated in a sexist way in this image?  That’s the underlying issue, right?  I thought that was the point of this discussion.

Thanks, Rachel. I agree with your interpretation of her… I just disagree with what our response should be. Legitimate criticism, yes. Even pity. But not sexist remarks just because she is a tool of the patriarchy.
As an additional downside, it plays right into the hands of the conservatives who love to troll by saying that liberals are the real sexists and racists.

But _has_ Palin been treated in a sexist way in this image?  That’s the underlying issue, right?  I thought that was the point of this discussion.

Not as far as I saw… Take a look at Jesse’s original post:
It’s hard to argue the sexism of others when you’re portrayed exactly as you yourself chose to be portrayed.  If there is one thing that Sarah Palin controls, it’s the motherfucking several-hour-long photo shoots she signs herself up for.  But she does know the word “sexism”, so she might as well use it.

His point was that since she signed up for it, then she can’t claim it’s sexist when used out of context.  Essentially that because she’s proverbially done the high-heel and make-up thing, she can’t ever complain about sexism directed at her.  This is not far from old common law that prostitutes couldn’t get raped, because they chose to have sex with someone they’re not married to, so they can’t complain when it’s done against their will.

I thought the best picture for Newsweek to use would be the one where the guy was slaughtering turkeys behind her, and she looked oblivious. That picture probably most accurately represents her political campaign.

@ ACG, I think that’s the best justification for why the image is sexist:  even if it’s about the packaging of a politician, she’s drawing criticism for being packaged in the usual way _as though it’s unusual_, which is similar to the way women politicians get criticized for “ambition” even though all politicians are ambitious.

But I still think she chooses to package herself in a way that is, in fact, unusual.

I thought the best picture for Newsweek to use would be the one where the guy was slaughtering turkeys behind her, and she looked oblivious. That picture probably most accurately represents her political campaign.

My favorite detail of that image is the Burberry scarf.  Just about everything in the picture happens to match it.

Except that they never said that.

In other words, you’re assuming that every Newsweek reader slept through the entire 2008 election and had absolutely no idea that Sarah Palin is an incompetent idiot who exploits her looks to get by until Newsweek published this cover.

They didn’t have to say it, because they and other magazines have been saying it for at least a year.  Is Newsweek supposed to do a full recap of the entire election and everything that happened afterwards so everyone understands why they would publish a picture of Sarah Palin using sex to sell her image as a politician after Palin has been doing it for at least a year on the national stage?

I understand the bind you’re in—you don’t want women to be judged by their looks, so when someone who builds her entire image on her looks is judged by her own measure, you want to defend her from that judgment, even though it’s the measure of judgment she herself chose.  I’m saying that Palin can’t have it both ways:  she can’t repeatedly present herself as the VPILF and then complain when people mock the way she presents herself.

His point was that since she signed up for it, then she can’t claim it’s sexist when used out of context.  Essentially that because she’s proverbially done the high-heel and make-up thing, she can’t ever complain about sexism directed at her.

I think this is where the basic disagreement is:  I don’t think the picture was used out of context.  Palin appeared in Runner’s World as the governor of Alaska.  She used the symbols of government to emphasize that she was appearing as a politician, not as a runner who also happened to be a politician.  The picture is supposed to show her political strength, not her athletic abilities.

To then complain that the picture is being used to show how Palin emphasizes her looks in her political image is glossing over the point that Palin posed for the picture for political purposes and used political symbolism to emphasize that.

I understand the bind you’re in—you don’t want women to be judged by their looks, so when someone who builds her entire image on her looks is judged by her own measure, you want to defend her from that judgment, even though it’s the measure of judgment she herself chose.

Yes. If Palin’s entire campaign were based around “I’m a Barbie doll, vote for me!” that would be sexist and wrong. It would then also be wrong for us to say “She’s a Barbie doll, so don’t vote for her.”
Would you refuse to defend Hooters waitresses from sexist comments just because they chose to work there?

Rachel,II@131:

I mean, yeah, I can totally see how that’s one argument.  Bush was mocked because he dressed up as a pilot whereas Palin is being mocked because she’s Carrie Prejean in twenty years.  On the other hand, we’re saying that Palin is the type of person who thinks a picture that highlights her gender conformity is a good way to get votes.  I think the same thing was said about Bush, even if it wasn’t articulated in the same manner:  Bush (and Kerry) dressed like that because they thought hyper conforming to their gender roles was a good way to get votes.  Clearly the gender roles themselves aren’t equal, but the overall effect is the same:  you are the type of person who thinks acting like this is acceptable.

Yes, this.  And more… technically speaking, Bush was a fighter pilot, once upon a time (albeit one who was too chickenshit to actually, you know, fight), but by dressing up and so flamboyantly acting the part, in a carefully staged photo-op designed to highlight his image of hypermasculinity, he made himself (and his prominent codpiece) ridiculous. 

FlipYrWhig@142:

I have to go Judith Butler on this and say that Palin is mocked not for “being female” but for how she _performs_ femininity.

I think this is the crux of the argument.  If we were to react solely to the image itself… if, for example, the photo weren’t a reprint from Runner’s World… we would be remiss for targeting her with sexist attacks.  But as someone pointed out upthread, this isn’t just a photo of Sarah Palin; it’s a picture of Sarah Palin’s image, the one she has carefully cultivated ever since before the whole “pit bull with lipstick” business.  One which, in my opinion at least, is designed consciously to invite criticism which then can be immediately denounced as sexist.  It’s a trap, and if there’s one thing Palin’s good at it’s springing that particular trap on her opponents.  That’s why she got the VP nod in the first place- because she is quite adept at playing the part of “conservative woman”, with a warm smile and homey, folksy meat-and-potatoes for the good ol’ boys, and claws and fangs for anyone else.  She projects a sexy, winking image for her base, and criticizes her opponents as sexist when they call her on it, sowing dissent among the ranks of liberal feminists.  The thing we should not lose sight of here is that she herself is at the head of the charge for armies of the patriarchy.

