I second, and add:

Not for said articles with lipstick imagery appear on the cover of the magazine NEWSWEEK. I would have understood, or at least not been suprised, to find said cover in Cosmo.

I take it back, I am not suprised....

I know that I don't want Palin on the Supreme Court.

I thought the cover was kind of ironic, not sexist. Cuz it used the title 'What Women Want', which brings to mind that god-awful Mel Gibson movie from a few years back, which was probably more sexist than this cover. So the tube of lipstick seems to be symbolic of the sexism behind the presumption that people can actually know what all women want. As if we can all be so easily pinpointed in one clever catchphrase. The lipstick is the catchphrase. That's my two cents.

Isn't it possible that the lipstick is a reference to the prominent role of lipstick references in the campaign of late?

98% of Americans would not get any subtle ironic thrusts about using lipstick in reference to women's politics. Though, I don't think it was used in an ironic fashion; it seems to me like they're strait up representing women with lipstick. I don't even wear lipstick.

To represent me, they would need a tube of chapstick, but I think then you couldn't read the words.

Maybe spell check caught Lithwick and changed it to lipstick in an email, and it was all a big misunderstanding.

Bondo, I have had quite enough with all the lipstickicity of political discourse lately.

Which will make 3 straight weeks of Palin-related Newsweek covers.

And to think I was complaining about how often Barack Obama was on the cover... and I actually like him!

Haven't you ladies heard? There's a new statute in place that requires women to fill out their ballots in lipstick.

LittlePunk:

Is it disappointing that Newsweek with its cover will actually make me angry enough to PURCHASE a copy, read the articles and discuss them with fellow feministers? Damn you, "marketing techniques"!!!!

Uh, this seems like a really blatantly obvious reference to the "lipstick" incident from last week and seems like a statement about the way gender has played out in the national political debate not a reduction of women to nothing more than makeup canvases.

Oh, crap. I am SO CONFUSED about my gender identity now; until recently, I had no idea that I can't possibly be a woman because I wear lipstick about once every two years!

What is WITH this currently incessant lipstick-for-women synecdoche? It's gotten so pervasive that I'm curious about the actual percentage of women who regularly wear lipstick, in a 'how weird am I, exactly?' sort of way ... and it's never seemed that odd before ...

I used lipstick like this for the cover of my middle school career report, on women in the three branches of government. I think I got extra credit. And I think that Sandra Day O'Connor had just been appointed and approved for the Supremes, which got me interested, so it was that long ago (1982?).

As for Palin on the Supreme Court - having non-lawyers act as judges may work in some small towns, wild west style, I would prefer that my constitutional law analysis come from someone who actually went to law school, and a better one than I went to. Though I suppose Palin has heard of Stanford, so that's the same as actually going there, right?

I find this consternation incredibly ironic when, as I type this comment, I see that Feministing has an ad for an EMILY'S list bumper sticker that says: "READ MY LIPSTICK: I'm voting Democrat!"

I do not expect to see a blog entry castigating their own advertisers anytime soon.
-Jut

Ugh, this is the kind of thing that makes me embarrassed to call myself a feminist sometimes. You're all making much ado about nothing. Seriously, the magazine cover is a clever play on the lipstick references in politics over the past few weeks.

Californienne hit the nail on the head in saying that it's a "...blatantly obvious reference to the "lipstick" incident from last week and seems like a statement about the way gender has played out in the national political debate not a reduction of women to nothing more than makeup canvases." (I was glad to see that someone can appreciate irony)

This is clearly NOT sexist!!

This is NOT a sexist cover. It is merely a reference to Sarah Palin's own "...the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull..." quote.

As an African-American, I often am hyper-sensitive. We oppressed class of people, women and Blacks, have to learn to distinguish between insults and conversation.

You don't have to purchase the magazine to read the article. I believe its free on Newsweeks website.

I'm not really big on bright red lipstick, clear lip gloss for me.

I know I'm going to get shit for this, but I truly, honestly don't understand how someone could argue that having a white woman's naked torso on the cover of a book about feminism is not problematic but this is. I really can't wrap my head around it.

I'm sorry, but I have to add my name to the "This isn't sexist" brigade. If this ad was published out of context, it would be. But it's in an election where we've had two lipstick comments (Palin's quote, and then the "lipstick on a pig" Obama quote) in the past few days. The typical reader of Newsweek would be really familiar with these incidents.

And for the record, I never wear lipstick.

Real Alaskan women know that "their self image has nothing whatsoever to do with their shade of lipstick" - Marion Call, listen free at www.myspace.com/marioncall!

Also, its quite phallic don't you think?

I guess I have to add that I do think this is sexist, but largely because I'm finishing an MFA program in fiction and I've already seen the way publishing companies only want your book if they can market it as "chick lit." In other words, they don't want it unless they can put a tube of lipstick on the cover. Because apparently that's all women will buy. Who knew? On another note, I agree with BritneyKat that other covers (such as a naked woman's torso) are equally problematic, even if they're on feminist materials. Sometimes intentions don't matter because the irony (if that's what it is) will be missed by 70% of the public. A tube of lipstick, or a naked woman's chest, sends a certain message that I consider to be irresponsible. That said, I didn't read the article, so I can't comment on whether this lipstick bit was in fact referencing the lipstick on a pig hoopla.

So, the lipstick part seems to be under debate. Sexist or ironic? Hmmm. I'm pretty damn skeptical on this one. Newsweek is written at a sixth grade level. It is not deep stuff. I highly doubt they played it for irony.

Furthermore, those who write off the lipstick are ignoring the fact that the actual WORDS are sexist. "What women want"--because clearly I want exactly the same thing as every other woman, because we all think collectively, as a gender.

(And yeah, Alma, I totally thought of that Mel Gibson movie and vomited a little in my mouth.)

As others have said, the cover is most probably a nod to the "Lipstick on a pig/pitbull" stuff that has been repeated numerous times.

No one is uncomfortable with the fact that is title implies that only men read Newsweek and that somehow those crazy womens are a minority and who knows what the F they could be thinking? Not to get too women's studies here but I found it really marginalizing - like we as women so out of the main stream that we need Newsweek to tell us (a mere 50% of the population) what it is we're interested in? It also implies that since we're all women we all want the same thing - another method of marginalization.

"Not to have articles about their political interests represented by a fucking tube of lipstick": so, so, so true. That should be a T-shirt!!!!

But then, dontcha know, you can get fired for not wearing makeup, because apparently this does not impose an undue or unequal burden on women, because men are "equally" required to, well, not wear any (and therefore not spend all that money) and so, well, according to U.S. judges, men and women are getting the same treatment.

Law school. It has *special* logic.