What do you think?
Rate this book
Are Men Necessary?: When Sexes Collide
Outspoken, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd tackles the hot-button topic of gender politics in this "funny, biting, and incisive take on women's place in American society today" (Library Journal).
Are men afraid of smart, successful women? Why did feminism fizzle? Why are so many of today's women freezing their faces and emotions in an orgy of plasticity? Is "having it all" just a cruel hoax?
In this witty and wide-ranging book, Maureen Dowd looks at the state of the sexual union, raising bold questions and examining everything from economics and presidential politics to pop culture and the "why?" of the Y chromosome.
In our ever-changing culture where locker room talk has become the talk of the town, Are Men Necessary? will intrigue Dowd's devoted readers--and anyone trying to sort out the chaos that occurs when sexes collide.
THE INSPIRATION FOR WHITNEY CUMMINGS' FORTHCOMING HBO(R) COMEDY PILOT "A LOT"
Are men afraid of smart, successful women? Why did feminism fizzle? Why are so many of today's women freezing their faces and emotions in an orgy of plasticity? Is "having it all" just a cruel hoax?
In this witty and wide-ranging book, Maureen Dowd looks at the state of the sexual union, raising bold questions and examining everything from economics and presidential politics to pop culture and the "why?" of the Y chromosome.
In our ever-changing culture where locker room talk has become the talk of the town, Are Men Necessary? will intrigue Dowd's devoted readers--and anyone trying to sort out the chaos that occurs when sexes collide.
THE INSPIRATION FOR WHITNEY CUMMINGS' FORTHCOMING HBO(R) COMEDY PILOT "A LOT"
352 pages, Paperback
First published November 8, 2005
About the author
Maureen Dowd
12 books92 followersMaureen Dowd is a Washington D.C.-based columnist for The New York Times. She has worked for the Times since 1983, when she joined as a metropolitan reporter. In 1999, she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her series of columns on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Dowd's columns are distinguished by an acerbic, often polemical writing style. Her columns often display a critical attitude towards powerful figures such as President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, and Pope Benedict XVI.
Dowd's columns are distinguished by an acerbic, often polemical writing style. Her columns often display a critical attitude towards powerful figures such as President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, and Pope Benedict XVI.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 269 reviews
August 18, 2010
So after reading this, I'm no more clear on the Man Question than I was when I started. One thing I did learn is that good editors are necessary. And Maureen Dowd, unfortunately, did not seem to have one.
This book just did not work. I gave it two stars because I did wolf it down quickly, and because the experience of reading it wasn't actually painful. There were definitely parts in here that I enjoyed quite a lot. But the book -- with its stylized, beguiling cover -- was a huge disappointment, and I guess basically felt like a big waste of time. Not just my time, either, but also Ms. Dowd's. I feel like she could've written a much better book, but she needed an editor, someone to help structure things. This wasn't really what I think of when I think of a book, it was more a 338-page stream of consciousness. To her credit, Dowd is reasonably entertaining and does get off a few truly great lines (not for nothing, I did laugh out loud a few times), and I felt like she would be a pretty great person to hang out with. I'd love to shoot the shit with Maureen Dowd, but I would not read another one of her books, unless I was assured that she'd gotten herself together.
I really don't think this book had to be the failure that it was. The biggest problem might be its title, Are Men Necessary? "Wow!" the potential reader thinks. "ARE men necessary? Is she really going to argue here that they're NOT?" See, this is a very provocative title that really makes the book seem like it's going to be ABOUT something, and not just about anything, but a new and controversial idea. There's a part in the book where Dowd's describing the confusion of men in bars who try to pick up women dressed like slutty porn stars, only the women turn out not to be slutty porn stars at all, but nice girls who just dress like that because everyone does now. The men are disappointed and annoyed by the false advertising, and I really do think that this is what's happened here. If I had opened this book not expecting any coherent point or specific argument or pronouncement about gender roles, I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more. If Dowd had packaged it more as just a sampler of her thoughts on various issues somehow related to gender, and then figured out a way to add a little bit of structure, I definitely wouldn't have been so frustrated with it. But thinking I was going to get some biting feminist treatise then being left with a rambling, if sometimes amusing cruise through various battles in the gender wars of the past twenty years was.... well, it was like finding out the girl with the silver miniskirt, no underwear, and visible Brazilian is actually saving herself for marriage, and just wants to hold hands. There's nothing inherently wrong with holding hands, I guess, it's just not where I expected this date was going.
I think this is a good warning about books and covers: your book will be judged by its cover, whether it's on the library shelf or lined up on Friday night at the bar. So if your content doesn't match up, you should get a good editor/put on a longer skirt, or the horny fratboy/gentle reader will be sorely disappointed.
This book just did not work. I gave it two stars because I did wolf it down quickly, and because the experience of reading it wasn't actually painful. There were definitely parts in here that I enjoyed quite a lot. But the book -- with its stylized, beguiling cover -- was a huge disappointment, and I guess basically felt like a big waste of time. Not just my time, either, but also Ms. Dowd's. I feel like she could've written a much better book, but she needed an editor, someone to help structure things. This wasn't really what I think of when I think of a book, it was more a 338-page stream of consciousness. To her credit, Dowd is reasonably entertaining and does get off a few truly great lines (not for nothing, I did laugh out loud a few times), and I felt like she would be a pretty great person to hang out with. I'd love to shoot the shit with Maureen Dowd, but I would not read another one of her books, unless I was assured that she'd gotten herself together.
I really don't think this book had to be the failure that it was. The biggest problem might be its title, Are Men Necessary? "Wow!" the potential reader thinks. "ARE men necessary? Is she really going to argue here that they're NOT?" See, this is a very provocative title that really makes the book seem like it's going to be ABOUT something, and not just about anything, but a new and controversial idea. There's a part in the book where Dowd's describing the confusion of men in bars who try to pick up women dressed like slutty porn stars, only the women turn out not to be slutty porn stars at all, but nice girls who just dress like that because everyone does now. The men are disappointed and annoyed by the false advertising, and I really do think that this is what's happened here. If I had opened this book not expecting any coherent point or specific argument or pronouncement about gender roles, I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more. If Dowd had packaged it more as just a sampler of her thoughts on various issues somehow related to gender, and then figured out a way to add a little bit of structure, I definitely wouldn't have been so frustrated with it. But thinking I was going to get some biting feminist treatise then being left with a rambling, if sometimes amusing cruise through various battles in the gender wars of the past twenty years was.... well, it was like finding out the girl with the silver miniskirt, no underwear, and visible Brazilian is actually saving herself for marriage, and just wants to hold hands. There's nothing inherently wrong with holding hands, I guess, it's just not where I expected this date was going.
I think this is a good warning about books and covers: your book will be judged by its cover, whether it's on the library shelf or lined up on Friday night at the bar. So if your content doesn't match up, you should get a good editor/put on a longer skirt, or the horny fratboy/gentle reader will be sorely disappointed.
December 13, 2007
According to the author, "All men want a virgin in a gingham dress." Really? All men? Unlike Ms. Dowd, I do not feel qualified to speak to the desires of every man on the planet, but, speaking for myself, I can attest to the fact that I have absoutely no...idea what gingham is.
