Um, yeah! Did we need a “report” to know that? I mean, if this is news to you, clearly you haven’t been taking your Times like a man every morning (or every Wednesday and Sunday mornings, at least). Where have you been? Off lactating somewhere or something, ladyman? (Or, if you’re a woman reading this, then: Where have you been? Off henpecking someone with your elite and powerful man-beak?)
Ok. Sorry. (Making like Maureen Dowd is intoxicating!)
Anyway, Media Matters suffered in one sitting through a year-and-a-half’s worth of Dowd op-eds and confirms what you already knew: Some pundits see things in black and white; Dowd sees things in masculine and feminine. (And by “things” we mean “Democrats.” And by “masculine” and “feminine” we mean that in Dowd’s world female Democrats out-man their male counterparts who, of course, throw like girls — -“debutantes,” even!)
If we were some wide-eyed naïfs (i.e. some of Mo’s men) we might wonder if Dowd — from her comfortable pose as the seasoned, condescending-but-with-good-reason, old-school journalist who still rocks a sexy profile picture on her Times homepage — even realized the extent to which she was (week in and week out, to tedious effect) emasculating the men and manning up the women. Reading Dowd’s columns each week is kind of like watching over and over that part in Austin Powers when Powers tackles that woman and tries in vain to rip off what he assumes to be her wig to reveal what he knows to be true but actually isn’t: “That’s a man, baby!” Except it’s Hillary Clinton’s hair Dowd is yanking each week. Or something.
Hey Times: we’ve seen this movie before. It may have even been funny the first ten or twenty times. But now you must have something else you can show us?