You've asked this question before and I have answered before. It's not enough to be a man, you have to work like a man too. That means after accounting for job industry, experience and education.....you still have to compete. I mean think about it, half of the men out there are making less than the other half. It's called competition. So even if you have the right degree in the right profession with the right number of years of experience, you still have to be as productive as your peers. I have yet to hear a woman on broadsheet say they are willing to compete with men on number of hours worked which doesn't appear to be accounted for. Most of the highest paid men I have worked with tend to also be the ones logging the most hours....or another way to say it...the most productive.

....and I'm sure your emotional affair with a teenager had nothing to do with anything you said....it was simply his misunderstanding of your complex life.....Ha !

File for divorce.

Demand full custody.

Start collecting 28% of your husbands income.

Your generalizations about prostitution are quite inaccurate. There are a large portion of prostitutes that are middle class that choose to do the exploiting as a means to pay for college or what ever other finer things in life they want. Look at Gov Spitzer's high priced call girl. She gave up her "real job" so she could buy gucci bags and designer clothes. Yes there are poor women who are exploited, but there are also not so poor women who do the exploiting. Your inability to recognize this leaves you intellectually compromised. I suggest you google escorts if you think upscale prostitution is not a significant part of the business. ( I could blame all women when criticizing your views, but that would be bigoted ).

Since some couldn't understand the hypocrisy of this article and all the other BS written at BS (not just about Sara Palin, anyone remember Hillary?) ....I boiled it down to a couple of snippets.

I ask you, would these comments pass the "should a journalist ever say this about a female candidate" sexism test ? Imagine Chris Matthews making comparable comments about Sara or Hillary...what would the Broadsheeot response be ?

"....as I explain how I feel about Biden -- swoony, sweaty, Joe Fucking Biden! -- I have to check myself. To what extent is this a base physical response, a girlie crush indicative of nothing substantive and perhaps even somewhat embarrassing? Maybe. Possibly. Probably."

"To what extent is it my throbbing boner (pardon the expression) for gentlemen and scholars? As one of my friends said this morning, he played the romantic hero. And I know it might sound weird, but as I watched him last night one word kept popping into my head, and that word was: virile."

Why is it sexist to talk about a female candidate in any sexual way, but it's just groovy to talk about a male candidate in the same way? Not that I care, but the hypocrisy in broadsheet is breath taking.

Bill Clinton: "I've never concealed my admiration and affection for Sen. McCain. I think he's a great man."

Hillary Clinton: "We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate."

In the space of one page you have contradicted yourself and spewed so much bullshit I can't even keep up with correcting you. Suffice to say, you are a republican whore.

Ummm....who doesn't know what their talking about ? Hillary is radioactive in the senate due to her childish behavior on the campaign trail. I would agree she would be re-elected in NY, but any party leadership positions are gone. sorry.

Your a joke. You signed up 3 weeks ago ( after the conventions ) and have posted 225 letters in that time. Your probably on the McCain payroll.

Your right I'm not a Hillary fan. Your also right that I am anti-feminist....but to be clear, I am anti-radical feminist, you know the extreme wing of the party which is just as scary to me as the right wing. I've been voting for Democrats for 28 years, that doesn't mean I don't disgree with many of the special interests in my party.

There is nothing Hillary can do to make me happy...other than go away. I never thought she was key to Obama's victory and still don't. In fact, her negatives are worst than her positives to the portion of the electorate that matters....ie moderates, not puma's. I think her support of Obama has been tepid at best. I think her response to Sara Palin has been terrible (non existent). I'm not complaining about that, I am only stating her level of support is directly related to what she (and bill) think they will gain from that support, and how it seems to ebb and flow with the polls. Since people seem to be projecting, let me restate, the Clinton's support of Obama is self-serving and has not at all been productive. This is actually a good thing in my eyes, since I don't want Obama owing the Clinton's any favors when he is Prez.