Ms. Dowd's reputation as an intellectual took a pretty big hit after this book was published. And it's easy to see why. The tone of the book is catty and trivial, and it consists of somewhat random and unorganized rants.
The theme of the book (to the extent that there is one) is that boys don't want to date smart girls. Dowd's proof for this assertion is that she has some smart girlfriends who have trouble finding dates. Not exactly strenous sociological research. If we were to apply this type of logical thinking to the dating trouble of my single friends, we would have to come to the rather radical conclusion that all women are lesbians.
This book would be very frustrating and insulting if one were to take it as a serious a discussion of gender in our modern culture. It takes on a whole other feel, however, if you read it as little more than a vehicle for Dowd's attempts at her brand of Dorthy-Parkeresque witticisms. Taken in this light, the book feels less insidious. Sort of like Henny Youngman's jokes about his wife.
I will leave you with this little syllogism:
--Dowd's premise:Intelligent and witty women have trouble getting dates.
--It is widely reported that Maureen Dowd has a long and varied romantic history, and she gets lots of dates.
--Therefore...(fill in the blank)
Ms. Dowd's reputation as an intellectual took a pretty big hit after this book was published. And it's easy to see why. The tone of the book is catty and trivial, and it consists of somewhat random and unorganized rants.
The theme of the book (to the extent that there is one) is that boys don't want to date smart girls. Dowd's proof for this assertion is that she has some smart girlfriends who have trouble finding dates. Not exactly strenous sociological research. If we were to apply this type of logical thinking to the dating trouble of my single friends, we would have to come to the rather radical conclusion that all women are lesbians.
This book would be very frustrating and insulting if one were to take it as a serious a discussion of gender in our modern culture. It takes on a whole other feel, however, if you read it as little more than a vehicle for Dowd's attempts at her brand of Dorthy-Parkeresque witticisms. Taken in this light, the book feels less insidious. Sort of like Henny Youngman's jokes about his wife.
I will leave you with this little syllogism:
--Dowd's premise:Intelligent and witty women have trouble getting dates.
--It is widely reported that Maureen Dowd has a long and varied romantic history, and she gets lots of dates.
--Therefore...(fill in the blank)
August 20, 2008
Maureen Dowd is a narcissitic pseudofeminist who publishes fluff and sells it to the mainstream as "feminism" based on chats she has over coffee with a handful of her ivy-league educated friends. She doesn't do her research and in my opinion her work ultimately contributes to the backlash against American women, undermining the progress of the feminist movement. She ignores the lives of real women in her lame attempts at wit. The only reason to read this book is to "know your enemy."
December 16, 2022
I'm not sure where to start. My thoughts on Are Men Necessary? are about as scattered as its premise. This is a cluster-cuss of politics, Hollywood fashion, evolutionary biology, cosmetic surgery, pop-psychology, pop-culture, and Darwinian anthropology. And it is all laid out in a stream of consciousness interspersed with conversational snippets from dear friends, former colleagues, past acquaintances and Maureen's mom. This has everything to do with Dowd's take on contemporary feminism and very, very little to do with the necessity of men.
Having said that, I did enjoy this book. Dowd is a fantastic, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and reporter with insight, hindsight, foresight and a website. But, no matter how fond I am of her anecdotal style, it is far better suited for magazine articles and newspaper op-editorials than it is for 338 page sociological dissertations.
Having said that, I did enjoy this book. Dowd is a fantastic, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and reporter with insight, hindsight, foresight and a website. But, no matter how fond I am of her anecdotal style, it is far better suited for magazine articles and newspaper op-editorials than it is for 338 page sociological dissertations.
June 5, 2007
What’s not necessary is reading this book. If you want to read a really great book on the current state of women, read Laura Kipnis’s The Female Thing which actually provides a social, economic, political, and psychological analysis of the subject matter. Kipnis is not only a lot smarter than Dowd, she’s a lot funnier too. Don’t waste your time on this book. Dowd doesn’t have the focus and the rigor to write a book. She should stick to writing newspaper columns.
So, what the hell is Dowd trying to say? This is not a rhetorical question. Seriously, what is she trying to say? I don’t think I’ve read a book this bad from someone who knows her way with words and wit and humor fairly well. This book is a compilation of a bunch of disjointed pieces. Some pieces are amusing or informative by themselves, but as a whole this book is one big incoherent and disorderly mess that doesn’t make or prove any case. What is the point of that chapter on TV news anchors, or the Y chromosome, or Lewinsky affair, or any other chapter, and what common thread ties them to each other?
Almost all of this book is either quotes, or just stories from politics, media, and pop culture that Dowd simply recounts. She offers absolutely no analysis of her own – maybe because she really doesn’t have a point to prove. After a while you feel dizzy from all the names that are thrown at you – as if we’re supposed to know all these people. Sorry Maureen, we’re not as well-connected as you. As some other reviewer here said, she totally comes off as trying to show off what a social butterfly she is.
So, what the hell is Dowd trying to say? This is not a rhetorical question. Seriously, what is she trying to say? I don’t think I’ve read a book this bad from someone who knows her way with words and wit and humor fairly well. This book is a compilation of a bunch of disjointed pieces. Some pieces are amusing or informative by themselves, but as a whole this book is one big incoherent and disorderly mess that doesn’t make or prove any case. What is the point of that chapter on TV news anchors, or the Y chromosome, or Lewinsky affair, or any other chapter, and what common thread ties them to each other?
Almost all of this book is either quotes, or just stories from politics, media, and pop culture that Dowd simply recounts. She offers absolutely no analysis of her own – maybe because she really doesn’t have a point to prove. After a while you feel dizzy from all the names that are thrown at you – as if we’re supposed to know all these people. Sorry Maureen, we’re not as well-connected as you. As some other reviewer here said, she totally comes off as trying to show off what a social butterfly she is.
June 4, 2007
Hm. Ok, so you'd see the cover and think this book might ask if men are necessary. You know, a little sisterly solidarity. But what follows is a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pantsuit tour of pop and political history, ending with the more likely conclusion that women are petty, trite, oversexed backdrops to the ongoings of men's lives. Yikes!
When I was done reading about the women in Dowd's book I pretty much despised myself! (I was also left wondering how a NYT columnist gets away with so much silly wordplay and aliteration.) I found it irresistibly irritating after the first few ambitious articles, but let's be honest - the lure of reading an US Weekly-type expose of political happenings was too tempting and I fell. I learned a few things, among them that Dowd loves Clinton (William Jefferson) in that third grade way where you'd taunt someone or be mean to them in an opposite day-ish showing of your childish affections.
I couldn't help but walk away feeling that Dowd was "one of the guys" and she resents it. She resents every single woman who played their cards differently and as a result got something different, and in 350 pages or less she's gonna tell you why. I'm a "one of the guys" type of girl, but seriously, this was more hatorade than even my flask can handle.
But don't get me wrong - for a reason you will never understand, you may find yourself entertained (enlightened?) and you might read it cover to cover too.
