Maureen Dowd is a brilliant writer, and I usually enjoy her work, but a couple of things annoy me.

First, she is SO dismissive of mothers and motherhood. In her view, a stay-at-home mother, or maybe any kind of mother (except her own) is nothing but a retro Stepford Wife who's ceding the important work to a he-man hubby. That attitude is just so wrong it's infuriating!!! Motherhood is very, very, very, very hard work, and important, too, because without mothers, how could we have any future generations of humanity?

Second, when I read her musings about Botox and so forth, I really wish she would apply her enormous writing talents elsewhere. Has she ever written anything about the environment and the Bush's slash-and-pillage policies, for example?

My advice to Maureen is to stop her naval-gazing fixation.

Even though I love Ms. Dowd's columns I think she tries too hard to over intellectualize her own hang ups. For god's sake she is a very attractive woman and for the life of me It's hard to believe she can't find someone?Or does she want to?Maybe it's penis envy,or maybe she has a real hard time letting go.Whatever it is, first and foremost, she should stop believing her own bullshit she's not thaaat important.

absolutely nothing, except about dowd's social circle, their narcissistic lives and their environs. chooses to be alone... ha! whines and cavils about it more like.

oft forgotten that the beltway, manhattan and beverly hills are not the sum total of experience in this country.

I don't know Maureen Dowd or Rebecca Traister, but I suspect it is highly unlikely either of them - all protestations aside - have gone more than a month involuntarily celibate. It is easy for a woman to claim that she does not "need" a man but may deign to "want" one when she has the goods to hook a Mr. Right Now whenever she pleases. The same is and has been true for men for centuries. If we could hop into the WayBack Machine and ask, say, Errol Flynn in his prime whether he "needed" women or "wanted" them, I have no doubt what answer we'd get.

The black hole at the center of the modern gender debate, sucking into the void all light and insight, is the unconfronted and elemental truth that men and women DO need one another. Always have, always will. A person (as opposed to a "gender") can stuff their time with as much living as they want, but if there is no candle perpetually burning in a window somewhere in their lives then they are lost and alone. Maureen Dowd knows this, Rebecca Traister knows this, Katie Roiphe knows this, Hugh Hefner knows this, Larry Flynt knows this (BOY, does he know it), everybody knows this.

So why don't we all rub our collective brain cells together and catch a flying clue. Otherwise, we may all wake up one day and find ourselves 80-years-old, in an "assisted living facility", alone. And the folks who work in such places say that those who die the hardest are the ones who are alone, the exception nowadays, but for us? I think it may become the rule.

Actually, I can dismiss both Dowd and Traister as moronic, self-absorbed types who spend far too much time navel-gazing and worrying about people who aren't having sex in New York, the implications that this has to Feminism, and how men just don't get them.

I can't speak to Maureen Dowd's book because I haven't read it, but the review brings up one of the most profound dilemmas of my personal life. I'm a professional woman, I own my own house (a repo purchased in 1997; don't think I'm rich), I have a good life, I'm reasonably attractive by what I think is an objective standard, and I like men. But I can't remember the last time I was asked out on a date. All through my 20s and into my 30s, I looked for "him" with focus but, admittedly, some diffidence. I don't want just any man, I want a man who can match me. Now that I'm 46 and looking at the probability of never finding a man I want to marry or live with or even date for any length of time, I ask myself often: "Is this a serious failure?" And, having become aware in the 60s, when the sexual revolution was new, I sometimes ask, "What the hell happened?" Are men necessary? And if they are, why aren't they making their case? All of which is a long way of saying I agree: this is a conversation worth having and a subject worth fighting over.

Have you seen some the photos attending her publicity blitz? Not half bad looking for an old gal.

Thanks to Duck for noting Traister's description of lesbianism as an "ailment." That's reprehensible language, and it ought not be tolerated.

Ms. Dowd is to be admired for finally getting this/these issues out into the fresh air. I love her and her article in the NYTimes; I even cut it out for my 30 something daughters,60 something friends and clients to talk about. It raises a million good questions and makes fun of all of our inconsistencies. We,women are not one thing,one type nor should we ever have to be or try to be. I remember arguing with another,younger woman, in a 1970's conscious raising group (remember those?)about whether or not women should wear makeup. I say now it doesn't matter a hoot,but what does matter alot is human rights,women's and everyone else's and that's what can't get lost from feminism. Let's not let that get diluted down by all the side issues of taste,clothing,dating,etc.

If Maureen had opened her pool of eligible dates to include the 99.9% of men with less powerful careers than her own, she could have married long ago. But of course, she's much too sexist to ever consider dating a man that doesn't out-earn her.

Her problem isn't that she's too powerful. Her problem is that she refuses to date anyone less powerful than she is. She refuses to "marry down", as most powerful men do, because she's too old-fashioned to be with a man that doesn't make bank. And then SHE has the gall to complain about gender roles???

I'm happily married to a man that makes less than a third what I do. Our marriage is wonderful. Maureen has missed out on love because of her own sexism.