While I do certainly agree with you on the Palin comments and generally agree with you on your qualms with the term fucking, in lesbian sex and in gay sex typically two people get "fucked".

I agree that the cover is sexist. Of course, it is disingenuous for Fox, which overall does not object to sexism in any meaningful way, to make a big deal out of it simply because they like Sarah Palin, but the cover is sexist nevertheless. A lot of people say that it is not a problem because Palin posed for that photo willingly, but Newsweek obtained the photo from Runner's World (or some other runner's magazine) -- in this context, the photo is used to demean Sarah Palin in a political context simply for being a woman.

Of course, we know that there is plenty to criticize her for, and she is, in fact, a hateful and incompetent politician. Newsweek could have stuck to the thousands of legitimate criticisms to be made without utilizing this cover photo to put her down.

It's not sexist. Newsweek is making fun of Failin' Palin because she's fake, she's corny, and she tries so hard to make people like her. She looks like a FUCKING BEAUTY QUEEN instead of a serious politician.

The cover is quite funny and cheesy, which is exactly what she is-- a national joke.

In all fairness, though, Palin /did/ pose for that picture, and certainly knew that she was wearing tiny shorts and skin-tight clothes. And sure, Newsweek did use it out of context.

But for Palin to complain about it is completely disingenuous. Since she's clearly trying to use her sexuality to her advantage in that photo in one context, she doesn't have much room to complain when someone uses the photo in another context to use her sexuality to her disadvantage.

After all, what she's essentially saying is "how dare Newsweek use a sexualized photo of me I willingly posed for knowing it would be disseminated in a national publication?"

It's pretty simple -- you don't want people using semi-racy photos of you to discredit you, quit posing for them in national publications. IT seems to me more like she's trying to have it both ways -- using her (limited) sex appeal when it suits her, and then crying foul when it's used against her

"Sexualizing a woman is a way to make her seem less important. It’s, literally, to disempower her. This magazine cover tells us that we shouldn’t take Palin seriously. With her short shorts, sexy legs, pigtails, and friendly smile, it turns her into a political joke."

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think that "sexualizing" is *literally* disempowering someone, and especially on an academic blog I hate to see the word "literally" misused like that.

And I mean, I know the left shouldn't discount her, etc etc, but isn't she pretty much a political joke? She's not taken seriously by at least 70% of the electorate, and the other 30% are divided between slavish devotion and fretting over her undue influence.

Last year during election season I saw a man wearing a shirt with Palin's face on it. It said: GILF. I took this to be an acronym for: Gov. I'd Like to F#&*. I can't imagine the man was someone about to vote for Obama. I mean, I get the feeling the shirt was to be worn by men who would actually vote for her. But what would they be voting for? Her fuckability? There are so many things to dislike her for, but I would stand against her being treated this way, even by her own followers.

Wait a minute here.
Isn't it obvious that the entire point of using that Runner's World photo for the Newsweek cover to illustrate one of the many "problematic" things about Sarah that her supporters have to solve? It says it right there: "She's bad news for the GOP."

I don't know that it demeans her. It just sums up, visually, many of the problems she's run into that make it easy for her opposition and hard for her supporters: the "rogue" behavior, the dubious choices (like this inexplicably cheesecakey photo shoot), the blunders (note the crumpled flag under her elbow, which caused some outrage), the lack of believability/credibility (why no shots of her actually running?), etc.

Now, it's true, some of these "problems" with her image are seen as problematic in part due to sexism, and Newsweek addresses that directly within. So I'm not sure it's fair to say they're "being sexist" here.

I prefer this take on the newsweek cover - she did it to herself

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2009/11/the-truth-hurts-newsweeks-palin-cover-.html

a few points:

@karinova - right on - I don't think a word like "sexist" is useful here either. There's nothing particularly provocative here, and if anything, it moves her 'hockey mom' / 'not from the beltway' spectacle forward...

If an image - this tame - of any woman in athletic clothes would be considered "over sexualized," I'd have to wonder if the nuns at my Catholic high school had somehow taken over the world... 'Nothing above your knees ladies.'

I'm also not sure the comparison of her photo to Clinton, McCain, Obama covers are at all useful. She's not holding or even running for office. Rather, she's on a 'humanizing' book tour - this is an image she wants - she wants people to like her enough to $pend money to have her in their lives - books, media appearances, live speeches... all very lucrative if you're popular enough. How does this cover compare with other newsweek covers of aspiring celebrities on a media blitz? I really don't know... and, honestly, since I don't particularly like Palin, I'm not sure if I care to know either.

The Newsweek cover was in the tradition of the media mocking spectacularly bad PR by politicians. (Cf. Michael Dukakis in the tank, George W. Bush in Commander Codpiece mode on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.)

