« Leave the grown-ups to their Halloween | Main | Meanwhile, the WSJ takes on gender equity ... »

2005.10.31

Comments

hannah

I learned that Maureen Dowd doesn't like frilly clothes or women who wear ruffles to attract men. (However, posing in black with red fishnets? Totally different!)

molly

I read this article with some interest since I had a recent discussion about modern feminism with a friend. The NYT times article about Ivy League women's goal of dropping out of the work force to be mommies depressed me, which is odd because 1 less lawyer out there should be good, right?!

Does anyone pay for NYT select? I saw this a ploy by all the op-ed writers to make their books -a collection of their op-ed articles- more attractive to book buyers.(?)

Lisa

I absolutely think there's room for the "whither feminism?" discussion -- whether any of its goals have been achieved (or what those goals even are) and whether the approach needs to be less gender-divisive and more along the lines of "these aren't women's issues but HUMAN issues."

I just think Mo Dowd has absolutely not contributed to that.

Instead, it's all, "Oh, woe! Those ungrateful young ladies! I wanted to be taken as seriously as a man without ever forgetting I was a woman, and these young ladies don't even want that! I am sexy but smart like a man! Why can't people accept that?"

At least Susan Faludi had the good grace to actually REPORT her manifesto.

molly

Ah yes, but Susan Faludi is a *real* journalist.

drunken monkey

I bookmarked this article this morning -- I haven't read it yet, and I will, but I must admit that I'm not looking forward to seven pages of that drivel.

The Times is apparently doing its best to get its writers' names in the paper/magazine, even when they themselves are not reporting. Why they devoted that much space to a story that has almost no sources outside its own paper, I don't know. What I do know is that I'm sick of these "trend" stories that consist of a reporter saying "Three of my friends said X" and then running with it without finding the kind of facts Lisa asked for to back them up. It's not enough to simply notice something among your peer group.

I don't subscribe to the Times Select content -- I receive the paper's email every day, I can get most of what I want through work access, and I already pay $25 a month to get the Sunday Times (I'm in Canada). If I did decide to subscribe, it'd be for access to the archives.

Oh, and any man that's scared of me because I'm smart can suck my left one. Or not, rather.

drunken monkey

Oh, and for a look at feminism, pop culture, and the media, I enjoyed Where The Girls Are by Susan J. Douglas.

Lisa

Molly -- HA! Point taken.

(Seriously, I'm giggling over here.)

Drunken Monkey, I read Where the Girls Are about nine years ago. I thought it was a decent baby-boomer perspective.

The dating stuff just baffles me, because I keep thinking, "Maybe this isn't really a searing indictment of modern men and modern women. Maybe you just talked to a lot of people who date jerks. Or ARE jerks." Why wasn't this hypothesis explored?

On a maybe-related note: I read New York magazine's profellatio of Mo Dowd today, and one of the things ex-boyfriend Aaron Sorkin said was that she was a tad too independent for him. So I am again wondering ... is this men-can't-handle-women-as-peers business REALLY happening or is someone looking for proof that it's really happening because it happened to them?

molly

Lisa totally agree with your last statement! I am beginning to sense some solipsism at work here.

molly

Also, when it comes to relationships there is always three sides to everything...his side, her side and the truth.

molly

Oops, I got interrupted. What I meant to say above is:

... always three sides to everything...his side, her side and the truth. Personal relationships make lousy examples for broad generalizations about society. Who knows what really is meant by Sorkin's "too independent?"

Tracy

"profellatio"? I love it. It is so coined!

Josh

I refuse to pay money for the NY Times columnists. (it helps that the more liberal of them can be found regularly over at truthout.org) But especially for Dowd, who is an embarrassment.

I still haven't forgiven her for making up quotes about Kerry (which were then treated as fact) and the nonsense she perpetuated about Gore in her deeply deluded mind.

Ex-Monkey Ben

As you know Lisa, I don't know nothing about anything. But I do know this: "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame." Nonsense. Men just want to marry someone (preferably a woman) who can more or less ensure they will leave the house wearing pants and who most likely won't let the fellow drink himself to death. And that's about all. Pretty low threshold, seems to me.

drunken monkey

From Slate: Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?

http://www.slate.com/id/2129290?nav=wp

Lisa

The only problem with that piece is that Katie Roiphe's focus is too narrow. We already know that Mo Dowd isn't a necessary voice in any sort of discussion about gender construction. The real question ought to be if she's necessary to the world of commentary at all.

DumpShallowBeltwayJournalists

Maureen Dowd's article What's a Modern Girl To should be re-titled:

"Why Shallow, Pretentious Powerful Men Don't Like Smart Women."

Now, is this really a surprise?

But would a smart woman write an article like this?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

On twitter:

    follow me on Twitter