Maureen Dowd

A classic example of the posturing of the Anglo-Saxon middle class ogling at 'public intellectuals' performing like seals in pseudo-debates relying on predictable position-taking.

There is merit in some of Hanna Rosin's analysis of the economics underpinning power shifts between genders but even she is speaking of a game played by the middle classes that scarcely affects the lack of power wielded by most working people of both sexes.

The only one who has something of value to say is the show more redoubtable and ultimately humane Camille Paglia and even she is not at her best in the cheapening format of the public performance debate.

Good basic truths like the need to see men and women as persons who are equally under pressure (Moran) are lost in over-clever grandstanding. I am not sure what the point of Maureen Dowd actually is. Certainly it is not the elucidation of anything meaningful here

These debates purport to be political education but real political education is participative and consultative whereas these events are simply people who often confuse cleverness with genius speaking at or down to an open-mouthed audience of worshippers.

All the jocularity and in-jokes about American politics, cheap debating points and posturing in the end amount to less than a hill of beans. Go direct to Paglia and Rosin and make a judgment on their more considered writings.

Perhaps intended as 'edutainment', these debates are for intellectual lightweights. Here we have very little useful information and if you are entertained by this sort of thing you would probably be a bore at a decent dinner party. Otherwise, don't bother ... show less

Sometimes you just have to admit defeat. I gave up with this at page 157. It's been on my bedside table since 16th May (I am reliably informed by Revish) and it took being ill in bed over the long weekend to finally pick it up again, and realise that I just couldn't carry on reading it. It was a liberating decision.

Why did I pick it up in the first place? The author did well to pick a controversial title for starters, which I imagine lured in the sales. I'm not sure what I was really show more expecting from the book. Not the intellectual rigour of Simone de Beauvoir for sure - it's not presented as an academic study - more a light-hearted look at the battle of the sexes - but certainly not this. The blurb on the book assures us that Maureen Dowd is a "Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Times". How silly of me to think that that speaks of any kind of academic pedigree or ability to conduct serious research. When I think of the Pulitzer, I think of Woodward and Bernstein and meaningful journalism. A quick Google tells me that she won for her commentary on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair - fair enough, I guess. I didn't ever read any of it so I came to Are Men Necessary? fresh as a daisy and oblivious to the author's previous work.

I have a few reasons for being unable to finish the book. Firstly, I found it rambling and incoherent. Every chapter seemed to be the same, and progressive reading didn't reward me with any development of an argument for or against the book's title. The author uses films and anecdotes as evidence to back up her statements (calling them arguments would be a step too far) and relies too much on namedropping many of her "good friends" as though they are somehow an authority on the subject because they have a degree of fame or celebrity. Where she does refer to academic studies, she fails to analyse them in any meaningful way and skips over them quickly to get back to Bette Davis quotes and the like.

The writing was my second stumbling block. I got the impression that Dowd imagined herself as an older Carrie Bradshaw, but it really wasn't working for me. Carrie's mum, maybe. There was a lot of valley girl speak and some truly appalling puns and plays on words - like "hair apparent" on p.92. Absolutely awful, and suffocatingly American in the worst sense. Plenty of American authors are capable of writing in coherent English, and I'd have expected that from an NYT journalist.

Forgive me for sounding po-faced. I don't think for one minute that the author intended this book to be The Second Sex for the 21st Century, but at the same time I expected a little more. Can you really build an argument out of cutting and pasting your friends' opinions and quotes from old films and squashing it all together? Yes, there is some research in there, but you get the impression that it's been wedged in just to prove that it was carried out, rather than because it supported any argument (evidence of which I was unable to find in the first 157 pages). I'm sure what she does works in a 200 word column, but not so much in a book of this length. Elizabeth Wurtzl did this so much better. show less

With her reputation, and the title "When Sexes Collide" I expected a more serious and combative book. But it turned out to be rather amusing book where both sexes took their fair share of hits.Perhaps the book can be best summed up with a passage from Chapter 6 where Dowd discussed the state of modern day Iraq "With the loss of interest in the abilities of women the cradle of civilization that produced the remarkable Cleopatra fell behind economically and culturally, simply proving that show more societies need the participation of woman to prosper in every way."
A strong argument that obviously works both ways. And for what it's worth, I think Maureen Dowd is extremely sexy. show less

Yesterday, while rummaging through the piles of books on my bed in search of forgotten text, I found a book I'm not quite sure how I ever put down.

So I pickeded up on the dog-eared page where I had left off. And as I curled up in my daybed-- I fell in love.

I must admit Maureen Dawd wrote a damned good book. The question, "Are Men Necessary" is one that most women overlook and would almost always instictively and emphatically answer, "No!". Feminists and Womanists alike love to pretend that show more the female gender has evolved above the need of the lesser sex. Dawd even went as far as to mention that if any Beauvoirian was to write a book on The Second Sex today, he damn-well-better be referring to men.

This book actually looks into the possiblity of a world without men quite in depth. Dawd discusses the circumstances (perhaps, inevitable) that would lead to this unfathomable society. Who knew that organisms have already been produced without men and without their sperm by transplanting the dna from a female egg into a second?

Outside of cutting-edge genetics, this book covers a decent array of politics (or at least, politicians). And, if nothing else, I have learned that I am not nearly as well-read or well-informed as my ego would have me believe. Every paragraph of every passage is equipt with Dawdian humor, relentless puns, most of which went over my head. I need to pull my head from beneath a pile of books to read a periodical from time to time.

Many of my male friends pride themselves in being "Alpha Males". Even if the cushion of their ego rest on a mere belief. I must admit I never took the time to ponder whether I am an "Alpha Female" Dawd discusses Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice along with other Alpha, Beta and Gamma females. It cannot be ingnored that Alpha Men shy away from Alpha Women, and Maureen Dawd addresses this issue from all angles.

This book was truly a pleasure to read. And, as of now, is my favorite nonfiction book that I have read this year. I think I will come back to this book again over the next few months as I transition from collegiate life into the unknown.

Honestly, I think I teeter back and forth between being an Alpha Female and a Gamma Female. I am an Alpha in all realms of life, except in relating intimately with men. And while Dawd leads it up to us to determine whether men are necessary, I know that I damn sure don't enjoy the company of women enough to live in a world free of penises, male egos and, of course, male attention.

Love,
Lhea J
http://blackbookshelf.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-men-necessary.html show less