Serious Sarah Palin Discussion On Fox News Turns To Cleavage
We’ve written a lot about Sarah Palin over the last week, but has anyone wondered what Mystery from The Pick-up Artist or Tucker Max thinks about her rise to media/political stardom? It may have something to do with cleavage.
Well, on Geraldo At Large this weekend we got to see what a similar author thought of Palin, the Newsweek cover and powerful women in general.
Geraldo Rivera set up the discussion with FNC contributor Kimberly Guilfoyle and Steve Santagati, author of “The Manual” (sub-head: “A True Bad Boy Explains How Men Think, Date, and Mate–and What Women Can Do to Come Out on Top”). Rivera teed up Guilfoyle with the question, “So what, she’s a babe, why is that wrong?”
“What they did was purposely try to demean her by putting on a photo that was inappropriate,” she said of the Newsweek cover.
Then this happened:
Santagati: What difference does it make? The rules have changed. I mean look at how you’re dressed right now. You use whatever it takes to get on top.
Guilfoyle: I’m in a really nice cashmere dress.
S: You’re showing cleavage, and you’re smart.
G: But I’m not in runner’s shorts, am I?
S: It doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, the rules have changed. The game has changed.
Rivera: You’re showing cleavage also what are you talking about?
S: I’m showing hair, exactly. I did that purpose otherwise I wouldn’t get on the show.
More from Santagati: “Women have to realize that they can be smart, sophisticated, intelligent, whatever the case might be, and be sexy.”
This, of course, is a completely separate argument than the debate about the cover image choice made by Newsweek. As Mediaite’s Glynnis MacNicol put it last week, “I would rather the fact that Sarah Palin is such an easy target, intellectually speaking, not also function as a green light for the media to have a field day with demeaning, sexually charged coverage.”
Also, Rivera offered a brief critique of the cover story itself. “It was a piece of junk,” he said. “It was poorly written.”
Here’s the clip:
—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter
13 comments
StewartIII says: ChickaBOOMer: Bust, Lust, Disgust
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/11/bust-lust-disgust.html
marigrace says: Guilfoyle is right in that the Newsweek photo was intended to bring Palin down a few pegs. Santagati is right in that Newsweek is no longer a serious news magazine.
That being said, Santagati’s comment that, “women can be smart, sophisticated, and intelligent, whatever the case might be, and be sexy”. Unfortunately, men are wired in such a way that if a woman wants to be taken seriously, they need to cover their sexual beauty. The flaunting and revealing of physical beauty on the part of women always distracts men and it becomes hard for them to get beyond that and actually see the intelligence, and smartness.
I was raised in a conservative Mennonite setting, where the women always dressed modestly. Working with many non-Mennonite men, I seemed to be far more of an attraction to them, than those who wore sexy revealing clothing. The feminine mystique of a modestly dressed woman, who hides her sexual attractiveness, creates am aura of personal mystery, which seems far more intriguing to men, than when women let it all hang out.
I have concluded that modern day immodesty has not liberated women; rather, it has enslaved them, degraded them, and is a detriment to their self respect.
I agreed with Kimberly Guilfoyle, but this interview was a case and point, in that she may have gotten more respect from these two guys, would she have covered up the cleavage. It obviously was a distraction to Santagati.
marigrace says: Thanks Magister, I don’t watch Fox, so my bad.
However, I still maintain my belief on why women need to stay away from the “slut factor” when they choose their clothes.
ImNotBlue says: marigrace says:
November 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
That being said, Santagati’s comment that, “women can be smart, sophisticated, and intelligent, whatever the case might be, and be sexy”. Unfortunately, men are wired in such a way that if a woman wants to be taken seriously, they need to cover their sexual beauty.
Actually, I don’t know if it’s “men” that are the “problem.” I’m actually more inclined to believe that it’s OTHER WOMEN who are the problem. I’ve seen many a sexy woman who was also highly intelligent, and they get treated as extra-sexy. I’ve known many dumb, but attractive women, and they don’t get past the eye-rolling or the name calling because of it.
Women, on the other hand, tend to be very competitive with other women… and an attractive woman is looked at with some distain by un-attractive or average women. An attractive woman, who is also highly intelligent is seen as very threatening, and many women have big issues getting past that. I think Palin’s looks sometimes hurt her with other women, who use the excuse, “She’s only there because she’s good looking,” (using men as the scapegoat), when their own jealousy is the real issue. For many women, you can be smart and successful, but un-attractive… OR you can be very attractive, but less successful (or successful for only being attractive)… but not both. Blaming men for being superficial is easy… but I’m not sure it’s the reality.
marigrace says: ImNotBlue,
You make some valid points. I didn’t intend to imply that men are superficial, just that it is a known fact that men are very visually oriented, when it comes to women.
And, yes, women can be very catty and jealous of each other.
Intelligent/successful or not, I maintain that women who leave little to the imagination when it comes to dress, are viewed with less respect. I can attest to this from personal experience.