When I was done reading about the women in Dowd's book I pretty much despised myself! (I was also left wondering how a NYT columnist gets away with so much silly wordplay and aliteration.) I found it irresistibly irritating after the first few ambitious articles, but let's be honest - the lure of reading an US Weekly-type expose of political happenings was too tempting and I fell. I learned a few things, among them that Dowd loves Clinton (William Jefferson) in that third grade way where you'd taunt someone or be mean to them in an opposite day-ish showing of your childish affections.
I couldn't help but walk away feeling that Dowd was "one of the guys" and she resents it. She resents every single woman who played their cards differently and as a result got something different, and in 350 pages or less she's gonna tell you why. I'm a "one of the guys" type of girl, but seriously, this was more hatorade than even my flask can handle.
But don't get me wrong - for a reason you will never understand, you may find yourself entertained (enlightened?) and you might read it cover to cover too.
July 16, 2008
I learned nothing from this book because it says nothing. Well, nothing else besides how many names she has and what all of her friends and coworkers think about stuff. I'm not sure how the chapters are organized or what the actual point of the book is. It's a ramble, pure and simple. Not only that, it's a ramble that refers only to news articles (without ever citing specific dates or titles) from 2005. She makes her points from movies like Mean Girls (2004) and Million Dollar Baby (2004) with one-line references to characters and scenes. Martha Stewart, whose name comes up a lot, went to jail in 2004. She uses Entourage (2004) to make some points. She refers to science from 2005 (without giving names, universities, or journal titles).
When, might you ask, was this book published? 2005.
I just can't take it. So dating is stressful and men talk about shoe shopping at the office. Comments like that are in sequential paragraphs. I am dropping this book at page 111. What on earth does a designer clothing store in Paris closing before Oprah could finish shopping have to do with Condoleeza Rice? And how on earth were decisions made for breaking this book into chapters? The first chapter is 70 pages long in a 350-page book. The second chapter is 17. Willy-nilly decisions like that just add to difficulty of finding a point.
When, might you ask, was this book published? 2005.
I just can't take it. So dating is stressful and men talk about shoe shopping at the office. Comments like that are in sequential paragraphs. I am dropping this book at page 111. What on earth does a designer clothing store in Paris closing before Oprah could finish shopping have to do with Condoleeza Rice? And how on earth were decisions made for breaking this book into chapters? The first chapter is 70 pages long in a 350-page book. The second chapter is 17. Willy-nilly decisions like that just add to difficulty of finding a point.
Shelved as 'did-not-finish'
December 3, 2018it's time to stop kidding myself: I am not going to read this. The only reason I have this is that a coworker brought it in and loaned it to me and that was over a year ago and she's since left the company and I'm still holding onto her book and feeling very guilty about it all. I am like a recalcitrant child when people foist books upon me unasked - [radio-friendly edit] I won't do what you told me to!! And I just don't like Maureen Dowd so I don't WANT to read her book, even though the subject seems fine and the writing looks perfectly okay, I just ... I have so many OTHER books to read. And yes of course I'm giving my former co-worker her book back, I'm not a monster.
January 23, 2009
I didn't like this book. And not because I believe men are necessary, but because Dowd spends very little of the book actually trying to answer that question. She spends the majority of it analyzing women's (which seems to only encompass white, middle and upper-class, heterosexual women) behavior and pointing out how silly, vain, and idiotic it is. She relies heavily on quotes and musings from her friends, colleagues and socialites (all presumably also white, middle and upper-class, though actually some are "homosexual") have said to her about "the battle of the sexes" to prove that feminism failed and that women are worse off than then were (whatever that means).
Oh, and she also spends pages and pages condemning Hillary Clinton as a woman who single-handedly killed feminism. There is also a serious lack of self-awareness and reflection on Dowd's part as to how books like hers contribute to the culture that discard the efforts and accomplishments of the feminist movements, as well as devalue feminists and women.
Perhaps a more important question is "are critical, divisive women like Dowd necessary?"
Oh, and she also spends pages and pages condemning Hillary Clinton as a woman who single-handedly killed feminism. There is also a serious lack of self-awareness and reflection on Dowd's part as to how books like hers contribute to the culture that discard the efforts and accomplishments of the feminist movements, as well as devalue feminists and women.
Perhaps a more important question is "are critical, divisive women like Dowd necessary?"
March 9, 2008
I stopped reading this book about 100 or so pages in because it is just so badly written. It didn't have anything original to say and was a waste of time.
June 18, 2020
I thought this was a great read. I just reread it after many years.
I met Maureen Dowd when she spoke at UWA in Perth. I enjoyed listening to her speak. She is witty, acerbic, and incisive, as is the content of this book.
Dowd pulls no punches. She calls it as she sees it. I admire that. I don’t like mawkish, sit on the fence type writers. The book title poses the hypothetical question: are men necessary? .I think some harsh critics of the book actually thought Dowd intended to answer the question!
The book follows feminism throughout its history. It explores political and pop culture. At first, Dowd (understandably) writes about men holding women back. She also has a go at women themselves, saying women sometimes hold themselves back by welcoming and living up to stereotypes.
This is a really well written book. It’s written in a wry, tongue in cheek style. When Dowd wrote it, she was the only female opinion columnist for the New York Times. She writes entertainingly about Clinton and Monica, Anita Hill, multi sex crabs, and a lot more.
I would highly recommend this excellent read.
I met Maureen Dowd when she spoke at UWA in Perth. I enjoyed listening to her speak. She is witty, acerbic, and incisive, as is the content of this book.
Dowd pulls no punches. She calls it as she sees it. I admire that. I don’t like mawkish, sit on the fence type writers. The book title poses the hypothetical question: are men necessary? .I think some harsh critics of the book actually thought Dowd intended to answer the question!
The book follows feminism throughout its history. It explores political and pop culture. At first, Dowd (understandably) writes about men holding women back. She also has a go at women themselves, saying women sometimes hold themselves back by welcoming and living up to stereotypes.
This is a really well written book. It’s written in a wry, tongue in cheek style. When Dowd wrote it, she was the only female opinion columnist for the New York Times. She writes entertainingly about Clinton and Monica, Anita Hill, multi sex crabs, and a lot more.
I would highly recommend this excellent read.
November 20, 2007
It wasn't a great book. And the answer is no.
May 31, 2016
Are men necessary? I don't know because Dowd never says one way or the other. What IS necessary is Dowd's mood improvement. Someone needs a nap.
November 27, 2010
When I read about how glib and non-chalant people are about sex, plastic surgery, women's bodies, infidelity, etc. I get a little sad. Are we really this shallow?
I wasn't a huge fan of it overall--but I did find a few quotes I liked.
Quotes from the book:
Little did I realize that the sexual revolution would have the unexpected consequence of intensifying the confusion between the sexes, leaving women in a tangle of dependence and independence as they entered the twenty-first century. The fewer the barriers, the more muddied the waters. It never occurred to me that the more women aped men, in everything from dress to orgasms, the more we would realize how inalienably different the sexes are.