There are a ton of other pictures that Newsweek could have used:  a still of her winking at the camera during the VP debates, a picture of pregnant Bristol, the turkey being slaughtered, the wolf being shot out of the helicopter, hell, the picture of her at the RNC looking like Pinochet addressing the masses kind of terrifies me.  I like that they chose this picture because it’s not a “gotcha media” thing, it’s not a candid photo, it’s not one of her kids; it’s from a spread that was completely posed, appropriately photoshopped, and presumably under her control.  She would have bitched no matter what picture they chose.  Granted, they could have chosen any number of other pictures of her looking like a normal person, but that would be boring and also not tell the whole story.

Just idle thoughts as I procrastinate.

Would you refuse to defend Hooters waitresses from sexist comments just because they chose to work there?

If said Hooters waitress refused to actually do her work and accused me of being sexist because I didn’t support her decision to stand around and look pretty instead of doing her job, I probably would refuse to defend her.

Again, if Sarah Palin was still the governor of Alaska, I’d be defending her to the hilt, because they should be criticizing her job performance, not her looks.  But right now, as far as she’s concerned, her looks are her job.  She’s not doing anything else.  She didn’t even write her own book.  So to sell herself on the basis of her looks and then call people sexist because they criticize her for selling herself on the basis of her looks is a pretty twisted brand of hypocrisy on her part.

Didn’t you have this discussion about the Ann Coulter picture on the cover of Time?

I don’t see the use of that picture as particularly sexist.  I’m sure Palin would have preferred a picture of her looking more staid and official, more Presidential, on the cover of a national news magazine promoting an article discussing her potential political liabilities.  No surprise, there.  Maybe it’s supposed to be sexy, but it’s not sexist.  She really does present herself as a Woman Of The People, as a soccer mom who runs marathons (between book-bannings and wolf hunts).  Is it sexist to point that out?  Is that not part of her persona?

I like “Caribou Barbie” too.  Good one.

I have to go Judith Butler on this and say that Palin is mocked not for “being female” but for how she _performs_ femininity.

Which is the same thing, really. All public women are criticized for how they perform femininity. That’s sexism.

If Palin’s entire campaign were based around “I’m a Barbie doll, vote for me!” that would be sexist and wrong. It would then also be wrong for us to say “She’s a Barbie doll, so don’t vote for her.”

But would it be wrong (sexist-ly wrong) to say, “She wants us to see her as a Barbie doll, so don’t vote for her?”

All public women are criticized for how they perform femininity. That’s sexism.

I don’t think that’s right—isn’t there a difference between “Hillary Clinton looks dowdy” or “Sarah Palin looks hot” on the one hand and “Hillary Clinton wants to project un-femme toughness” or “Sarah Palin wants to project femme Having It All” on the other? 

Obviously it gets blurry in cases where people say “Hillary Clinton looks dowdy _because_ she wants to project un-femme toughness” or “Sarah Palin looks hot _because_ she wants to project femme Having It All.”

Mnemosyne, I predict I’m going to regret asking this, but how does Palin “exploit” her looks to get ahead? Just by happening to be what’s generally considered good-looking? You know a lot of beauty-compliant women are accused of being intentionally sexually titillating just for being seen in public, right? That’s what women are for is sex, so if my boner gets all tingly from looking at her it’s totes her doing. You know Palin didn’t manufacture and distribute or even acknowledge those VPILF buttons and t-shirts or that blow-up doll, right?

I don’t think that’s right—isn’t there a difference between “Hillary Clinton looks dowdy” or “Sarah Palin looks hot” on the one hand and “Hillary Clinton wants to project un-femme toughness” or “Sarah Palin wants to project femme Having It All” on the other?

All of your examples, FlipYrWhig, are frequent and familiar criticisms of how public women perform femininity.

@ snobographer:  Right, that’s what I meant.  But if public women are always being criticized for how they perform femininity, what’s exceptional about this case?  Isn’t there also a difference between saying “Sarah Palin is particularly aggrieved by this image because it is so sexist” and “Sarah Palin is aggrieved all the time by the the baseline level of sexism inflicted upon women in the public sphere.”  Otherwise, any reaction to any picture ever taken of Sarah Palin would testify to the existence of sexism.  What’s particularly sexist about this so as to make it stand apart from baseline sexism, the kind of sexism that would shape reactions to pictures of Michelle Obama, Carly Fiorina, Jodi Rell, or Amy Klobuchar?

Mnemosyne, I predict I’m going to regret asking this, but how does Palin “exploit” her looks to get ahead?

Probably the epitome was when she winked at the camera six times during the vice presidential debates.  And, no, it wasn’t an accidental tic that just happened to look like she winked.  She deliberately chose to wink at the camera to communicate with the viewers.  That’s where the infamous and much mocked post on the National Review website about the “starbursts” that male conservatives experienced when they looked at Palin came from.

So, tell me, what completely innocent and professional reason did she have for doing that not once, but six times during the course of the debate?  Most of us view it as Palin using her sexuality to try and win over the viewers, but maybe you have another explanation.

I’m saying that Palin can’t have it both ways:  she can’t repeatedly present herself as the VPILF and then complain when people mock the way she presents herself.
Comment #151: Mnemosyne on 11/18 at 01:54 PM

So where’s the line, where does she move from “woman dressing appropriately for the patriarchy who happens to have what the patriarchy calls a bitchin’ bod” to “VPILF wannabe”?  It appears that it’s okay to be an attractive woman in politics if you don’t use it—a limitation not applied to men in politics.