ImNotBlue says: marigrace says:
November 23, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Oh, I’m not disagreeing with that at all. If a woman feels the need to dress like a tramp, odds are someone is going to treat her like a tramp (not that that’s an excuse or acceptable, just reality).
My point was mainly that attractive women get a good deal of distain from other women, as well as oogling from men.
anilorac_1 says: Love the “that being said” comment after watching Curb last night…
AngelaBH says: Wow.
This somehow seems very hypocritical, cuz, if I’m reading the comments correctly, you are saying that the Saudi Arabians and traditional Muslims have it right, and that women need to be covered in order to be ‘respected’. But, then, again, those women who are cloaked from head to toe don’t seem to reap the benefits. If I were to follow the logic in this thread, all women who shield the sexuality should be running the world because they will be taken seriously.
When will you all understand, that it’s not what a women wears or how she looks that creates unequal treatment? Sexism is not about the woman…it’s about the perpetuation of power in male dominated society…
Women do not need to change how they dress, or how they wear their hair, or alter any of those other silly, external things that ‘distract’ men.
Men need to grow up and stop viewing women as second class.
The Sarah Palin Newsweek cover (and the way her legs are often prominently shown in photographs) is just a by-product of the fact that she is a woman conducting herself in a male dominated society. Notice how Hillary Clinton switched to slacks when she wanted to be taken seriously? She succumbed to the pressure to de-sexualize herself. We do not ask the same of men.
Let’s stop the trivial pursuit, and help men to change fundamentally, instead of telling women how they ought to dress.
ImNotBlue says: AngelaBH says:
November 23, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Well, for one, I said this:
If a woman feels the need to dress like a tramp, odds are someone is going to treat her like a tramp (not that that’s an excuse or acceptable, just reality).
So, yes, a woman can wear whatever she wants… but the reaction is causes is the REALITY… it may not be right, it may not be “good,” but we can’t live in our own idealist dream world… this is reality, and it’s important to recognize that.
Women do not need to change how they dress, or how they wear their hair, or alter any of those other silly, external things that ‘distract’ men.
And while I half agree with you… I half don’t. The underlying statement you’re making is that a woman’s dress is completely inconsequential… and that’s simply not true. If that was true, why would a woman wear anything more than what was comfortable at all? Clothing, in and of itself, is designed to be seen… if clothing were simply a functional, there would be no colors, and everything would be designed to keep your body at a specific temperature. But that’s not how the real world works.
There is a level of appropriateness that comes along with one’s attire. I can go to work with a shirt that says, “F**k You” on it, and a woman shouldn’t go to work in a string bikini either! What you’re suggesting is that both those outfits are fine… and that’s simply not the case.
Men should be expected to treat women equally and fairly no matter the situation, and women should be expected to do the same. But a woman who dresses provocatively must do so with the knowledge of what she’s doing… that’s just taking responsibility for one’s self. We are not a blind society… and no matter how much some wish we could be, we aren’t going to be. This is reality.
AngelaBH says: I’m not saying that appearance is inconsequential at all. There is such a thing as appropriate attire, according to time and place and situation. But, why are we laying so much emphasis on women on this count? Don’t ‘clothes make the man’ also? We don’t expect men to go to work in bikinis either!
Yet, we are seemingly saying that only women dress “provocatively” and therefore, women must be solely more responsible and more careful about how they look in public, because what a woman wears and how she appears is fraught with sexual messages–sexual messages that are not conveyed through male attire.
Let’s solve the problem by keeping women locked behind doors and never letting them see the light of day.
Women should not work alongside men, nor should they serve in the military or serve aboard submarines, or work as navy seals….you know how provocative women look when their outfits get wet! Women can’t help it. Even if they wore burlap sacks, they would still emanate female sexuality, and who can blame men for being distracted by all those curves!
Let’s just make it a rule for all women to shroud themselves from head to toe and conceal all vestiges of femininity all the time. Afterall, the female form is historically evil and women are satanic seductresses.
Where do I stand in line to be fitted for my burka?
My point is this: sexism is tool used to deny the sexes full equality. As long as women are preoccupied with their looks and worry about what signals they send with their attire, we will never be fully equal. We need to accept the fact that women have breasts and full hips and curvy legs…and grow up.
ImNotBlue says: AngelaBH says:
November 24, 2009 at 3:45 am
But, why are we laying so much emphasis on women on this count? Don’t ‘clothes make the man’ also?
I think Jerry Seinfeld said it best… You ever notice the outfits at a wedding. The bride wears a long, beautiful dress of custom design. The bride’s maids all wear unique dresses that compliment the brides, adorned with intricate bows and flowers. And what does the groom and the groom’s men wear? An off-the-rack tuxedo… and they all dress pretty much the same wedding to wedding.
The point is… women’s attire is more intricate and unique than men’s. What am I going to wear to work today… a pair of pants and a button-down shirt, same as yesterday, and same as tomorrow. My biggest decision is what color! But for the women at work, it’s pants or skirt… what kind of blouse… which shoes… and on and on. Women work harder for their clothes, they spend more time on it, and I think that’s why it’s more recognized.
