Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: A Tale of Two Us Covers

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

A Tale of Two Us Covers

I won't be buying Us Magazine again. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin, who has more, including the Obama comparison cover.

An under-covered element of the media bias in this election has been the women's magazines clear advocacy for Obama. Until now, they've ignored the Republican side of the political equation. This hatchet job might backfire, and make more women see Palin sympathetically or like she's someone they know. After all, women liked Princess Diana more after her life turned out to be less than perfect.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...: Here are the advertisers in that issue of US. I got this post from the US website where 99% of the comments are against their position and advocating boycott.

" Here are some of the sponsors, for all of you who are just as outraged as I am.
Cover Girl....Neutrogena.....Coca Cola/Powerade....Pepperidge Farm....Lady Foot Locker....CW....TRESemme....M&Ms....Olay...ABC...RID...
Jack in the Box....Glaxo Smith Klein...food network...Target....Wrigley's.
..Special K....McDonalds....NutriSystem....WalGreen's...Figi Water....
and Sony.

In addition to boycotting this piece of trash mag....I urge each of you to boycott these sponsors, until they pull advertising dollars away from US!!!!!"

Keep this one going Copy and paste. These are the sponsors of the trashy magazine."; September 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Good post. Apparently US is following the lead of Time, which plastered Obama's face on their cover 7 times in 2008.; September 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Boonton said...: Talk about reverse affirmative action!

First: US Magazine is a gossip/entertainment magazine so yea their profiles are going to focus on family life and gossip.

Second: Booo Hoo for you. Obama has a nice family without any problems. Maybe this is just because his kids are too young to be getting into trouble or maybe he just has better family values than Palin. Either way, because Obama's family seems to be happy and without problems at the moment hardly entitles Palin to a softball cover. In other words, if her kid didn't get knocked up or her sister didn't get her involved with her custody fight she too could have the cover of 'look at her five cute kids and loving husband'; September 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Great site! I have just given you a mention on my little blog! It will be fun watching your readership grow and grow!
Ted

http://thescribblerspen.blogspot.com; September 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah Booten, then WHERE is the Us story on Edwards, HMMMM? Why does Us put outright LIES right on the cover insinuating that she didn't admit her daughter's pregnancy until she was attacked by MSM? That's TOTAL RUBBISH! She never fired her sister's husband/trooper - another LIE. "Embarrassing Surprises" - that one's correct because it describes the radical left who are obviously scared to death of her.; September 3, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I received a free subscription to US Weekly a couple months ago. Free or not, I asked them to cancel my subscription. I don't need this biased garbage in my home.; September 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Boonton said...: Where is the Edwards story? Who the hell is Edwards? Politicians don't usually rank high in celebrity/gossip journalism & by the time the National Enq. broke his story he was long out of the race.

As for when the pregnancy story really broke. The National Enq. says it first went to the boy's family and told them they were going to run the story. Then it was announced. Hardly clear who was really responding to whom.

More to the point, there's no sexism here and no bias. Sorry folks, Obama has a happy family. Palin has one with problems. US's cover followed suit; September 3, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Boonton said...: BTW, since you want to know where the Edwards story is....where is the US Magazine coverstories on Vitter or Craig for that matter?; September 3, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: I have a suggestion for an alternate cover.

Why Sarah Loves Her Son

(So much so that she refused to give him up in the knowledge that she will have to take care of him for the rest of her life.); September 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Post a Comment

What is sexism?

All criticisms of Sarah Palin are not sexist. It would be sexist to expect that she would receive no criticism, or that she SHOULD receive no criticism, because she is a woman. I admit that some of the criticism of Palin may really be the result of ideological bias, or simply sloppy reporting, not sexism. Some of the questions are fair game in isolation (yes, of course, it's fair to talk about Palin's experience in general; it's that she's held to a higher standard than males in the race that's the issue).