It’s hard to imagine a photo of a male politician that would arouse the same “cruising on his looks” response.  That’s because a photo of a male politician isn’t automatically filed as risible just because he’s good-looking, even if he’s posing to look good.  It would have to get to the point of Arnold Schwarzenegger getting out the Speedo and flexing while oiled up before it reached the mockery level of a woman in not-at-all revealing running shorts standing in a standard modeling pose.

I fail to see, seriously, why anyone is going to buy the idea that a politician has a right to keep an image from taken “out of context” to mock a persona they’ve created.
Comment #108: Amanda Marcotte on 11/18 at 11:21 AM

Newsweek has the right to use this photo.  Just as they have the right to use photos of Hillary Clinton with her mouth wide open looking harridan-ish.  Doesn’t make it not out of context or sexist.

How about this: did people mock Bush because he was a flight-suit wearing pilot? Or did they mock him because of who he was - i.e. not a flight-suit wearing pilot, but just someone dressed up like one for a photo op?
Now, are they mocking Palin because she’s a sex object? Yeah, they are. Essentially, they’re saying because of her looks, she can’t be taken seriously.
Comment #119: Theaetetus on 11/18 at 12:38 PM

I remember that Michael Dukakis was mocked for riding in a tank because he wasn’t who he pretended to be.  That was because his performance (thanks FlipYrWhig!) of masculinity was insufficiently convincing, not because riding in a tank was insufficiently manly or even “too manly”.

Theaetetus: inge, her posing in gym clothes in a running magazine is entirely appropriate and respectable.

For an athelete, yes. For a celebrity, same. For an actor, sure. For a musician? Slightly cheesy. For a CEO? Very cheesy. For a banker? Probably not a good idea. For a judge? Bad idea.

I’d put politicians more in the area of bankers and judges when it comes to “what is appropriate professional behaviour” than in the area of athletes and celebrities. But I tend to reagard politics as srs bzns, and a politician’s control over their composure and awareness of the image they project as important.
Comment #130: inge on 11/18 at 01:04 PM

So the politicians who have been featured in that series are all clowns?  Paterson, governor of New York?  Eliot Spitzer?  They all have posed in running gear, Paterson in running shorts with his legs up and his crotch in the middle of the shot—if that photo had been of any woman, it’d be considered sexually inviting, but I guess as a man he is allowed to hang his legs anywhere he wants.  A Nobel-prize winning physicist in running shorts.  Kay Ryan, poet laureate.  Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, from the waist down only.  All embarrassments to their careers by showing up in shorts in an article about running in a running magazine.

But as someone pointed out upthread, this isn’t just a photo of Sarah Palin; it’s a picture of Sarah Palin’s image, the one she has carefully cultivated ever since before the whole “pit bull with lipstick” business.  One which, in my opinion at least, is designed consciously to invite criticism which then can be immediately denounced as sexist.  It’s a trap, and if there’s one thing Palin’s good at it’s springing that particular trap on her opponents. 
Comment #154: jamie d on 11/18 at 02:04 PM

So if a woman dresses appropriately for the patriarchy (Palin), we can slam her for her looks.  But if a Black man “dresses White” that’s cool.  Sounds fair.

It seems to me that the appropriate response is to say looks don’t matter.  Not to make fun of her for being conventionally attractive and dressing and posing in a conventional feminine way which will emphasize that fact.  Why should she have to hide her feminine shape just because it’s “sexxay”?

If you look at other female politicians who don’t have her natural underlying conventional beauty, they still dress in the girly dress.  For example, I would guess Clinton wears pant suits not because they are more comfortable but because, if she doesn’t, she’d be viciously mocked for her “cankles” and “thick legs.”  She’s dressing to “hide her figure faults.”

So where’s the line, where does she move from “woman dressing appropriately for the patriarchy who happens to have what the patriarchy calls a bitchin’ bod” to “VPILF wannabe”?

Posing for political cheesecake pictures crosses that line for me, but I guess it doesn’t for you.  I have a problem with people who deliberately mix the symbols of government with their appearance to try and make themselves both attractive and political.  Especially when they do it specifically so they have plausible deniability and can weep and wail about OMG SEXISM! if someone calls them on it.

But, hey, if you want to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary and insist that Palin is an innocent victim of the patriarchy who’s having these tropes used against her by mean people and not trying to use them to her own benefit, be my guest.

So if a woman dresses appropriately for the patriarchy (Palin), we can slam her for her looks.  But if a Black man “dresses White” that’s cool.  Sounds fair.

Ah.  I should have guessed you were a PUMA.  Because if a black man wears anything but an Al Sharpton-style track suit, he’s “dressing white,” so therefore any criticism of Palin using the symbols of government as props for her cheesecake shots is sexist.

I don’t think anyone is actually arguing that she shouldn’t have posed “like that.”  It’s not that female politicians can’t be hot or sexy.  Hillary is way gorgeous and she totally dresses like she knows how hot she is, for her age and her status.  Palin dresses like a gorgeous woman in her 40s and there’s nothing wrong with rocking what you got.  No one is saying that pretty women can’t be smart or have to dress dowdy or anything else.  But when you are of a certain status, you need to maintain a carefully cultivated image.  Governors, especially female governors no matter how unfair it is, should be taken seriously and when they do a photo-spread, their people should make sure they’re highlighted in the best possible manner.  Based on Palin’s dismissal of how McCain’s people tried to handle her, I wouldn’t be surprised if she wouldn’t let her people do a run-through of this shoot in an attempt to make her less beauty queen in those pictures.

