I am human, hear me.

Has anyone else noticed the influx of female-related material flowing onto the pages (or sites) of several newspapers and news organizations? Everywhere I look there's an article about an issue regarding women. Obviously, I'm not necessarily complaining about the fact that women's issues are being brought to the forefront of conversation. I am curious however, why now? Undoubtedly it is because of the picture-perfect vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. She's a news peg. But really, just because a sweet-faced mother of five burst onto the scene? Where was the concern with Hillary?
One of the biggest issues being addressed as of late is that of motherhood. How will Palin care for her children and be vice president? Hillary doesn't have young children, it wasn't an issue. The question of the capability of a mother being able to care for children and hold down a significant job is ludicrous. It angers me every time it's brought up. The children do have a father, gasp! One response I got to that justification was, "Yeah, but he has a full-time job too." Really? Many American households deal with both parents holding down full-time jobs and their kids aren't wandering off into rivers or sticking forks in electrical outlets.

Another issue being looked at more closely (thank you a thousand times) is the reality of the "glass ceiling" and how women are treated in the corporate environment. I came across an intriguing article by The New York Times earlier today under the Jobs section. The author Hannah Seligson, shares her experience as a 20-something woman coming out of college and entering the workforce. Seligson argues that young women, while in college, are naive and used to the equality of academia. When a woman enters the workforce she is often stunned by the gender ideas still in place in many establishments. I can agree on some level. Certain comments that have been made in my own work place (eg. "Well this is a room full of trouble," said by a male co-worker when entering a room solely full of women with no man to "police" them) that left me gritting my teeth. I take it with a grain of salt usually and chalk it up to the small-town attitude. I have no metropolitan experience with which to compare my current situation. When I was in a metropolitan setting, I worked in an office with only women. However, I don't doubt that these things happen on a frighteningly frequent basis.
The Seligson article contradicted itself however. It at one point brings up the issue of inequality in the work place, but in the next breath says women need to stop showing "feminine" traits at work.
"I have also seen young women — myself included — getting in the way of their own success. I have found that we need to build a new arsenal of skills to mitigate some of our more 'feminine' tendencies," she wrote. Seligson goes on to talk about how women need thicker skin and to toughen up in order to make their lives easier. Why can't we just say everyone needs to be more professional? No one wants an employee sobbing over a tough critique or on the opposite end of the spectrum throwing a computer tower through a window. Which by the way, either sex is completely capable of.

I'm just so tired of the categorizations. Yes, men can act in certain ways and women in others, but both can absolutely act in those same ways conversely. It's the same thing as questioning how Sarah Palin can take care of a family while being vice president -- a very scary role reversal (for some) that for whatever reason Americans can't fathom. God forbid a father take on the role of caregiver.
These categorizations are also the cause of such attention being paid to Palin in the media. She is an attractive woman. A mother. And a potential national leader (technically). This makes her a spectacle, a novelty. How many articles are bringing up the issue of race regarding Obama? Far less, I can assure you.

Bottom line, what women in this country need to demand is a level playing field.