Or, most curious of all, that women would move from playing with Barbie to denouncing Barbie to remaking themselves as Barbie.
Maybe we should have known that the story of women’s progress would be more of a zigzag than a superhighway, that the triumph of feminism would last a nanosecond while the backlash lasted forty years.
(page 8)
Whether or not American feminism will be defeated by American conservatism, it is incontrovertibly true that American feminism was trumped by American narcissism.
(page 11)
Decades after the feminist movement promised an idyllic world of sisterhood and equality with men, it was becoming increasingly apparent that many women would have to brush up on the venerable tricks of the trade. We had all but forgotten how to be charmingly insincere and claw each other’s eyes out for men. As Oscar Wilde noted, “In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.”
(pages 18-19)
A gay friend of mine who lives in Manhattan proffers his Grey Goose (or “Gay Goose,” as he calls them) axioms for dating:
1. Clarity beats ambiguity. If you’re not sure you’re communicating interest, then stop being coy. If you’re not sure how your interest is being received, ask. You could lose whole, vital, pre-hormone-replacement-therapy, pre-Viagra years dithering, wondering and eating Haagen-Dazs.
2. Always err in the direction of sex. Then at least if nothing else turns out well, you’ve had a few minutes—or, if you’re lucky, a few hours—of pleasure. But skip the postcoital cigarette. Smoking causes fine lines around the mouth.
3. If the other person seems hesitant, troubled and tortured but worth it, the other person is hesitant, troubled, tortured and NOT worth it. There are no oxymorons—only morons—in romance.
4. Alcohol is your friend. Something has to do battle with all the guilt and inhibitions from stern parents, scary nuns and Pat Robertson. Might as well be Grey Goose.
(pages 29-30)
Research published in the journal Nature in 2005 revealed that women are genetically more complex than scientists ever imagined, while men remain the simple creatures they appear.
“Alas,” said Duke’s Dr. Willard, a coauthor of the study, “genetically speaking, if you’ve met one man, you’ve met them all. We are, I hate to say it, predictable. You can’t say that about women. Men and women are farther apart than we ever knew. It’s not Mars or Venus. It’s Mars or Venus, Pluto, Jupiter and who knows what other planets?”
Women are not only more different from men than we knew. Women are more different from each other than we knew.
“We poor men only have forty-five chromosomes to do our work with because our forth-sixth is a second ZX that is working at levels greater than we knew,” Dr. Willard said, adding that their discovery may help explain why the behavior and traits of men and women are so different. They may be hardwired in the brain, in addition to being hormonal and cultural.
The researchers learned that a whopping 15 percent—two hundred to three hundred—of the genes on the second X chromosome in women, thought to be submissive and inert, lolling about on an evolutionary Victorian couch, are active, giving women a significant increase in gene expression over men.
As the Times’s Nicholas Wade, who is writing a book about human evolution and genetics, explained it to me: “Women are mosaics, one could even say chimeras, in the sense that they are made up of two different kinds of cell. Whereas men are pure and uncomplicated, being made of just a single kind of cell throughout.”
(pages 150-151)
[Natalie Angier]“Would a man find the prospect of a string of partners so appealing if the following rules were applied: that no matter how much he may like a particular women and be please by her performance and want to sleep with her again, he will have no say in the matter and will be dependent on her mood and good graces for all future contact; that each act of casual sex will cheapen his status and make him increasingly less attractive to other women; and that society will not wink at his randiness but rather sneer at him and think him pathetic, sullied, smaller than life? Until men are subjected to the same severe standards and threat of censure as women are, and until they are given the lower hand in a so-called casual encounter from the start, it is hard to insist with such self-satisfaction that, hey, it’s natural, men like a lot of sex with a lot of people and women don’t.”
She suggests that younger women might be drawn to mature men not, as the evolutionary biologists insist, because the men have more resources, but because they deplete less oxygen than young studs on the rise.
Could it be, she asks, “that an older man is appealing not because he is powerful but because in his maturity he has lost some of his power, has become less marketable and desirable and potentially more grateful and gracious, more likely to make a younger woman feel that there is a balance of power in the relationship? The rude little calculation is simple: He is male, I am female—advantage, man. He is older, I am younger—advantage, woman… Who can breathe in the presence of a handsome young man who ego, if expressed as a vapor, would fill Biopshere 2? Not even, I’m afraid, a beautiful young woman.”
Angier also disputes the assumption that women have a lower sex drive than men. “Yet it is not low enough,” she reasoned. “There is still just enough of a lingering female infidelity impulse that cultures everywhere have had to gird against it by articulating a rigid dichotomy with menacing implications for those who fall on the wrong side of it. There is still enough lingering female infidelity to justify infibulation, purdah, claustration. Men have the naturally higher sex drive, yet all the laws, customs, punishments, shame, strictures, mystiques and antimystiques are aimed with full hominid fury at that tepid, sleepy, hypoactive creature, the female libido.”
(pages 162-164)
Before it curdled into a collection of stereotypes, feminism had fleetingly held out a promise that there would be some precincts of womanly life that were not all about men. But it never quite materialized.
It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman, see me strip. Instead of peaceful havens of girl things and boy things, we have a society where women of all ages are striving to become self-actualized sex kittens…
Females sexuality has been more a zigzag than an arc. We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the Pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered—shock, horror!—that men and women are not alike in their desires, and that you couldn’t squander all your fertility years playing at the sexual fair. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls on Sex and the City had, the grumpier they got.
(pages 175-176)
An unscientific poll of my girlfriends found that they would rather have a pill that could change a man’s personality an hour after sex. A pill that ensures that he always calls the next day and never gets spooked.
A morning-after pill for men.
(page 268)
I wasn't a huge fan of it overall--but I did find a few quotes I liked.
Quotes from the book:
Little did I realize that the sexual revolution would have the unexpected consequence of intensifying the confusion between the sexes, leaving women in a tangle of dependence and independence as they entered the twenty-first century. The fewer the barriers, the more muddied the waters. It never occurred to me that the more women aped men, in everything from dress to orgasms, the more we would realize how inalienably different the sexes are.
Or, most curious of all, that women would move from playing with Barbie to denouncing Barbie to remaking themselves as Barbie.
Maybe we should have known that the story of women’s progress would be more of a zigzag than a superhighway, that the triumph of feminism would last a nanosecond while the backlash lasted forty years.
(page 8)
Whether or not American feminism will be defeated by American conservatism, it is incontrovertibly true that American feminism was trumped by American narcissism.
(page 11)
Decades after the feminist movement promised an idyllic world of sisterhood and equality with men, it was becoming increasingly apparent that many women would have to brush up on the venerable tricks of the trade. We had all but forgotten how to be charmingly insincere and claw each other’s eyes out for men. As Oscar Wilde noted, “In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.”
(pages 18-19)
A gay friend of mine who lives in Manhattan proffers his Grey Goose (or “Gay Goose,” as he calls them) axioms for dating:
1. Clarity beats ambiguity. If you’re not sure you’re communicating interest, then stop being coy. If you’re not sure how your interest is being received, ask. You could lose whole, vital, pre-hormone-replacement-therapy, pre-Viagra years dithering, wondering and eating Haagen-Dazs.
