Passaro, Palin, and Fox News
Okay, Passaro has thrown down the gauntlet on a Fox News (Fox News Passaro? Is there really nothing else for you to do at work?) story about the most recent Newsweek cover, featuring a closeup of Sarah Palin. Passaro is outraged about the outrage found among conservatives (particularly women) that unlike most closeups in magazines, Palin's is not retouched. He challenges feminists-of which I am one-to respond to this tempest in a teapot.
Oh, where to start?
Okay, point one: apparently, despite all of the evidence to the contrary on the web and everywhere else, no one ever took an unflattering photo of Hillary Clinton. I distinctly remember in late 1994 or early 1995 Time did a most unflattering portrait of Newt Gingrich for their cover. The backstory was that in his hubris, (and in possible tribute to Oliver Cromwell, who must be one of his heroes) Gingrich told them to go ahead and show all his facial flaws. Why do I bring this up? Cuz Gingrich was a man. And to my knowledge, no one had a hissy fit. I just can't get over the fact that Republicans are whining about one photo when they've published thousands of less-than-gorgeous images of Hillary and Nancy Pelosi. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Point two: Retouching is cheating. Perhaps if my face was going to be life-size or larger for everyone to see, I'd feel differently. Right now, however, I don't. I don't like retouching where we see it most: in fashion and other "women's" magazines. Kiera Knightley's boobs too small? Boom! Now she's got melons. Kate Winslet looks like she's more than a size 0? Wham! She's got a waist that Scarlet O'Hara would envy. One of these days, the editors of People and Vanity Fair will get together and decide what the template of the perfect model is and we'll all have the same face and body staring out at us. Oh, they'll make minor adjustments from time to time, but it will be pretty much the same the same image with changes in eye and hair color. And the world in magazines will be even more boring than it is now.
On the same subject, it's not like that photo was hideous. Palin obviously knew she was going to be photographed, or I doubt she would have put on lipstick. Perhaps she didn't realize she wasn't going to get the Charlize Theron treatment, but it wasn't like they caught her unawares. I disagree with Passaro: Palin is not totally unattractive. However, if I hear the phrase "naughty librarian" one more time, I'm going into the nearest leather bar and show them what a naughty librarian is.
And now for the bit about feminism and images. There are reams of research and theses about the importance of how, who, and why of pictures. These tend to be written by people far more intelligent and educated than I am. That said, I don't think an unflattering picture of a politician has to be a feminist issue, even when that person is a woman. Moreover, as as stated above, the conservatives who are whining about the Newsweek cover are hypocrites. Apparently, it's okay to make a woman pay for her own rape kit, but please, don't take an unflattering photograph of the politician who made the decision as a "cost saving" measure. It's amazing how conservatives suddenly discovered feminism this summer. Unfortunately, their brand looks like an image in a smudgy funhouse mirror. Or, if we want to get all Shakepearean, like an ill-fitting set of clothes.
Finally, is this really the conversation we should be having right now? The economy is in the toilet, we're failing to prosecute not one but two wars successfully, and we're bickering over how attractive a news magazine makes a vice presidential candidate look? Can you say "misplaced priorities" boys and girls? The Republican campaign can't win on issues and McCain is someone's loopy old uncle with an anger management problem, so we'll compete on the most superficial images possible. Sometimes I'm glad I don't watch television. I already feel stupider for watching, let alone thinking about that particular segment.
posted by S. M. Frances at 10:03 PM
0 comments
