A photographer crept behind Sarah Palin at a rally yesterday and took a photo of the audience. The photo shows Palin's legs from just below the knees down, and as much of the audience as you can see around and between her legs. It doesn't look particularly startling to me; if Fox News hadn't asked if it were sexist, I wouldn't have thought about it. I might have wondered if the guy in the front row was trying to look up her skirt.
Fox News asks if the photographer would take this photo of Joe Biden - the implication being: No, because he's a man. As a former news photographer myself, I would say: No, because men wear slacks and you can't get a cool silhouette around them. You probably wouldn't be able to see the audience at all. So the question falls flat on process.
The better question is: Would the photographer take the same photo of Hillary Clinton? As far as I know, none did when she was running. But she always wore slacks. Same problem as with men - no useful angle to use. Let's suppose, though, that Clinton did wear a skirt at some point. Would a photo be taken in a similar pose? I think so, if the photographer had the shot. Would the media use it?
Ahhhh.... there's the question. I think they wouldn't. Not because they thought it sexist. Not because they didn't want to portray Hillary in this feminine way.
They wouldn't because Hillary has thick ankles.
This is about a fun angle and a nice asthetic, people! And I have no problem with it at all.