Sarah Palin resigns as Governor

[Harry Vest]

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. . .

" I'm all Republican but leaning way lib if she has even a shot..."

That's why I love her...she even pisses Republican's off...Gotta love that.

 

[AliEnvy]

Women will be equal competitors with men when we don't rely on men's weakness for attractiveness.

Women will be equal competitors with men (if competition is how we're going to frame it) when they don't hold back from using every competitive advantage at their disposal to win. That's how men play the game.

 

[martha]

Women will be equal competitors with men (if competition is how we're going to frame it) when they don't hold back from using every competitive advantage at their disposal to win.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[AliEnvy]

 

[AliEnvy]

Anyway, to reduce what I'm saying to the idea that a woman should shake her booty to get ahead insults both men and women.

Rather, what I'm suggesting is that to deny attributes that make us uniquely female doesn't make us equal, it feeds into a patriarchal paradigm.

 

[diamond]

One chose to shake her booty and sell her soul- the other chose not to.
One is deemed more respectable than the other.
You do the math.

<>

 

[AliEnvy]

And along comes <> to demonstrate that any measure of female sex appeal in a man's world is unworthy of credibility.

As long as women allow that to continue, men will be dominant.

 

[martha]

Rather, what I'm suggesting is that to deny attributes that make us uniquely female doesn't make us equal, it feeds into a patriarchal paradigm.

You initially didn't say anything about denying anything. You said we should USE these attributes to get what we want. Two different messages, the first of which not only feeds the patriarchal paradigm, it supports it and legitimizes it.

 

[AliEnvy]

You initially didn't say anything about denying anything. You said we should USE these attributes to get what we want. Two different messages, the first of which not only feeds the patriarchal paradigm, it supports it and legitimizes it.

Semantics? It's the same message. However, my message is to use our unique attributes on our own terms. You're defining it from a male perspective.

 

[martha]

Semantics? It's the same message.

You may think so. Rearranging the words does change the meaning.


So then, you think what Palin's doing is perfectly fine? Using her looks to get what she wants, rather than her merit? After all, it's what she's got, and she's using to get what she wants And if a qualified woman loses because she's not as attractive, beautiful, stylish (all the same thing according to you), well, then, tough shit, she didn't deserve it because she didn't meet your definition of pretty, (beautiful, attractive, stylish)?

 

[AliEnvy]

So then, you think what Palin's doing is perfectly fine?

To be perfectly honest, I don't pay enough attention to her to know how far she's pushing the envelope. If she's a runner and poses for a runner's magazine in a fairly standard runner's outfit against the backdrop of her political persona and happens to have nice legs (or whatever is causing the backlash), yes I think that's perfectly fine. Why shouldn't it be?

Using her looks to get what she wants, rather than her merit? After all, it's what she's got, and she's using to get what she wants

I haven't made looks versus merit a dichotomy in this discussion. You have. I clearly stated I believe in substance over style.

And if a qualified woman loses because she's not as attractive, beautiful, stylish (all the same thing according to you), well, then, tough shit, she didn't deserve it because she didn't meet your definition of pretty, (beautiful, attractive, stylish)?

And on the same shallow level, you could also ponder that if a more attractive woman wins then that must be the reason and she couldn't possibly be as qualified. It's a no-win comparison.

 

[anitram]

And along comes <> to demonstrate that any measure of female sex appeal in a man's world is unworthy of credibility.

As long as women allow that to continue, men will be dominant.

Lucky for us, women these days are able to spot men like <> a mile away.

 

[financeguy]

I don't find Palin attractive, it's her ideas I agree with. Like I agreed with Thatcher's ideas.

 

[AliEnvy]

Lucky for us, women these days are able to spot men like <> a mile away.

Right. Except that many women also endorse that any measure of female sex appeal is unworthy of credibility.

Carrying yourself with authority and sex appeal is fine and commonplace for powerful men yet somehow out of bounds for women.

 

[martha]

Right. Except that many women also endorse that any measure of female sex appeal is unworthy of credibility.

Carrying yourself with authority and sex appeal is fine and commonplace for powerful men yet somehow out of bounds for women.

Quote me please.

And it's funny how you keep elaborating so you can change what you said initially.

 

[indra]

One chose to shake her booty and sell her soul- the other chose not to.
One is deemed more respectable than the other.
You do the math.

<>

Margaret Thatcher shook her booty??

Oh dear.

 

[AliEnvy]

Quote me please.

