Letters to the Editor
-
Nice guys finish last
This is the female equivalent of they whiny male "nice guys finish last" syndrome. Most of the men who complain that nice guys finish last have problems that have nothing to do with being nice. There is a large group of males in the US that honestly believe nice guys cannot get women. In reality there is a large group of males that turn people off by complaining, being doormats and trying way too hard to please people. (Among other reasons) But nice guys finish last sounds better than whiny emasculated dorks finish last. (That one isn't much of a rallying cry)
Smart, successful women finish last in love sounds nice. Annoying, ego-centric blowhards finish last in love doesn't have the same ring to it.
It's too bad there is no dialog around these Salon articles. I see King over in sports actually responding to letters on a regular basis. When there is no interaction this just turns into another week, another random complaint about how men are listless, bad partners, intimidated by women, etc etc. I don't think these pieces can really stand up to criticism, and there is never a real effort to defend them. Just throw out the anecdotes and accusations then move on. A number of people have raised a number of good points, such as the observation that men "marry down" and women tend not to. Of course those points are ignored and in another couple of weeks we will be treated to another men are toads piece.
It is quite possible that men really are intimidated by successful women. Simply stating "look at me, I'm successful and I can't get married" doesn't do much for that argument though. I could do with a lot less "here is what I think" and a lot more "and here is some supporting evidence."
-
Luv ya Mo
I don't care what that much of what she says is for effect, or to make us laugh - what's wrong with that? Not every observation can be trenchant or even coherent when you are writing social/political commentary twice a week. I think she got it exactly right on the father-son aspect of this prez, whom she most certainly has not exempted from her scorn.
-
Really?
I think she got it exactly right on the father-son aspect of this prez, whom she most certainly has not exempted from her scorn.
Really?
November 5, 2005 she said Cheney, Rumsfeld and Feith "lured W. into war".
November 2, 2005 she said that what was "confounding" about W's presidency was his "willingness to consider that anyone who ever worked for him - and was in any way responsible for any of the disasters now afflicting his administration - should be jettisoned" and that someone should tell Laura Bush "how to step in and fire overweening officials who are hurting your man."
She also said it was "Cheney's chain of command."
October 29, 2005 she said, "W. was listening to a surrogate father [Cheney] he shouldn't have been listening to, and not listening to his real father, who deserved to be listened to."
October 26, 2005 she said, "If W. wants to show people now where the White House has been dishonored in far more astounding and deadly ways, he'll have to haul them around every nook and cranny of his vice president's office, then go across the river for a walk of shame through the Rummy empire at the Pentagon." And: "Cheney and Rummy, the two old compadres from the Nixon and Ford days, in a cabal running the country and the world into the ground, driven by their poisonous obsession with Iraq, while Junior is out of the loop, playing in the gym or on his mountain bike." And: "...all sulfurous strands lead back to the man W. aptly nicknamed Vice."
October 19, 2005 she does, in fact, overtly criticize W--but only as the flip-side of nailing the guys behind him who are "really in control": "With Karl Rove on grand jury watch and Dick Cheney snugly tucked into his underground bunker, W. and Andy Card are in control, and the West Wing ineptitude is comic."
Sure, she zings W; but always frames his sin as administrative, or at worst a sort of childishness, while the blame for the acts of his government goes to others. Show me where she puts W himself on the hook for the actions of his administration--or even for his own words, which he KNOWS are false--from the campaign of 2000 right up to his claim this week that "we don't torture". For god's sake, the logs of CIA planes flying prisoners to states that torture were on a different page of the paper she writes for THE DAY HE SAID THAT--but she doesn't seem to notice. He's just a child that trusts too much.
She spares him any REAL judgement--all the time. She's interested in the truth as long as it doesn't compromise her social life. She's working towards the "it'll all be ok if W cleans house" angle--you just watch.
Frankly you can't believe a thing Dowd says anymore; which is probably why she can't find "someone special".
-
typo
Obviously the line below should have been W's "UNwillingness to consider that anyone who ever worked for him - and was in any way responsible for any of the disasters now afflicting his administration - should be jettisoned"
-
The Phenomenon of the Smart, Successful, Single Woman
I thoroughly enjoyed Rebecca Traister's take on Maureen Dowd's book, and it is insightful pieces like this that make Salon a great publication. I must say I was utterly surprised - and at times appalled - to read so many vitriolic responses to a piece that portrayed a real social phenomenon from a balanced perspective. Although I haven't read Dowd's book - as it appears few posters have - Traister's article focused on one uncontroversial question: can a woman lead a fulfilling life without a man? The answer from both Dowd and Traister - yes . . . and no - is equally uncontroversial. Yet Traister's article has drawn a barrage of criticism from men and women alike ripping on the two women as selfish, internally flawed, and even suffering from "penis-envy" - an indication that women might not have come as far as we'd like to think.
As much as her critics would like to dismiss her, the phenomenon of the smart, successful and single woman is not unique to Dowd's experience. As she points out in one of her columns, studies have shown that a woman is 40% less likely to get married with every 16 point increase in her I.Q., while a man is 35% more likely to get married with the same 16 point increase. Many women, including Dowd, have blamed this dynamic on men: men are intimidated by smart women and therefore would rather marry their secretaries, leaving lots of smart, successful women home alone. Dowd's critics blame her: if she weren't so demanding and critical she would be happily married. Perhaps. But I know far too many women - and men - who were not so demanding of their mates and are very UNhappily married.
I'm sure that part of Dowd's "problem" is that she is looking not just for any husband, but for her intellectual equal, and she isn't willing to settle. But why is that so wrong? The phenomenon of the smart, successful and single woman is only perplexing in contrast to her male counterparts, many of whom seem perfectly happy to marry a pretty face regardless of whether she can hold an intelligent conversation.
What is really intriguing about Dowd is that she has NOT married, in spite of an abundance of suitors, while many in her situation would have gone through not one, but several, husbands. As cynical as Dowd is, this suggests that she actually retains a somewhat innocent belief in true love - even if it's something she might not ever experience. So in contrast to the disappointing Sex-in-the-City ending with the smart, attractive Carrie Bradshaw running into the arms of her unimpressive ex-boyfriend, Dowd is the strong, attractive woman who decided that she's better off going it alone than to settle for Mr. Not-Quite-Right. Whether you agree or disagree, it is a feeling that clearly resonates with many of today's smart, single women.