I'm trying to see what's wrong with the picture? I didn't see the inside one with the devil horns but the cover one just looks like Michele Bachmann usually looks to me?
And frankly, Michele Bachmann is pretty out there. I'd classify her as a nut just like I'd classify Rick Santorum as a nut. It's not sexism. It's shit like the fact that she has a family that believes you can "pray the gay away" and her assertion that we need to investigate members of Congress for "un-American activities" and all the assorted nutty shit she espouses.
not defending Newsweek because I know they're trash, like that Diana shit was awful, but I don't really see what's wrong with the picture. It's pretty straightforward as a photo.
not sure about "the queen of rage" as a title though, that's gendering something that doesn't need to be gendered.
ia about the picture. I mean, I've seen this woman a lot, in photos and in videos, and that cover photo is... pretty much how she looks all the time, isn't it? I can see where they're getting the "she looks crazy!" from, but that's what Michele Bachmann looks like.
As far as the sexism is concerned, I'm always annoyed by how the media's portrayal of women only seems to become an issue when the woman being portrayed is herself a notorious misogynist.
I mean, I've seen this woman a lot, in photos and in videos, and that cover photo is... pretty much how she looks all the time, isn't it? I can see where they're getting the "she looks crazy!" from, but that's what Michele Bachmann looks like.
Exactly. It's not a very flattering picture, but that's pretty much her standard look there.
Not only is it sexist, but at the base level they picked the best and most photoshopped pictures of GOP women and used the worst candid photos of Dem women. Not that it matters, because the message we're sending here is...that their looks are important? I mean, these are politicians we're talking about here. Hillary Clinton is a BAMF, I don't care if anyone thinks she looks conventionally attractive. She's not spewing hateful shit like Malkin or Coulter, and that's a good thing.
To be fair, though, Bachmann is in the news a lot more than Santorum, period. She holds elective office; he doesn't. She's got way better numbers than he does. In short, a sitting member of Congress who's the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement has a much better shot at the presidency than a guy who couldn't get re-elected in his own state and is best known for the manufactured alternate definition of his name. Back when he blamed the clergy sex abuse scandal on the fact that Boston is close to Cambridge and Cambridge is liberal, he got, deservedly so, LOADS of shit for it. Since then, has he done anything besides announce for the presidency? NPR ran a story last month about the Google problem, but there just isn't that much beyond all those lists of crazy offensive things he's said.
I can definitely get on board with the idea that Bachmann's... let's be polite and say, esoteric beliefs are being sensationalized because she's a woman, but I really don't think this picture is sexist.
95% of the 'Bachman is crazy' stuff makes no connection to hormones or womanly emotions, and only draws its conclusions from her bizarre candid photos and lack of logic. (And lack of history. And lack of sense.) Am I missing something?
(And I know that using the term 'crazy' has its own issues connected to it which shouldn't go undiscussed. It's just that it doesn't seem to be a statement made because of any 'sensitivity' or 'over-emotional' quality in Bachmann.)
And frankly, Michele Bachmann is pretty out there. I'd classify her as a nut just like I'd classify Rick Santorum as a nut. It's not sexism. It's shit like the fact that she has a family that believes you can "pray the gay away" and her assertion that we need to investigate members of Congress for "un-American activities" and all the assorted nutty shit she espouses.
not defending Newsweek because I know they're trash, like that Diana shit was awful, but I don't really see what's wrong with the picture. It's pretty straightforward as a photo.
not sure about "the queen of rage" as a title though, that's gendering something that doesn't need to be gendered.
Reply
Reply
As far as the sexism is concerned, I'm always annoyed by how the media's portrayal of women only seems to become an issue when the woman being portrayed is herself a notorious misogynist.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Exactly. It's not a very flattering picture, but that's pretty much her standard look there.
Reply
How about this? It's all over conservative LJ-members' profiles as something to giggle about:
( ... )
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(And I know that using the term 'crazy' has its own issues connected to it which shouldn't go undiscussed. It's just that it doesn't seem to be a statement made because of any 'sensitivity' or 'over-emotional' quality in Bachmann.)
Reply
Leave a comment