And it's funny how you keep elaborating so you can change what you said initially.

Perhaps I wasn't referring to you?

I elaborate as the discussion unfolds, haven't changed what I said initially. How you interpret it may have changed though.

 

[martha]

Fair enough on the first one.

Elaborating or justifying on the second one?

 

[AliEnvy]

Well, we could debate my style of presenting my ideas or we could stick to the substance of the discussion. Which I think we already agreed to disagree on anyway.

 

[martha]

Which I think we already agreed to disagree on anyway.

We did.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't find Palin attractive, it's her ideas I agree with. Like I agreed with Thatcher's ideas.

which ideas?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I only saw bits and pieces of it but it seems as if Bill O'Reilly did the only interview that actually challenged her in any way about any meaningful issues.

YouTube - Angry Crowd Shouts at Sarah Palin Book Signing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypo1sI_dmso

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.

I assume most of the photos in Runner's World feature people in their workout gear. I've never read it so I don't know. When she was on Oprah she went to her gym, because they were showing a video of her everyday life in Alaska, in shorts. And they showed her working out. So in that context, if she wants to show how fit she is (assuming she posed for it for that reason and not to try to get votes because of her attractiveness or whatever) then that's why she posed that way. Same as a male politician who would do the same thing. Nothing wrong with posing for a photo in that context-male or female. Should you think twice about possible future implications of it? Yes-but I would imagine most people wouldn't think it would end up on the cover of Newsweek. So to take that photo out of that context and to say "how do you solve a problem like Sarah and she's bad for us" or whatever they said-well to me the two combined sends a certain message-and the photo is taken out of context within the purpose of that message. For that reason or to just get publicity and to sell magazines, they knew what they were doing either way. I'm not saying she doesn't do the victim thing and get mileage out of that.

If a similar posed photo of Obama (or any other male politician) existed and some magazine did that for a similar purpose..well I wonder if it would even be done first of all, but maybe then there would be some sort of equality. An odd "equality" but one all the same.

I guess there is a question as to whether or not Newsweek even got the photo legitimately. I've heard the question raised.

 

[VintagePunk]

I assume most of the photos in Runner's World feature people in their workout gear. I've never read it so I don't know. When she was on Oprah she went to her gym, because they were showing a video of her everyday life in Alaska, in shorts. And they showed her working out. So in that context, if she wants to show how fit she is (assuming she posed for it for that reason and not to try to get votes because of her attractiveness or whatever) then that's why she posed that way. Same as a male politician who would do the same thing. Nothing wrong with posing for a photo in that context-male or female. Should you think twice about possible future implications of it? Yes-but I would imagine most people wouldn't think it would end up on the cover of Newsweek. So to take that photo out of that context and to say "how do you solve a problem like Sarah and she's bad for us" or whatever they said-well to me the two combined sends a certain message-and the photo is taken out of context within the purpose of that message. For that reason or to just get publicity and to sell magazines, they knew what they were doing either way. I'm not saying she doesn't do the victim thing and get mileage out of that.

If a similar posed photo of Obama (or any other male politician) existed and some magazine did that for a similar purpose..well I wonder if it would even be done first of all, but maybe then there would be some sort of equality. An odd "equality" but one all the same.

I guess there is a question as to whether or not Newsweek even got the photo legitimately. I've heard the question raised.

You make some good points, MrsS. I thought of the context factor too when forming my opinion. Still, I think it's foolish for a politician who wants to project any degree of gravitas to do something like this without considering all potential implications, including future uses of the photo.

Granted, I'm very cynical when it comes to assessing Palin's motivations for doing pretty much anything (and with good reason, I'd argue), but I can't see her not thinking of the mileage she would get from the attractiveness of the photo, even if her primary purpose was purely to promote a healthy lifestyle.

It seems to me that this is another in a long line of poor decisions she has made. I think she tends to act in a very calculating way when promoting herself, but a great deal of the time, she severely misjudges what the public (other than her core followers) are willing to embrace or tolerate from a politician. And then when her decisions don't pay off, she tends to blame everyone but herself. In fact, the entire purpose of her book seems to be to refute all the things that went wrong in her political career, in a medium where she gets the final word without being challenged.

On the subject of male politicians being held to the same standard, I vaguely remembered shirtless Obama pictures, so I went to the trouble of looking them up. They were taken in Hawaii, and they appear to be paparazzi-type pictures taken from a distance, and not official pictures that were posed for. From what I can see, they've made the cover of one publication, a local Washington magazine. It's no Newsweek, but then again, I'm not sure that a national news magazine would use paparazzi photos on their front cover.

