Warning: There is profanity in it (so careful hopping in), but there are also good points being made about the photo in question. Our personal take: It’s funny, but it’s funny in that “I can’t believe they actually took that photo” sort of way. Ultimately, as a culture we need to have a debate about whether we should necessarily use an unflattering photo just because we can. Or whether we should hold our politicians to the same standard Perez Hilton holds celebrities. Look, people on the left dislike Michele Bachmann, but there are far better ways to prove your point than by taking photos of her eating corn dogs in an unintentionally risqué way.
I think the problem is that people find it appropriate in general to ridicule a female politician for things like this, to reduce the discussion of her campaign to an unfortunate photograph with a corn dog or her “crazy eyes.” There’s a culture of acceptance around sexualizing the women that are in the public eye and around reducing them to objects of ridicule for how they look. We have a number of reasons to invalidate Michele Bachmann: every single one of those reasons comes from her horrible politics and the uninformed things that come out of her mouth. None of them come from how she looks, or how she dresses, or how she photographs. Instead of deconstructing her lack of understanding about the debt ceiling, pointing out her stances on gay marriage and taxing corporations, or discussing her political influences, we find it acceptable, actually preferable even, to use an offensive photo as our primary tool against her. The reductionist, gendered lens through which we view female politicians is indicative of the seriousness with which we take the notion of a female candidate. This is the kind of atmosphere that bullies women out of formal politics and the kind of atmosphere that prevents us from having actual discussions of political issues. Like SFB rightly says, “there are far better ways.”
What Torie said.