That cover shot was part of a pictorial that Palin did for Runner's World while she was governor of Alaska. This isn't an unfortunate candid or action shot, it's a posed portrait of a sitting governor imitating a Vargas pinup girl. Props: Randomly draped American flag, two Blackberries. Setting: Palin's famous home office. Wardrobe: Incongruous running gear in the house. Body language: Posed like a model, hands on hips, front leg bent. This wasn't just any picture of Palin in shorts, it was her clumsy attempt to portray herself as the Alaska's Sexy Governor in a national magazine. I did a double take when I saw this spread in Runner's World.

The fact that Newsweek was able to buy the rights to this image is a further indictment of Palin's staff and a great illustration of Newsweek's underlying point. Sarah Palin is clueless and she surrounds herself with incompetents.

The story is about why Palin is a problem for the GOP and the cover image pretty much answers that question. She knows how to give the angry base what they want. Her fans ate up that RW pictorial. They thought it was charming and folksy. Everyone else looked at it and thought: WHO DOES THIS? That's why Palin is fracturing the GOP. She caters to a narrow fanbase and alienates everyone else.

Palin's team deliberately cultivates her image. She's not just a random politician who happens to be conventionally attractive. She and her staffers work hard to give her the appearance of "a hot woman." This confers some benefits at the expense other potential benefits. It's a calculation.

That she does this of her own free will (nobody's forcing her to do it and her presentation is not a coincidence), is not the point in my view. It's this: sure, she plays on societal expectations of attractiveness in order to appeal to a subset of voters. In doing so, she must be aware that many of these voters conflate "a hot woman" with "stupid." Lots of politicians do and say dumb stuff, but I suspect that Palin's buffoonery has been unfairly magnified because of this stereotype.

Is there a way to disentangle the evaluation of a woman's appearance from her political achievements and views, especially when criticizing her? It seems like women politicians are either "hot" (Palin) or "not hot" (Clinton), but they can never escape the "hotness" evaluation in the first place, regardless of the issue at hand.

How do you design a non-sexist magazine cover that makes fun of a political figure, when that figure is a caricature of "hot woman"? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious. Do you play up her physical appearance, or do you find a way to sidestep it? If you sidestep it, is that a true depiction of the story of a person who's deeply invested in her appearance?

Here's Runner's World's take on it: linky link.

On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo that was shot exclusively for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page. The photos from that shoot are still under a one-year embargo, and Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image. It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission.

Is showing knees sexualisation or objectification now? I do not really get too sexual vibes from that picture. I take that this picture more like correlates with her yank soccer mom image since she is wearing sport clothes. I think this particular picture is more like youthful and energetic, not sexual.

The attacks on Palin are really all about her beliefs and her religion.

Even though politically she's a liberterean Republican people have it in their brain that she's a crusading social conservative.

The MSM and Left would never get away with treating and stereotyping a man the way they managed to do with her , and they would never treat a leftist woman like that or tolerate anyone else who did.

What's never discussed are her accomplishments and ethical intigrity, or her geniune poliitical philosophy.. which I woud guess hardly anyone really knows.

If you want to know about the real Palin.. and not the Palin characeture that the Left formed of her (notice how every GOP politician the Left doesn't like is a variation of stupid or sinister) then I recommned checking out this week's interviews with (on the radio) Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin (on cable) Sean Hannity.

She's the most straight-forward non Politically Correct politiican I've seen speak about the very profound and dangerous problems facing this country right now

I have to agree with Lindsay. Palin had no problems doing this shoot for Runner's World to advance her personal/political brand at a time when she thought doing so would help her in the national spotlight. Now, when the same photo is used alongside unflattering commentary, it magically becomes sexist and oppressive. Perhaps Newsweek's point isn't just that she's a woman and should not be taken seriously as such but that she's a politician who relies on cheesy beauty pageant imagery and a shamelessly contrived (and divisive) persona to try to shape and exploit public opinion.

It's not as if Newsweek went back to use the beauty pageant swimsuit photos of her. That might be another issue.

Sadly, it seems that both the mainstream media and the Republican Party only discovered sexism when it happened to Sarah Palin, not to Hillary Clinton.

Newsweek obtained the photo from Runner's World... http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-410--13221-0,00.html?cm_mmc=Mag_URL-_-2009_August-_-I%27m_A_Runner-_-Sarah_Palin

It was a pic they decided not to use. Of course, out of context, this image is ludicrous for the front cover of Newsweek. I say shame on Newsweek for this.

Links one through ten are not working from the main page; I think it's because they are missing the '/socimages/'. But when I clicked on the comments link to write a comment mentioning the links are not work, now the links are working. Is this a common bug? Sorry for the obvious if it is commonly known...

According to the statement by the running magazine, the photo was taken for their August 2008 issue.

That means it was taken , at the latest, sometime in July.