To wit:

The real photo on the right, and the magazine cover on the left. It kind of makes me laugh that they altered the colour of the swimming trunks.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Well they were took dark for the black background.

I do like the tan they gave him, however.

 

[VintagePunk]

Yeah, it just struck me funny that they altered the photo, rather than the background colour. I noticed the deeper tan, too. If you look at google images there's another picture taken at the same time where you can see distinct tan lines.

Are they implying he sunbathes shirtless? Is that sexist?

 

[Tiger Edge]

While they were at it they should have 'shopped a six pack in.

It's a shame that I don't have Photoshop at work, where I have the most time to waste on photoshopping six packs.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

They didn't airbrush him either, not that I can tell. Yes those were paparazzi pictures, so it just wouldn't be a fair comparison I guess. "Our new neighbor is hot" just doesn't seem to have the same implied message to me as look at Sarah Palin in her jogging outfit and that's all she has to offer (obviously not the only message you could take from that but it's one all the same) on the cover of a news magazine. That picture of Sarah Palin on the cover of People or US wouldn't have the same possible message. Or in Runner's World. That Washingtonian looks like more of a lifestyle magazine. I can't imagine a shirtless cover of Obama on Time or Newsweek.

I still see your points about Sarah Palin Vintage Punk but I also think she could have a legit complaint in this situation.

 

[BVS]

I only saw bits and pieces of it but it seems as if Bill O'Reilly did the only interview that actually challenged her in any way about any meaningful issues.

YouTube - Angry Crowd Shouts at Sarah Palin Book Signing

Well she is good at quitting.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well if she can only sign so many books and there are too many people there it would have nothing to do with her. I've been to several book signings and beyond a certain point (once it's been done at least once and they have an idea of how many they can sign in X amount of time) they always tell you you can wait but there's no guarantee you'll get any signed.

(AP) FORT BRAGG, N.C. — Sarah Palin brought her book-signing tour to North Carolina's Fort Bragg on Monday as thousands greeted the former Republican vice presidential candidate in a campaign-like gathering that tested military rules involving politicians.

The Department of Defense typically prohibits politicians from using installations as a platform, so Palin didn't give a speech and simply thanked soldiers individually. She was allowed to hold the event as a private citizen who was not campaigning, a Fort Bragg spokesman said.

Army officials initially feared the book signing might turn political and negative comments would be directed at President Barack Obama, so they barred media from attending. The Army later relented and allowed coverage, and many people who attended voiced their opposition to the commander in chief.

Palin's tour bus parked nearby, splashed with her photo, encouraged donations to her political action committee, while supporters made clear that she should run for president.

Palin's father, who greeted visitors as his daughter signed copies of the book, said in an interview that Obama's handling of the military was "scary."

"I see a decline in our might," Chuck Heath said. "People used to be afraid of us and respect us, (but) they're not afraid of us and don't respect us anymore."

Col. Billy Buckner, a spokesman for Fort Bragg, said the Army agreed to let Palin on post because she was no longer a politician.

"She fell into a little bit of a gray area," he said. "She's not a political figure per se, but she certainly carries a tremendous amount of interest and influence across the country."

The former Alaska governor began a nationwide tour last week to promote a new memoir, "Going Rogue." She also has a planned visit to Fort Hood, Texas, on Dec. 4 – just a month after 12 people were killed there in a shooting rampage.

Hundreds of Palin supporters arrived early at Fort Bragg, and one woman spent nearly 24 hours in line. Officials estimated that some 4,000 turned out. More than 500 had to be turned away as the three-hour signing ended.

G.R. Quinn, 58, a veteran who spent 20 years in the military, wore an "Impeach Obama" shirt. He blasted the president for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, for the plan to hold a key Sept. 11 terrorism trial in New York and for Obama's handling of the military overseas.

"He's so wishy-washy about Afghanistan," Quinn said, adding he hopes more troops will be sent there.

While the supporters were primarily civilians, dozens of uniformed personnel also greeted Palin. They craned to snap photos and shook her hand as she left.

Chief Warrant Officer Two Jeff Thompson, 36, praised Palin for stopping by.

"She cares about the troops," Thompson said. The soldier, who has had two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, said he supported the GOP ticket in 2008 but he considers Obama his boss.

"I support his decisions," Thompson said.