Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
BlackMamba*
Hey! A columnist in my metro area's largest paper (Detroit Free Press) wrote a column about Palin that I think you might find interesting for your blog.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081001/COL10/810010396/1007/NEWS
The basic jist is that Palin's VP nom. is setting women back. No, not b/c she's anti-abortion. Nothing to do with her policies. She's setting women back b/c she's a "ditz." I'm trying to recall the last time someone who called Bush a "ditz" (or whatever the male equivalent is, if there is one) warned that Bush was "setting men back."
Also, I've only paid attention to politics for a relatively short period of time but I have a theory: There are only two kinds of women in politics- The B!tch or The Ditz. Hillary Clinton = B!tch. Geraldine Ferraro = B!tch. Palin = Ditz. Pelosi = Ditz. Condi I believe was called both depending on the issue, or maybe depending on her suit.
I'm working a graph that shows number of times the woman is called a ditz is directly proportional to how pretty she is, and inversely proportional to the number of pantsuits she wears. The opposite is true for the b!tch label. 
Re: BlackMamba*
Sorry to butt in...
I understand and agree that the tendency exists to paint an entire segment of society by its first leader (and I think BM* should address that too b/c it's wrong), but in the case of Obama I don't think the talking heads are pushing his flaws onto the black community.
Indeed, Obama is mocked as the Messiah - eluding to his flawlessness. I think they're doing the reverse - putting society's flaws on Obama. Meaning, "Obama won't get elected b/c he's black." Not b/c Obama did anything wrong.
The Palin/gender equivilent for Obama/race would be "Obama is an empty suit and that proves blacks are empty suits." I've not heard that sentiment anywhere. But, even if that were the talking point why are we allowing one person to assume the identity of an entire race/gender?
FDR was (I believe) the first handicapped President. No one thinks of the entire handicapped community as FDR-like. Jimmy Carter was the first Evangelical President. No one thinks of the evangelical community in terms of Jimmy Carter. Obama is the first black Pres candidate in a major party (or ever, can't remember) but there are plenty of black leaders that came before him. Why is it Obama's job to "be" an entire community? Similarly, Palin is the first GOP VP candidate. But there are plenty of female politicians who came before her. Why is she now the embodiment of females everywhere? I'm a conservative evangelical and I even look a little like Palin. But to me, we are both individuals and our identities are not tied together in any way. Before I write a book, my point is just that if your statement about Obama/the black community is true that should be rebuffed also b/c it's a disservice to the individual candidate and the "group" he/she supposedly represents.
LOL@ the pantsuit graph! I never thought about Condi -- I think she's smart but also she doesn't inflame people as much because she's not voting on anything or running for office. I feel women advisors aren't hated as much as women in charge.
I will take a look at the op/ed. If you feel like writing a guest post let me know. My blog makes about 5-10 cents a day, so that's what I can pay you.
I agree that it's not fair at all, and any woman/black/Catholic/etc. will say the same thing. There are plenty of blacks who don't like, and are not voting for, Obama, and it goes without saying that plenty of women will not be voting for Palin, in both cases because they do not believe those individuals represent their personal politics
Unfortunately, however, this generalization is the social paradigm in which we exist.
As for FDR, remember that he kept his disability a secret. Thus he had the chance to prove himself before most people knew he was disabled, and his mistakes were not attributed to the fact that he was bound to a wheelchair because so few people knew he was in one.
Likewise with Carter, he did not press his evangelicalism, certainly not to the extent that religion is pressed today. His election was a reaction to the corruption of the Nixon White House, and he was viewed as a "purer" form of politics, so his faith was seen as a positive. This didn't translate into capability, but because he kept his religion to himself tempered his religion(for the most part, particularly when compared with politicians today), he is not viewed as an "evangelical" failure. Moreover, the man who succeeded him celebrated religion and conservative culture, so Carter's loss is viewed as a rejection of his politics, not his religion.
Another thing to keep in mind - evangelicals are widespread in this nation and tend to be conservative. Given that the far right has shaped the political discussion for the past 15 years, they would not allow Carter to define who they are as politicians. If women had the political clout that evangelicals have had in the recent past, I suspect the narrative on Palin would be much different.
And I've written a book as well... LOL
That's interesting, a sort of political version of the Madonna vs. Whore dichotomy. If it's going to be a straight dichotomy, I think Condi would have to be a B!tch, though. She's much too smart of a lady to be viewed as a ditz.
It's a good thing I have no desire to go into politics. My irrational dislike of skirt and dresses would have me in the B!tch catagory for sure.
FDR's disability wasn't a "secret" in that no one knew about it. The media were respectful and didn't showcase that aspect of his life. I also disagree about Carter. He was well known for his religion and Reagan was not. In fact Reagan was smeared as anti-religion (with stories alleging white house seances and the like). But that is getting away from my original point, which wasn't that the social paradigm doesn't exist, but that we should expose it for the flawed reaction that it is.
The column is a hanging softball. You can knock it out of the park without my help for sure!
I agree with you about the difference between women in charge and subordinates. They must be less threatening when they work under a man.
I thought of more names: Margaret Thatcher = super b!tch, Janet Reno = b!tch, Elizabeth Dole = ditz (before someone objects I googled her and got a blog that said her "intellectual seriousness is pretty low"). LOL at "intellectual seriousness."