I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

Like I said, I come from the school of thought that respect has to be earned, and is not a "give me" right.

I respect certain qualities about Palin (e.g. working mother), but I do not respect her as a whole, especially given the role she has had in the past few weeks. Again, I disagree with any and all misogynistic attacks (just like the ones that were so freely dumped on Ferraro and Hillary), but you can dislike a woman without being mysoginistic.

AGG

Huh?

Sarah Palin is a big girl.

Accusations of sexism and misogyny IN POLITICS is a two-way street. This article's commentary, which taken out of the context of an October article weeks before an election WOULD have some discussion value. However, as such, it is POLITICAL and a blantant conservative pandering for female votes.

Sarah Palin has taken it hard however that's what happens when you only get 8 weeks to scrutinize a candidate, any candidate. The article seems to insinuate that she's taken more abuse than Hillary (pantsuit to the 10th degree), I disagree. I think it's the same thing Republicans have done to Hillary seemingly intensified due to time constraints. As a Hillary supporter (and Sarah is no Hillary) this will certainly be an interesting discussion AFTER the election.

Another point, I saw Sarah Palin last night talking about "busting up the good ole boys network in Washington" as one of her repeated talking points. Is that sexist? Isn't she pandering to all the women in America that ever felt excluded based upon their sex from the good ole boys club? What if Obama said he wanted to bust up the "good ole white boys club in Washington"? Would that be OK? My point...men and women ARE different. There are women that will vote and support her simply because she is a woman. Women WILL be scrutinized differently than men in Politics. They do still get elected and someday, likely for President.

However, your argument that I'm not talking about the article is baloney. Taken in context...this article IS, in itself, political rhetoric and conservative pandering. In the years you've been here on MB, you've been nothing but a "mens rights" guy. Your sudden "non-political" interest in sexism against women and misogyny is certainly timely.

Mr. Wondering

This bears repeating....

CHECK PLEASE

spoken like a true attorney. I AM in favor of father's and men's rights...but NEVER at the expense of a woman's rights. I am for EQUAL treatment.

But you know this.

But, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

now Johnny Cochran is so enamoured with his own words, he quotes himself.

LMAO.

Hopefully your asking for the check means you are now leaving this thread.

Nobody "deserves" respect.

****edit****

As another Hillary supporter, I would absolutely agree. But Palin is younger, so we will have to see what the future brings.

The selection of Palin was definitely an attempt to lure disaffected Hillary supporters. Not sure that it worked, considering that Palin's approval rating is higher among men than women. The hotness factor? Possibly.

I have come to the conclusion that while I admire Palin for what she has achieved, I am dismayed to find out that she is not as advertised. Contrary to her assertions at the Republican convention, she was definitely "for" the bridge to Ketchikan until that position became politically imprudent. She attended Alaskan separatist meetings with her husband...not good judgement for someone with greater political aspirations.

And while I applaud her decision not to abort her child simply because he is affected with Down's syndrome, I am appalled to find out that rape victims were charged for rape kits in Wasilla while she was mayor.

There are a host of things that Palin supports that I do not, from banning books to shooting wolves from helicopters. That does not mean that she should be dismissed as a lightweight or ridiculed for her gender.

But I think that it comes as part of the territory of being a politician.