On the Philly Inquirer "single" article

I thought it was an okay article. She had an axe to grind and she did it.

The piece was entitled, "The single stigma: In American politics, the unmarried are somehow suspect. And it's worse for women," by Amy S. Rosenberg. It ran 25 October.

It began:

Face it. America is uncomfortable with an aging single woman, especially a never-married one. Just ask Harriet Miers.

An aging single man has a few more outs, a few more culturally accepted notions of bachelorhood. But he too can run into a wall of public disapproval.

Just ask Jon Corzine, who saw a double-digit lead in polls in the New Jersey governor's race pretty much evaporate, some pollsters say, at least temporarily, after Doug Forrester put his slightly annoyed-looking wife on TV to say he'd never let his family down.

Despite census data that show single adults outnumber couples with children as the most common type of household in the United States, there seems to be little tolerance for the unmarried in public life, especially the female variety. There's nothing sexy about spinsterhood, at least in the public's imagination.

Then I'm quoted, or should I say my blog is quoted:

Thomas P.M. Barnett, a national security consultant, Esquire magazine contributing editor, and blogger, wrote recently that Americans simply will not put an unmarried person in high office. Referring in particular to the idea of Condoleezza Rice - another in Bush's band of unmarried female devotees - for president, he wrote that Americans do not trust someone "that single minded. . . that uncompromising. . . that self-defined."

"Voters want to see that personal connection to spouse and kids. They trust that," Barnett writes. "It says powerful things about who the person is and how they can be expected to think about the larger world and act within it. It's not just image, but the soul of the person that's reflected in family. Rice is as alone as alone can be, and Americans don't get that, don't like that, don't trust that."

But aren't most high-powered men single-minded, uncompromising and self-defined, regardless of marital status?

Rosenberg's question at the end of my quote seemed kinda weak to me. The whole point of my post was that no matter how driven you might be in your career, the fact that you compromise enough in your private life to actually include others in it to the extent of marriage and children is a sign that many voters want to see in terms of well-roundedness. Marriage and family are huge efforts, even when done badly, and when done well, that sort of balance tells you much about a person--and voters want that sort of knowledge about people before voting for them. Not for every job, but you can count on it for things like the presidency, which is what I was talking about in my post.

Now at least Rosenberg admits in her piece that she's just quoting a blog and didn't get any interview with me (I was busy on the book tour). So either it's a compliment to the blog that it gets quoted so or Rosenberg's just plain lazy.

The truth, I am sure, as always lies somewhere between those two extremes.

Not my normal story to be quoted in, but hey! That's the blog.

Critt, make sure you link this one. . .