Just in case you wanted to know if our newly-minted Miss America, Teresa Scanlan, thinks the Michelle Bachmann Newsweek cover is sexist, here you have it:
“I absolutely think so. Not because there’s a difference of political opinions there, but because Newsweek has had other candidates who they haven’t agreed with — they’ve had Rush Limbaugh on the cover, they had former candidates [Mike] Huckabee and [John] McCain on their covers –- and whenever they have a male on their cover, even if they don’t agree with them as far as policy goes, they portray them in a serious light, they take them seriously and they portray them in a positive light. Then, as we saw two years ago with the Sarah Palin cover in her running shorts, and then now with Michele Bachmann. They simply try to degrade women and make fun of them and portray them in a negative light — and I think that shows extreme sexism.”
I’ve seen this comment get thrown around a lot
… lately. Let’s forget, for a moment, that Newsweek’s editor is a woman. Are …the past covers of McCain or Huckabee or Rush Limbaugh all fair and serious, and the portrayals of women all sexist? How about the cover of Newsweek that called Obama Mr. Cool and McCain Mr. Hot?
I wouldn’t exactly call that too favorable, given that it’s implying McCain has a runaway temper he can’t control. It doesn’t make him seem serious — it makes him seem reckless.
Or what about the joint cover with McCain and Palin? Was preferential treatment given to McCain over Palin?
Looks pretty even-handed to me. They’re both smiling, they’re both being shot from the chest up, they’re both dressed conservatively.
How about the Rush Limbaugh cover?
Let’s see: they’re censoring his mouth — a move that would be considered extremely sexist were this a picture of a female pundit. They’ve got a picture of Limbaugh mid-rant, making him look like a blowhard and the tagline — “A conservative’s case against Limbaugh” makes it clear that this is not exactly going to be a favorable piece.
The three Sarah Palin Newsweek covers that you’re likely familiar with — the close-up of her face that was deemed sexist, the picture of her in her running shorts and the picture of her with the rifle slung over her shoulders — are probably burned enough in your memory that you don’t need a reminder. Maybe they’re sexist, or maybe they’re accurately capturing a ridiculous woman.
I mean, they didn’t exactly tart up Hillary Clinton, did they?
But back to Bachmann. We cannot decide that any attack against a woman is an attack against women. Bachmann is a ridiculous person who is constantly spewing nonsensical hate against a variety of people. Is it so shocking or unexpected that she will receive hate in return? She is the Queen of Rage, she is deluded and demented. What is sexist about a cover that captures her ideals, her words and her general insanity? What is the difference between “Mr. Hot,” “ENOUGH” and “The Queen of Rage”?
Conservatives have got to stop treating Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann like china dolls that will break at the slightest impact. If they want to throw punches — and they so often do — it is neither surprising nor sexist that they will receive punches in return. And to cry “sexism” or “foul” is a form of self-sexism that is all the more revolting.