The Palin piling on is a complex cultural stew. In some cases, I suspect ideological and gender bias are working together. A reader has challenged me to define what I consider to be sexism. Broadly, I would define sexism in the political sphere as the following: When the woman is held to a higher and different standard than a similarly situated male, especially but not limited to issues that have no relevance to the race and that tend to diminish the woman's professional accomplishments by playing into gender stereotypes.

Specifically, here is a list of what I consider to be sexist behavior:

Coverage of a female politician that fixates on her physical appearance, pro or con. I admit that male politicians sometimes face this (Obama walking shirtless out of the Hawaiian surf got a lot of attention, and there was a lot of attention about John Edwards' shiny hair). And I think that some women have mixed feelings about this. After all, who doesn't want to be considered good looking? But, for many women, when they are in a professional setting, and supposedly professional media commentators place the focus back on their physical appearance, as a positive or a negative, it feels diminishing of their professional accomplishments. This works both ways, of course. Hillary Clinton has been viciously attacked by some on the right for supposedly not being good looking. That, too, is sexist, especially since unattractive male politicians are generally not held to this standard. If you think about it, good-looking male politicians also find their appearance the topic of discussion in many cases, but that's not true of unattractive male politicians. It's true in both cases for women. Simply put, appearance is not relevant to competence, so why are we talking about Palin's hair and looks?
Sexual-related comments about a female politician.
Blatant belittling of one's intelligence without evidence and in a manner not accorded to male opponents (i.e. saying the woman is stupid, needs a teleprompter, needs a lot of coaching, etc.)
Implying that the woman must not really believe her positions or must be under the intellectual sway of a more powerful male. (This happens in racism too. Consider how opponents argue that Clarence Thomas is a tool of intellectual white men like Antonin Scalia).
Double standards relating to motherhood; i.e., the female politician is asked questions about motherhood that her male counterparts aren't asked about fatherhood. (Why doesn't Palin stay home to take care of the kids? Hillary, why don't you want to stay home to bake cookies and hold teas?) The reverse is also true. It's also wrong for people to demean females who CHOOSE to stay home and raise their families. I personally believe that whether a woman chooses to be a housewife, a career woman, or, like Palin, a mixture of both, is her personal decision and debate about it really isn't relevant in a presidential election.
Slurs that are typically used to demean women but aren't applied to similarly aggressive men; i.e. when attributes that would be praised in a man are reduced to a negative in the woman (b-tch, nag, etc.). The Martha Stewart phenomenon. The tough woman is a b-tch, but the overly emotional woman is too weak to lead (women can't win sometimes!)
The woman is held to higher standards for intelligence/professional qualifications than a male opponent. (Palin is utterly unqualified, but Obama is then not?)
Diminishing of traditional female roles as being silly (the PTA, chortle, chortle, chortle. She was a housewife once, how pathetic, etc.). I don't know about you, but right now I am thinking about the woman, a housewife, who ran my child's Catholic Bible school this summer, and she was quite a force to be reckoned with. I'd love to pit her against Putin.
Emphasis on female roles traditionally seen as silly when discussing an accomplished, professional woman (she was a beauty queen 24 years ago!!!!!!)
Assuming incompetence. (she's a woman, so she won't be a strong leader, etc.)
The woman becomes defined by a single gender-related issue in a manner that males do not (consider how the abortion question is defining Palin, but doesn't define Obama or even McCain.)
Issues that aren't used against male opponents are magnified out of proportion against the woman. (Bristol-mania. I admit this one might be ideological bias more than sexism, but I do think it's caught up in Palin's cultural role as a "mother")
Invasion of the personal sphere and personalization/lifestyle focus of/on the candidate. In other words, covering the woman through the gauze of personality and lifestyle issues, rather than professional accomplishment. (Why are we talking about Palin's prenatal care and amniotic fluid again? It's creepy. Do we talk about Biden's sperm count? I admit that's a really creepy thought, and I do admit that Palin invited some of this by talking about her breastfeeding to People magazine. But still.)

Sarah Palin Sexism Watch

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

A Tale of Two Us Covers

9 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive