posted
That was a very cool article, not that I agree with all of it, but it points out some things I have noticed from over here on the male side of things. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting article. However, yes we are necessary. Without men the women would have no one to nag at.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, how does the title, "Are men necessary?" relate to the article? 'Cause I'm not seeing it. The article is mostly about the feminist movement and how today's women, in Dowd's opinion, seem to either be complacent with the status quo or willing to backtrack. There's nothing about men being unnecessary.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Articles like this really get under my skin. I'm the face of the problem to the authors - I went to an Ivy League school and now I'm a stay-at-home mom. I resent the implication, and sometimes outright assertion, that I am wasting my education. To me, feminism is about choices and I chose to be a wife and mother.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: Ok, how does the title, "Are men necessary?" relate to the article? 'Cause I'm not seeing it. The article is mostly about the feminist movement and how today's women, in Dowd's opinion, seem to either be complacent with the status quo or willing to backtrack. There's nothing about men being unnecessary.
The article seems to be taken from a book that will be published soon.
the following quote appears near the bottom of the page:
quote: Maureen Dowd is a columnist for The New York Times. This essay is adapted from "Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide," to be published next month by G.P. Putnam's Sons.
posted
I'm with you Mrs. M - that attitude drives me crazy too.
We should be celebrating the fact that bright, educated women are able to make choices that they want to instead of saying they're "wasting themselves."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to interrupt the light-hearted banter here, but I thought she made several good points, especially about the lack of satistfaction that women are getting using feminist movement progress to attempt to match their sex drive to that of the stereotypical male. I've also noticed, and commented to my wife about this backward trend, noting that women are again seeking to advance their status (both in the bedroom or professionally) using their sexuality.
However, as a backward, chauvinist male I fail to share the authors alarm about women that get an education and then choose to be a mother and a wife. To me, the title Mrs. Mindless Automaton Robotic Whatever is a great disservce to these women and indicates an incredible lack of respect for women in any walk of life.
As a man, I also think that the greatest measure of success in my life will be the nature of the relationship I have with my wife and future children--not power gained in the boardroom, not sexual conquests of younger women, and not the amount of money or possesions I have accumulated. I know many women who feel the same. In that respect, I think men and women are more similar than many give them credit for.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard a story about this on NPR, and I was wondering how long it would take to make it here. For the record, in the NPR interview I heard, she was primarily focusing on how men (in general, note, not all men) seem to be turning towards looking for women who "revolve" around them, tending away from strong women who are less in "awe" of their men (words in quotes taken from interview). She mentioned Woody Allen and Soon-yi (sp?), along with a few other cases of older men marrying younger, inexperienced women whose lives became completely focused on their husbands.
I freely admit to not having read any of the links posted in this thread all the way through. From the responses, it seems like the article and the NPR story I heard don't have a whole lot to do with one another. I do believe that women (and men!) should be able to choose to not work outside the home, if it is at all possible. I do not believe that women should be looked down upon for EITHER choice (that is, to have a career outside the home, or not).
And, I find the idea of a man looking for a woman to be in awe of him and to revolve around him to be pretty...repulsive. If that's what you want, get a personal assistant or a servant.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend was talking about this the other day. She said women had lost their feminity.
My reaction to that is "hogwash". Women today have more of a choice. They can be whatever they percieve as femininine or they can go their own way (which usually means into what is percieved as masculine).
I never thought of myself as a feminist, but the more I read about this kind of thing the more I reject it. I was brought up by a stay at home mother who before she had children worked in the then completely male field of Traffic Control. I loved that she stayed at home for us, and if possible I will do that for my hypothetical children, but sometimes I wonder- she's a really, really smart and efficient person. What could she have been?
I'm not suggesting that she somehow made the wrong choice, only that she did make a choice, and I wonder what the outcome of the other choice could have been, if there had been another choice (perhaps she always wanted children and the job was just an aside?).
There will always be a conflict between the choice of staying at home and bringing up children who thank you for staying at home, and going off to work and pursuing the "masculine"-style greatness. It's the duel dream: you dream one day of a family and the next of being prime minister. It's so hard for a woman to have both unless she plans in a particularly sneaky way and has children in between degrees and marries someone who's willing to bring up the kids and play what is traditionally the feminine "supporter" role.
As to the answer of Are Men Really Necessary? Let's just say that there's a reason I don't live in the all girl residence.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, the article seemed to me to be an iteration of the old "Why do hot girls/guys only go for hot guys/girls?" except in this case it's "Why do dominating men prefer submissive women?"
I think the air of "And this is all men's fault." is unjustified. Dowd makes no bones that the subset of women she is talking about are going for a subset of men (although she doesn't seem to acknowledge that she is only talking about subsets and not all men and women). Men, we are told, enhance their attractiveness by pretending to be richer and more powerful than they are. Men like the chase and don't like it when women are superior to them. And so on.
She's not describing all men, but rather men with a need to dominate. It's not just women that they don't like being superior to them, but just about anyone. These types of people are the ones who really value money, status, and power, and not suprisingly, make up the large majority of people who achieve it in American society.
If you, as a woman, are going use how much money, status, and power a man has as one of your main determining factors as to his attractiveness, you're going to be dating an awful lot of these types of guys. I don't know, I find complaining that the men you pursue specifically because they are into dominating people want to dominate you to be pretty stupid.
posted
I thought this article had at leas two main themes. One was the objectification and oversexualization of women, which I see as a big problem, not only for what it does to women but also what it does to men. I join Ms. Dowd in her outrage and concern.
