Hi Joan,

I was immediately repulsed by the final voter question last night--although I also thought it perfectly summed up the kind of debate CNN was HOPING to manufacture (Sorry, CNN! Who knew some substance would squeak through?!?)

My feeling was that, obviously this was sexism at work. I didn't reflect on that until watching your video blog this afternoon. With further consideration I have to come to the conclusion that I have no way of determining whether or not the examples you've selected show "sexism" (with the exception of Campbell's question--she was cleary trying to exploit the sex issue).

As soon as I recalled the famous MTV question posed to Bill Clinton by a young woman: "Boxers or briefs?", I had to wonder about all of it. No one screamed sexism then; only accusations of triviality. Now, if someone (especially a member of the opposite sex) had asked Hillary, "Thong or granny-panties?" then I think we'd have a real issue--but only because of the prevailing Puritan norms.

The fact that anyone would ask any presidential candidate what sort of underwear they wore is simply evidence of the deteriorating quality of the campaign process (not entirely, but far more media driven than is admitted!). I don't see that these examples really pass the smell test of gender bias.

It was a woman who asked Hillary about her jewelery preference and it was a woman who called her a bitch. I don't believe either of them (especially the college student) was being sexist.

Bitch is a word we use in this culture to describe standoffish, highly motivated women. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact. Women use this term only slightly less than men (I would guess), but women curse less than men (I would guess). It would seem a bit odd to call a woman an asshole, and if anyone had referred to McCain as a bastard there would be no outcry at all.

Perhaps the sexism only exists in the minds of old-school feminists and stereotypical leftists who refuse to let go of the militant political correctness that swept the late 80's and early 90's. Most of us have moved on, behaving much more thoughtfully and sensitively than we did before the movement highlighted the lazy, derogatory, patriarchal epithets that rightly need(ed) to be banished from our public AND PRIVATE discourse.

This is far more about our electoral politics and the expectations the media puts on the candidates than it is about civil rights.

Elbuzzard has it right, King. The name of the team is the Washington REDSKINS. Your protest is understandable, but your choice of means makes for clumsy writing--VERY unlike you. At the very least you could refer to the nearest Washington PLAYER, rather than the "nearest Washington". You could refer to Dallas as Dallas throughout to give your labels some balance (besides, the cowboy mystique isn't all sunshine and roses; I'm quite certain it wouldn't even be a team moniker if it weren't for the Wyatt Earps and Doc Holidays of the old west).

Better yet you could parenthetically insert some snide comment about your refusal to utter the name. Although, I don't recall you referring to the baseball Indians simply as "Cleveland" all year long. Why the double standard? (yes I know you said Cleveland should drop it, but you nonetheless referred to the team by its name)

Jazztao is laughing aloud and greatly appreciates this blog-post! Thanks, Farhad.

I do the vast majority of cooking in our house. My wife doesn't hate it or suck at it; she just doesn't love it; I do.

We don't often have Thanksgiving at our home, but when we do I do pretty much all of the cooking. And with considerable less vehemence I totally get what TrinSF is saying about control and creating a whole food experience. Totally.

This year I finally managed to cook several dishes ahead of time (rather than just the pies), so that come Thanksgiving day all I had to do was stuff the bird, put it in the oven and chill for a few hours before mashing the pre-boiled potatoes and making the gravy.

But what made this year exceptional from a stereotypically male point of view was the DVR. Not only did I get to start the game at noon when my die-hard Packer fan, best friend arrived with a full-night's sleep under our belts(we're in the PST zone)--I never missed a play, and I never missed kitchen duty.

All the prep and the digital cable left my wife free to invent new cocktails for herself and our friends (although true to chromosomes, me and my buddy drank beer). Everyone wins!

BTW, I sure hope to hell that Anonymous "wymyn" writer's post is supposed to be satire. Oh, God/Goddess, PLEASE let it be tongue in cheek! Because if not...come ON... They haven't perfected cloning yet, and as such you owe 50% of your existence to a--you might want to sit down right about now--to a MAN! Hard to believe, I know, since you so fully embody both the feminine and the masculine (NOT); but the truth hurts. Chill.

In this week of steroids news I was so proud to see the promise of a drug free line-up of picks; I felt safe as I clicked the link to page two.

And then—BAM! So shocked and saddened was I to read that you’d been drinking all morning (or perhaps all day and night? Don’t think I missed that this column posted last night!). King, you must know that alcohol is a drug just like any other. And while you may feel like it’s helping your writing, it’s really just hurting it (but, man was this column great!)

I mean, really: booze has never played an important role in the lives of any successful writers. Put the glass down King. Tequila and Bailey’s have no business with one another.

Now TAB—that’s a different story.