Seeing how she wasn't selected to the be the running mate until sometime in late August , how does the theory that she somehow did this.. or that she had some posse of "a team" to cultivate some sort of image.. hold any water?

When I first saw this picture I had a similar reaction. The more I looked at it, the more I wasn't sure. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to newsweek, but i think this picture makes really interesting commentary on palin and what she respresents and is associated. the picture is laughably cheap, taken in a depressing office/school room (?) with crappy carpet and beige walls. the american flag was obviously put there to inspire a feeling of patriotism, but its thrown haphazardly over the chair. shes holds TWO blackberries for some unknown reason. her legs are as shiny as her hair and shes standing in the classic beauty contestant pose. its not just that her legs are showing that makes it sexualized, but her pose. it reminds us that shes a beauty-queen politician whose image has been carefully constructed and exploited endlessly. its a really odd, unprofessional picture that seems slapdash with an awkward use of cheap symbolism--all of which you could say about her vice-presidential campaign and political persona.

There seems to be some very sex negative-assumptions in this post.
For a start: being fucked does not necessarily mean being dis-empowered. There is power in choosing who fucks you and setting boundaries about how. Secondly sex is possible as an expression of equality, if you think of it as something you do equally to all participants and not something inflicted by one party onto another.

More importantly, despite the common reality, it is possible to take someone seriously while acknowledging that they are sexual or have a sexuality. Many people do not, but that is unfair of them. One way to oppose that way of think is to present yourself sexually and still expect or demand to be taken seriously as a person, intellectual and/or politician. Some people may even already think along those lines.

While critiquing the assumption that female sexuality is demeaning, objectifying and infantilising we must be careful not to reproduce those same assumptions.

Of course, there are less prurient interpretations of the 1st Newsweek cover available to us. We could read her dress and pose as indicating youthful vigour, with sportswear and a practical hairstyle symbolic of the energy with which she intends to pursue her political goals, or her willingness to be part of a visual pun a demonstration of a sense of humour that is meant to denote commonality with the American public. Assuming that any of these signs are sexual as soon as they are applied to a woman is itself a means of sexual objectification

Seems to me many people are looking for something to dismiss her out of hand and so was Newsweek.. so they unleash this picture

I'm sure you all feel similiarly when Obama was showing off his abs.. right?

Didn't we have to endure about two days of female reporters purring about licking his sweaty worked out body?

Okay, am I the only one having a problem with "only one person gets fucked"? That's not how I use that word. That is not how ANYONE I KNOW uses that word. I am a woman, and I have sex with men, and I have never said I was fucked by someone. I say I fucked them, or we fucked. For me, and everyone else I know, pretty much, it's just a more graphic way of saying "have sex". It's not a verb that requires a direct object. Bikini Kill has a song called "I Like Fucking", but I guess you'd all read that as "I like getting fucked"? Who really talks like this? Do any of you talk to people, outside of an academic setting? This is not how most people use this word.

I would be more inclined to agree that it was sexist if she hadn't posed for this picture and hundreds of others like it. I don't feel that her attractiveness is a detractor. Decades of research proves that "beautiful" people are considered to be smarter, more pleasant, and more successful than "average" looking people. Beautiful people are given the benefit of the doubt based solely on appearance, so I am not sure that this image harmed her. However; the things she chooses to start fires over does speak to an element of disconnectedness and reluctance to face the challenging subjects she has been presented with time and again. As for Newsweek, I do believe that their choice of the Runner's photo was opportunistic and not in following with any supposed journalistic integrity. In short it was a cheap shot. Their other covers do not show bias as she was presented in her campaign getup like McCain, Obama, and Hilary.

Palin's nomination itself was a cheap shot. It was an offensive, sexist move based on the popularity of Clinton, the thought being that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between female candidates, would like her for the sake of being female, and/or would laud the GOP for being 'progressive' enough to nominate a woman (and, incidentally, forget any slamming they did of Hillary or dismiss it). How she and her handlers chose to represent her as a political candidate involved playing up her role as a wholesome, but definitely sexy, 'average Jane' soccer mom (with killer gams!), including the publicity she was willing to give to other publications that portrayed her as such. The poster above hit the nail on the head by mentioning the Newsweek cover that came out during the race that was criticized for being "unflattering." I agree that it is entirely disingenuous of a politician whose entire campaign and celebrity was built on this motif to suddenly cry sexism when it doesn't work in her favor, and it undermines other women who have tried hard to succeed without the use of this kind of presentation when they are victims of sexism.

I feel as though Newsweek deliberately chose the photo because it actually encompasses everything we know about Palin: she's got celebrity, she's hot, she loves America, she works from home overlooking the water (and Russia), she's fit, she's hot, she tweets on her Blackberry/ies, she's hot, and... oh wait - she's a politician?