i know many of you would probably rather not see 'another' political thread, but i really do value the opinions and insights of the women (and men) on these boards and would really like to know what you all think. i would sincerely love to hear from both sides on this, so if you're one of the one's who responded to the previous poll's about rarely posting in politico threads, please, speak up! i really don't want this to be a thread debating her merits per se, but rather HOW she is being presented, covered, questioned (or not) because of her gender.
as i'm watching/listening/reading the coverage of this last week, i'm struck by what seems to _me_ to be something of a double standard emerging in the way gov. palin is being covered. while i'm thrilled to see any woman making headway in an otherwise male dominated field, regardless of her politics, the feminist in me is actually bristling at the lack of tough questions being posed and the amount of 'fluff' being accepted in lieu of real information. when someone does dare to ask a pointed question or point out an inconsistency in her statements or history, the immediate defense seems to be 'how dare they, how sexist!'
the fact that otherwise tough journalists are backing off of demanding unscripted access to her the way they do/have of the three men on the trail. the fact that the same journalists who have thrown people like the spears family (not that i don't agree with them for the most part) under the proverbial bus for driving around with their infants not in car seats or their teen daughter for getting pregnant are now defending (or at least not questioning) the same behavior in a candidate and calling anyone else who begins to tread in that direction sexist, petty, inappropriate, rumormongering, etc. why was it so easily and widely speculated that bill would be behind all of hillary's decisions despite her record to the opposite, but cited again as basically 'sexist to even go there' when the fact that mr. palin is cc'd on the gov. emails and sits in on her meetings came out? why is it ok to call into question one candidate's religious and/or personal affiliations under the auspices of establishing a pattern of judgement, temperament and fitness to lead, but not another's?
i guess what i'm really getting at, is for all the hue and cry about the 'liberal' media, how is it that none of these journalists from _any_ outlet seem to be demanding/getting unscripted interviews? how is it that 'we' are ok with letting _either side_ get away with using the 'sexist' trump card as an excuse for not even asking, let alone reporting the answers to the tough questions? when it was hillary in the hot seat, the innuendo was, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. now with sarah, it seems to be if you can't take the heat, we'll turn down the flame.
thoughts? i've got my armor on, fire away .