@ snobographer:  Right, that’s what I meant.  But if public women are always being criticized for how they perform femininity, what’s exceptional about this case?  Isn’t there also a difference between saying “Sarah Palin is particularly aggrieved by this image because it is so sexist” and “Sarah Palin is aggrieved all the time by the the baseline level of sexism inflicted upon women in the public sphere.” Otherwise, any reaction to any picture ever taken of Sarah Palin would testify to the existence of sexism.  What’s particularly sexist about this so as to make it stand apart from baseline sexism, the kind of sexism that would shape reactions to pictures of Michelle Obama, Carly Fiorina, Jodi Rell, or Amy Klobuchar?

Comment #162: FlipYrWhig on 11/18 at 03:58 PM

I don’t care what’s different. Sexism is sexism and as a feminist I want it all to go away. I don’t want to hear about how Palin is “Caribou Barbie.” I don’t want to hear about how Hillary Clinton is a boner-shrinking harpy. And I don’t want to hear about Michelle Obama’s an “Angry Black Woman.” It’s all fucked.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t self-identify as someone who hates men nor has she ever done anything beyond exist to prove otherwise.  Michelle Obama doesn’t self-identify as an Angry Black Woman and in fact, hasn’t ever been angry in the public eye to suggest otherwise.  Sarah Palin wants to be seen as the bestest girl in all of boytown (stole that from a commentator here) as evidenced by her “pit bull with lipstick,” “I’m just a hockey mom,” “in real America, we shoot wolves and raise our kids right” quotes.  She wants to be a tool of the patriarchy in much the same way that Barbie is a tool of the patriarchy.

Comment #163: Mnemosyne on 11/18 at 04:11 PM

Probably the epitome was when she winked at the camera six times during the vice presidential debates.  And, no, it wasn’t an accidental tic that just happened to look like she winked.  She deliberately chose to wink at the camera to communicate with the viewers.  That’s where the infamous and much mocked post on the National Review website about the “starbursts” that male conservatives experienced when they looked at Palin came from.

The fact that some male conservative columnist wrote a ridiculous column in TNR touting Palin’s boner-inducing powers of winkage is totally Palin’s doing. Like she had control of that asshole’s writing hand.

So, tell me, what completely innocent and professional reason did she have for doing that not once, but six times during the course of the debate?  Most of us view it as Palin using her sexuality to try and win over the viewers, but maybe you have another explanation.

That she was heavily coached in her every move and word at that debate by the McCain campaign officials.

Yeah no:  “She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” said this McCain adviser. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

[Palin] wants to be a tool of the patriarchy in much the same way that Barbie is a tool of the patriarchy.

Comment #168: Rachel,II on 11/18 at 04:51 PM

I don’t entirely agree or disagree, but I don’t go around calling, say, Megan Fox or Pamela Anderson a bimbo or a Barbie doll because these are bigoted slurs and I don’t say they’re “asking for” and sexist belittlement because I’m a fuckin’ feminist.

Look, clearly the fundamental dilemma is, Isn’t it a whole bunch of bullshit that no matter what performance a woman undertakes, she’ll always be faulted for Doin It Rong? 

But given that changing that is going to take eons, I’m more interested in what’s particularly objectionable about this cover, which strikes me as being _about_ Palin’s image-manipulation, especially as linked to sex, and it’s interesting to people because we haven’t really had a female politician who’s tried it before, and I’m not sure we’ve even had a male politician who’s tried it before, because men don’t have to do such things in this world.

But I think you _can_ fault her for trying it—because of how from all available evidence she seems so vapid and petty and not well qualified, so the discontentment with her as a public woman is based on how she seems willing to substitute sex appeal for any redeeming quality in a politician.  I don’t think it’s sexist to say that a woman is trying to get ahead in a patriarchal society by flattering the norms of that patriarchal society.  I think it may be possible that it’s sexist to scrutinize Palin’s style more so than other politicians’ styles, but I don’t feel like we do that here.

Point taken.  I don’t think calling a spade a spade or a barbie doll a barbie doll is a slur or really has anything to do with feminism.  Smarter people have disagree on pettier issues though.

So the trap you fall into there is you spend so much time criticising her superficial presentation and whatever sexuality you’ve projected onto that presentation and you forget to criticize her words or her policies. You know, the shit that actually matters rather than some insipid slurs that get bandied about in one way or another for pretty much every woman - too sexy/not sexy enough, lightweight/ ballbuster, airhead/know-it-all . . .

That she was heavily coached in her every move and word at that debate by the McCain campaign officials.

So she ignored every other piece of advice from them, as has been heavily documented, but just happened to let them run her like a ventriloquist’s dummy in that one particular case?

You are seriously stretching.  I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Palin accepts the advice of anyone when it comes to her image, and all of this is about her image and what she’s constructed it of.

you forget to criticize her words or her policies.

She quit as governor before she had much of a chance to have policies, and her words are so very difficult to parse and understand that there ain’t much to work with there, either.

The woman has done her best to be ALL image and nothing more - and rabidly attacked anybody who has expected any more from her.

Good point, but I’m not sure the shit that actually matters actually matters to Sarah Palin.  It’s hard to cut through the bullshit when it’s all bullshit.  That’s the problem.  It doesn’t seem worth it to pick at her mishandling of the construction of the Wasilla hockey rink.  It’s because there is so little policy—either to praise or to find fault with—that she has swung so far towards crafting an image and an iconography in the first place, IMHO.

@ Ms Kate—You beat me to it!

Okay, she decided to wink at the VP debates all on her own. and some people found that sexxay (personally, being winked at has never done a damn thing for me, but whatever bangs your box) So it’s totally feminist to criticize her wardrobe choices and make her the target of sexist slurs and exploitation.

discontentment with her as a public woman is based on how she seems willing to substitute sex appeal for any redeeming quality in a politician.

I could probably name you a hundred male politicians for whom I could find no redeeming political qualities and their sex appeal or lack thereof would never enter the conversation. Guess why.

