Bonnie Erbe

David Brooks Was Wrong on Sandra Bullock

April 12, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Comment (13)
Tweet

By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I highly recommend a new blog I just stumbled onto by one Maddy Dychtwald who calls herself a demographer, author and keynote speaker (curious combination, that, but a good blog nonetheless) which tracks women's progress and influence as women gain power and wealth in society and culture. Dychtwald writes about a New York Times Op-Ed column of last month, written by David Brooks and starts out by quoting from it:

"Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?"

Dychtwald herself then adds:

Huh? Leaving aside the hoary assumption that women have to choose one of the other (which smacks of backlash, and raises the question--and why didn't Brooks write about the "Tiger Woods Trade"?), here's my philosophical question for Brooks: "Would you stay with an adulterous jerk if you had the money and power to leave and support yourself?"

While Brooks meanders off from that abysmal opening question into a rambling discussion of the value of success versus happiness, Dychtwald is correct in calling the columnist on his selection of a female subject about whom to pose that question. It's ridiculously old-fashioned and chauvinist to the hilt. To me, Sandra Bullock is not someone who made a dumb deal with the devil. She's a pretty good actress who has famously bad taste in men. She made no "deal" to trade success for a bad marriage. She just married the wrong guy. And Dychtwald is right to put a mirror to Brooks' inept characterization of Bullock's situation. I agree with Dychtwald when she concludes:

Sandra Bullock shouldn't be the specter of what happens when a woman chooses a powerful career: She should be the poster child for what economic and social influence allow women to do. To support themselves and their families, to make the real Sandra Bullock trade—trading in a man who abuses your trust.

Check out this month's best political cartoons.
Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.

« Previous Post Next Post »

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

In a kook-free par lore would be caches in our mouths.
What will happen in "Lobs and Crabs" 13? There's a lot of mess to clean up about forced ingredients so far. What Mr. Reagan was forced to say, the last president who said the military had to think in a barraged social environment, about "terrorists" was in the last post before the "Lobs and Crabs" franchise got under way. One of those taken down by Dr. Forbin's giant computer, to maintain the calm environment our country needs.
We can't afford to shake the military. Mr. Reagan meant that if the U.S. negotiated with "terrorists" in the same way hostage-holders are always negotiated with, our pride would become a part of their apparent pride. Since they already justify homicides based on political complexes, the pride would get lost in that, leaving the U.S. voiceless. Taken in the way the two concurrent presidents would have been using it on an average day, it reads: "The United States has no interest in stopping homicide as a goal part, beyond being able to stop 'terrorists' completely. Stopping them is the only goal the United States can have, as homicide is involved. There is no such thing in the United States as overarching capabilities or the preservation in any kind of trust of that."
Mr. Reagan can return to the evidence place. Then the previous president was discussed for the first time in "Lobs and Crabs" 1. Dr. Forbin also had that removed. It's where the previous president was described as hysterical and several more broad adjectives. In subsequent entries in the franchise, that point of description is narrower. But then it said he just had absorbed the whole decade, no troops and groups. Then it said treason ought to be on the table for importing the laws of another country into the United States.
Laws. Definitions of committed open-ended goals which are not limiters of, nor are they tied into, the humans they intend for. This would easily be found to have another country distributed into it in this country, once the military as like a mounted butterfly collection being tsked about by the Nobel Prize people is correctly seen as the factor. Then in "LAC," to mild it, an effort was made to explain how unmilitary adult partners were portrayed by the previous president as "exploiting" that which requires the military, or it. Since it's being analyzed now based on the butterfly collection model, what happens when women go close, the treason idea which was expressed then (did Bernie Mac cause the deaths over the last fifteen months?) (he was a target of the current U.S. president) involved using the military to create a condition whereby they represented domestic crime.
Dr. Forbin didn't like that post either. Yes, destroying the government of Iraq was a true goal. So is getting home in traffic. Treason may be said, if criminal conspiracy is to feed the bulldog. A hungry one, it's 11 posts slow.

