Hi Tina,

I'd be very eager to have an exchange about what you write in your letter. You express a sentiment that I have heard often, both in the letters section and in my reporting over the past few months. It's clear that we disagree very strongly, but I'd love to hear more from you about your feelings about Sarah Palin as a feminist, and her relationship to feminism. If you're at all interested in talking to me more about it, please write me at rtraister@salon.com.

Thanks and all best,

Rebecca

Thanks for pointing out my mistake regarding the skateboard. Sherry's sentence was slightly garbled, and I made an error in my transcription notes, but just went back and rewatched and you're right, it's that Levi used to say his future baby would be "on skates" before he could walk.

I will make the correction as soon as possible.

Best,

Rebecca

Being dissatisfied that there aren't more women on the Supreme Court is anything but pointless when arguing with someone who believes that two out of ten appointments in thirty years of a purportedly even post-feminist playing field is something to be "proud" of or satisfied with.

Also, I just have to point out that it has been your suggestion, not mine that a "score" might be evened by a grossly disproportionate appointment of women in the future. You're just arguing with yourself there, and you are, I'm afraid, the one who's worked up over it. I stated that I neither yearned for nor expected to see such a thing. All I have been doing, in the piece and in these comments, is expressing my dissatisfaction with both the historic and modern gender ratios on the court. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about being 5-4, or 8-1, or 9-0. It's simply about saying that it is not okay for it to be 1-8 anymore, or 2-10, or 2-110.

Of course, you'll say, if I express such dissatisfaction, it means tautologically that I'm rooting for the appointment of a woman in coming years, in which case I'll cry uncle. Not on your whole 90-women-to-settle-the-score 200-years-of-Amazon legislation will-I-never-let-it-rest-till-women-have-the-world-in-their-steely-grasp scenario, but on my belief that it would be a good idea to pick a few ladies to sit on that bench when next there is an opportunity. I think we can dig up one or two who are the best people for the job.

And with that, I go to dinner. Ciao, and have a great weekend.

Best, Rebecca

I disagree that the 110-108 numbers are weak points in my post. They are precisely the point. You think the idea of 90 straight female appointments to the Supreme Court is ridiculous. But 90 straight appointments of men to the Supreme Court is not a laughable suggestion, it's United States history. I used those numbers to put into historical context my point about why it matters very much that Ginsburg is only the second woman to have served on the court.

Practically speaking, of course I don't yearn for, or ever expect to see, an all-female Supreme Court, with ninety future appointments to stack up against the men. Just imagining it is hilarious, right? What about a court of eight women and one man? Picked just because the best person for the job happened to be a woman in the next seven instances. Can you picture it? I doubt any of us can, at least not in our lifetimes. But this is the ratio that we have in reverse, right now, not 200 years ago or 100 years ago or 50 years ago, but in 2009, thirty years after second-wave feminism left its marks on colleges and law schools and the white collar work place.

So that's why those numbers are crucial, at least to me.

Again, thanks for the debate, it's fun.

Best, Rebecca