2. Always err in the direction of sex. Then at least if nothing else turns out well, you’ve had a few minutes—or, if you’re lucky, a few hours—of pleasure. But skip the postcoital cigarette. Smoking causes fine lines around the mouth.
3. If the other person seems hesitant, troubled and tortured but worth it, the other person is hesitant, troubled, tortured and NOT worth it. There are no oxymorons—only morons—in romance.
4. Alcohol is your friend. Something has to do battle with all the guilt and inhibitions from stern parents, scary nuns and Pat Robertson. Might as well be Grey Goose.
(pages 29-30)
Research published in the journal Nature in 2005 revealed that women are genetically more complex than scientists ever imagined, while men remain the simple creatures they appear.
“Alas,” said Duke’s Dr. Willard, a coauthor of the study, “genetically speaking, if you’ve met one man, you’ve met them all. We are, I hate to say it, predictable. You can’t say that about women. Men and women are farther apart than we ever knew. It’s not Mars or Venus. It’s Mars or Venus, Pluto, Jupiter and who knows what other planets?”
Women are not only more different from men than we knew. Women are more different from each other than we knew.
“We poor men only have forty-five chromosomes to do our work with because our forth-sixth is a second ZX that is working at levels greater than we knew,” Dr. Willard said, adding that their discovery may help explain why the behavior and traits of men and women are so different. They may be hardwired in the brain, in addition to being hormonal and cultural.
The researchers learned that a whopping 15 percent—two hundred to three hundred—of the genes on the second X chromosome in women, thought to be submissive and inert, lolling about on an evolutionary Victorian couch, are active, giving women a significant increase in gene expression over men.
As the Times’s Nicholas Wade, who is writing a book about human evolution and genetics, explained it to me: “Women are mosaics, one could even say chimeras, in the sense that they are made up of two different kinds of cell. Whereas men are pure and uncomplicated, being made of just a single kind of cell throughout.”
(pages 150-151)
[Natalie Angier]“Would a man find the prospect of a string of partners so appealing if the following rules were applied: that no matter how much he may like a particular women and be please by her performance and want to sleep with her again, he will have no say in the matter and will be dependent on her mood and good graces for all future contact; that each act of casual sex will cheapen his status and make him increasingly less attractive to other women; and that society will not wink at his randiness but rather sneer at him and think him pathetic, sullied, smaller than life? Until men are subjected to the same severe standards and threat of censure as women are, and until they are given the lower hand in a so-called casual encounter from the start, it is hard to insist with such self-satisfaction that, hey, it’s natural, men like a lot of sex with a lot of people and women don’t.”
She suggests that younger women might be drawn to mature men not, as the evolutionary biologists insist, because the men have more resources, but because they deplete less oxygen than young studs on the rise.
Could it be, she asks, “that an older man is appealing not because he is powerful but because in his maturity he has lost some of his power, has become less marketable and desirable and potentially more grateful and gracious, more likely to make a younger woman feel that there is a balance of power in the relationship? The rude little calculation is simple: He is male, I am female—advantage, man. He is older, I am younger—advantage, woman… Who can breathe in the presence of a handsome young man who ego, if expressed as a vapor, would fill Biopshere 2? Not even, I’m afraid, a beautiful young woman.”
Angier also disputes the assumption that women have a lower sex drive than men. “Yet it is not low enough,” she reasoned. “There is still just enough of a lingering female infidelity impulse that cultures everywhere have had to gird against it by articulating a rigid dichotomy with menacing implications for those who fall on the wrong side of it. There is still enough lingering female infidelity to justify infibulation, purdah, claustration. Men have the naturally higher sex drive, yet all the laws, customs, punishments, shame, strictures, mystiques and antimystiques are aimed with full hominid fury at that tepid, sleepy, hypoactive creature, the female libido.”
(pages 162-164)
Before it curdled into a collection of stereotypes, feminism had fleetingly held out a promise that there would be some precincts of womanly life that were not all about men. But it never quite materialized.
It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman, see me strip. Instead of peaceful havens of girl things and boy things, we have a society where women of all ages are striving to become self-actualized sex kittens…
Females sexuality has been more a zigzag than an arc. We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the Pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered—shock, horror!—that men and women are not alike in their desires, and that you couldn’t squander all your fertility years playing at the sexual fair. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls on Sex and the City had, the grumpier they got.
(pages 175-176)
An unscientific poll of my girlfriends found that they would rather have a pill that could change a man’s personality an hour after sex. A pill that ensures that he always calls the next day and never gets spooked.
A morning-after pill for men.
(page 268)
June 11, 2015
So, you know the question isn't even answered in this book, right?
I picked this up on a whim at The Book Thing in Baltimore. The title made me laugh and I thought it might make a decent gag gift of sorts for a feminist friend. Of course, I needed to read the book before I passed it off. Only decent thing to do, isn't it?
I kind of wish I hadn't.
Generally I enjoy sociological tirades, however inflamed they are. I've a decent background in anthropology and I'm no stranger to strife between the sexes being decently examined. It can be interesting to view the more radical beliefs, though too often poor examples are used. It can be interesting to see what other people think, and in turn be made to view things from an alternative perspective. Even though I (foolishly?) believe I'm more open-minded than most I found this book to be ridiculous.
The examples Maureen Dowd set forth to defend her rather shaky slightly non-existent hypothesis seemed to apply more specifically to her own situation than to women in general. She talked about being called a bitch, about men writing to respond to her column more generally than women did, and about her own experiences working in DC. Women in politics and offering political commentary, it seems, are the same as women everywhere else. I can't help but think that area is a bit more specialized and more volatile than others for some reason...
In addition to this her hypothesis was unclear. She seemed at points to believe that women would be better off if men no longer existed - an entirely chapter was devoted to how the Y chromosone will be extinct in 10,000 to 10,000,000 years and how women will then TRULY rule the world - but then also noted how men are feminizing themselves and how that should be viewed as a victory. She bemoaned flirting in the office, but then discussed how it's insulting when men didn't flirt. It was very confusing.
At the end of this book I don't feel I really understand what it was setting out to be. It was just disorganized vitriol pointed at no one in particular.
I picked this up on a whim at The Book Thing in Baltimore. The title made me laugh and I thought it might make a decent gag gift of sorts for a feminist friend. Of course, I needed to read the book before I passed it off. Only decent thing to do, isn't it?
I kind of wish I hadn't.
Generally I enjoy sociological tirades, however inflamed they are. I've a decent background in anthropology and I'm no stranger to strife between the sexes being decently examined. It can be interesting to view the more radical beliefs, though too often poor examples are used. It can be interesting to see what other people think, and in turn be made to view things from an alternative perspective. Even though I (foolishly?) believe I'm more open-minded than most I found this book to be ridiculous.
The examples Maureen Dowd set forth to defend her rather shaky slightly non-existent hypothesis seemed to apply more specifically to her own situation than to women in general. She talked about being called a bitch, about men writing to respond to her column more generally than women did, and about her own experiences working in DC. Women in politics and offering political commentary, it seems, are the same as women everywhere else. I can't help but think that area is a bit more specialized and more volatile than others for some reason...
