Dear Maureen Dowd:
Today you penned a column that touched on several trends we at Jezebel have covered extensively. There was the study of speed-daters that basically said men don't have Asian fetishes, they just seek women who are smart but don't act as if they are smarter than them. There was the story about how women, perhaps in response to such men, try to hide their fancy purses and other evidence of how much money they make. There was the another story about this issue in the workplace, or something, Megan read it. Oh yes! And there was a Sex & The City reference.

Now, speaking as someone who is forced to sit on my couch and read blogs all day, I can only wonder why a powerful New York Times columnist like yourself would have any desire to sit around and read blogs all day,especially when the "it is hard to be a woman who is both smart and pretty" genre is one to which you have already devoted an entire book. I can only think that by belaboring and repurposing it to this extent you are merely making yourself — and all of us — less smart.

Which may be, according to your analysis, helpful on the mate-finding front, although this lady doesn't seem to think of it, and quite frankly, all this circular reasoning and re-reasoning about brains and sex and gender roles and are men necessary in the White House, is fucking boring and it's making me want to go outside. But I can't. So Moe — if I may? — maybe that could be your job.

Should Hillary Pretend To Be A Flight Attendant? [NY Times]
Smart Women Don't Read Maureen Dowd [Huffington Post]