Maureen Dowd is one hot chick

I actually don't enjoy Maureen Dowd's columns much.  She is annoyingly obtuse and overstated at the same time; a bit like comedians that make a joke where the punchline is so obvious you wonder if you actually missed something.

Her article in this week's New York Times Magazine is a bit of a personal essay, I suppose, about the difficulties of being a woman in today's age.  According to Katie Roiphe in Slate, Dowd complains that the world hasn't gotten any better for accomplished women, that men still prefer the subservient type.

Rophie points out that plenty of men seem to find Dowd pretty attractive.  I saw her on the Daily Show and thought she was enchanting and much funnier in real life than in her columns.  But she's complaining that this "how to get and hold a man" thing still seems to be working.  So my question is:   

Working on whom?  I mean, it's not as if men are a homogenous species that is entirely predictable.  I just don't understand why Dowd would be interested in a man who really wanted a coy, subservient, girl in a gingham dress. 

The most common caricature of men is that they only want one thing.  And men tend to paint women with the same broad brush: they only thing they want is to get married, with all that entails.  I could probably be forgiven for questioning Dowd's premise here.  If what she wants out of life is companionship, there are plenty of men who would hang out with her; if she wants to be intellectually challenged, perhaps a little tougher but there are smart men within a mile's radius of her office (a radius within which I am currently sitting); if she wants sex, I'm sure she'll find someone who might make the sacrifice.

Is she bothered by being "single?"  She of all people should be able to parse that - what elements is she looking for in ending that status? 

There are women out there who were married, stay-at-home moms who had to deal with husbands who were physically and emotionally unavailable, and who took the gender roles for granted.  They dumped these husbands in the name of liberation, and were then felt put upon by having to make a living for themselves, juggle conflicting demands, all of a sudden having more things to worry about than what they were used to.  They took it for granted they'd get custody of the kids - they were the moms, after all - then complained about the hardship of working and being a good mom.

I simply can't imagine that any part of this is the life Dowd is pining for. 

Maybe she's asking this question not on behalf of herself, but on behalf of "modern girls" in general - the generation that is brought up to believe in equality but find that they aren't attractive to men unless they draw a sharp distinction between the genders, placing themselves in the 50s role Dowd keeps talking about.  But the question still pertains: why would women want men with such archaic values? Or maybe rather: what makes (some) women believe they are entitled to the best of both worlds?

Comments

[Reader]

Here's a refreshing look at Maureen Dowds essay: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Dowd.shtml

[S]

Because it's sexy, Leif. Because it's sexy.

[viagra online]

this kind of topic lends itself to a good review, because when it comes to hot things can be interpreted in many ways, sometimes comic, sometimes seriously, in order to thank them for sharing the information!

[viagra online]

Everything matters! That's a perfect phrase for the reality I tried to get at: "mattering" (alias meaning) somehow winning out even when things seem random. Or when they grow out of mistakes (or out of some small, distant move or misstep). I just want to emphasize the good work on this blog, has excellent views and a clear vision of what you are looking for