Ground Floor: In among the various polls about the US presidential election is the one which confirms that 9 out of 10 Americans would now consider voting for a female presidential candidate; but around half of them think that it's inappropriate for the first lady to have a job.

So, in the land of the free and alleged opportunity for all, if you're married to someone who decides to have a tilt at the presidency, you'd better stop working as a lawyer (Elizabeth Edwards, wife of vice- presidential candidate John Edwards) or TV commentator (Lynne Cheney, wife of current vice-president Dick) or a doctor (Judith Steinberg, wife of Howard Dean, one-time front runner for the Democratic nomination).

There are plenty of reasons why it would be difficult to continue working as the first lady of the US - security being one of them - but popular opinion isn't against it for security reasons, it's because people apparently think that the president needs his wife's "full-time attention".

Oh please! He has more than enough people giving him their full-time attention!

But, just as there's confusion about a woman's role in business life, there's confusion about her role in the top political echelons of the US, too.

While people think that, as the wife of the president, a woman shouldn't work, they don't mind her having the top job itself. Yet when asked about the first husband's role, they are perfectly prepared to suggest that he could hold elective office or a job in the private sector. Obviously, they don't think that women need a man's undivided attention to get the job done.

Despite women's progress in the world of business, it seems that we're still only an apron-string tug away from the kitchen sink. And while I have no problem with women who decide that the kitchen sink is the place they want to be, I don't see why every women should continuously be jerked back there.

As is usual during a presidential election, Family Circle magazine asked the presidential partners to submit their cookie recipes for public consumption. Laura Bush provided her recipe for oatmeal chocolate chunk cookies while Teresa Heinz Kerry handed over hers for pumpkin spice cookies. The Bush cookies won, apparently, though I shudder to think of the approval rating of a presidential spouse who admitted that she bought her cookies at Wal-Mart like most people.

Whether Laura Bush or Teresa Heinz Kerry ever worked in their lives is irrelevant to the notion that their lives should be all about baking cookies, arranging flowers and just being nice once they become the first lady. Why is the public at large so suspicious about women who wish to continue with their own careers no matter what role their husbands take on?

Closer to home, Cherie Blair has had to endure the brickbats of both men and women (though sadly, mainly women) who think that it's inappropriate for her to continue with her career while her husband is prime minister.

Yet there is some hope in the States since, although more than 50 per cent of those aged 65 and over think that the first lady shouldn't hold an outside job, younger Americans almost exactly reverse that statistic in thinking that she should.

Teresa Heinz Kerry intends to continue her work as CEO of the Heinz Family Foundation if her husband wins the election.

Getting back at her for suggesting that Laura Bush hadn't had a real job (she was a teacher and a librarian) some people are now suggesting that her CEO position is not a "real job" since she can't be fired from it - the foundation was, after all, established by her first husband.

It is, I suppose, silly to get irritated by the furore over the roles of US first ladies when the actual election itself is such a humdinger. But it serves to show just how difficult the role of a woman in today's allegedly enlightened society still is.

Bottom line is that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't when it comes to full-time work outside the home and there doesn't seem to be any way to get around it.

Maybe, though, the toys of today's children will change their future outlook. After all, Lara Croft (admittedly big-chested and an adolescent boy's dream) is a strong, adventurous role model. And the news that Barbie has finally been ousted from her position as the number one doll for girls can only be a good thing.

I know that there's been presidential-candidate Barbie (with Ken providing the cookie recipes, no doubt) and astronaut Barbie, but all of the real advertising power goes into Princess Barbies, who dress in pink and wait for Prince Charming to show up.

However, Mattel, which produces the doll, reported in its third-quarter results that gross sales for Barbie were down 13 per cent and that operating income as a percentage of net sales was down 110 basis points compared with the prior year.

Barbie is being hammered by a new range of dolls called Bratz. I have mixed feelings about a range called Bratz on the basis that it is surely encouraging a level of rudeness and indiscipline among young children everywhere, but perhaps that's better than encouraging them to have silicone implants.

The Bratz dolls are sassy and streetwise and, though they have long legs, they're as far away from Barbie as Bridget Jones is from Pamela Anderson.

But will sassy toys ultimately change a future generation's attitude towards presidential spouses? Will we get a situation where both partners are equal and both are free to purse their individual careers as they choose (or not, as the case may be)?

Or will we have a situation, when the presidential candidates are women, where their husbands will have to show their prowess in putting up a shelf, pitting Black & Decker against Bosch in the search for masculine perfection?

www.sheilaoflanagan.net