Don Treact of WA 8:05PM April 14, 2010

My partner's Still Bannin'. My name's Try Day.
Electrocution, drowning, falls, poisoning, mixing up of medicines, car crashes, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases.
Is there a definable connection between the two administrations that would have anything to do with the above? I could be wrong. Risking being wrong without backup, I think that there is no connection between the two administrations which would have any instances meant above just happening.
Nothing meant above.......happens.....during any type of connection between the two administrations.
Stay for a minute on what I just typed. It sounds unusual. This is about a new thing, there doesn't have to be a connector. What kind of person talks about accidents? So this web site could install a program to find this computer, it's in a library, and censor out anything from it. That would mean that not even one human censor would ever read anything posted.
There would be no one to testify in court, to.... For instance, two entries back in this constantly evolving "movie franchise" is when "Men guy was sent e sum......" came out. Frank Sinatra would have changed his own song to "men guy was sent a sum." There's no doubt that Frank Sinatra got as far as changing "very good year" to "Harrywood year." There are scraping marks where he tried to take down the letters of the Hollywood sign.
"Men guy...." isn't homosexual guy. Of course it's guy running for president who "means men." So in entry 10, out came "Men guy was sent e sum." It came out the afternoon of the Polish air crash. Unfortunately, it was posted after the crash had taken place on Saturday, given that Poland is about eight hours on from the west coast of the U.S. But I didn't know about the crash. But I can't prove I didn't know by typing on the internet.
And it completely matters, since "Men guy was sent e sum" means that the candidate of success in '08 obliterated "men," and the Polish air crash is completely relevant to this. How it's understood. I can take a lie detector test, and the posting on Saturday can be examined for clues to whether this poster already knew about the Polish deaths.
But if the computer receiving postings had been programmed to reject everything by this poster, me, the process wouldn't even be this far on. So, all of this to mean that actually trying to put together the difference between artificially constructed military actuality, and actual thought about the United States and regions that have nothing to do with it and with no real way to know accurately about it, remains saturated.
Why talk further about the previous president if this is so? I've moved away from Senators misleading all daughters working in stores. Some Senators meant a hidden need to fully educate those in Islam on the U.S. She who slights, when tons away, gives, to slight another way.

Don Treact of WA 8:09PM April 13, 2010

Fit was a Harrywood year.
Fit was a Harrywood year, for song-snared girls of win key pen-meant dreams. Keyed try in grim co-scenes. Their "no furs" stood live. Men guy was hurt beehive.
Unlike in "The Wrath of Khan," it never "comes to this." Like in the Johnny Cash song in which he builds a Cadillac over several decades by relieving GM of the burden of true inventory completion, it just leaves. I am capable of distinguishing DC from Washington, the state, on the choice list.
To give a sense of experience in this state, consider two adult daughters of different ages but similar stances standing in a store in a pretty wild locale. One seems to be more passive, and her opposite seems mad. The color orange is probably on the mad one. During this, the song being played in the store is "Long, Cold Summer."
It's a long, cold summer, leaving me here on my own to be (drop). It's a long, cold summer, leaving me here on my own to be (drop). It's a long, cold summer, leaving me here on my own to be (drop and the drop). It's a long, cold summer.
Get the picture? No Rockettes. What has been posted on the previous president in the previous entries in the "franchise" represented by the words before the number was in existence on September 11. So the evidence of the postings is that the analysis meant as absent remained absent.
No whole quality of success has been established in the previous ten entries to "the franchise." So that also counts as evidence. It's a long, cold summer. The next step which the female federal judge is going to insure is to categorize all of the parts to the ten pevious "franchise entries" in terms of the limitations on assessing them.
So hold onto the baseball. Switching to tennis, and asking for your indulgence if this sounds extreme, it's better to live with a smashed face than a faced smash.
It's a long, cold summer. Due to the above terms not clicking yet, there is no check on word-of-mouth type development of the thematic that September 11 can be tied into the leaders of it inclusive of such ideas as that "they resent our wealth." Since the above means the above doesn't yet work, there is also no way yet to check the previous president as intrinsically "narrowed down" in public speaking time, such that "general ideas just came out." So, with no such check in place, how could someone be expected to be able to come up with what September 11 amounted to as that question relates to the actions of the U.S. government?
She couldn't be expected to. The previous president was able to create the sense that the military completely "takes place," and this is like using an "s" after the verb for someone's death instead of "has died," while also dripping the icing of utterly permanent punishment requirements all over the citizens of the United States. The response to September 11 was a production, not a go

Don Treact of WA 8:32PM April 12, 2010

Bonnie Erbe

David Brooks Was Wrong on Sandra Bullock

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Bonnie Erbe

Rankings Lists

U.S. News & World Report

Sections

David Brooks Was Wrong on Sandra Bullock

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Bonnie Erbe

Cartoons

Rankings Lists

U.S. News & World Report

Sections