And just to clarify:  we’re not arguing that because Palin carefully controls her image, we’re allowed to call her an ugly bitch-whore or whatever.  We’re pointing out that you can’t both control your image and complain when people react to that image.  Pamela Anderson knows what her image is, and she knows that sex sells, which is why she poses naked for PETA.  But she doesn’t then claim that she’s a serious animal rights advocate and how dare people discuss those pictures when they talk about her work for PETA. 

If Palin genuinely doesn’t understand that she’s selling sex with her image and is genuinely shocked that people would think she was trying to be sexy by winking at the camera during the VP debates, well, then she’s even stupider than I thought she was, and I thought she was pretty stupid after watching her interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric.  (“In what respect, Charlie?”)  However, I really don’t think she’s that stupid and I think she knows exactly what she’s selling and exactly how much plausible deniability she needs to hang onto.

snobographer@174:

So the trap you fall into there is you spend so much time criticising her superficial presentation and whatever sexuality you’ve projected onto that presentation and you forget to criticize her words or her policies. You know, the shit that actually matters rather than some insipid slurs that get bandied about in one way or another for pretty much every woman - too sexy/not sexy enough, lightweight/ ballbuster, airhead/know-it-all . . .

And that’s my point, except that I really don’t think it’s just my projection of sexuality onto her presentation.  She presents herself with a manufactured, airbrushed, plastic image of mass-market, superficial attractiveness, hams it up for the panting base, and then sits back and waits for the response from her critics… who she will deride as sexist, even if they do manage to focus only on her words or policies. 

oldfeminist@164:

It seems to me that the appropriate response is to say looks don’t matter.  Not to make fun of her for being conventionally attractive and dressing and posing in a conventional feminine way which will emphasize that fact.  Why should she have to hide her feminine shape just because it’s “sexxay”?

She presents herself as, and encourages and profits from third-party presentation of herself, as the perfect conservative woman: sexy yet motherly, aggressive toward outsiders yet submissive toward the patriarchy.  When the contradictions inherent to her persona appear on every level, from the superficial images we’ve been discussing to the deeply troubling issues of substance which we should be talking about, she is conveniently provided with the opportunity to change the subject.  All of a sudden, pointing at her carefully-contrived public persona and calling it a bunch of hooey is not a fair criticism of media manipulation, it’s raw sexism.  You’re absolutely right, we should be willing and able to day looks don’t matter.  I think that to do so without confronting the fact that Sarah Palin engages in provocative tactics designed to elicit this type of argument amongst her opponents would be short-sighted.  We have to be able to say that looks don’t matter, and still point out that Palin’s attempt to make them matter is a diversion, and worse, a perpetuation of the problem.

Okay, she decided to wink at the VP debates all on her own. and some people found that sexxay (personally, being winked at has never done a damn thing for me, but whatever bangs your box) So it’s totally feminist to criticize her wardrobe choices and make her the target of sexist slurs and exploitation.

Sorry, I missed the “sexist slurs” in Jesse’s post.  Can you please point them out?  To me, his post seemed to be saying that Palin can’t have it both ways and insist that an image she created to increase her political appeal can’t possibly be used to illustrate an article about how she created an image that increased her political appeal because the image suddenly becomes sexist as soon as it leaves her control.

How much do you hear about Mitt Romney getting by on his looks? What’s he ever done that’s so politically groundbreaking?

I think that to do so without confronting the fact that Sarah Palin engages in provocative tactics designed to elicit this type of argument amongst her opponents would be short-sighted.  We have to be able to say that looks don’t matter, and still point out that Palin’s attempt to make them matter is a diversion, and worse, a perpetuation of the problem.

Yes!  Thank you!

Mnemosyne - I was referring to all the “bimbos” and “barbies” and rationalizations flying around in comments. And I think you know that.

How much do you hear about Mitt Romney getting by on his looks?

Quite a lot, actually.  How about, “Mitt Romney Looks Like an Aging Ken Doll”?  There are some good quotes here as well—David Letterman has been particularly caustic about the Mittster’s looks.

Mnemosyne - I was referring to all the “bimbos” and “barbies” and rationalizations flying around in comments. And I think you know that.

The only people in this thread who used the word “bimbo” were arguing that we shouldn’t use the word “bimbo” when referring to Palin.  I just did a page scan and checked.  Not a single person actually called Palin that, but a lot of people sure seemed eager to forestall it.

And you’re misunderstanding the “Caribou Barbie” nickname.  It’s not, “Hey, she’s stupid like a Barbie doll!”  It’s, “She’s dressed herself up in Alaskan imagery the same way the Mattel corporation dresses Barbie up like an astronaut.”  It’s pointing out how fake her image is.

The conventional wisdom doesn’t appear to be that Romney looks the way he does as an intentional ploy to manipulate the public.

Also, for the record, I want to point out that I don’t think of Palin as some vapid bimbo without any political substance.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  It’s just that so little of her actual substance has been revealed through the facade that it’s hard for people to get ahold of it.  I feel wholeheartedly that this is by design.  Just like in the piece on This American Life Amanda referenced, where the fundamentalists were proselytizing by having bikini-clad girls passing out flyers to a “party” on the beach, Palin uses her contrived public image to lure in undecided “swing” voters… who demographically happen to be mostly middle-aged white guys.  She winks, talks about huntin’ and eatin’ red meat, and chants “drill, baby, drill!”  She doesn’t want to scare them off with the truth, which is that she’s really a high priestess of an international end-of-the-world death cult which is bent on world domination. 

I really don’t even think I’m exaggerating much, either.

How much do you hear about Mitt Romney getting by on his looks?

FWIW, they did actually say that (inexplicably) about Bill Clinton in ‘92…

The conventional wisdom doesn’t appear to be that Romney looks the way he does as an intentional ploy to manipulate the public.

