MUST READ: Mo Dowd: What's A Modern Woman to Do?

[no_hypocrisy]

A Classic to be bookmarked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30feminism.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=6dbcccb7f3a002aa&ex=1130821200

[texpatriot2004]

1. Thanks for the classic MoDo nm

[Matariki]

2. Classic!!? 'Bullshit' is more accurate.

what a waste of time and paper

[no_hypocrisy]

5. With which of her theses do you disagree? All? Why?

Uh oh, critical woman alert . . .

[Matariki]

6. see my post below

maybe i need to reread the article (although after finishing it, i resented the waste of my time the first time round).

what i read in that article was a reiteration of the theme that women need to "play hard to get" because "men like the chase". That previous generations of women understood that and "feminists" have screwed themselves by shedding the deception. Is this not what she was saying? I'll reread it if you tell me otherwise.

If this *is* what she was saying then we can discuss why it's a very mislead point of view.

[Captain Hilts]

7. She was condemning that view. Damned if you do, or if you don't.

Women can't win in the eyes of popular culture.

[Matariki]

9. thankyou. i'll reread the article

after a couple more cups of coffee.

my apologies.

[KoKo]

18. I thought she was saying "The more things change, the more they stay

the same." She ways saying the conformity of Birkenstocks and no makeup in the early 70's when the women's movement broke through was as suffocating as the conformity of what she's seeing today with everyone wanting to be a "sex doll" getting implants and botox and "push up bras."

She said she was seeing a trend "back in time" that she had hoped women had gotten away from and would be better able to meld the two different times and be more independent rather than this retro-stuff.

She concludes her article wondering if after this time we will once again go back to the days when another Better Freidan will need to educate another group of women.

I thought the article was trying to be more superficial than it should have been. She brought up good issues and observations about what she's seen since entering college in '69 and in trying to keep the article very glib and breezey (rather than scholarly) it didn't come off as well as it could have if she'd tried to blend the two. :shrug:

A fluff read...and I don't see what she's saying where I live...but I do see it every time I turn on the TV and channel surf. The selling of "Sex Kittens" is all over the cables. I find it offputting, but then I'm closer in age to Dowd than to the 14 to 35 target audience that the porn industry is targeting. :D

[rosesaylavee]

3. Thanks for the link to this important article.

I think she is right and the only hope for feminism to move on is to include the men in the picture. I am raising a son that I am very pleased to say is madly in love with a woman who is very proficient at what she does and performs at a higher than him presently - she is a very forthright, assertive, bright person who will go very far - and maybe much farther than him in their profession. Their relationship is based on their deep friendship with each other.

I read her article and thought, what a lot of damaged egos there are out there. I am glad I don't have to be out there right now looking for a partner as I don't think I would find one that would accept me for what I am given her description. Too superficial.

[Matariki]

4. did I completely misread that article?

what i read was an overly long missive about a return to deception in courting rituals. how men are insecure and therefore if a woman "wants a man" she has to pander to that insecurity - just like our grandmothers did.

what you are saying about your son and his partner seems to directly contradict the point of her article.

perhaps i missed something?

[Catfight]

10. yes, you missed the content of her upbringing. Reread it, she's

emphasizing that women have regressed to bimbo land. Men are afraid of smart women, as they mostly have always been and women bow to that fear by plastic surgery and dumbing down to 'catch an ego-fragile man.' By the way, I believe MoDowd remains single because men are intimidated by her intelligence.

[Matariki]

13. i've never had this experience

if anything, men seem to be attracted to my independence and intelligence, and i've never had a shortage of partners and potential partners. i've never expected (or allowed) men to pay my way, i own my own home, have a well paying job, spend lots of my free time on my own pursuits, and everyone i have ever dated, including my current partner has respected and appreciated those things.

it's a good couple of pages until she refutes that point of view - by the time i got to her actual point i was in reactive mode. i blame it on lack of caffeine.

[rosesaylavee]

19. No, I was just not completing my thought.

My hope in raising a son secure in himself and not having a rigid definition of masculinity helps the feminist movement. What Mo describes are men that have, at best, a very superficial view of their masculinity that is defined for them outside of themselves.

I think what she is stating is the overwhelming attitude of men vs women on the dating scene right now. I was attempting to give hope for the future of the species that there are ways for both genders to get their needs met without reverting to old, stale mating rituals.

Trying to do too many things today and get my DU in at the same time. Sorry!

[Matariki]

21. sounds like you're doing a great job raising your son

i didn't misunderstand what you said, i meant perhaps i was misunderstanding Maureen Dowd's article - which i was. (too early in the morning for me).

i've been dating 'younger men' for the past 15 years. They seem more appreciative of my acomplishments than men my own age ;-)

[rosesaylavee]

22. I think the generation coming up is

smarter than we were as far as what influences their beliefs and behaviors. I do have hope.

[Captain Hilts]

24. MoDo dated Aaron Sorkin, who is significantly younger.

In fact, they were seen together at The Palm in DC a few weeks ago by Tony Kornheiser.

[Catfight]

8. Brilliant! She's not alone in her thinking, I agree with her 100%. We're

raising a bunch of women dolts that will be miserable once they realize subservience isn't a 'good' thing. There's a new generation though of happy, intelligent, educated women that don't buy the rich white suburbia fantasy. Hopefully, there is a Rosa Park in the 21st century for the future of women.

