I hate this book without having read it because it gave our local paper the opportunity to print, with a large eye-catching picture, another typical Kathleen Parker "feminism is the root of all evil in modern society/feminists hate men" article. Like Dowd, Parker's articles are so illogical and all over the place that a rebuttle is almost impossible (and who has the time).

When I read anti-feminist tracks like Dowd's (she may not think they are anti-feminist but if that is what 95% of the readers conclude, well, its a duck) it makes me so weary. Much of feminism never made it out of the gate. It has been trumped by the greed of the 80's, and the religious fundamentalism of the 90's and the complete, dispicable dumbing down of the 2000's.

Maybe it's my obliviousness but I've never noticed men noodling about the supposed war between the sexes (James Thurber aside). These talented women could get a lot more done if they dropped the whole subject.

It's true - I know men and women who choose to live their lives alone - that they happen to be the most unhappy people I know is anecdotal, but whatever - they survive just fine. And if the white elite feminists choose to play the game alone, more power to them: white guys are now looking to European, Latino, African and Asian females for company - bypassing those content but lonely white elite feminists, because, let's face it, they are unhappy and humorless, more concerned with counting how many women are represented on certain mastheads, more concerned with teeshirt slogans, more concerned with eviscerating their sons, brothers and fathers and less concerned with the intimacies that make us human.

One of the great things about our multicultural society is the choice of women - and white American chicks need not apply. It's not that men don't need women - we just don't need the fucked up ones who write for Salon or the NY Times. My European wife is educated, cultured, professional - a vicious dealmaker when it come to buying ad space or negotiating for a client (or for our family), but she knows how to be a woman when she comes home at night and she would laugh at the notion that men and women don't need each other - she knows better, as do I (and I do all the cooking and a fair share of the cleaning).

Dowd has clearly touched a nerve. And you only touch a nerve by telling a truth.

This statement is equally facile and specious, regardless of the rest of the article. Lies and misjudgments touch nerves every day. To gauge the validity of a statement by the reactions effected is a silly ploy.

Nearly equally inane is the love/hate dichotomy, which is nearly always presented by writers who clearly love their subjects and wish to spin even their detractors' opinions into a positive example.

What a great examination of a fascinating subject this article is! It got me thinking about the very nature of the relationships between the sexes, and how they may be changing forever.

Just kidding--trolling for an "Editor's Choice".

Rebecca Traister reviewing Maureen Dowd is like Harriet Miers reviewing George W. Bush.

Whatever! Can we let go already of this relationship war and get on with our lives? There will always be love, regardless of your professional stance. In the olden days, before women were allowed into the workforce, there were also unhappy couples and old maidens. It seems that Maureen is confusing two different issues. No, women do not need men to survive in this world. But, please, women and men will continue to fall in love, form families, have kids, etc.

Newsflash, guys: Mega-millionaires like Donald Trump can serially marry women who are his daughter's age without paying the social price amongst his peers he would were he Don the auto mechanic down the street. He'd just be Joey Buttafuoco with worse hair. Howard Stern can get away with the troglodyte-like behavior which would get him sued in just about any workplace. Is Maureen Dowd necessary? Only if we think it's necessary to have a window into what the sex roles of one of the world's wealthiest socialites. Only the extremely media-tropic, to borrow a phrase, think that Ms. Dowd's experience can inform any of us who work for a living. Most of us couples down here in the bottom 99% are made up of working men and women who don't spend much time philosophizing on gender roles in the post-feminist era. Who thinks about these things? Oh, yeah, that's right -- Ms. Dowd. So is she necessary? I suppose she's a necessary answer to the question, "what kind of things would I think about if I had nothing to do all day?" Ms. Dowd is about as relevant to the average American experience as Pamela Anderson is. She's barely even real.

After reading the article, I knew that I was not interested in reading the book. Dowd's take on the issue is seemingly broad but in fact I find it the narrowest kind of perspective. She is obviously a provocateur and her observations are valid. However, you only need a little intelligence and curiosity to take time to see what's wrong with the world and to notice people's shortcomings and weaknesses. I believe that Dowd is asking the wrong question, a question that will not provide answers that can meaningfully alter people's lives in our culture. "Are men necessary?"-who cares. These are personal desires and choices, and her perspective is only addressing symptoms of a society with core issues that will not separate us into men and women, or movements etc. We all want to love and to be loved. Dowd's attitude feels defiant, which tells me she is on the defense and out to win. Men are just as much of victims than women, although in a different sense. Taking inventory of what lies deep within us -our motivations based on fears, unconscious patterns, social conditioning, oversized egos- will allow us to understand others and how we got into this mess together. We're not all that different but it takes a lot more courage to see ourselves clearly than to be making clever observations of others.