"I object to The New York Times ads on TV that are sexist," a reader-probably a broad-tells advertising columnist Stuart Elliot. "There's a young woman who talks about the Styles section and a young man who talks about the Week in Review. It's only the women who are excited about Styles and the guy who reads the more substantive sections. I find that very, very objectionable."

Elliot reviews the ad and finds that there's a mix of who reads what. The skirts aren't just gabbing on about Styles; one of them mentions using the Travel section for a girlfriend getaway to Spain. At another point, "a woman speaks and there appears behind her an article with the headline 'Pure and Simple Economics,' which looks as if it comes from a Sunday business section," although that might just be a comment on how chicks suck at math and need everything explained to them in the most basic manner possible. And there's a gal who stands in front of several sections, one of which is "Week In Review," which is a total sausage fest except for Maureen Dowd. Elliot's assessment?

So on balance, the spot does seem to be balanced – but maybe tilted toward an impression that women are more interested in Sunday Styles than men. Given that the wedding announcements run in that section, that may well be true. But is it sexist?

Of course not. Everyone knows ladies love them some wedding coverage, because that's how they keep score. It's biological, and biology can't be sexist. Just ask Maureen Dowd; she wrote a whole book about it. Or at least I think she did. I didn't read it, because I'm a guy and I was busy with the Automobile section.