See? There isn't much difference between traditional journalism and web blogging: A study done by an ex-Huffington Poster showed that the Arianna-owned site actually favored male bloggers for the front page-selected stories. Only 23% of the 1,125 posts featured during that period were women bloggers, and 57 of those 255 women posts were written by Huffington herself.

So, gender bias? Or just an elaborate form of payback by a disgruntled ex-employee?

Right now we're at an interesting stage of gender equality in America, and god bless her, Sarah Palin brought it all about: where a woman politician is most severely held up to public scrutiny by other women, who are in turn attacked by men for not supporting a woman just because she happens to be the same sex as them.

So there is a reasonable chance to assume that Huffington, after years of making it in a man's world with her blog, feels reasonably more confident to feature men's musings on politics, knowing that is traditionally what people feel comfortable reading. After all, the study found that "Huffpo's editorial gender skew is roughly on a par with the opinion sections of publications such as Newsweek, The New York Times."

But consider that up until recently, Rachel Sklar was one of Huffington's most well-known authors, and had her own Eat the Press section of the site, exclusively for her. Or that Arianna typically gives her "front page" space to already established Op-Ed writers, many of whom happen to be male.

This isn't to say that there is no work left to be done towards women's rights in the blogosphere. Just that the Internet, with it's superficial cloak of anonymity, has helped blur these boundaries, but not eliminate them entirely. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to put your name and face out there. And if you want to be taken seriously as a female media mogul, you still have to conform to the standards set up by the previous tenants of the industry.