[SpiralHawk]

11. 'mutually assured orgasms'

MAO

GREAT LINE

[smirkymonkey]

12. Not all of us want weak, insecure men w/ fragile egos.

If I can't be myself completely with someone, why bother? I would rather be alone than have to play some bullshit game just to get some pathetic guy to date me.

Where are all the real men?

[Matariki]

15. the outcome of that sort of gameplaying should be obvious

i avoid those kind of men like the plague they are - if what they are interested in is "the chase" they make lousy partners. for obvious reasons.

[Catfight]

23. A-Fuk-N-em! nt

[enlightenment]

14. Right on the mark, unfortunately.

As a product of the 70s -- and a never-married, always sort of wondered why but never worried too much about it (and then woke up one morning middle-aged and socially transparent; I think older women should become assassins. Who notices us? heehee.) --

this article reaffirmed some truths for me. The conclusion is devastating, but the line that summed it up was this:

"She felt that her generation of women didn't have to do the same things mine did, because of what we had already achieved,"

I teach college undergraduate history -- to late teens and young twenties, mostly, and it is disheartening to look at the young women, listen to them, and try to talk to them. "I want five kids;" "I want whatever my "husband wants;" "I don't know - my boyfriend knows all that stuff;" "but you get a guy by looking good, not by being smart;" "I don't care about what kind of work I do - I'm only going to work until I get married."

Much more horrifying are statements like these: women don't need (or don't deserve) equal pay. I would NEVER vote for a woman president. Women shouldn't be in politics, because they are too emotional. Everyone knows that smart women don't get the men/don't get married/are probably lesbians/don't win.

These are WOMEN making these comments. Young women.

And on -- and on -- and on. Am I generalizing? Yes. So is Dowd -- unfortunately, I don't think we are generalizing too much. For every young woman I meet who gives me hope, I meet two who make me despair. Our "achievements" are dying on the vine.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Yep, we're going "back to the future". The pursuit of the MRS degree vs.

the PhD, JD, MD, or MBA.

[cap]

25. reality has got to set in...

i think these girls and MoDo didnt talk about what happens when the Prince is not so charming!

OK ... you are now divorced with kids and now what! how are you going to make it! wait till you try making it on that very unequal pay!

Or ... what happens when your husband is laid off.... The only job you're gonna get as a sex kitten is the world's oldest profession. Just sitting and wringing your hands aint gonna work.


Or... young men dont make enough to support a family... so where ya gonna live? At your Mother-In-Laws?

Get a grip...

[WildClarySage]

26. This is why so many of the 'christian right' are intent

on setting back divorce laws under the banner of 'family values'. Get rid of their ability to divorce the scheming cheating spouse and there's no problem. She won't have to worry her pretty lil' head about supporting herself and her children. Then they can cheat and be schmucks to their hearts content.

[skids]

17. This is good advice... for catching your dream asshole.

Mo does her point a disservice by front-loading the article with reams of evidence to support her argument that true egalitarianism is dead -- and obscuring her strident objections to this trend at the back of the article. I hate to think how many women will read the first half and then put it down.

...as a single male, I think I can speak to this. Following the "trend" towards a coddling of the male psyche as portrayed in this article will indeed get you ladies a lot further... with assholes.

Now if you don't want an asshole, ignore this article, except for the following point, which is made a few times in various contexts, but boiled down to its most Freudian basics in this quote:

"The hypothesis," Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, theorized, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own."

This part is true, if a bit sexually myopic -- the real drive extends to ensuring access to influence the children's development, and ample resources to build a good future for them. A man who doesn't say upfront that he doesn't care and is just looking for a family life would be happy with just adopting (and they do exist, but are even rarer than me) is looking to be secure that they will actually be the father of any children. However, disempowering yourself to provide that security is complete overkill. All you have to do is not shy away from blush-inducing conversations about your beliefs on the importance of honesty and loyalty.

Incidentally this is a prime reason why having kids from a previous relationship is such baggage -- the guy will be thinking that there is a much greater chance you will not be interested in more.

The best advice I can offer here for catching a guy that isn't so much of an asshole that they cannot be saved is to actually read some of the old pre-feminism material not about "how to catch a man" but rather "how to choose the right man." Then gender reverse it.

If a man is going to enter a relationship where his career goals are secondary, he will have the same cautions that a traditional housewife had... he needs to know that he's going to be taken care of. That you are prudent, honest, principled, and understanding. This is a bit complicated because even if the guy is not a slight ass, there are still plenty of cultural obstacles that interfere with mens' ability to express these hopes and fears when considering such a relationship. That's still inescapable. But one of the whole points is to learn how to overcome those roadblocks.

(Actually the roadblocks work in both directions -- the woman also has to ensure she's not just acquiring a very expensive throw pillow for her living room couch, and the same questions that need to be addressed in probing this area step right on the nerves of encultured machoism.)

Anyway, two cents from a guy who pretty much does not "like the hunt" and would much prefer a level-headed, enduring, freindship-based relationship. You won't find us by "playing hard to get" that's for damn sure -- we respect your privacy and autonomy too much intrude where we get hints that we are not welcome.

(I don't know if it's worth two cents -- obviously there are a lot more hopeless assholes out there than other types -- I can tell that just by driving on the highway for an hour -- so supplies might be limited.)

[smirkymonkey]

20. Thanks for your post - It's so refreshing to see a man who gets it

and who is secure enough to see the situation with his mind rather than his ego.

I just hate bullshit in all forms and "playing the game" sexually and romantically is just another form of bullshit. Love is not about power and I think that relationships based upon such a weak foundation are not worth having.