Very interesting thread happening over at Eugene Cho’s blog about the controversial Newsweek cover featuring Sarah Palin. I even shared my two cents over there. I’m not a huge Palin fan, but I do question Newsweek’s judgment in using that image. Would love to hear what you think.
Recent Comments
Stuart on Rebel Songs BEEKAYTEE on Remembering a Different T… (@moorby_l) on ‘Twas the Night Before J… Bob dog on Rebel Songs Gail on How ‘Hee Haw’ Chan… Gail on How ‘Hee Haw’ Chan… Glenna on ‘Twas the Night Before J… Ed G.’s Tweets
- @imTerenceLester Wonderful news! Blessings and congratulations! 2 days ago
- @KaitlynSchiess Blessings and congratulations! 1 week ago
- @JBsTwoCents Blessings and congratulations! 2 months ago
- Happening today! christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/novemb… 3 months ago
- Friends, we're less than a week away from @CTmagazine's special Advent webinar. Writers from "The Promised One" dev… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 months ago
- Apology Asian Asian American Barack Obama Bill Cosby black church Bob Jones University Chicago Chris Rock Christianity Today Christmas Civility civil rights movement Conservatives Culture Deadly Viper Democratic National Convention Democrats Diversity Divided by Faith Election Eric Holder Evangelicals faith family film Forgiveness George Ryan Glenn Loury gospel music Grace I Have a Dream Illinois John McCain Jordan Peele Jud Wilhite justice Martin Luther King Jr. Michael Emerson Michael O. Emerson Mike Foster movies multiethnic church NBA Newsweek NPR Obama parenting Philip Yancey Politics prayer President Barack Obama Presidential Election President Obama Race Race Relations racial reconciliation Racism Reconciliation Religion Rod Blagojevich Roger Ebert Sarah Palin Saturday Night Live Sexism social justice Soong-Chan Rah Soul Children of Chicago stereotypes Thanksgiving Todd Burkes UrbanFaith UrbanFaith.com war Zondervan
Blog Categories
Blog Archives
Blog Calendar
Meta
Reconciliation Blog 
One thing that I’ve learned is that it matters who is using the imagery in interpreting if it is appropriate or not. Newsweek is hardly a conservative publication. It is part of the liberal media that seeks to belittle conservatives and their beliefs, and Sarah Palin has become one of the main targets for this.
I hardly think that if a liberal politician, whether male or female was coming out with a book that Newsweek would have them on the cover in a jogging suit.
And yes, it is sexist. And they think that sexism is ok when leveled at a conservative. I find that disturbing.
From what I heard, the photographer who took the picture of her broke his contract by selling the picture before it was suppose to make it available.
I am not a huge Palin fan but I still think this will help her book sales.
I should still say for the record that the use of this picture seems sexist.
Question: Does anyone think that a veiled sexuality was a part of Palin’s candidacy?
I think it is too bad that Newsweek decided to use such a photograph. Have they ever done this sort of a thing for a male politician?
It is sexist.
@prophetik soul
wrote similar to that question earlier –
http://eliseanne.wordpress.com//2009/07/07/sarah-palin-was-a-token/
@edwardg
I see Kathy Khang on your blogroll. Keep reading her.
i think you were on to something in your comments at eugene’s blog. at least, you were on to exploring the issues and asking questions – not just assuming sexism = sexual pictures and declaring the photo not sexist, as many seem to be doing.
I haven’t fully figured out what I feel about it, to be honest. But I do know what I feel when tons of men say “You are over reacting if you are hurt by this and think it is sexist,” or “Well she sexualizes her self so it is her fault,” on his blog. It’s supposed to be about this affects the equality and safety of women in our society.
I think it is a bigger issue, going back to how the Repub. party marketed her anyway (see my above linked post). She was never marketed as a serious politician, but instead was the former beauty queen soccer mom. Hillary is always billed as the man-woman.
Why can’t women politicians be feminine and serious?
Prophetik Soul: Only if you believe that women have no business being sexual beings, and/or that professional women should hide all traces of femininity and be as dowdy and asexual as they possibly can.
Oh, and Ed, good comment.
Of course it was sexist.
Prophetik Soul
Sarah Palin is attractive. Should that be held against her? She is a beautiful woman. Just because some men, and women, can’t look at her without focusing on her good looks doesn’t mean her campaign had a “veiled sexuality”.
I don;t even care for her as a candidate….but it’s clear that the sexual angle comes from those bringing it up, not from Palin trying to exploit it.
Food for thought. I don’t always agree with everything on this site, but there are a couple of very good points here.
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/11/19/sexist-newsweek-cover-inspires-frums-new-scholarship-she-asked-for-it/
There is some additional background info over on the runner’s world site including the picture they went with for their feature. The picture News Week chose is also there as a part of a web slide show.
