|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 07:43 PM October 30th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Filled with sexist stereotypes and generalizations that denegrate men and make women out to be little better than prostitutes [check out the "Money" section:
"Feminists in the 70's went overboard," Anne Schroeder, a 26-year-old magazine editor in Washington, agrees. "Paying is like opening a car door. It's nice. I appreciate it. But he doesn't have to."
Unless he wants another date.
Well, she may just have something there, I'll give her that!]
She ends the essay of course with an expression of concern that soon, it'll all be back to the Stepford Wives. Oh Maureen, how can "we" go back to a time that never really was?
Note that this essay, too, is part of a bigger Act of Maureenism; right at the end of it, it reads: 'Maureen Dowd is a columnist for The New York Times. This essay is adapted from "Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide,' to be published next month by G.P. Putnam's Sons." Just what the world needs, yet more from male-bashing, anti-male sexist generalizations, loopy "reasoning" and ranting from ol' "Mean Maureen"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:55 PM October 30th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Dowd writes that, "women are still striving to marry up."
The feminist partisanism turns up a few sentences later, when we learn that men have an "unfair advantage." The implication that it is all the fault of men that women have suddenly found themselves with fewer options for marriage and children is self-serving, self-pitying nonsense. Women should stop striving to marry up and quit blaming men for their choices. They might try to marry down, if that's what they want, and it might occur to them to try convincing men that they are worth the long haul. Instead, they want to be chased--either begging the question that they are worth the long haul, or avoiding it altogether. The assumption that they want to be chased, of course, is that they are worth chasing. The nonsense about men wanting to be hunters is intended to distract you from that question: are they really worth chasing? And if not, whose fault is that? Can you lay the blame entirely on men and their "unnecessary" DNA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:08 PM October 30th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
What do you expect from Maureen Dowd, other than what she has been babbling forth incessantly for years now?
The problem with the Maureens of the world is that they are actually paid attention to, listened to, relied upon for "insight". Imagine a town where the village idiot is sometimes consulted by the mayor, and actually starts publishing books that some people may actually buy! That's the problem with the world's Maureen's (I could say the same thing about a lot of other authors too, but you get the idea).
Now if she were alone on a deserted island, she'd be no trouble to anyone but herself. I could just see her now, scrawling with berry-juice on the sides of caves, her prose persisting about how horrible it all is for women (wimmin, wymyn, etc.) in this evil awful world, even though she would be the only person around to read it! She'd probably write about how no one were rescuing her and it was all men's fault, blah, blah, or maybe how the right to abort, get men's paychecks, etc., was all effectively nullified for her since, dammit, there were no men around and besides, this island doesn't even have a legislature!! Now, you didn't see Tom Hanks in "Castaway" do that now did you? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 10:17 PM October 30th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that she never says how the world should be, only how it isn't.
Her image of life in the 30s was skewed, as her mother said-'we were all dirt poor, no one dances in white hotels.'
SO now are we supposed to accept her version of reality today, without question, or like her mother, see that life in the media really isn't life at all.
It seems to me that Dowd has no clue what things are supposed to be like. She only knows she doesn't like it. She dismissed feminism as not concerned enough with looks and men, then later dismisses society for being concerned with looks and men.
Make up your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:07 AM October 31st, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Both verbose AND vapid. Hate to be cornered by her at a cocktail party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:36 AM October 31st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Any woman who listens to a bunch of man-hating dykes (i.e., feminists) for making life decisions is very stupid and deserves the unhappy life that results.
Dowd is an example of such a women. After years of anti-male feminist rating, she finally figured out that all she really wants a man, children and a family. She will have none (she’s over 45 years old!). She deserves her misery.
I just hope parents of girls learn this lesson and teach them well. Dowd (or any other feminist) would be an excellent negative role-model! “You don’t want to end up like Dowd, do you?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:32 AM October 31st, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
modo exemplifies the complete divurgence from reality that all feminists and leftists have finally undergone.
the psychotic recasting of a human male's natural biological fear of investing parental energy in the genetic offspring of another man as "insecurity" is the most shallow silly misuse of pop psych nonsense ive ever heard. what are this womans credentials?
the recasting of ordinary women's desire to return to the ordinary ways women dealt with reality for all of human history and in nearly ever human culture before the 60's reinvented the wheel as "backlash" is self serving nonsense. hey--feminists--you were WRONG you were wrong about almost every possible thing. just because five jewish women with high testosterone levels wanted to be able to be partners at a top law firm or doctors doesnt mean ALL WOMEN WANTED THAT.
feminists have destroyed trust and intimacy between the sexes, the comforts of home and hearth and like 4-5 generations of kids by now. men, how much longer are you going to be mollified by porn, weed, beer and sports into allowing this??
men take back this goddamned country before its too late
i beg you as a woman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 11:53 AM October 31st, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Try helping. This was made by women, women will need to take a hand in undoing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM October 31st, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Try helping this was made by women, women will need to take a hand in undoing it."
That is partially true, but don't forget the wussie-poopie males that aid and abet feminism. They are just as responsible for the problems we face.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:08 PM October 31st, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you'll need to get out there yourself and make the change happen, fo the change must be in the hearts of women more than men (though many men need this too!). It was women who made this mess by demanding of men and use of all manner of wicked tactics that made this mess. Now you must confront and bring down the evil-doers among you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:46 PM October 31st, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
This article proves again, that (some?)women are willing to blame men for the mistakes women make (with their own choices). Women chose, and men are MADE to pick up the bill. Women fought for the right to vote, and they have >50% of the vote now. So, ladies, what are you going to do with it? With 20 kinds of birth control + the right to terminate a pregnancy for your OWN (but not his) convenience, we end up with a 36% unwed birth rate. And, of course, men pick up that tab for that "choice".
The fact is the family court system provides a major disencentive for men to "get serious" with the paltry few good young women around. If a majority of women, younger and more seasoned, stood up and said "yes, this system needs to be dismantled" then perhaps you'd find more young men willing to shoulder the yoke of marriage and commitment again. Until that happens you can kiss "traditional" values, including marriage, goodbye. As long as we are made to pay for a woman's uterus with all of the various "feminist" entitlements, why get involved? And the sad thing is, women have made the choice(s) to have it this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:17 PM October 31st, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Maureen has provided the best virtual men's manifesto-in-opposite-polarity that one could wish for!
She's basically saying, feminism screwed women, lied to them, warped their lives into workaholic zombieville, taught them to hate men (so they .... shock! ... do not have husbands), and so they also are infertile, childless, peri-menopausal desperate un-housewives....
The lesson? Feminism is a BITCH!
Cause-and-effect was never feminism's strong suit, least of all for all the liberated clients of its vapid, vacant, void ideology.
"Little did I realize that the feminist revolution would have the unexpected consequence of intensifying the confusion between the sexes, leaving women in a tangle of dependence and independence as they entered the 21st century."
(MD)
Well, inductive and/or deductive LOGIC has never been a particularly well publicized trait of aging female feminist newspaper columnists, right?
So, once again, let's pity poor Maureen. That's always the basic point of her scribblings anyway.
Payback is a terrible thing to watch, yes? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Evil White Male Oppressor writes "Oh Ms. Dowd, does it ever end?