cynicaldilettante

I am by no means a regular reader of Forbes, but their "25 Most Influential Liberals " slideshow caught my eye, and I couldn’t help myself.

It’s easy to despair as you go through the list–where are the women!?  I am, however, happy to report that the women are in the more influentiial section; there are a handful of them below the 19 spot, though the list is by no means even.  But that’s a different post…

What really got me was the write-up on number 18, Maureen Dowd:

" Op-ed columnist, The New York Times

Known for her exclamatory columns, Dowd writes about politics with a biting, pop-culture-infused spin. She is much better at meowing at her own side, though, so the Obama administration could see her recover the cat-wit she appeared to have lost in her formulaic Bush years." [emphasis mine]

In a world where Hilary Clinton supports were PUMAs, sexy older ladiess are cougars, two women arguing equals a cat fight, and even my vagina needs a feline moniker, does Forbes really need to make up more cat-themed terms to diminish women?  I mean…cat-wit?  Cats are usually amazed by the feather duseter, so I’m not really too excited about Dowd’s wit compared to theirs.

Also, meowing at her own side?  If Forbes insists on some sort of poorly constructed animal metaphor (which, by the way, they don’t need for any of their other liberals.  It’s not just someone’s quirky writing style), couldn’t they at ...