The second, it seemed, was the dying of the feminist dream of "having it all". If this dream is truly dying, or even compromising, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. So many of the things Dowd was lamenting seemed simply to be lessons professional women are learning today that men had to learn so long ago that we don't even remember that the lessons existed.
I cannot have it all. I am expected to have a successful career and support my family, if I have one. I leave my home early, before anyone else is awake. I get home about an hour before the kids go to bed, just enough time to (hopefully) share a meal with them and read them bedtime stories. If I am willing to give up the extra productive time that could otherwise further my career, I can have the weekend with my family. Much of this weekend time consists of catching up on errands and household tasks that I cannot do during the week because I am at work.
I miss out on about 90% of my children's lives. I do not get to attend school functions or assemblies, volunteer in the classroom, or even meet the teachers. I do not get to join the neighborhood parents in taking the kids to the park for playdates. I don't get to take my kids to the doctor for their regular exams or even their minor illnesses -- I have never met their pediatrician. When I see my kids do something I have never seen them do before, and I remark on it, my wife says, "Oh, yeah, they've been doing that for about a week."
I feel like I miss out on the best parts of parenthood. But the sad thing is that I am actually a more involved father than has been the norm for many hundreds of years. Fathers have long been expected to be outside the home, putting food on the table and providing clothing and shelter, and taking little notice of the children, or even the wife. In so many ways, our society has been built around this model. It has been this way so long that many (most) men don't see anything wrong with it, and are quite comfortable with it. They don't care that they can't "have it all" because they don't see that there is an "all" they should want to have.
Well, I don't like it. But except for making small adjustments to my lifestyle to partially make up for reality, I have to live with it. Otherwise, I fail in my role. A role I did not create, but which I must nonetheless fulfill.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope it has nothing to do with Bikramming, which is really the only new, interesting thing I learned from this article.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I must admit that Yvonne Antelle caught me (see page 1): "Men are fascinated by ... lots of hair on the head." I personally think you can make any woman more attractive by giving her bigger, poofier hair. I can't understand people who dismiss big hair as one of the evils of the '80's.
posted
I despise books/articles like this, and it amazes me that intelligent people still read them or write them.
"This person I know does this, therefore all people act the same way."
In just that article, look how many people quoted are either in her immediate circle of friends or in the Times building. She makes far too many claims based on very sketchy "evidence."
I do, in fact, agree with many of the statements she makes, with qualifiers. "Many" woman, "many" men, "some" housewives. There is indeed rampant inequality, and we have not achieved the goals feminists set out to accomplish. 70's feminists did make some pretty stupid mistakes (including, for example, making sweeping generalizations that pushed away all those who didn't fit in them, like this article does). There are biological drives that compel us to different degrees. Many men do feel threatened by powerful women, and many women prefer powerful men who can take care of them.
And many don't.
quote:"My mother always told me you can't be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time," the brainy, accomplished Cynthia Liu told Louise Story, explaining why she hoped to be a stay-at-home mom a few years after she goes to law school. "You always have to choose one over the other."
Well, duh. As was remarked upon above, you can't be the best career man and the best father at the same time, either. Never could. It is entirely possible (and necessary) to strike the best balance you can, but such gray areas don't seem to exist in this article.
If you choose to take your husband's name you're backsliding. All men prefer submissive women (except for the ones who don't, but Ms. Dowd doesn't seem to know any). All women think that men should always pay for everything. And reading Maxim or Cosmo means you share exactly the same values they represent, cover to cover, and can therefore be used as a statistic.
I haven't read the book, so I apologize if it's broader in scope and has more than nightclub gossip to back up her assertions. But reading this article doesn't convince me that she went any farther than her workplace, her parties, her gym , and Blockbuster to get evidence and you'll have to forgive me if I don't take that as a valid statistical universe.
What would impress me would be if she took a year and traveled. Go around the country, talk to as many people as she could. Pay for larger, more rigorous surveys with as little bias as can be managed.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find complaining that the men you pursue specifically because they are into dominating people want to dominate you to be pretty stupid.
I completely agree with this.
I don't think wanting to be with someone who is impressed with you is bad. Taking to the extreme of constantly needing praise in order to function is kind of weenie, but most people, men and women, want to be with someone who respects them. That's not a character flaw.
It is a flaw when someone is not particularly worthy of respect, and instead of fixing themselves, they deliberately find someone young and dumb enough to believe their BS. While that's sad for their partner, it's not a loss for the rest of the pool.
quote:I never thought of myself as a feminist, but the more I read about this kind of thing the more I reject it. I was brought up by a stay at home mother who before she had children worked in the then completely male field of Traffic Control. I loved that she stayed at home for us, and if possible I will do that for my hypothetical children, but sometimes I wonder- she's a really, really smart and efficient person. What could she have been?
I'm not suggesting that she somehow made the wrong choice, only that she did make a choice, and I wonder what the outcome of the other choice could have been, if there had been another choice (perhaps she always wanted children and the job was just an aside?).
I've always thought of myself as a feminist, because that's what someone who thinks a woman should be able to choose her life and be judged on her own merits is called. My mother also stayed home with us kids, and I absolutely loved it. She made something (secure, loved, confident people) that lasted. Even on my most irriatated-with-the-world feminist streaks, I always appreciated and respected her choice.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
