As I was browsing various news resources this morning, this article was one that came up. I thought it was kind of interesting. Take a read. It's pretty short. As those who have followed my posts so far are fully aware, I'm not exactly a fan of Michele Bachmann. In fact, it is difficult of anything at all on which I can agree with her. She isn't exactly my favorite presidential candidate. Yet I cannot help but agree with the simple criticism of Newsweek's cover offered by the National Organization for Women. NOW argues that the cover is sexist for the simple reason that it is inconceivable that any male candidate for the presidency would get comparable treatment. There are currently 15 candidates running for the Republican Party's nomination for president (soon to be 16 once Rick Perry formally announces his candidacy), one of whom is female. She is not even the leading candidate either. Recent opinion polling suggests that she currently finds herself in third place for the nomination. Yet which candidate gets the vast majority, even the overwhelming majority, of the negative press coverage? The one who is female. As far as I'm concerned, pretty much all the Republican candidates are way out there, and a lot of them are just as extremist in their political views as Michele Backmann (e.g. Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, even yes secessionist Rick Perry). What then explains the disproportionately adverse press coverage that Bachmann receives? Simply put, the fact that she is female. Take a look at the video that accompanies the linked article. Now I don't exactly agree with Fox's (typical) premise that conservative politicians overall suffer any discrimination in the mainstream media (rather, it seems they often get special treatment, especially from networks like Fox). But they do make a certain case that female candidates for office get inferior treatment in the press. One notes that they conveniently fail to explicitly defend say Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton in any way, but they do, for example, highlight an array of other Bachmann photo choices that Newsweek had at their disposal and rejected. One can hence see that, in spite of Newsweek's denial, the offensive selection was quite a conscious choice. To be honest, it does kind of seem like female candidates of any political view get attacked disproportionately in the press and, as a result, in the real world. Even people with whose views I would otherwise align often do this, sometimes even without realizing it. For example, consider this earlier post by my friend Serfin' USA in which he argues that the historical and present campaigns (respectively) of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann partially discredit the idea that women should pursue public office at all. After all, if two women are 'nuts', then we all must be to one extent or another, right? Again, don't get me wrong, I don't exactly support the Bachmann campaign. I'm strongly for re-electing President Obama and consider him to be much more of an authentic advocate of women's rights than Bachmann. I'm just saying that, whatever their political stripes, male and female candidates for public office should be evaluated based on common, fair standards, not based on their sex. What do you think? Think it's a de facto sexist portrayal or basically fair?
Alot of people on both sides of the aisle are upset at Newsweeks new editor, Tina Brown. She's pursuing what is known now as "frovcative covering". This new editor photoshopped for instance an age enhanced photo of Princess Diana and her new daughter in law walking together as if Diana was still alive and put it on the cover. It's highly tasteless and even creepy! But it sold lots of issues. Supposedly it drove many Brits to tears. She WANTS this kind of controversy because Newsweek is in a slump. Media sensationalism is getting out of control these days, there are no sacred cows anymore and no self-imposed restraint on the press.
Um, for the record, my post was suggesting that Palin and Bachmann helped create an environment to discredit women running for office. I wasn't saying that they justify this particular prejudice. For example, some people angry at Obama might mistakenly believe that having another black president is a bad idea by assuming Obama is representative of black people in general. It's a logical flaw, but a common one. I was saying that Palin and Bachmann make it that much easier for prejudice to continue against female candidates in general because of their radical stances. I'm not saying that it would be intelligent to analogize all women with Palin and Bachmann.
Isn't Newsweek the magazine that recently sold for $1, plus an assignment of its debts? This dinosaur hasn't got long to live.
Times is tough for a liberal rag, there is already too much competition to be a liberal newspaper these days.
This truly is all the liberals have. they sit there and put an ugly picture up of a woman who is pretty attractive. Is that all the liberal left has? is this all the gay liberal left can do? seriously folks, if we are going to start only talking about how people look, democrats really need to look in the mirror than.
"All you have left is putting up bad pictures of people? Well...well...you guys are ugly!!" Man, you can't make this stuff up.
Can't make what up? the fact that the liberal gay left has nothing but stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) like putting up pictures of Bachmann like that on a mag? Is that what the party of Jefferson and Kennedy have become? bravo to you then.
"Huh huh, you guys are GAY, but you also have no arguments! DERP!" See, it might be hard to understand, but I find it funny when people criticize people for doing something, then they go ahead and do it themselves. It's funny. Really funny. And it's sad that you don't see that. No sense of humor?
Most conservatives lost their sense of humor after the liberal media dumped Gabby Gifford's blood slander all over us.
Well the thing is, I am making fun because liberals have no argument. We criticize Obama daily about policy and things of that nature. But yes, we do make fun of him also.....the problem is dems have nothing but name calling and putting up stupid pics that make the woman look bad. Hence, why its all liberals have. just like the "kill Romney" campaign Obama plans to run if Romney gets the nomination.
She's the closest thing to a modern day walking breathing Stepford wife so the cover actually has some merit. Dingyyyy!!! So the editor is a woman and she is sexist against other women? Maybe she just doesn't like hypocritical politicians, and felt more comfortable attacking the woman.
Sheesh! How is this "an ugly picture"? Because it is not all cuddly and "soft-focus" and she doesn't have pink rouged cheeks? That criticism is absurd, and I am surprised NOW mentioned that. Male politicians are photographed in all kinds of non-super-flattering ways, and it should be fine to do the same with women. "The Queen of Rage"? She speaks for herself. http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecod.html
Time and Newsweek are relics of the past and won't be in business 10 years from now. Who really cares what they put on their cover? Does anyone read these magazines any more?
If they have no argument, then why are you using their argument? See, I understand what you were saying, I'm mocking the way you said it. Saying liberals have no argument because xyz, then going and DOING xyz (you know, what you were making fun of) makes you look ridiculous.
this is the result when the republicans copy the Democrats for the important female voter base. if Hillary Clinton was not a legitimate presidential candidate bachman or palin would not exist.
The treatment of conservative women sets a precedent for the treatment of leftist women. Delegitimization is a two edged sword.
Bachman isn't really a conservative.. She has been manipulating benefits to her family fortunes thru the public sector for years. She's promising $2 oil.. Very lame..
Just a thought. Could there be a more sexist political act than voting for a candidate, purely on the basis that one perceives that candidate to most benefit your own sex?
