Feminism Has Suffered a Setback
My husband sent this article to me from CWFA today. Here's a snippet:
Maureen Dowd’s book, Are Men Necessary, racked up disappointing first-week sales –– barely over 10,000 copies. The publication was preceded by great fanfare, a huge public relations campaign and a publicity photo of the author wearing a slinky black dress, net hose, starkly red high heels, and the sullen facial expression typical of today’s fashion models.
What went wrong?
A cutting-edge feminist and New York Times columnist, Dowd, wrote a book basically saying that feminism betrayed women.
Dowd declared that while feminism lasted only a nanosecond, the backlash has gone on for 40 years with “American narcissism” trumping “American feminism.” Dowd’s personal bitterness is palpable. She thinks that feminism has “curdled”; that the promise of a “womanly life” that wouldn’t revolve around men “never quite materialized.” She alone saw things clearly and charted her own path.
Other women are just too, too conformist –– in the ’60s, feminists looked and thought alike; today’s women, with a different message, look and think alike, too. Back when feminists reigned, Dowd was too fun-loving. With conservative women on the ascendancy, Dowd was too strong. Alas, men can’t handle a strong woman so, in her early 50s, she is still single; there is no justice in the world. Dowd subscribes to the men-want-to-marry-their-secretaries school; women, she thinks, are penalized when they are too independent and strong.
Further, Dowd cites all the reasons that professional women get by-passed in the marriage mart –– a high I.Q. hurts a woman’s prospects, high salary or other signs of career success are detriments, or the daily grind of the fast track is not family-friendly. Then, with her typical arrogance, she writes that it is “exhilarating” to see women reject the “old idea of copying men” in order to reshape the world “around their desires.” But, she opines, it is an “irritating setback” when women “cosset themselves” in a narrow world and accept “dependence on men.”
posted by Crystal Paine at 4:40 PM
6 Comments:
I'm so glad you posted this. My eyes were rolling out of my head when I read the title of her book. I'm glad to see it is fairing poorly. I hate to wish anyone ill will, but it's hurtful to the opposite sex to promote such ridiculous propaganda. I love my husband, and he's a man...so my answer is YES, men are necessary. :)
WHEW!!!!!!! Glad I don't know that woman....I don't know that I could be in the same room with her. SCAREY!!!
I love my tough, very un-perfect, doesn't like his shirts ironed, likes red meat, smells like oil, loving, thoughtful, brings me flowers husband.
I don't care what anyone says: Women need men and vice-versa. It is what makes the world go round! :-)
Yeah, Maureen Dowd has been getting major flak on feminist blogs for her ridiculous book. As one feminist blogger put it, "Feminism is not your dating service, Maureen." Also, the supposed trends to which she points are based on discredited studies (I've heard the IQ one was based on studies of people who are now in their '80s-- a different generation with different expectations) and anecdotes from her narrow demographic of friends and acquaintances.
So, yeah, major eye rolling from me on this one. Finally, something we can all agree on! See, C.A., we CAN all get along (except for Maureen)!
I wouldn't say feminism hasn't suffered because most feminists are annoyed by Dowd.
She sounds like a very bitter woman. I know some women like her. They claim they are still single because men are intimidated by their inteligence. The truth is that men just want to marry someone feminine and nice. It seems like this author is so yesterday.
-Zan
Oh, ditto to Cheryl's comment.
That whole high I.Q. thing is so false. My husband loves my intelligence. He says I'm the smartest person he knows. Maybe Dowd should have looked for a husband from among a better group of people.
Post a Comment
<< Home