Seriously?  What do you think all the talk about how “presidential” Romney looks was about?  You really think they were discussing his policies when they talked about how tall and handsome he was and how great-looking a president he would be so therefore people should vote for him?

Why do you think the press was so obsessed with how much John Edwards spent to get his hair cut if it wasn’t to call him a pretty boy who was trying to get by on his looks?  Remember during 2004 when they claimed that Kerry was getting a spray tan to try and increase his poll numbers?  Male politicians get accused of trying to coast on their looks all of the time, especially when they’re Democrats.  That’s because coasting on your looks is, yes, coded feminine.  It’s a “girly” thing to do, so you can paint your opponents as weak “girly-men” who are trying to fool the voters into thinking their policies are right by looking good.

That’s the extremely clever trap that Palin has set, as jamie d said.

Also, am I the only one who heard conservatives claim over and over again during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama was an empty suit who was getting by on his good looks?  And am I only imagining that I hear them still making the same claims to this day?

Claiming that your opponent is a lightweight who just looks good on TV has been par for the course in politics since Kennedy ran for president in 1960.

Seriously?  What do you think all the talk about how “presidential” Romney looks was about?  You really think they were discussing his policies when they talked about how tall and handsome he was and how great-looking a president he would be so therefore people should vote for him?

By people in his own party who were advocating for him? People criticizing him I remember spending more time talking about his flip-flopping on all the positions he’d held as Gov of MA, which is actually a substantive criticism that has nothing to do with his appearance.

That’s because coasting on your looks is, yes, coded feminine.  It’s a “girly” thing to do, so you can paint your opponents as weak “girly-men” who are trying to fool the voters into thinking their policies are right by looking good.

Right, it’s one of the many thinly-veiled justifications for not taking female politicians seriously.

Yeah, the long history of feminizing male politicians as a way to discredit them has nothing to do with sexism or misogyny, Mnemosyne. Youi sure got me there.

How much do you hear about Mitt Romney getting by on his looks? What’s he ever done that’s so politically groundbreaking?

He had the governorship, the Winter Olympics, and a famous political father.  So he checks off all the right boxes as A Serious Figure.  And thus there’s no need to turn to externalities to account for why people like him.  (Plus the fact that people _don’t_ especially like him.)

Palin had a governorship, but not much else, so she doesn’t check off all the right boxes.  So there’s a need to turn to externalities.  The biggest one is “charisma,” in two forms:  there’s “We like her because she’s one of us” and “We like her because she’s hottt.”  So then journalists and media critics and miscellaneous observers have to speculate about how those explanations work. 

That’s the funky thing about Palin as a politico-media phenomenon:  trying to figure out why there’s such a discrepancy between what she’s done (not a lot) and how much people like her (in certain corners, quite a lot).  The fact that the “hottt” theory gets so much airtime might be sexist.  Or it might be a very economical and convenient explanation for something otherwise inexplicable.  Is it sexist for me to say, What else could it be?

In all honesty, you can easily say, Obama had a Senate seat and a few years in statewide office, so he doesn’t check off all the right boxes either, so there has to be an external explanation for why he’s liked, and that gets called “charisma” again.  It’s true that no one rushes to say it’s Teh Hawtnezz.  I think it’s because you can come up with better explanations, but it could be that the answer is that woman = liked = hot _feels_ like common sense because of prevailing sexist logic.

Right, it’s one of the many thinly-veiled justifications for not taking female politicians seriously.

But in the case of Sarah Palin, there are plenty of justifications for not taking her seriously—and her looks are paradoxically the primary reason why she ever _was_ taken seriously.

This Jeffrey Feldman diary on DailyKos has an interesting take on what I earlier characterized as the “We like her because she’s one of us” explanation.  Don’t Get Palin’s Appeal?  Try a Little Harder.  Probably the best short—and non-hotness-focused—take on Palin I’ve seen.

I probably have to preemptively defend that I’m not a Palin supporter so I’m not charged with being a PUMA for saying something in her defense, but the fact that McCain’s poll numbers jumped pretty significantly when he put her on his ticket might have had something to do with it too.

@ snobographer, Have you seen any breakdowns of the reasons why McCain’s support would have jumped?  I haven’t.  I recall non-sexytime-based explanations like she was an outsider, a reformer, more conservative—as well as livelier.  Then there was the idea that she was femme but tough, and the whole common-sense/small town thing.  Feldman obviously thinks that last option is a huge part of her appeal.

Palin is not stupid (and thus cannot be a bimbo).  But as you say, Flip, perceived hotness is part of charisma.  Being photo- and telegenic certainly doesn’t hurt one’s ability to gather followers.

I have seen lots of Palin/McCain bumper stickers on cars, at least as many as McCain/Palin stickers.  There’s no question her nomination energized the Republican base, who were very lukewarm about McCain the Maverick.  Palin was “one of them,” indeed.  Ignorant and proud of it.

It would be sexist to dismiss someone as a wannabe Barbie doll just because she was female. It’s not sexist to size up Sarah Palin for what she is: Shallow, self-centered, ignorant, vain, and clueless about national politics. There’s no there there. Palin is GOP pathology in microcosm. She’s a big hit with the angry base and she alienates everyone else.

If we were really judging her like a male politician, we’d count her out for doing that photo shoot in the first place. As a politician, your job is not to give your opponents the rope to hang you. You need a little voice in the back of your head constantly asking “Does this make me look stupid?” “Could someone else use this to make me look stupid in the future?” “How would this look out of context?” If you can’t ask those questions and chew gum, you’re not up for the job. Period.

Yeah, the long history of feminizing male politicians as a way to discredit them has nothing to do with sexism or misogyny, Mnemosyne. Youi sure got me there.

Again, I said it had nothing to do with sexism or misogyny ... where, exactly? 

