Dowd for the Count

Let's give Maureen Dowd credit where credit is due: she is paid to write columns that attract readers, and she occasionally succeeds (I've read three of her columns this year, which is a personal record). Sure, many of the readers are angry that she resorts to name-calling, ignores facts, employs sarcasm without substance, rants wildly (watch out for Mo Spittle!), and generally relies on being, um, catty (to put it nicely). Her most recent column, "The Nun's Story" (Oct. 24, 2009), is vintage Dowd, a rollicking and rude hissy fit aimed at Pope Benedict XVI. For example:

Nuns were second-class citizens then and — 40 years after feminism utterly changed America — they still are. The matter of women as priests is closed, a forbidden topic.

In 2004, the cardinal who would become Pope Benedict XVI wrote a Vatican document urging women to be submissive partners, resisting any adversarial roles with men and cultivating “feminine values” like “listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting.”

Nuns need to be even more sepia-toned for the über-conservative pope, who was christened “God’s Rottweiler” for his enforcement of orthodoxy. Once a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth, Benedict pardoned a schismatic bishop who claimed that there was no Nazi gas chamber. He also argued on a trip to Africa that distributing condoms could make the AIDS crisis worse.

The Vatican is now conducting two inquisitions into the “quality of life” of American nuns, a dwindling group with an average age of about 70, hoping to herd them back into their old-fashioned habits and convents and curb any speck of modernity or independence.

An executioner might engage in an inquisition of healthy people, but would hardly be bothered to go after people committing suicide. But a doctor provides an examination—perhaps painful or even unwanted—meant to restore life to the dying body. And since the average age of nuns in the U.S. is 70 (perhaps higher) and the number of women religious has plunged dramatically over the past forty years, why is Dowd so intent on damning the doctor? Because, in the end, she couldn't care less about nuns; it's all about bashing Benedict and attacking the Church. Here are three good arguments to that end:

• "We Have A Winner!" by Patrick Archbold at the "Creative Minority Report" blog
• "Recycled Dowd response" by Red Cardigan on the "and sometimes tea" blog
• "The Nuns’ Story?" by Fr. Z on the "What Does the Prayer Really Say?" blog

Comments

[Jackson]

I'm for anything that drives the likes of Dowd out of the Church, and repels them from entering it. May she continue to be repulsed.

[Evan]

Sorry to be the bothersome poster today (not, actually), but I imagine that one can't meaningfully say "I've read three of [Dowd's] columns this year, which is a personal record" alongside "Her most recent column [...] is vintage Dowd."

Presumably a limited experience with particulars precludes a reliable identification of any particular particular as representative of the rest.

[Carl E. Olson]

Evan: How many Michelle Malkin columns have you read this year? :-)

Because I regularly visit quite a few political sites and blogs across the spectrum, I've read a lot of quotes and excerpts from Dowd, as well as several pieces about her (from both conservatives and liberals). While readily acknowledging the limits of said reading, Dowd's nastiness is quite legendary, even among those who share many or most of her views. In a certain way, my comment is a credit to her distinctive approach and style; it definitely stands out. Her counterpart on the right is Ann Coulter, whose own brand of nastiness is quite distinct. However, Coulter often uses arguments and facts, two things I haven't seen much from Dowd.

[Rich Leonardi]

Mo Dowd's MO: Snark w/o substance.

[Brian]

I have serious doubts about Coulter. I don't want to spark any long-winded arguments on this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

[Gail F]

Well, I can tell vintage Dowd -- because I used to read her, not because I read her now. I have not managed three columns in the past year. She has her job because she attacks people and institutions. I figure that liberals cannot rightly object to Ann Coulter, because if liberals get to have Dowd, then conservatives get to have their own Dowd. I read one of Coulter's books because someone else accused me of being her fan (I had never read anything by her at all) and I found it very funny but way too nasty for my taste. I don't like the "catty woman who attacks" conceit, so I don't read either. I prefer a more wry wit to tooth and claw.