Thanks for this piece and the whole series, great work. The double standard coverage of Sarah Palin was infuriating; clear run-down of the major ways the press miscovered her. I found it then--and still find it--clarifying to tear apart sexist treatment of a politician I otherwise can't stand.
It is a mystery to me why journalists seem to rarely notice male politicians' multi-thousand-dollar suits (not to mention their watches etc.). And the open-mouthed shot (what should be culled like a mid-blink shot) is my #1 pet peeve. Drives me crazy. I swear there is extra effort put into choosing that "O" mouth for women--so frequently seen--but not for men.
I am not a fan of Sarah, but I had not seen some of this shots including the one of her heels and the male fan. Disgusting. I am not in the least surprised by this either.
Right? The one of her legs is truly astonishing. I am not a fan of hers either but we must recognize that part of the narrative against her was never about her policy positions. It was her gender, plain and simple.
She didn't have policy positions. The narrative against her was that she was really ignorant about policy and the structure of government and had no clue about the job of the vice president (or the president for that matter). She is also showed that she is not very curious or intelligent.
So, I strongly disagree that "part of the narrative against her....was her gender plain and simple." I think the fact that she was a woman was so overshadowed by everything else negative about her, that her gender barely registered a blip on the concern scale.
When I saw that photo at the time, my first thought was, this is a deliberate "Mrs. Robinson" shot. (See poster for the movie, The Graduate.) The journos/photogs seemed to want to play up Palin's sexuality/sensuality because that was ALL that she had to offer. She certainly was playing along with sexualizing herself.
I agree that some women have agency to use their sexuality as a power move. BUT Newsweek ran that image from a totally different article… which i do not think they would do to a male politician.
You are correct! They wouldn't do that with a male politician.
Palin wasn't an innocent being exploited by the media, though. She was only chosen by the RNC for sex appeal to counter McCain's age. She was a political idiot who never should have voted in for Gov of Alaska, let alone mayor of a small town.
Well, all that may be true but 1) she was less serious, less smart, and less likable. But consider today: who is most often photographed with his puckery mouth open, his eyes squinting, his hands pointing, his cotton candy hair in motion, and his horribly pockmarked and dyed skin in sharp focus?
That campaign seems like an eternity ago. But your research says a great deal. Do you think it would have been different if Palin was not such a poor candidate?👹
Rachel, this is a good question. It’s hard to say, but in 2008, as we *also saw* with Hillary Clinton, there was a lot of misogyny towards women running for the highest political offices. She was not a perfect candidate (I do not defend her or her policies!) but she deserved to be given a fair shot. And I don’t think she was given one, in large part because of gender.
I have never liked Sarah Palin but I believe she was scrutinized and criticized in ways a male candidate would never have been. She was a precursor to Donald Trump and he's been glorified for the very things she was criticized for.
"When photo editors consistently select these open-mouth shots from hundreds of options, they’re making political choices, not just aesthetic ones."
That matters to the oppressed gender. But also note: When photo editors consistently select one of those gross pursed-mouth shots of Trump from hundreds of options, they're making political choices too. Works both ways, assholes!
I agree! I do not defend Donald Trump at all. But those open mouth shots are click bait and they are also used so often for women that I believe it’s a problem of sexism.
Sorry to make a joke at the expense of your good work! I agree with you; and you help me put the patterns that I have already noticed into context. It's telling that the sexism is "bipartisan."
You are more precise than me today! I guess I mean that the sexism is delivered in a bipartisan fashion to women of all persuasions. Yeah. What next? Maybe the disparity in how older men and women are portrayed in image, or the expectations that surround their public images--lower for dudes, higher for chicks. Just thinking of the photos of justices of a certain age that I've seen lately. But you'll see a different angle for me :)
Those pictures are so disgusting. They did everything to make her look shallow. I did not agree with some of her policies but I thought her coverage was just brutal.
I have no sympathy for Palin. She tried to make herself a glamor girl in politics. I still remember the rimless eye glasses craze. Please focus on worthy women, not pit bulls in lipstick.
Hi Susan, thanks for your comment! I am no defender of Gov. Sarah Palin or her policies. But she was the VP candidate in a race that was in many ways defined by misogyny and I think it’s important to dissect how visual sexism affects women across parties.