In fact, you realizing that those were sexist moments is exactly what Palin is counting on—she expects people to remember those earlier sexist incidents and automatically assume that she’s a victim when people talk about how she deliberately created her image to be sexually appealing.  That way, she gets to have her cake and eat it, too:  she gets to play up sexist tropes to advance politically and then scream about being victimized when anyone points out what she’s doing.  That way, the mean ol’ Democrats have to shut up about how she manipulates her image because any criticism is automatically sexist, and she gets to continue doing what she’s doing without interference.

It’s quite diabolical, really—worthy of Nixon, or at least Lee Atwater.

How much do you hear about Mitt Romney getting by on his looks? What’s he ever done that’s so politically groundbreaking?

Um, hello ... I live in MA and HOO BOY was he dragged around about his suits and ... HIS HAIR!

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is nicknamed Governor Goodhair.

Oh, and I seem to remember that a certain candidate for whom Amanda worked briefly was nothing but a pretty boy with a too-expensive haircut??j

Of course none of you Palin lovers was prolly alive when Gary Hart was a serious contender and raked over the coals for his attractive looks.

Ah, Gary Hart.  Someone should start a retro-New Wave band and call it The Atari Democrats.

I was going to go point-by-point, but I don’t want to make this longer than the original post.

I think it’s unrealistic to think that Palin came up with a clever, clever plan to be all sexxay so that the libruls would point it out and then she could come back and call them sexists.  If she did, then she’s not nearly as dumb as I think all of us agree she is. 

No, I think she believes in her image.  If we’re to believe that she wouldn’t listen to advice from the campaign, then we’re stuck with two options—the clever, clever plan is hers, or she’s catnip to the right-wing because she’s been formed by ... The Patriarchy.  I think she’s catnip.

To believe she’s knowingly playing a political game rather than playing the default patriarchy game is the same error right wingers make when they claim that Al Gore doesn’t really believe in global warning, he just pretends to so he can hog all the air conditioning to himself.

I also don’t think it’s wrong that Obama dresses “White”—I think accusing him of dressing “White” would be as pointless as accusing Palin of dressing in a feminine manner.  Both are a sop to the White Male power structure, without which one’s chances of election are appreciably diminished.

I do remember Gary Hart, Ms Kate.  And I’m not a PUMA or Palin lover.  I just get tired of Palin getting slammed for using her looks where men don’t, and liberal women don’t.

@207-
She may be stupid, but she’s not dumb.  The game she’s playing may be an extension of the default patriarchy one, but it’s been one they’ve collectively been working up for a while, and she came of age, politically speaking, right in the heart of it.  It’s a combination of classic tokenism and playing victim, which have been core Republican startegies since at least, as Mnemosyne alluded to, the Lee Atwater era.  She’s a former beauty queen.  She knows what her image is and how to manipulate it.  She appeals to her followers on the barest, basest emotional level rather than offering policy issues, and not just as a sex symbol, either.  It’s a very particular kind of sexy.  It’s sexy yet subservient to the patriarchy, it’s homey, aw-shucks, apple pie and red meat.  It’s hockey mom.  (It speaks volumes about the right’s Freudian issues, if you ask me, but that’s another topic.)  And she is ready and waiting to be called on it.  They always rush to play the “race card” card, right?  Same thing.  Push our buttons, knowing we can’t stand blatant patriarchal manipulation of sex in the form of things like beauty pageants and “traditional marriage” and “family values” (all of which she is their shining embodiment), and wait for us to get mad enough to say something they can make a false equivalence about.

#199: FlipYrWhig - point is, the fact that McCain’s poll numbers jumped when he put her on the ticket probably has a thing or two to do with why she was ever taken seriously as a politician.

#202: Mnemosyne - Go back and read your own comments. Your argument was essentially this:
My Point: Referring to Palin as a Barbie doll or a bimbo and assigning motives to her physical appearance is sexist.
Your Counterpoint: Well what about when Edwards and Obama were feminized by Republicans?

As if your counterpoint neutralizes my original original point somehow.

ACG (145):

The photo they used was completely out of context—if they were trying to convey, “Look, she’s pretty! She tried to be a politician, but all she is is pretty!”

I still get it the other way around, which is totally fair; I’m still not seeing how it wasn’t sexist when she posed for it (and I don’t see anyone disputing that she did pose for it) but is now.

Theaetatus (147):

Essentially that because she’s proverbially done the high-heel and make-up thing, she can’t ever complain about sexism directed at her.

Well, she’s literally done the high-heel-and-makeup thing, and she doesn’t get to claim pointing that out is sexist.

Sarah Palin lacks substance. This is not because she’s a woman (well, it is, but it’s more complicated than a straight-up cause and effect) and so it’s not sexist to point out that she lacks substance, or to point to instances of her exhibiting a lack of substance, or to show a picture of her lacking substance and say “look, here she is, lacking substance!”

snob (209):

the fact that McCain’s poll numbers jumped when he put her on the ticket probably has a thing or two to do with why she was ever taken seriously as a politician.

Or it illustrates that when one candidate in an election dominates the news cycle for something other than a scandal, his or her poll numbers rise. You don’t see people taking Joe Biden seriously.

the fact that McCain’s poll numbers jumped when he put her on the ticket probably has a thing or two to do with why she was ever taken seriously as a politician.

OK, but if the thing that made her appealing is both the reason she was put on the ticket and the reason why putting her on the ticket worked at first, we still need to figure out what it was that made her appealing.

My Point: Referring to Palin as a Barbie doll or a bimbo and assigning motives to her physical appearance is sexist.
Your Counterpoint: Well what about when Edwards and Obama were feminized by Republicans?
As if your counterpoint neutralizes my original original point somehow.

