NYT columnist quotes priest for marriage advice, offends feminist

Sometimes when it's a slow news day or when I'd like to see the world through the eyes of someone coming from a completely different perspective I visit feministing.com. Today was a classic:

Getting marriage advice from a priest.

"Dowd has stooped to a new low. Paraphrasing a priest on advice on what to look for in a husband. I guess I can see on some level, since marriage is frequently a religious thing, but in general, this gets a no. And by the way, apparently we should be looking for man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life." - Samhita

Get this: a priest should evidently be the last person in the world to give relationship advice. Marriage is only accidentally a "religious" thing but in general religious considerations should play no part in it. Finally, she thinks the priest presents impossible ideals about what women should look for in a potential spouse.

Now the nice thing: the first two commenters on this post at feministing.com completely disagree with "Samhita's" critique, and provide good reasons for their agreement with the advice given.

Now judge for yourself: "An Ideal Husband" by Maureen Dowd over at the New York Times. Was the priest telling women to look for "man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life" or instead for virtuous men who can love and care deeply for their spouses?

It's frustrating to once again see a self-proclaimed feminist disregarding the kind of advice that might improve her perspective on the male gender because of her own a priori reservations and ideology.

Hopefully she can see that on some level.