There's a lot of discussion about whether the press is being unfair to Sarah Palin in the ususal liberal sorts of ways, but also speficially whether a lot of the treatmenet of her is sexist:
Should Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — a mother of five children, including a special-needs infant — have accepted the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket? Is it sexist to even ask such a question? The conversation transcends traditional party lines.
Anne-Marie Nichols, a Democratic in Fort Collins who writes a blog called A Mama's Rant, supports the Republican's decision.
"She's the luckiest woman in the world if she gets that job," Nichols said. "She'll have babysitters, chefs, maids, chauffeurs, health care."
But others, such as talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger, a social conservative, are critical.
"What kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down syndrome, and then goes back to the job of governor within days of the birth?" she wrote on her blog, noting that she still intended to vote for Palin running mate John McCain.
It is true that male candidates are never challenged on whether they can balance the office and family the way female candidates are. But is that really "sexist," since it pretty much reflects reality? The fact is that working women usually don't get much help from their husbands -- they come home from the office and are still expected to do most of the housework and child-rearing. The further truth is that many in the audience for Palin's speech believe that's the way it should be -- or that the women shouldn't leave the home fires for "outside" work in the first place. When did they get religion? And I've been in "the press" long enough to know most of them are on the other side of the equality and choice issue, so why they do they keep repeating the question of Plain?
This is a good debate to have. I just don't think it's possible to have it in the midst of partisan meltdown.