In addition to this her hypothesis was unclear. She seemed at points to believe that women would be better off if men no longer existed - an entirely chapter was devoted to how the Y chromosone will be extinct in 10,000 to 10,000,000 years and how women will then TRULY rule the world - but then also noted how men are feminizing themselves and how that should be viewed as a victory. She bemoaned flirting in the office, but then discussed how it's insulting when men didn't flirt. It was very confusing.
At the end of this book I don't feel I really understand what it was setting out to be. It was just disorganized vitriol pointed at no one in particular.
November 16, 2008
I normally enjoy reading Maureen Dowd's New York Times columns because she is extremely critical, yet she somehow makes her criticisms entertaining and funny. Dowd seems to hate everyone -- she denounces nearly all politicians, regardless of their political party, age, race, or gender. (Although, she is more harsh to Republicans than Democrats.)
This book was written along the same lines. The title is misleading, as the book does not come close to answering the question "Are men necessary?" Rather, this book traces feminism throughout its history, providing political and pop culture examples. At first, Dowd negatively writes about men holding women back; however, by the end of the book, Dowd has come full circle and blames women for holding themselves back by embracing and living up to stereotypes. As a 22-year-old, I found it interesting to read Dowd's opinions and first-hand experiences with feminism, since she lived through the ages of the 50s housewife and the 1960s when women began to act more masculine and expect equal treatment.
What I found most surprising was Dowd's comments that she was a sensitive person and that she didn't think her columns were any harsher than other NY Times's editorialists' columns. I find them to be the harshest and meanest (although very well-written and fun to read) and I don't understand how she cannot recognize that.
I thought the book ended abruptly and I would have liked to see a conclusion summing things up. Other than that, it was an enjoyable, tongue-in-cheek read.
This book was written along the same lines. The title is misleading, as the book does not come close to answering the question "Are men necessary?" Rather, this book traces feminism throughout its history, providing political and pop culture examples. At first, Dowd negatively writes about men holding women back; however, by the end of the book, Dowd has come full circle and blames women for holding themselves back by embracing and living up to stereotypes. As a 22-year-old, I found it interesting to read Dowd's opinions and first-hand experiences with feminism, since she lived through the ages of the 50s housewife and the 1960s when women began to act more masculine and expect equal treatment.
What I found most surprising was Dowd's comments that she was a sensitive person and that she didn't think her columns were any harsher than other NY Times's editorialists' columns. I find them to be the harshest and meanest (although very well-written and fun to read) and I don't understand how she cannot recognize that.
I thought the book ended abruptly and I would have liked to see a conclusion summing things up. Other than that, it was an enjoyable, tongue-in-cheek read.
November 24, 2008
Putlitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd's New York Times column falls somewhere between journalism and satire. I am addicted to her columns as I am to sour lemon balls. In this book, the 56-year-old, never married Dowd distills the decades of experience she and her friends have racked up in the trenches of the battle of the sexes.
In the introduction, Dowd writes "I don't understand men. . . This book is not . . . a handy little volume of sterling solutions to the American woman's problem. . . I'm as baffled as the next woman."
Dowd draws from experience, academic studies, and even the opinions of some of her men friends. She even reviews the famous Newsweek pronouncement that the chances of a woman over 40 getting married are less that her chances of being killed in a terrorist attack. As promised, she offers no solutions, but her acerbic observations are humorous and interesting. It is an amusing way to waste a weekend, even for a guy. We guys are not used to being thought of as mysterious.
In the introduction, Dowd writes "I don't understand men. . . This book is not . . . a handy little volume of sterling solutions to the American woman's problem. . . I'm as baffled as the next woman."
Dowd draws from experience, academic studies, and even the opinions of some of her men friends. She even reviews the famous Newsweek pronouncement that the chances of a woman over 40 getting married are less that her chances of being killed in a terrorist attack. As promised, she offers no solutions, but her acerbic observations are humorous and interesting. It is an amusing way to waste a weekend, even for a guy. We guys are not used to being thought of as mysterious.
Shelved as 'didnt-finish'
May 26, 2007I'm reading this for my book club but I can only bring myself to skip around and read bits and pieces. She's a very readable and engaging writer, but I can't really deal with the subject matter. I get all angry and depressed.
It seems like her question is more "are women necessary"--men actually don't come off as badly as you might think. Women on the other hand, are either smart and rapacious and unmarriageable and constantly dieting, or dumb and pretty and married to CEOs and spend all their time either at Yogilates class or at Starbucks with their strollers and nannies. Plus all these depressing statistics, like that MORE women are taking their husbands' names when they get married than they were ten years ago. I mean, REALLY?? WHAT?? WHY??? @%@^%^#%*@#$@(!!
You see why I can't read this.
HOWEVER, I think also she's taking the horrific problems of wealthy people in New York and applying them to everyone, as wealthy New Yorkers so often do.
It seems like her question is more "are women necessary"--men actually don't come off as badly as you might think. Women on the other hand, are either smart and rapacious and unmarriageable and constantly dieting, or dumb and pretty and married to CEOs and spend all their time either at Yogilates class or at Starbucks with their strollers and nannies. Plus all these depressing statistics, like that MORE women are taking their husbands' names when they get married than they were ten years ago. I mean, REALLY?? WHAT?? WHY??? @%@^%^#%*@#$@(!!
You see why I can't read this.
HOWEVER, I think also she's taking the horrific problems of wealthy people in New York and applying them to everyone, as wealthy New Yorkers so often do.
June 13, 2021
I got this book as part of my June haul and it's because the title drew me in and let's just say that it's been an interesting look at gender and inequality through the observations,occurrences and insights from Maureen Dowd. This book was published in 2005 and it covers events that happened before and around that time in America and I like that she does not insert her opinion, but rather shares events and quotes by other people in an attempt to answer the question “are men necessary?"
July 27, 2008
I laughed a few times, but it was ridiculously stereotypical and obnoxious.
January 31, 2023
Absolutely fascinating to read now. There are some things in here that are still completely true, there are some things that are extremely 2005, and there are some things that made me wonder if they were appropriate / normal / shocking at the time. I both laughed out loud and said “ew” out loud.
January 15, 2008
I'm rushing through the library, desperately searching for an audio book for my drive from Reno to Portland. It must be shorter than ten hours. Non-fiction preferred, since the driving weather was reported to be sketchy. I didn't want to focus on the road and miss and important character development.
Looking, looking, looking.... nothing, nothing, nothing... wait! What's that cheeky cover with the aloof women? An author implying that women are independent and funky-awesome on their own? A light-hearted update to feminism? I knew it was love.
Maureen Dowd was the only female opinion columnist for the New York Times when she wrote this book, and after years of pondering gender questions, she decided to collect them in this volume. She admits that she's not putting forth a unified analysis of modern gender relations. Thank goodness. Her writing is much more interesting. She talks about the weakness of the y chromosome, Bill and Monica, Anita Hill, over-sexed Bonobo monkeys, multi-sex crabs, and much more. Her wry tone and earnest bewilderment over how the bra-burning betties of the 70's became today's hottie Starbucks moms is endearing.