No, my counterpoint was that no one in this thread referred to Palin as a bimbo.  Not one.  And the “Caribou Barbie” nickname refers to her penchant for playing dress-up (“I’m a hockey mom!”) and is not a generic slur.  You must have skimmed past it.

I pointed out how feminization has been used against Democrats for at least a decade to show that Palin knows full well that liberals are sensitive to sexism and how she uses that sensitivity to immunize herself against people pointing out that she is using sexist imagery to advance her career.  The instant someone points out that Palin deliberately presents herself as the patriarchy’s perfect cover girl, she screams that it’s sexist for us to notice that her carefully-crafted image conforms to sexist gender roles, knowing full well that dupes like you will run to her defense.

It’s a diabolical plan, but it’s pretty much of a piece with what Republicans have been doing for at least 40 years, so it’s not like she came up with an original idea out of nowhere.  She’s expanding on existing strategies, and you’re giving her a free pass to do it with.

Mnemosyne:

And the “Caribou Barbie” nickname refers to her penchant for playing dress-up (“I’m a hockey mom!”) and is not a generic slur.  You must have skimmed past it.

That’s your contention, I don’t agree and I suspect I’m not the only one. 

When someone’s called a Barbie, the joke isn’t that she comes prepackaged with a job.  It’s that she’s a bimbo dressed as if she has that job, but is no more qualified than a plastic doll, because we all know that sexy high-heeled bimbo shaped girls are only pretending to be able to be doctors and astronauts and so on by dressing like one and having the little plastic accessories.

The instant someone points out that Palin deliberately presents herself as the patriarchy’s perfect cover girl, she screams that it’s sexist for us to notice that her carefully-crafted image conforms to sexist gender roles, knowing full well that dupes like you will run to her defense.

The problem here is that the Newsweek cover could be either “we know you’re just faking being a real candidate” or “look, she’s dressed as a girly girl, you can’t possibly take her seriously.”

What makes you think that the Newsweek editors were making the comment you’d be making if you were the cover or article editor?  Why assume that they meant to portray her as playing the GOP wet dream angle rather than just making fun of her for daring to appear feminine and attractive?  “She looks like a beauty queen.”  Well, so fucking what. 

If you have teh sexxay, there’s no way not to use it in politics, unless you hide it.  And if you do, then you’ve allowed the patriarchy to decide for you that a sexually attractive woman doesn’t belong in politics, while a sexually attractive man is allowed to make it all the way to the White House.

You can’t just say, “I didn’t mean this to suggest that women who look feminine are no good at politics” when you laugh at a woman for looking feminine and thinking she can engage in politics.

What annoys me (and I think it annoys you too) about her pose is that she uses sex appeal in place of substance. 

But that doesn’t mean I agree that the best way to point this out is to show more pictures of her looking sexxay and laughing at them, because actual good politicans who are good-looking and dress to show it would be just as big a target.  THEIR LOOKS ARE NOT THE POINT.  THEIR ATTIRE IS NOT THE POINT. 

Pictures of JFK playing touch football, hanging out with his brothers on the beach, or topless on a sailboat in sunglasses, didn’t prove a thing one way or another about his political aptitude or honesty.

If thinking about this in a complex way and therefore not falling for the “cunning trap” Sarah Palin laid out for me makes me a dupe, so be it.

What makes you think that the Newsweek editors were making the comment you’d be making if you were the cover or article editor?  Why assume that they meant to portray her as playing the GOP wet dream angle rather than just making fun of her for daring to appear feminine and attractive?

What makes you think they weren’t?  Did you actually read the Newsweek articles that accompanied the picture, or did you see the picture and automatically assume you knew what the story said?  The article is about Palin’s imagemaking.  How are they supposed to write an article about Palin’s imagemaking while ignoring the image that she has made?

If thinking about this in a complex way and therefore not falling for the “cunning trap” Sarah Palin laid out for me makes me a dupe, so be it.

But you’re not thinking about it in a complex way, at least not as far as I can see.  You’re thinking, “Media shows sexxay picture of Palin = sexist. QED.”  You’ve decided that there’s absolutely no way that Newsweek could be critiquing her image, so they must have run the picture in order to criticize her, personally, which would be sexist.

You’re thinking, “Media shows sexxay picture of Palin = sexist. QED.”You’ve decided that there’s absolutely no way that Newsweek could be critiquing her image, so they must have run the picture in order to criticize her, personally, which would be sexist.
Comment #215: Mnemosyne on 11/21 at 12:49 AM

Mindreading fail. 

I’m saying that the way they presented it opens them to a charge of sexism, and there are better ways to do it than to choose a picture she didn’t use to show she’s a politician. 

I mean, you would have to agree that *all* the pictures of her that she has any control over show her chosen image.  Why pick one that was intended to appear in a running magazine?

The image chosen for the cover is a strong and powerful message that is allowed to stand on its own.  You can’t say, ignore the cover, what we really meant is in the article. 

In fact there’s precious little about the cover image at all in the articles I read—one says something about a right wing populist having little chance no matter how good they look in a skirt or running shorts, or with a gun. 

How exactly are they deconstructing her sexxay image if they don’t actually talk about it other than to say that it’s not enough to get her the Presidency, in their opinion?  They don’t talk about sexism, or pandering to the patriarchy, anywhere I’ve seen.  They don’t even seem to be saying that her sexxay image is a problem.  It seems they just think it’s not enough.

The pandering they talk about is to a wild-eyed right-wing paranoid Glenn Beck type shoot-em-up ideal.  Because tackling the patriarchy would be tackling more than the GOP.

One of the other images is a silly choice, too—she’s sitting at a counter, with people pointing their cameras at her.  OMG it’s all FAKE, no one sits at a counter with cameras pointed at her unless she’s a huge publicity slut.  But this scene happens all over the place with politicians, and she is obviously and openly seeking publicity, so what’s the big deal?