And then... she leaves all of that behind and essentially turns her column over to Father Pat Connor, a Catholic priest who dispenses advice about marriage and mate selection to high schoolers, mostly girls. And it seems like sound advice.
No gender-trashing of the parties involved (particularly Brinkley, Madonna, A-Rod's wife and the 19-year-old, who's been splashed all over the cover of the NY Post lately). No giggling over the sordidness of it all, especially the Brinkley divorce trial. No moaning about her own love life or that of her girlfriends.
What happened to the old Maureen Dowd, the World's Most Obnoxious Feminist Concern Troll™?
According to Bob Somerby, the public trashing of her gender-trashing by Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt worked:
It’s something we learned a long time ago about your celebrity press corps.Will this last? Who knows? But for now, take a look at the Daily Howler pieces I've linked, in which he discusses the gender-trashing that Hoyt didn't mention in his column, which was limited to complaints about the coverage of Hillary Clinton. But Dowd has been a relentless "gender nut," as Somerby puts it, painting Democratic men as effeminate (Al Gore "practically lactating" and singing "I Feel Pretty" to himself) and Democratic women as ballbreakers, shrews, mannish, or in the case of Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean, crunchy-granola and somehow not a woman because she did not participate in beauty rituals. And at the same time, Republican men in her columns were hyper-macho and Republican women hyper-feminine.
You can correct their facts as much as you like. You can show them that their “quotations” are wrong—that their paraphrases are deeply unfair. You can point to their broken logic. You can note the contradictory things they wrote about X, Y or Z in the past.
None of this will affect their work. To an astounding degree, they simply don’t care about what’s accurate, logical, fair. They only care when they get corrected in a venue which threatens their career status or social standing. When that happens, they get embarrassed—and they feel threatened. And then, their conduct will change.
That explains this comical column, offered today by Maureen Dowd. We can explain this laughable piece in four words: Clark Hoyt gets results!
You see, Hoyt crushed Dowd on Sunday morning—in the New York Times. And not just anywhere in the Times; Hoyt crushed Dowd in his public editor column, which appears right there in the very same section as Dowd’s appalling columns. ...
Hoyt received many complaints about the Times’ coverage. But: “When I pressed for details,” he wrote, “the subject often boiled down to Dowd.”
“The subject often boiled down to Dowd!” There is only one word for that: Cold.
Hoyt’s column appeared in the same Sunday section where Dowd posts her columns. It appeared in a place where Dowd’s colleagues would read it. It suggested that Dowd is a blight on the Times. For those reasons, Clark Hoyt got results.
The woman's got some real issues. And she's in a position of power in which her issues can sway elections. Good for Hoyt for taking her to school.