yet another inane, dumb, and useless column from maureen dowd in this morning's nytimes.
So...after all this time, a woman is *still* required to be the reflection, and magnification, of her husband's ambitions. (No matter her own professional obligations, of course.) I'm an intelligent woman whose responses are a bit more articulate than this, but what utter crap.
And even worse is how otiose this column has become: first she subjects us to the semiotics of Clark's sweater and now this toothless column about Dean's wife avoiding the stump (which only shows her good sense.)
Brooks may infuriate me with his intellectual disingenuity, but at least he doesn't give smart women everywhere a bad name.