Yet, we are seemingly saying that only women dress “provocatively”…
I’m not sure what a guy wears to dress “provocatively.” Short shorts? They get mocked pretty quickly. No shirt? They’re not allowed in the 7-11 like that. I’m not sure there is an overt “provocative” attire for men. You tell me.
Let’s solve the problem by keeping women locked behind doors and never letting them see the light of day.
You’re jumping into crazy town… nobody has said this, and even you said just a few sentences above, “There is such a thing as appropriate attire, according to time and place and situation.” That’s what we’re talking about.
We need to accept the fact that women have breasts and full hips and curvy legs…and grow up.
Look… nobody is disagreeing with you! But if a women goes to work with her beasts hanging out of her shirt, and her skirt hiked up to the point where she’s displaying her thong for the rest of the office… she’s not going to get treated as a serious player! It’s all about dressing appropriate for the situation. If you dress like a slob, odds are you’ll get treated like a slob… if you dress like a hooker, you won’t be taken seriously… and if you dress like a professional, you should be treated like one! That’s across the board.
You need to recognize that this idealize that says, “Women should be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want” is immature and wrong. It’s wrong if it’s about men, and it’s wrong about women. You can’t wear a bikini to work and expect no one to notice… nor can I wear my “F**k You” shirt, and expect the day to go on normally.
marigrace says: Thank you, ImNotBlue articulating so well.
AngelaBH,
You are giving examples of the extreme. No one expects women to shroud themselves from head to toe and conceal all vestiges of femininity. Women can dress very fashionable without being overtly sexy. You may feel men, need to grow up, however you will never change the attraction men have to the female body, nor will you change the fact they are very visually oriented, unless you give them a lobotomy. So many women have the attitude that, “If men have a problem with my clothes, well, they just have to deal with it.” This attitude tramples on men’s visual sensitivity. What men see affects how they feel towards women, in a far more direct way than it does with women. Men do have a responsibility in how they respond to their inclinations, but women have a responsibility as well, to be sensitive to the male gender’s visual orientation and dress accordingly.
Equality means that men need to respect women as their equals, yet so many women are debasing themselves in men’s eyes by the way they dress. Women will complain that they aren’t treated as equals, but it hasn’t occurred too many of them that they are scarcely dressing like equals. Again let me reiterate, women can be very fashionable and modest at the same time.
On another train of thought, instead of blaming men 100% for the inequalities concerning women, take a good look at our culture. As long as our culture is inundated with messages, especially via modern media, (Television, movies, print media, video games, etc) that portrays women as sex objects, there will never be total equality for women.
Women are often touted to have come a long way since the no-vote, no-voice, know your place, Victorian era, but when it comes to modern media, they are portrayed in fairly similar ways to Victorian women who were objects to be owned and empowered only because of their sexual allure.
Interestingly the very same women who want total equality, have no qualms about portraying men as emasculated bumbling idiots, also a great detriment for equality on the behalf of women. Respect for gender goes both ways.
BTW, Hillary Clinton wears pant suits because she doesn’t have nice legs, especially the ankle area.
- » 5 Best Fashion Moments In Gaga And Beyonce's "Telephone" Video
- » Watch: MTV Bans Lady Gaga/Beyonce's "Telephone," CNN Reports (Update)
- » SNL's Toyota Prius Commercial Is Out Of Control
- » Bill O'Reilly: 'Tom Hanks Has Gone Off The Rails'
- » FAMU Sex Tape Link - Real Or Hoax?
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
Karl Rove: ‘Fox News Is Fairer Than MSNBC’
Karl Rove was on Meet The Press this morning, discussing Fox News' (where he is a political analyst) coverage of the Obama administration. Have they been as fair to the president as other networks? Even more so, claims the former senior adviser to George W. Bush, especially since some news networks "has opinion people...and those same people playing the part of your news delivery...which would not happen at Fox.” Guess which network he was talking about!
Lindsey Graham On WH ‘Spin’: Americans Are “Tired Of This Crap”
Well, regardless of one's position on the current state health care reform, there should be some joy in that its finally coming to an end, evidenced by the pitched rhetoric on both sides of the debate. Earlier today we saw WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confident claim of having the votes to pass a bill in the house. And now we see Senator Lindsey Graham present the yin to that yang during an interview with host Jake Tapper on This Week.
More TV headlines:
»Watch: MTV Bans Lady Gaga/Beyonce’s “Telephone,” CNN Reports (Update) »7
»Rep. Boehner On Dem Health Care Bill: Republicans Going To “Make It Difficult, If Not Impossible” To Pass
»You Forgot It Was Daylight Saving Time, Didn’t You? »4
»Michael Lohan Comes Out On The Same Side As Lindsay Lohan’s Lawyers…For Once »2
»SNL’s Toyota Prius Commercial Is Out Of Control »4
-
Coming soon...
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives
| Dan Abrams, Founder
| Hosting by Datagram
| 
RSS