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/home.html
There isn’t anything inappropriate about any of the pictures in the context of a running magazine. Same goes for Michele Obama wearing shorts for an outdoor event. People … er … the media … needs to chill out.
The problem with the News Week cover is that in the context of a national news magazine supposedly dealing with ideas and issues it becomes snide and degrading. Instead of making her look good they chose by far the weakest picture from a spread by another magazine. Now why would they do that? Mmmm. Are they planning a similar cover with Joe Biden? Dick Chenney?
Always a keen observer with a gift for prose Bruce Cockburn wrapped up sexism on the news stand into a single line in the song, “Loner” back in the 80’s.
“Men’s faces women’s bodies on the magazine stand”
Not much has changed.
I think it is sexist, but not just sexist. It’s belittling. They wouldn’t have done that to Hilary Clinton.
I’m a conservative, but not a supporter of Palin for president. I don’t think she has what it takes to be a good one. (She’s at our local Borders tonight. I’m not one who camped
out for tickets. 🙂 She can influence who gets the nomination (s), and I think that’s where she should focus her energy–helping get the best candidate (s).
Having said that, I think she’s been treated badly by the press. I identify with her as a person in many ways, and I find it disturbing that the mainstream media is allowed to treat people “like me” this way.
In light of Oprah’s announcement today and Sarah Palin’s very successful book tour, this column by Tina Brown of The Daily Beast caught my eye. I might be setting myself up for trouble by admitting that portions of it felt right on to me (albeit a bit sarcastic), but I’ll just go ahead and put it out here.
Brown’s isn’t a “Christian” assessment by any means, but she seems to address the issue with the right amount of level-headedness and cynicism appropriate for a critique of what’s happening today in American politics and pop culture (which, in many ways, are one and the same). Let me know what you think—or if I’m indeed in trouble for linking to this piece. :-0
yeah ed, you do yourself no favors posting this link and saying any of it felt “right”. it’s a belittling article
(if veiled and sprinkled with cynicism to take the edge off) posted in a thread about a woman who is most likely the victim of sexism by a major publication. i am gravely disappointed…
Yeah, Tina Brown is cynical and sardonic, but I think her commentary is more nuanced and insightful than it may appear. Honestly, it didn’t strike me as belittling. In fact, I think she was giving props to Palin’s intelligence and savvy as an effective public figure. I’ve read various pieces in the past by Brown that also have been complimentary to Palin, so I know that, in her own British way, Brown is an admirer. In my view, she’s that brutally honest and sarcastic no matter whom she’s writing about.
By the way, even though I agree with some of what Brown is getting at in her piece, I still think Newsweek‘s choice of cover images was wrong.
Interesting article Ed.
I find the Daily Beast to be over-the-top but with a tinge of truthful observation.
Thanks for posting it. It is definitely a lightening rod but a worthy read.
Brown is WAY off base with this, it seems to me. The impression I’m getting from reading Palin’s book (oh noes! I’m reading THAT BOOK! Oh, the humanity!!! 🙂 ) is that Palin is exactly who she always appeared to be, no more, no less. And that’s one reason I think she drives liberals crazy — while they’re frantically digging and digging to find out what she’s REALLY up to, the answer is right there on the surface all the time. Thus, for instance, she didn’t take her kids on the campaign trail because of some deep dark plot to exploit them or ruin their lives or what not. She took them because she loves them and loves having them around. She doesn’t even have to say that, it’s just there in every line. In fact, she can’t imagine why anyone WOULDN’T want to have a campaign bus full of kids. It’s just who she is.
While we’re on the subject of Palin and her book, actually, I’ve been wondering what people on this site would make of some of the things she’s faced. Like this:
“On the Internet, a fake Planned Parenthood ad showed a photo of me holding Trig. In one corner there was a coat hanger and in the other a slogan: ‘Better luck next time.'”
(She’s not making that up, BTW. I’ve seen the ad.)
Or how about this, from the “Newsweek/Washington Post” blog during the campaign: “[Palin’s] greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman?”
You know, sometimes the need for reconciliation and greater understanding pops up where you least expect it. Palin’s not the only conservative woman who could tell you all about that.
ditto Gina.
I have to agree Rich. About the only thing I agreed with in the article is that Sarah is putting herself in the public eye and trying to sell books. (and neither in and of themselves is bad)
It just seemed like all the stuff I’ve heard about her regurgitated and exaggerated. I found the whole thing to be mocking and basically calling Palin stupid.
Eliseanne, I know this is a late response but that’s to the link to your commentary on tokenism. It made me realize that I should have used the word ‘tokenism’ when referring to palin instead of veiled sexuality. The contrast you make between her and clinton makes a lot of sense. The extreme contrast between the two is also how a lot of men see them. I found myself reexaming my stereotypes but ultimately realizing that he candidate uses that same stereotype as a strength with certain demographics.