Sarah Palin resigns as Governor

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
sarah-palin-going-rogue-excerpts-huffington-post-newsweeks.jpg


Maybe I missed it, but where was feminist-in-chief martha calling out a weekly newsmagazine for using such a blatantly sexist picture of Sarah Palin on their cover. Because I don't recall such a cover with Barack (lots of lens flares suggesting divinity however), Biden, McCain, Edwards, Mitt, Huckabee or Dennis Kucinich.
 
She should've pulled that zipper down a lil further to compete with her son-in-law or should I say the father of her grandchild! I'm all Republican but leaning way lib if she has even a shot. . .
 
Maybe I missed it, but where was feminist-in-chief martha calling out a weekly newsmagazine for using such a blatantly sexist picture of Sarah Palin on their cover. Because I don't recall such a cover with Barack (lots of lens flares suggesting divinity however), Biden, McCain, Edwards, Mitt, Huckabee or Dennis Kucinich.



i think i said earlier that i think that, yes, the cover is sexist ... HOWEVER, as we all know, Palin quit without even finishing her first term.

so she really is just a celebrity, not an elected official. and she's promoting a book. so while i agree that it is sexist, i don't think that an Obama comparison is remotely accurate.
 
I'm not entirely convinced that it is sexist.

She posed for the photo in the first place, I'm assuming she chose what to wear for the shoot, and approved of the flag draped next to her. That said, I have no idea what the initial terms of that photo were, who owned it, and what, if any, other uses it could have. Assuming that Newsweek got it and used it legitimately, then I'm inclined to think that having serious political aspirations at the time, she probably shouldn't have posed for it in the first place (or posed differently), but since she did, and since it's being used again, she's using this as an opportunity to cry victim, as is her wont, when it's a situation of her own making. I'd say the same thing of any male politician posing for a beefcake-type photo too, although depending on which male politician it was, I might enjoy the result more. :wink:

I'm not really firm on this stance though. If I saw a convincing argument as to why it's sexist, I might change my mind, but so far I haven't.
 
this does get into a good point about Our Sarah.

it's kind of like when Britney Spears was playing the whole "Barely Legal" thing circa 1999-2001. she'd wear nothing on stage and then say that she wears nothing on stage because she gets really hot, and ew, how dare you suggest that she's being too sexy. shame on you, pervert. and then people rally around her to defend her -- you know, because she's a poor woman being attacked -- and then the cycle starts again only this time she dances with a snake wrapped around her.

it's pretty win-win for her, and it might serve her well in the 2012 primaries.

how's Mittens gonna attack her without her supporters storming his campaign headquarters with pitchforks?
 
I'm not sure I give enough of a damn about her anymore to really care, but I do think there are still issues with women's looks in politics. It seems to matter so much that she's pretty or that Clinton isn't. And remember when Madeleine Albright was around? Or Janet Reno? Their looks were appropriate for jokes everywhere. As long as women's looks are important in politics, then there's a sexist double-standard.






And now watch some of the fellas shit themselves because I expressed an opinion they don't like. I'm such a man-hater. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not sure I give enough of a damn about her anymore to really care, but I do think there are still issues with women's looks in politics. It seems to matter so much that she's pretty or that Clinton isn't. And remember when Madeleine Albright was around? Or Janet Reno? Their looks were appropriate for jokes everywhere. As long as women's looks are important in politics, then there's a sexist double-standard.

I see what you mean. I think though that Clinton, Albright and Reno were/are respected and effective in their professions, regardless of what they look like, and I have to think that if Palin had been a more skilled politician, she would have been, too. While remarks were made about their physical appearance, did anyone really believe that those attributes had any impact on their abilities?

And now watch some of the fellas shit themselves because I expressed an opinion they don't like. I'm such a man-hater. :rolleyes:

:)
 
Btw, Irvine? I think it was you that mentioned earlier in the thread that you'd like to read the book without contributing money to Palin, and without the embarrassment of having to take it out of the library when it's available? There's a solution!

The blogger at Mudflats is doing us a great service by giving a page-by-page synopsis of the book. As a bonus, she's thrown in pithy comments here and there, and the odd graphic of flaming trousers when the situation merits. It's been done in several parts, and she hopes to be finished by the end of the weekend. The first part can be found here, and what's done so far on subsequent pages:

The Mudflats

Scroll to the bottom of the page for chapter 1. Although the next entry she makes, chapter 1 will probably be bumped to the previous page.
 
