I only read her article "What's a Modern Girl To Do."

I think the men and women she quoted in it are just as insufferably shallow and self-absorbed as she is. I wanted to smack all of them, and her. Especially the Broadway producer.

I am so sick of people like Maureen Dowd complaining that they can't get a rich, powerful man. I'm a single woman, and I can't either. I have a computer-related job. I've been to Burning Man. I'm in the Green Party. I don't have her celebrity socialite connections. I'm sure I lead a more unconventional life than she does. My computer geek/semi-hippie lifestyle would probably make me a bigger turnoff to these men than her.

But unlike her, these men are not part of my world. So I accept this.

I guess if she did, she wouldn't be having this whinefest/publicity stunt.

It's not surprising to see one shallow writer being defended by another shallow writer.

At least Katie Roiphe gave her *reasons* for her opinion of Maureen Dowd.

Rebecca Traister, politically correct and evidently unable or unwilling to support her opinions with logical argument, dismisses Roiphe's Slate article critical of Dowd by merely saying that Roiphe "squawk[s] [her] defense of men".

This strongly suggests that Traister did not bother to read what Roiphe wrote in Slate (where Roiphe does not defend men at all, but offers specific criticisms of Dowd's pervasive shallowness).

I've been on the lookout for that kind of woman for years, and strangely enough, most of them seem to continue going for the sexist, abusive, dangerous types they've complained about--in other words, the alpha males. There's lots of feminist talk about powerful, intelligent women being rejected, yet they seem bound to the same social patterns of matchmaking that existed long before feminism.

If they care so much, why don't _they_ go out and find what _they_ want, instead of insisting on being pursued? They wanted to change the rules of the relationship game, in many cases rejecting heterosexuality and men as evils, but those who still desire men have taken the responsibility for pursuit on themselves by their actions. They insisted on changing the social landscape, throwing out the traditional means of courtship, so they need to propose something to replace it.

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that women are equally gifted with intelligence and abilities. Let them taken on their equal share of relationship-building.

There are many men that would appreciate the qualities of feminist women, yet we refuse to play the sexist game of chase and hard-to-get that seems so inexorably fixed in their minds. A refusal to chase them does not mean we are not interested.

I saw her on cspan with Brian Lamb and found her quite charming. and I say this as one who does not agree with her politics. I can't believe that she wanted to get married and did not. She could not have really wanted it and perhaps can't be honest about that. it may be harder for very successful women, i'll take her word for it, but those kinds of women still find men to love and marry and have kids with. Or maybe her problem is that she can't compromise or can't face the fact that men are human beings just like us, with their own fears and weaknesses. I hope she finds what she wants.

I just want to point out that nowhere in her book (so I'm assuming) nor in the otherwise excellent review is there mention of the lesbian perspective, other than the mention that Maureen might be lesbian, (which, if so, means she is in deep femme closet.) A lesbian friend of mine asked me, a married bisexual, if I'd read the NYTimes excerpt. She'd tried to read it but found it to be so male-oriented in experience and perspective that she put it down. She thought i'd be able to relate more. However, I, too kept saying to myself, well heck, what about women who love other women and really really DON'T need men. But enjoy their company from a position of non-dependence.

I wonder why there remains such a great divide between the lesbian or bisexual woman's worlds and the str8 woman's world. We have so much in common. We can learn from each other, ESPECIALLY the str8 women learning from the gay. One thing that has NOT changed since the recent waves of feminism that Dowd writes about is the discounting, therefore invisibility of lesbian feminist thought in str8 media, including feminist writers like Dowd.

In her review of Maureen Dowd's new book, Rebecca Traister writes: "But look at what Dowd has gotten. Look at this life: the house, the friends, the exes, the job, the Pulitzer, her siblings and nieces and her relationship with her mother. It's such a full, rich life. And that's OK, right? Well? Is it? I don't know, and what 'Are Men Necessary?' tells me is that Dowd doesn't either."

If a man had all these accomplishments to his credit, and remained unmarried, he'd be celebrated as a desirable bachelor, a stud, a sexy glamourous man-about-town who had successfully avoided being "captured" in marriage by a woman. A woman, by contrast, is culturally diminished by her single status; she's considered *less* desirable (despite her apparent ability to attract interesting, high-status men) because she hasn't "hooked" a man in marriage.

I find this double standard troubling. First, because it diminishes single women by assuming something is wrong with them if they chose not to marry, and second, because it diminishes married men by portraying them as less sexy than bed-hopping bachelors. How sad that in the year 2005 we're still mired in such double standards, demeaning to both sexes.

I have to admit to being infatuated with Maureen. I've been reading the NYT op-ed pages for a couple of years now, and one of the primary drivers was to read the fantastic writing that she pours on to the page.

Men are necessary. Being a member of that demographic allows me to believe this with great conviction. I look forward to reading this book and don't believe that Maureen literally questions the future existence of the coarser gender. I envy the man that will one day force her to recant her existential questioning.