Great piece, but I would have liked the subject to have been a serious candidate, instead of Palin (who I found vacuous then and have had no reason to abandoned that perception since). Please do the analysis with Harris or Clinton or Pelosi...I bet you will find much of the same objectification, but more gravitas.
Hi there Lori! My second piece in this series was about VP Harris, and I will definitely write about Secretary Clinton. I think it’s important to look at women across the political spectrum to see how visuals are weaponizes against all of them, regardless of party.
Curious to see this same analysis applied to Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS confirmation hearings where her female sex became her shield instead of a sword as used against Sarah Palin. I believe Barrett was asked about laundry more frequently than the law, and it helped her be confirmed.
Shaileen, what a brilliant idea. I will look into this! I didn’t think about looking at judges, only candidates. But of course those visuals are very powerful and shape our perception of authority too.
Thanks Nick. I don’t defend Palin or her policies. And she made a lot of mistakes on the campaign — but she deserved a fair shot to be judged on her policies and vision, not on her gender.
Thanks, Cynthia. I do not defend Gov. Palin. I did not vote for her and I wouldn’t vote for her in the future. But I think it’s important to make sure that women running for office are given a fair shot - and a lot of that depends on visuals. She was definitely framed in ways to make her seem less qualified and authoritative.
My brother is still commenting on Kamala Harris always running her mouth and laughing with her mouth open. And poor Eleanor Roosevelt. But Pat Nixon was the perfect wife of a president with her mouth usually tightly closed.
Yep. VP Harris doesn’t laugh more than the average person… but the media undermines her but constantly choosing those images and videos. This is visual sexism at play.
Thanks for this piece and the whole series, great work. The double standard coverage of Sarah Palin was infuriating; clear run-down of the major ways the press miscovered her. I found it then--and still find it--clarifying to tear apart sexist treatment of a politician I otherwise can't stand.
It is a mystery to me why journalists seem to rarely notice male politicians' multi-thousand-dollar suits (not to mention their watches etc.). And the open-mouthed shot (what should be culled like a mid-blink shot) is my #1 pet peeve. Drives me crazy. I swear there is extra effort put into choosing that "O" mouth for women--so frequently seen--but not for men.
I am not a fan of Sarah, but I had not seen some of this shots including the one of her heels and the male fan. Disgusting. I am not in the least surprised by this either.
Right? The one of her legs is truly astonishing. I am not a fan of hers either but we must recognize that part of the narrative against her was never about her policy positions. It was her gender, plain and simple.
She didn't have policy positions. The narrative against her was that she was really ignorant about policy and the structure of government and had no clue about the job of the vice president (or the president for that matter). She is also showed that she is not very curious or intelligent.
So, I strongly disagree that "part of the narrative against her....was her gender plain and simple." I think the fact that she was a woman was so overshadowed by everything else negative about her, that her gender barely registered a blip on the concern scale.
When I saw that photo at the time, my first thought was, this is a deliberate "Mrs. Robinson" shot. (See poster for the movie, The Graduate.) The journos/photogs seemed to want to play up Palin's sexuality/sensuality because that was ALL that she had to offer. She certainly was playing along with sexualizing herself.
I agree that some women have agency to use their sexuality as a power move. BUT Newsweek ran that image from a totally different article… which i do not think they would do to a male politician.
You are correct! They wouldn't do that with a male politician.
Palin wasn't an innocent being exploited by the media, though. She was only chosen by the RNC for sex appeal to counter McCain's age. She was a political idiot who never should have voted in for Gov of Alaska, let alone mayor of a small town.
I agree Cecilia. The open mouth photos are incredibly frustrating! We must do better.
Well, all that may be true but 1) she was less serious, less smart, and less likable. But consider today: who is most often photographed with his puckery mouth open, his eyes squinting, his hands pointing, his cotton candy hair in motion, and his horribly pockmarked and dyed skin in sharp focus?