Also, although I'm not in this position right now, I think this would a great post-break-up book --it puts that whole messy, confusing, sometimes cruel, but always scintilating male gender in its place.
Looking, looking, looking.... nothing, nothing, nothing... wait! What's that cheeky cover with the aloof women? An author implying that women are independent and funky-awesome on their own? A light-hearted update to feminism? I knew it was love.
Maureen Dowd was the only female opinion columnist for the New York Times when she wrote this book, and after years of pondering gender questions, she decided to collect them in this volume. She admits that she's not putting forth a unified analysis of modern gender relations. Thank goodness. Her writing is much more interesting. She talks about the weakness of the y chromosome, Bill and Monica, Anita Hill, over-sexed Bonobo monkeys, multi-sex crabs, and much more. Her wry tone and earnest bewilderment over how the bra-burning betties of the 70's became today's hottie Starbucks moms is endearing.
Also, although I'm not in this position right now, I think this would a great post-break-up book --it puts that whole messy, confusing, sometimes cruel, but always scintilating male gender in its place.
July 14, 2011
To say I'm finished reading this does not mean I actually finished reading the pages. It means I can only stand to read so much crap before I loose my mind. If there were a way to not give it any stars that would be my rating. The first few chapters I felt like I could related to. I'm not ashamed to say that I am one of the confident and independent women she is talking about in the beginning. I'm sad to say that her opinion regarding how this confidence is one of the main reasons men stay away from me made me a little depressed. I refuse to debase myself and dress like a teenage hooker to capture a man's eye and yet here she is writing how that seems to be the only way to get a guy. Needless to say I went from depressed (when I thought she might be on to something) to totally annoyed (when I realized she's no better then the chest pumping GTL idiots that troll the bar looking for a quick hook up) in less pages then the most recent edition of Cosmo. (And that was only the first 2 chapters) I kept reading thinking maybe she was just making a mockery of society but the next few chapters made no sense at all. I couldn't understand what point, if any, she was trying to make. This book doesn't answer "Are Men Necessary". Frankly, I don't think it answered any question. Rather it made me ask myself; "How does she write for the Times?". Sorry, but this book is more a smack in the face than anything else. Don't waste your time.
June 7, 2015
I should be smack-dab in the middle of MoDo's target audience, front row in her choir - yet I found myself strangely unmoved by this book.
It's all about the problems of gender politics these days with none of the solutions. Dowd suggests, perhaps not incorrectly, that feminism is not just failing to make progress, it's actually moving backwards. The thought makes me angry and sad but Dowd also makes me feel helpless.
On a technical front, I think she needed a few more rounds with an editor. The book was unfocused, rambling all over the place. Time and again, Dowd goes for the easy one-liner rather than reaching for some deeper insight. Maybe long form is just not her medium.
She does end with what I thought was the most interesting chapter: a discussion of Hillary's future, and her legacy. Dowd posits: "Without Monica Lewinsky, we might well have had President Gore but no Senator Clinton."
I dunno - are two terms of Obama and potentially two terms of Hillary worth the misery that was two terms of W? I guess it depends on what happens next year. Can't wait to see it unfold.
It's all about the problems of gender politics these days with none of the solutions. Dowd suggests, perhaps not incorrectly, that feminism is not just failing to make progress, it's actually moving backwards. The thought makes me angry and sad but Dowd also makes me feel helpless.
On a technical front, I think she needed a few more rounds with an editor. The book was unfocused, rambling all over the place. Time and again, Dowd goes for the easy one-liner rather than reaching for some deeper insight. Maybe long form is just not her medium.
She does end with what I thought was the most interesting chapter: a discussion of Hillary's future, and her legacy. Dowd posits: "Without Monica Lewinsky, we might well have had President Gore but no Senator Clinton."
I dunno - are two terms of Obama and potentially two terms of Hillary worth the misery that was two terms of W? I guess it depends on what happens next year. Can't wait to see it unfold.
October 1, 2008
Despite its delightful title, Maureen Dowd's Are Men Necessary? turned out to be pretty disappointing, mainly because of the author's decision to silently frame all of her arguments from the position of a universal female perspective (read white, wealthy, educated, Western). And unlike Laura Kipnis, another liberal white American woman who writes about sex, gender, and love, Dowd doesn't show a hint of owning up to her position vis a vis class, race, privilege, etc. I've long suspected this, but she just ends up on the wrong side of the fence most of the time for me. And by wrong side of the fence I mean the uncritical side.
December 28, 2022
Since the last book I’d read turned out to be a disappointing yawner, I decided my next book was going to be fun and not-so-serious. Enter “Are Men Necessary?, by Maureen Dowd. Browsing through bookshelves at the Arlington Library Booksale, the cover drew my attention.
I bought the book months ago, but just started reading in a few weeks ago. I have to say, and it’s no big surprise, that I really liked this book! You might expect this book to be all man-hating, talking about a utopic world in which only women exist. Don’t worry, I know some people in real life who pretty much just talk this way, and it’s nauseating. But Dowd’s book was not about man-hating.
In this book, she talks about some (many) of ways men in power have been incompetent. Keep in mind this book was published seven years ago, so it’s primarily about the Clinton and Bush (Jr.) eras. She also discusses the strides that female politicians have taken. Dowd cites both Hillary Clinton (yay!!) and Condoleeza Rice as examples of strong, powerful women in politics.
There’s a more-scientific section of the book that delves into the Y chromosome, and that it’s shrinking. Shrinking! The X chromosome, however, is just getting stronger, as scientists agree that it is the more complex, dominant of the two. But Dowd also talks about a world of just women, and cites the bonobo society, in which the females rule. Bonobos are known to be very peaceful, and almost all matters are handled through sex. Lots and lots of sex. Since the females are in power, they decide when and where. It’s on their terms, with the males reduced to mere sperm-producers. Lest you think this kind of society would be ideal for the global human population, it wouldn’t. It doesn’t matter which gender is on top- the stronger of that gender will assert their will over the weaker members. Women are subject to infighting, too. So the ideal is actually to have harmony between the sexes. But it’s not always easy to achieve that, because….
of things like Botox. Botulism neurotoxin. Why, why, WHY would anyone voluntarily put that in their body???? Dowd talks about how the demand for Botox and cosmetic surgery procedures have skyrocketed in recent years, mainly from women, but men make up a good market as well. It seemed like a large portion of the book was about this, the crazy things that women do to themselves to appear more “beautiful” for men.
Obviously, I am not Botox-ed. Just take a look at any recent photo of mine and you’ll see smile lines/crow’s feet around my eyes. That’s not all, though. But I know that as long as I stay conscientious about eating healthily and exercising, wrinkles/sagging skin are not going to be a problem. It’s disappointing how prevalent Botox, liposuction, breast implants, and whatever other cosmetic procedures have become. I often wonder how many of the people I know have done something like this, purely for vanity’s sake. And I wonder if these people, having had some kind of procedure done, would admit to it or insist on pretending that their altered appearance is natural.