I think that when women use their looks as weapon against men, or as any other kind of tool to get what they want, it puts them in a secondary position. If we want to really be equals, then we need to be equals. It says that we can't get what we need and deserve, except when men think we're pretty enough for it. What happens to the ones who aren't pretty enough?
 
It's sexist as hell, BVS. Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. You don't so anybody any good doing that.

Whoah, calm down. I am not arguing just for the sake of arguing.

First I was trying to find out why Newsweek getting the photo from a third party source had anything to do with it, and secondly I'm still not convinced it's sexist.

Was it sexist when it was the cover of Runner's World or whatever magazine it was?
 
It says that we can't get what we need and deserve, except when men think we're pretty enough for it.

Or it says we can get what we want, need and deserve when we think we're pretty enough for it. See the difference?

What happens to the ones who aren't pretty enough?

The same thing that happens to men who aren't good looking enough. Matters for them too.
 
I think that when women use their looks as weapon against men, or as any other kind of tool to get what they want, it puts them in a secondary position. If we want to really be equals, then we need to be equals. It says that we can't get what we need and deserve, except when men think we're pretty enough for it. What happens to the ones who aren't pretty enough?

I would agree with most of that. In my view though, that's woman harming each other, more than women being harmed by men or by society. The fact is, men (and other women) respond to attractive women, and to be honest, sometimes an attractive person takes that approach because it's the shortest and easiest route to achieving a goal. So unless we can get every attractive person (men do it, too) to stop utilizing their attractiveness to further goals, it's just going to be unfair to average or unattractive people. Since that's not likely to happen anytime soon, we should probably find another way of dealing with it, or at least conceptualizing it.

I think in Palin's case, she clearly does use her attractiveness to get ahead, but so do a lot of other people, the phenomenon is nothing new. What irks me about her though is the whole victimization thing she does when her method fails, or people call her on it. If she's going to use it, as AliEnvy alluded to, she should at least own it.
 
I realize I'm speaking in idealistic terms, but I really do think that when anyone uses looks to get ahead, it lessens his or her true worth and equality.

I like eye candy as much as the next girl, but I'm certainly not going to base any important decisions on the looks of the provider/politician/anyone else.
 
Or it says we can get what we want, need and deserve when we think we're pretty enough for it. See the difference?
Yes, but I still disagree with the concept. Why do I need to be pretty to have equal access to rights? Why not base what I get on my worth as a human? Why do I need to rely on someone else's perception of beauty to be worthwhile? Isn't that exact attitude killing young women and (more young men) when they start starving themselves to achieve someone else's ideals of beauty? Isn't that the climate that has created the fear of aging that's going on now?



The same thing that happens to men who aren't good looking enough. Matters for them too.
That doesn't make it any more acceptable. The right to fully function in a society should not rely on how you look.
 
Why do I need to be pretty to have equal access to rights? Why not base what I get on my worth as a human?

Why are you framing the concept on rights and worth?

Why do I need to rely on someone else's perception of beauty to be worthwhile?

By doing that, you give away your power, which is the opposite of what I stated and the problem that creates starving young girls.

The right to fully function in a society should not rely on how you look.

Nor does it. Don't get me wrong, I believe in substance over style, but I also don't see it as an either/or deal and fully recognize that style matters.
 
I'm talking about empowerment.

Attractive people have easier access to various opportunities but not necessarily more rights as humans.

And attractive can mean many things and take many forms.
 
I'm talking about empowerment.
Empowerment for what then, if not rights and the access to those rights.

Attractive people have easier access to various opportunities but not necessarily more rights as humans.
I see these as nearly the same.

And attractive can mean many things and take many forms.
We were talking about beauty, but you can change the discussion if you like.

I still prefer my "empowerment" to be based on my merit, not on someone else's perception of my "attractiveness," whatever that may mean.
 
Empowerment for what then, if not rights and the access to those rights.

Successful attainment of whatever it is one wants, needs and deserves which I think extends beyond the notion of rights.

We were talking about beauty, but you can change the discussion if you like.

And I used attractive as a synonym for beauty so not sure why you think I tried to change the discussion. Unless of course you don't think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and just want to be combative about it.

I still prefer my "empowerment" to be based on my merit, not on someone else's perception of my "attractiveness," whatever that may mean.

Successful people play to their strengths to get what they want. Whatever those strengths may be.
 
Successful people play to their strengths to get what they want. Whatever those strengths may be.


Well, if you're willing to get ahead because of your looks, or style, or whatever, have at it. I still prefer merit.

Beauty, attractiveness, style all fade or go out of fashion. Merit doesn't diminish with age or change according to fads. Women will be equal competitors with men when we don't rely on men's weakness for attractiveness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom