MoDo's Inconsistent Mojo

I have some ongoing gripes about Maureen Dowd, but today's column, "Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?," manages to sum up a bunch of recent studies about intelligent women and their attractiveness to men, young women's income superiority as a hindrance in dating, what men and men are really looking for, etc. without crapping all over Hillary Clinton in the process, as is her wont.

I do wish she had mentioned one additional Times article, August's "Be Yourselves, Girls, Order the Rib-Eye" by Allen Salkin, which would have made this column a comprehensive roundup of the current "state of the sexes" with a sly nod to presidential politics that doesn't, like her usual fare, hit you over the head with an agenda-mallet (you can buy one from Sky Mall) or read like a Sex and the City episode with each paragraph turning on one bad pun.

I've been complaining about Maureen for a long time because she has a powerful pulpit whose potential impact she often squanders. She asks to be taken seriously as a feminist (Or does she? I can never tell) and then publishes some infuriated screed in which she complains that young women have squandered the wages of feminism, tarring all women of my generation with the same (unfair) brush. Then she retreats into her cutesy pun-laden columns whose point is typically obscured by the need to hit a nonsensical punchline at the kicker.

Does Maureen Dowd have a "duty" or "responsibility" as the only female NYT op-ed columnist to deliver balanced, N.O.W.-approved opinions? No -- just because she's a woman with a widely read column doesn't mean she must toe a predictable feminist line. Should she be unequivocally supporting Hillary? Of course not. But I don't think it's a coincidence that her best columns lately have included consultation with experts or been written by Stephen Colbert (whose job it is to be funny; and who, not incidentally actually is funny). Her usual slapsticky style detracts from the moments (like today) when her columns are actually interesting and insightful. She doesn't need to incarnate some distaff version Krugman or Kristof, but regardless of gender, she should strive for relevance over performance.

Follow Melissa Kirsch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/melissakirsch

Comments

[candlegal]

I couldn’t agree with you more! If I have to read one more column (and this goes for everyone) that’s a fake conversation between world leaders or politicians, I just might barf. Get an original idea already! I gave up on Maureen Dowd a few months ago when I saw her on "Meet the Press." She seemed so intent on appearing witty that she made relevant out of the irrelevant just to fit her dumb little puns. She seemed totally out of touch and clueless.

[whateverelse]

You nailed it. MoDo is frequently irrelevant. The puns are very Carrie Bradshaw. I don't need her to share my views, I just like my Op-Ed topical and timely. She is neither. I don't mind the fact that she is single informing her opinions or topics, but it's painful to read columns straining to be funny. @bringbackimus: The point of an Op-Ed is she's not "right" or "wrong," she's expressing an opinion. You can agree or disagree. Just like with a blog post. She wasn't right about Gore, in my opinion, and I disagree with her characterizations of Hillary. But I'll still read her--and criticize her. In fact, the more provocative she gets, the better she is.

[BillZBubb]

Dowd, female or not, just isn't very interesting. Her critical columns are constantly based on superificialities. Her smear job on Al Gore before the 2000 election is the perfect example of her style. She's up to the same disingenuous shallowness attacking Hillary Clinton.

[marignymitch]

Maureen Dowd is a satirist, folks. It's what she does. And Hillary Clinton gives her plenty of great material to work with. This doesn't make Dowd an antifeminist.

[bringbackimus]

Mo's not the only female columnist at NYT. Gail Collins has been on board for several months now. Mo assessed Bush/Cheney/Iraq correctly, its likely she is on the mark about H. Clinton too.

[imapiker]

How do you tar someone with a brush (unfair or otherwise). If you want to communicate your displeasure with other's written words, perhaps you should take some time to think about what you are saying and writing. Then, maybe, we'll take you seriously. Thanks!

[DSPinPW]

MoDo is an excellent writer who for the most part provides entertaining and informed opinion about many issues in an entertaining way. My mother (87yo) loved her when she skewered Poppy Bush, but when she did it to Bill Clinton, not so much. If you only like her when she's not attacking your favorite politician, the problem is with you, and not her. When she takes anyone to task, it is always fair, accurate, informative and funny. That applies to Hillary too.

[MoMoDo]

I think that that particular Dowd column was one long "poor single me" lament.

http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-am-i-single.html

And I have to disagree about the bad puns. They're the best part of her columns. Those and the silly names she makes up for people.