A short-short lesson in sexism

[trinityvixen]

Newsweek took a ton of flak for putting this picture on their cover the other week. The haters claim this move was sexist because it reduces Palin to a pretty face instead of a credible political force.

Comments

[ivy03]

See, I have to disagree with you on this one, as much as I hate being on the same side of anything as Sarah Palin. I'm sure she would have called sexism regardless of the image because the article was negative--it's her MO. Nor do I disagree that she's an empty package who is trying to distract with her looks. But in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day...she's got a point.

There are a couple of problems with this. One - the photo was taken for Runners World, in which context showing leg is one hundred percent appropriate. And I think it's rather telling that people's reaction to her wearing sportswear is "the evil woman using her sexual wiles." If you show a male runner in shorts, that is not the reaction you get. Seriously, this is not a bikini photo shoot. I just don't buy that she took this image because she wanted to use her wiles.

Two - if it was a male politician they never would have hunted up a (mildly) provocative photo. They'd have pictured him in a suit. But since it's a woman, they find the sexiest

[trinityvixen]

The real question of sexism comes down to who represented her sexually in the first place. I can see all your points and be persuaded by them, but I have to consider this in the context of her entire national public career. Newsweek didn't pick this photo in a vacuum, though they might have picked one that, out of context, is the worst of its kind.

Put it this way: if Sarah Palin introduced and furthered her career using her looks, it's wrong to cry sexism when others point out that looks are all she's got worth noting. Especially when every decision since then has proven that this woman is no heavy lifter when it comes to thinking. (Think of Carrie Prejean, the dethroned Miss California, as another example of this trope.)

Now, you can make the caae that Sarah Palin was not the author of the meme that she's sexy and nothing else. Surely, there is an element of that to all female candidates--no matter how professional their conduct, some asshole is going to comment on their looks and reduce them to ugly/pretty, fuckable/not. It's a

[droidguy1119]

The reason I don't think it's sexist is because I don't think it's all that "sexy" of a photo. I mean, I really don't have any sexual interest in Sarah Palin to begin with, but even if it was Angelina Jolie, would anyone really be getting all hot and bothered by the exact same picture? As ivy03 above me says (albeit for the opposite reason, it seems), it's not a bikini photo shoot. But maybe I just missed the "track-suit-as-turn-on" train that the rest of the world jumped on and rode off in.

FYI, the post says "here" in reference to an Obama photo, but no link is included.

[trinityvixen]

Sorry about that--fixed it I think.

Just for the record: the fact that you don't find the photo sexy doesn't prove sexism is present/absent. It's not about whether it appeals sexually to one person but whether or not the person in the image is being presented in a sexual manner. In this case, you can argue that she is. She's wearing tight clothes to show off her figure, and her legs are completely bare. It's hard to remember in our culture of sex that such things are still themselves sexual in a lot of ways. (In fact, you can argue that someone wearing tight/revealing clothes is sexier than someone naked since it leaves something to the imagination, which is always better at filling in the blanks with fantasy than nudity is.)

The issue is whether this picture is, disconnected from its running context, sexual. ivy03 argues that it is, that as soon as you take away the explanation that she's a runner and put her in those clothes, posed that way, it's sexualizing her in a way that would not be done to a man. I counter that if it is sexism,

[droidguy1119]

I guess I would argue that right now, in the 21st century, given how overly sexualized everything else is in the media, that the image in question is not being presented in a sexual manner. The photo has a context, in Runner's World, but I don't think removing it from said context makes it a sexualized picture. She's not posing provocatively, in terms of runners outfits her dress is restrained, and she's posing in her house with the American flag, not on a beach or some visually striking environment.

Plus I'm pretty sure they were plastering Obama in his bathing suit on the cover of supermarket tabloid magazines long before this.

[trinityvixen]

I think you're right, actually. Obama was the nominee presumptive long before Sarah Palin was on the scene and we definitely saw him in his bathing suit before we saw her in her track suit.

Are there elements of that outfit she wears that could be construed as sexual? Oh hell yeah, but it takes some doing. I mentioned that her wearing something tight and revealing her legs falls under the category of sexualized presentation--easier to see how when you try to imagine a man doing that and being on a serious news mag. In this case, what I think is playing in here is part of what you mention--with our culture being heavily sexualized--working against this being an inherently sexy picture. If anything, it's about exercise, and exercise is not, to say the least, sexy in and of itself. It's almost too wholesome to be baudy.

[saturn_shumba]

What's creepy about that photo is that it looks so much like propaganda--like if I didn't know it was from a running magazine, I'd think it was plastered on posters somewhere with the tagline "Drill, baby, drill!"

At this point, I'm taking the total childish approach of "She asked for it!" It's bad, I know. But when someone who's policies totally do not reflect a pro-feminist agenda, I find that I simply do not fucking care when Palin whines about supposed sexism towards her. Too bad, so sad.

I'm feeling mean today. But I feel like all this focus on Palin--be it good or bad--makes it a hell of a lot harder for her to just GO AWAY. I mean, really, Newsweek? We already know she sucks!

[trinityvixen]

I agree on some level--she's news only because they keep making her news. But I try to not go there with the thinking she deserved it too much. Because even though I technically think she did to some extent--she sold herself on being sexy--it's always out of control when it's a woman in the public light. So, yeah, she brought this on herself by pretending she had more to offer than looks, but I would think that of her if her policies and mine were more allied.

[kent_allard_jr]

I like Matt Taibbi's take on Palin in general (touching upon the Newsweek broohaha in the process), "Sarah Palin, WWE star."

(Oh, and happy feminist Thanksgiving! Kick a pilgrim in the balls for me. :)

[trinityvixen]

He's a great writer in general, so I'm not surprised he's on the money here. I saw that interview with friends-of-Palin and wanted them all to spontaneously explode. Alas, wishes are not fishes.

Happy Thanksgiving. I'm going to avoid punching people in the nuts, whatever hslayer thinks I'm doing for class :P

too funny

[arcfox7]

I think Taibbi was right on in terms of what makes her popular, and I've struggled with how anyone could possibly see her as someone to be a fan of. Then I saw the interviews at the bottom of the article and I understood. The ridiculous christian conservatives who follow blindly anything that FOX News has told them. It was truly frightening to see the same blind uninformed following the leader that allowed Adolf Hitler to become leader of a country. Not that I think Palin is female Hitler, she's not smart enough for that. I shudder to think what would have happened if Mccain had been elected and died in office. and Kent I love your pic of Get a brain! Morans. That's truly awesome.