I really don’t know. There are people I suspect of being Botox-ed, but it’s not really something I feel comfortable asking. “Hey, I noticed your face looks really plastic-y and your face doesn’t crinkle when you smile! (And that’s a very creepy Barbie look.) You must use Botox, right?”
But, reading what Dowd has to say, I’m increasingly amazed and disgusted by what people (women, mostly, of course) do in the name of beauty. Instead of investing some time and effort to exercise and eat better, or instead of accepting that we all age, and that we can age gracefully, let’s instead makes ourselves (or at least our faces) look 21 forever. Forever 21. Ha. That reminds me: I went to a Forever 21 about a year ago to buy some non-leather belts. Standing in line for checkout, there are two older women in front on me. Asian, maybe Korean, at least in their 40s, but both wearing short, tight, slutty-looking dresses and accessories. I was embarrassed for them. And then they’re buying clothes at a store called Forever 21. Perpetuating their so-called youth. Ugh. Well, you could argue that I’m doing the same thing, since I was there, too, but I was buying belts. Not to make my waist look sexy, but to keep my pants up and snugly around my waist.
But you know, this- Botox, lipo, breast implants- wouldn’t be so in-demand if men didn’t crave those kinds of looks from women. It seems that most men want the Barbie-figured woman who won’t challenge them intellectually, rather than an okay-looking woman who’s analytical, scientific, and strongly-opinioned. That reminds me of something a male colleague recently said to me: “You have the strongest opinions of anyone I know.” To me, that was a HUGE compliment, but I think he was actually intimating that a woman having strong opinions is a turn-off, and that that’s what makes me, personally, so unapproachable, unlikeable.
Maybe he’s right, and maybe that’s how men really think, but why would I ever change myself for someone else?
Back to the book. Dowd provides a provocative title, but the question is never really answered. I mean, how can it really be answered?? It’s like asking, “Does God exist?” It’s really up to each of us to decide if we really find value in men, or how we define the concept of God. Surprisingly enough, I’d have to say that, yes, men are necessary, but not so we can perpetuate a society of dominant, aggressive males/submissive, inferior females.
I bought the book months ago, but just started reading in a few weeks ago. I have to say, and it’s no big surprise, that I really liked this book! You might expect this book to be all man-hating, talking about a utopic world in which only women exist. Don’t worry, I know some people in real life who pretty much just talk this way, and it’s nauseating. But Dowd’s book was not about man-hating.
In this book, she talks about some (many) of ways men in power have been incompetent. Keep in mind this book was published seven years ago, so it’s primarily about the Clinton and Bush (Jr.) eras. She also discusses the strides that female politicians have taken. Dowd cites both Hillary Clinton (yay!!) and Condoleeza Rice as examples of strong, powerful women in politics.
There’s a more-scientific section of the book that delves into the Y chromosome, and that it’s shrinking. Shrinking! The X chromosome, however, is just getting stronger, as scientists agree that it is the more complex, dominant of the two. But Dowd also talks about a world of just women, and cites the bonobo society, in which the females rule. Bonobos are known to be very peaceful, and almost all matters are handled through sex. Lots and lots of sex. Since the females are in power, they decide when and where. It’s on their terms, with the males reduced to mere sperm-producers. Lest you think this kind of society would be ideal for the global human population, it wouldn’t. It doesn’t matter which gender is on top- the stronger of that gender will assert their will over the weaker members. Women are subject to infighting, too. So the ideal is actually to have harmony between the sexes. But it’s not always easy to achieve that, because….
of things like Botox. Botulism neurotoxin. Why, why, WHY would anyone voluntarily put that in their body???? Dowd talks about how the demand for Botox and cosmetic surgery procedures have skyrocketed in recent years, mainly from women, but men make up a good market as well. It seemed like a large portion of the book was about this, the crazy things that women do to themselves to appear more “beautiful” for men.
Obviously, I am not Botox-ed. Just take a look at any recent photo of mine and you’ll see smile lines/crow’s feet around my eyes. That’s not all, though. But I know that as long as I stay conscientious about eating healthily and exercising, wrinkles/sagging skin are not going to be a problem. It’s disappointing how prevalent Botox, liposuction, breast implants, and whatever other cosmetic procedures have become. I often wonder how many of the people I know have done something like this, purely for vanity’s sake. And I wonder if these people, having had some kind of procedure done, would admit to it or insist on pretending that their altered appearance is natural.
I really don’t know. There are people I suspect of being Botox-ed, but it’s not really something I feel comfortable asking. “Hey, I noticed your face looks really plastic-y and your face doesn’t crinkle when you smile! (And that’s a very creepy Barbie look.) You must use Botox, right?”
But, reading what Dowd has to say, I’m increasingly amazed and disgusted by what people (women, mostly, of course) do in the name of beauty. Instead of investing some time and effort to exercise and eat better, or instead of accepting that we all age, and that we can age gracefully, let’s instead makes ourselves (or at least our faces) look 21 forever. Forever 21. Ha. That reminds me: I went to a Forever 21 about a year ago to buy some non-leather belts. Standing in line for checkout, there are two older women in front on me. Asian, maybe Korean, at least in their 40s, but both wearing short, tight, slutty-looking dresses and accessories. I was embarrassed for them. And then they’re buying clothes at a store called Forever 21. Perpetuating their so-called youth. Ugh. Well, you could argue that I’m doing the same thing, since I was there, too, but I was buying belts. Not to make my waist look sexy, but to keep my pants up and snugly around my waist.
But you know, this- Botox, lipo, breast implants- wouldn’t be so in-demand if men didn’t crave those kinds of looks from women. It seems that most men want the Barbie-figured woman who won’t challenge them intellectually, rather than an okay-looking woman who’s analytical, scientific, and strongly-opinioned. That reminds me of something a male colleague recently said to me: “You have the strongest opinions of anyone I know.” To me, that was a HUGE compliment, but I think he was actually intimating that a woman having strong opinions is a turn-off, and that that’s what makes me, personally, so unapproachable, unlikeable.
Maybe he’s right, and maybe that’s how men really think, but why would I ever change myself for someone else?
Back to the book. Dowd provides a provocative title, but the question is never really answered. I mean, how can it really be answered?? It’s like asking, “Does God exist?” It’s really up to each of us to decide if we really find value in men, or how we define the concept of God. Surprisingly enough, I’d have to say that, yes, men are necessary, but not so we can perpetuate a society of dominant, aggressive males/submissive, inferior females.
October 26, 2007
I thought I shared Dowd's politics, but basically, I don't think she has any. Certainly she appears to have no substantive argument to support her claims. The book is choppy, makes no sense, and I would put her in the same category as Anne Coulter--a pundit without a portfolio.
September 8, 2007
amateurish
December 19, 2008
This has an incredibly abrupt ending, which kind of retroactively lessened my enjoyment of the book.
November 7, 2011
A superficial look at how feminism has changed since the 1970s that changes topics like someone flipping through TV channels with a remote.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 269 reviews