That campaign seems like an eternity ago. But your research says a great deal. Do you think it would have been different if Palin was not such a poor candidate?👹
Rachel, this is a good question. It’s hard to say, but in 2008, as we *also saw* with Hillary Clinton, there was a lot of misogyny towards women running for the highest political offices. She was not a perfect candidate (I do not defend her or her policies!) but she deserved to be given a fair shot. And I don’t think she was given one, in large part because of gender.
I have never liked Sarah Palin but I believe she was scrutinized and criticized in ways a male candidate would never have been. She was a precursor to Donald Trump and he's been glorified for the very things she was criticized for.
Exactly! Kathie I find that she was in a lot of ways a precursor. But she was critiqued relentlessly for things and in ways men just aren’t.
"When photo editors consistently select these open-mouth shots from hundreds of options, they’re making political choices, not just aesthetic ones."
That matters to the oppressed gender. But also note: When photo editors consistently select one of those gross pursed-mouth shots of Trump from hundreds of options, they're making political choices too. Works both ways, assholes!
I agree! I do not defend Donald Trump at all. But those open mouth shots are click bait and they are also used so often for women that I believe it’s a problem of sexism.
Sorry to make a joke at the expense of your good work! I agree with you; and you help me put the patterns that I have already noticed into context. It's telling that the sexism is "bipartisan."
Not at all! That’sexactly why I wanted to look at Sarah Palin. Visual sexism works against women of all political parties. Who should I look at next??
You are more precise than me today! I guess I mean that the sexism is delivered in a bipartisan fashion to women of all persuasions. Yeah. What next? Maybe the disparity in how older men and women are portrayed in image, or the expectations that surround their public images--lower for dudes, higher for chicks. Just thinking of the photos of justices of a certain age that I've seen lately. But you'll see a different angle for me :)
All excellent points. Thank you!
Those pictures are so disgusting. They did everything to make her look shallow. I did not agree with some of her policies but I thought her coverage was just brutal.
Thanks Michelle! Agree completely. It was brutal and so recent!!
I have no sympathy for Palin. She tried to make herself a glamor girl in politics. I still remember the rimless eye glasses craze. Please focus on worthy women, not pit bulls in lipstick.
Hi Susan, thanks for your comment! I am no defender of Gov. Sarah Palin or her policies. But she was the VP candidate in a race that was in many ways defined by misogyny and I think it’s important to dissect how visual sexism affects women across parties.
Great piece, but I would have liked the subject to have been a serious candidate, instead of Palin (who I found vacuous then and have had no reason to abandoned that perception since). Please do the analysis with Harris or Clinton or Pelosi...I bet you will find much of the same objectification, but more gravitas.
Hi there Lori! My second piece in this series was about VP Harris, and I will definitely write about Secretary Clinton. I think it’s important to look at women across the political spectrum to see how visuals are weaponizes against all of them, regardless of party.
Enjoyable reading that reaches me to study the pictures in a different way.
Thanks so much Pat! I’m glad you’re reading. DM me or comment with any ideas you have for the series!
Curious to see this same analysis applied to Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS confirmation hearings where her female sex became her shield instead of a sword as used against Sarah Palin. I believe Barrett was asked about laundry more frequently than the law, and it helped her be confirmed.
Shaileen, what a brilliant idea. I will look into this! I didn’t think about looking at judges, only candidates. But of course those visuals are very powerful and shape our perception of authority too.
This is all true; but it certainly didn't help that Palin is an idiot.
Thanks Nick. I don’t defend Palin or her policies. And she made a lot of mistakes on the campaign — but she deserved a fair shot to be judged on her policies and vision, not on her gender.
Although I agree with all the points about visual framing listed here, one must also acknowledge that Sarah Palin had no significant credentials.
Thanks, Cynthia. I do not defend Gov. Palin. I did not vote for her and I wouldn’t vote for her in the future. But I think it’s important to make sure that women running for office are given a fair shot - and a lot of that depends on visuals. She was definitely framed in ways to make her seem less qualified and authoritative.
Indeed.
My brother is still commenting on Kamala Harris always running her mouth and laughing with her mouth open. And poor Eleanor Roosevelt. But Pat Nixon was the perfect wife of a president with her mouth usually tightly closed.
Yep. VP Harris doesn’t laugh more than the average person… but the media undermines her but constantly choosing those images and videos. This is visual sexism at play.