Whether or not you like Hillary Clinton, it’s impossible to deny that she is one of the largest figures in politics today. In a country where so many decisions are made by men who don’t understand the issues of which they are in control, it is significant that finally, women are beginning to have more political say. Nevertheless, female politicians are still treated horribly in the media and by other politicians who often take them less seriously, which brings me to my point: TIME‘s Hillary Clinton cover sucks.
One of the most frustratingly sexist stereotypes about women in the workplace is that the successful ones are ruthless, arrogant, ball-crushing bitches who stomp on the sad rich white guys who are just trying to make an honest living in a world where most things are biased in their favor. Poor men. On behalf of women everywhere, we’re so sorry for, you know, having jobs. :( No, but really–is it possible to cover a story on female politicians without perpetuating negative, antiquated and sexist notions?
Additionally, it is just plain lazy (I feel like I’m using that word a lot lately, so perhaps these were all stupid hump day decisions people made). I find it remarkable that the only way they could think to illustrate Hillary Clinton’s rise to political power and unstoppable force was a stock photo depicting a man desperately hanging onto a woman’s high heel. It’s like they didn’t even try, so a 16-year-old intern was all, “I’m gonna make my mark with this cover! They’ll love this! It’s so deep and metaphorical!”
I would be angry but unsurprised if a rightwing magazine did this. I think my frustration has been upped because I know a magazine like TIME can do better. To be fair, just about anybody could do better than this, but such a long-running publication certainly should be holding themselves to higher standards.