Oh, even better, it's not her own analysis that 5X EBITDA is too much. No, no, it's her daddy's rule!

8X EBITDA of course.

You see, this is why the feminist analysis of Broadsheet is so important. I found the couple's "meet cute" story to be evidence of their being merely smug, entitled rich brats. I had no idea they were also sexist!

I have to admit that while I definitely see Ms Traister's point, I wonder if it's more about our perception of attractive people in general -- and specifically, attractive people who are very fashion-conscious -- than women per se.

Bias is a bastard. I know that for me, when I meet very attractive people (of any gender) who look like they care a lot about how they look, I'm always surprised when I find that there's a brain behind the face. It's just not something I expect. I'm aware this is me admitting to a certain degree of bigotry here -- I'm working on it. In my defense, that surprise doesn't happen very often :)

Truth is, most people probably don't even know what EBITDA is, nor what a reasonable bid for a company as a ratio of EBITDA is. I know I just had to look it up (and I'm not a very attractive, well-dressed woman. Wait, hold on a second ... yeah, I checked. Definitely not). I could believe being surprised that a random non-financial person would have this level of knowledge, without regard to their ownership, or lack thereof, of a penis.

I'd like to know why she married this clod. She can look forward to a lifetime (or at least as long as the marriage lasts) of similar expectations. And what happens if she has babies, and can no longer, even for a little while, wear short skirts and still look very fashion forward? Or if she ever looks older? I'm guessing he'll just trade her in for a newer model.

And did the Times mention what he looks like? Did she mention that she was willing to marry him because he dresses fashionably and is handsome, despite the fact that he's a financial wonk? I'd love to know.

She doesn't do herself any favors with "I pulled him aside and said I thought it was too much," Ms. Gores said. "My daddy would never pay more than five," she told him.

"My daddy"? Seriously? She's practically screaming that she's only repeating what a "serious man" said and that as a female she can only say what her daddy would do.

I've found most of the blog articles Broadsheet posted about the economic debacle which unfailingly depicted all investment bankers as male without nary a mention of women in responsible positions in Finance just as odd, if not more so considering this is supposedly a blog with a feminist perspective. I read the original wedding announcement, a snarky blog article from Gawker and finally, Salon's article about these people and came away with a completely different perspective. There are plenty of women who are interested in fashion and finance. It's not such an anomaly. What saddens me is that Rochelle felt she had to hide her obvious interest and knowledge base behind "Daddy," but it is gratifying, in my opinion, that she spoke up at all when many women in similar situations would have kept silent and played dumb. I, myself, have surprised quite a few people, especially women, not only with my interest in finance, but also in my assertive desire to participate in conversations about certain subjects most women unfortunately believe are beyond them. In NYC, in particular, I've met far too many intelligent women who can discuss the motivations of television characters, but who refuse to learn how to balance their checkbooks or manage their investment portfolios intelligently. Considering how paltry Broadsheet's research has been into how the current economic collapse is affecting women from a variety of professional backgrounds, including finance, and its penchant for characterizing business topics as a subject of little interest to women beyond use as a reference point in estimating relationship opportunities, I hardly see where Broadsheet has any room to criticize The Times on this particular point.

An otherwise intersting story, but what does "shouldn't know from finance" mean? This sentence is confusing.

"It illustrates the comfort we still take in the equation that a woman in a short skirt shouldn't know from finance, and the willingness of the paper of record to drop its jaw with the best of them at the fact that a female who loves fashion might also have a head for numbers."

The 'paper of record', for the record, did not comment at all. They merely quoted this hedge-fund asshole.

So to act like the Times itself was promulgating this view as well is, well, silly and misguided.

It's a Yiddish construction and slang. Edify yourself by googling '"know from", Yiddish', and you'll hit plenty of material about it and its derivation.

Ms. Gores said that as much as she loves fashion, she also loves to talk about business "and to be very knowledgeable about everything going on in the finance world."

Nuh-uh! Even though she loves fashion? Shut up!

Rebecca may have missed that Vows is paraphrasing the words of Ms. Gores herself. Or does she not believe this accomplished woman has the agency to note that the variety and contrasts in her life experience may at times confound expectation. As did Judge Sotomayor: "Although I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my life to be immeasurably rich. I was raised in a Bronx public housing project, but studied at two of the nation's finest universities." Nuh-uh!

Ms. Traister scours all of media for statements in which she can find offense, and has, this morning, come up high and dry. Carrying around this anger, then directing it at matters so routine and innocuous, is the erosion of the soul. Here's to the happy couple.

"know from finance"

It's Yiddish syntax, something many New Yorkers, and more broadly, people in the tri-state area (NY, NJ and CT) would be familiar with. It means "know about finance."