LOL! Just what I was thinking. This is a prime example of how liberals excuse Democrats not to mention how incredibly arrogant they think “Didn’t need to squander it on mail boys”..You can just picture Dowd flicking her hand while saying that “Didn’t need to squaaaaander it on mere MAIL boys! tsk tsk!” Dowd is the same arrogant bitch who wrote a column right after 911 saying “The firemen we women wouldn’t give a second glance towards now caught our eye”.. Oh so in other words, because 343 of them died as the towers collapsed, NOW they are worthy of Maureen Dowd! Unreal. She is the absolute epitome of the arrogant liberal, every time I read her column it’s more of the same. Just utter arrogant gutter trash.
Her idea -- such as it was -- was that upscale women didn't like "hardhats" whistling at them on the street, but after 911 they came to appreciate and even "ogle the macho men they once spurned." It was a stupid lead-in to a column that actually seems to be about something different (women in Afghanistan?). The column got Dowd some abuse from feminists and a response from Ann Coulter.
It was the sort of thing nobody needs, but it wasn't quite as you characterize it. She put down wolf-whistlers, and working class guys, yes, but also the affluent women who spurned them and the wimpy men they were now rejecting (none of whom actually existed as real-life individuals) -- in some throwaway lines introducing the column. As Coulter said, "It was just an abstract point in a typically pointless, rambling and completely nonfactual Maureen Dowd column."
You can certainly take apart that column and this one and show the assumptions that she has that are often condescending and conceited, but if you let her get to you, she's won.