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

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

So, you know the question isn't even answered in this book, right?

I picked this up on a whim at The Book Thing in Baltimore. The title made me laugh and I thought it might make a decent gag gift of sorts for a feminist friend. Of course, I needed to read the book before I passed it off. Only decent thing to do, isn't it?

I kind of wish I hadn't.

Generally I enjoy sociological tirades, however inflamed they are. I've a decent background in anthropology and I'm no stranger to strife between the show more sexes being decently examined. It can be interesting to view the more radical beliefs, though too often poor examples are used. It can be interesting to see what other people think, and in turn be made to view things from an alternative perspective. Even though I (foolishly?) believe I'm more open-minded than most I found this book to be ridiculous.

The examples [a: Maureen Dowd|73558|Maureen Dowd|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1206632305p2/73558.jpg] set forth to defend her rather shaky slightly non-existent hypothesis seemed to apply more specifically to her own situation than to women in general. She talked about being called a bitch, about men writing to respond to her column more generally than women did, and about her own experiences working in DC. Women in politics and offering political commentary, it seems, are the same as women everywhere else. I can't help but think that area is a bit more specialized and more volatile than others for some reason...

In addition to this her hypothesis was unclear. She seemed at points to believe that women would be better off if men no longer existed - an entirely chapter was devoted to how the Y chromosone will be extinct in 10,000 to 10,000,000 years and how women will then TRULY rule the world - but then also noted how men are feminizing themselves and how that should be viewed as a victory. She bemoaned flirting in the office, but then discussed how it's insulting when men didn't flirt. It was very confusing.

At the end of this book I don't feel I really understand what it was setting out to be. It was just disorganized vitriol pointed at no one in particular. show less