Sexist coverage of Palin?
I'm flummoxed by the idea that Democrats (or liberals, or non-supporters of Palin) fear her. They may fear the idea of Palin in the White House, but I'd guess most prospective opponents would welcome her as a candidate, because they honestly believe her campaign would be a disaster. So I pretty much agree with the tagline, that she's a problem for the GOP.
But is that kind of cover image any way to represent a woman in politics?
Here's Newsweek's defense of the cover: "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying?"
What are they saying?
That she's "duping the hicks."
And, "Let's admit that Sarah Palin is more attractive—some might even want to
say more appealing—than much of her enraged core constituency. But then
all we are considering is a point of packaging and marketing, where
charm is supposed to make up for what education and experience have
failed thus far to supply. We are further obliged to consider the
question: exactly how charming is the Joan of Arc of the New Right, who
also hears voices speaking to her of 'spiritual warfare'?"
So they set out to trash her as an exploiter of her own attractiveness, and ran a cover image that shouts that message.
Is that sexist?
Recent Comments