Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Dowd, Where's My Country?

By Sheerly Avni, AlterNet. Posted November 14, 2005.


In her new book, Maureen Dowd aims to explore the 'spectacle of gender in America.' But Dowd's America is like none that most of us have seen.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sheerly Avni

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Almost two weeks ago, the New York Times Sunday magazine published an excerpt from op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd's new book, Are Men Necessary?. The excerpt itself was a long-winded lament over the current state of gender relations amongst a very specific group of people -- Dowd, her best friends and the powerful men they date. It contained a slew of complaints which you've probably heard before if you watch Sex and the City or spend a lot of time hanging out with movie stars, senators and CEOs: men like 'em young and adoring; smart women are intimidating; if you win a Pulitzer you'll never catch a husband; Botox and boob jobs are everywhere; and good lord, what is up with Jessica Simpson?

Media justice was swift and severe. The female blogosphere played slice and dice with Dowd's easy assertions (a particularly choice slam, from Wonkette's married and, arguably, rather successful Ana Marie Cox: "Thank God we aren't as smart as she is or else we'd never have found a husband") and the comments sections of any blog that dared mention her name buzzed with the raised hackles of men and women (but mostly women) who bristled at Dowd's apparent inability to see beyond her own very narrow world.

It seemed that the title should really have been: "Are Rich And Powerful Men Necessary To Rich And Powerful Women?" To which the only appropriate answer, for anyone outside Dowd's narrow niche is, who cares?

Still, there was some hope that the book itself would have more to offer. By lifting her title from James Thurber's humorous book, Is Sex Necessary? there is no doubt that she was trying be controversial; that she was trying to be funny; and that as a Pulitzer prize-winning columnist and at times delightfully sharp-edged observer of the personalities behind scandals dating as far back as the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, she is in a position to tell us something meaningful about the way gender relations play out today.

Dowd herself says that people shouldn't take her so seriously. Defending the book, which was finally released on Tuesday, she told Newsweek, "I am not trying to write a social polemic, just tell a funny story about my own experience."

Nice try. If Dowd had made good on this claim, Are Men Necessary? could have been wonderful. Both professionally and personally, she travels in circles most of us do not have access to, and since the folks in those circles happen to control the country, we need to understand how they think. And there are certainly thought-provoking passages here: an awkward encounter with Monica Lewinsky after having lambasted her in print several times over; enduring a humiliating pass while applying for a job; her confusion in Saudi Arabia when she found herself meekly giving in to the order that she stop and cover herself immediately. In that same scene she describes Christiane Amanpour wiping the floor with two Saudi Arabian men who are trying to move her to another side of the cafeteria; it's a moment almost worth the price of purchase.

But all disclaimers to the contrary, Dowd is doing much more than just describing her personal experience. Both in the narrative and on the back-flap copy, she describes herself as "a fascinated observer of our gender perplexities," dedicated to exploring the "spectacle of gender in America." There is an intended social polemic at work here; she believes she has something to say that will be relevant to all of us, otherwise, who would buy the book? Yet "we" includes only her people, and her observations are based on her fascination with her own universe: the aforementioned glossy magazine editors, movie stars and political aides.


Digg!

Sheerly Avni is a San Francisco-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I just like the way she writes her op-ed pieces
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 14, 2005 2:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since I do not live in that kind of world, perhaps I would not enjoy her book. I did not like Hillery's book that well either. But I have looked foreward to Dowd column for years now, until I had to pay almost $8 to read it. I could not support NYT in any way after Judy Miller. A small statement about the whole mess Judy was allowed to create. I do not understand why they could not just fire her. I liked Dowd for dishing her in a very catty way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alice, Maybe?
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 14, 2005 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if Dowd doesn't see herself a bit like Alice in Wonderland. Here she is a very pretty girl in a pinafore, and she falls down a rabbit hole in Washington. It's funny that a cosmopolitan, predominantly Jewish-run paper like the Times is so fond of these good Catholic girls. First it was Anna Quinlan, who gave it up for family, and now Dowd, who maybe they see at the whore to Quinlan's madonna. (just thinking aloud here, no need to take me seriously.) Anyway, Dowd finds herself in this world where there are very few women (not only the paper and the larger press corps, but the Hill and the White House as well) and for the life of her, she can't explain it. Nor can she go back through the hole, since she's managed to annoy quite a few powerful folks, and now she's too big. She can't drink a magic potion to make herself young again, she likes the perks, and yet, something nags at her....Where are all the other women? How did that princess Judy Miller wiggle in when there are so many qualified women reporters? Not surprising to me that she thinks feminism is dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alice, Maybe? Posted by: Richie the C
maureen dowd
Posted by: marysia on Nov 14, 2005 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dowd conveniently forgets that the feminist movement did not begin with a group of discontented Westchester housewives who wanted to use their Brandeis degrees outside the family room. Feminism began with the struggle for financial equality and a voice; the right to vote, the right to own land, the right to earn an income.

Well, actually it did come to the forefront because of those Westchester housewives. It was perfectly ok for poor and working class women to struggle with financial inequality until that struggle affected the upper middle classes with their advanced degrees and low pay. But hey, I'm not complaining. They had the time and resources and somebody had to do it while the rest of us were trying to make ends meet and hold it together. Great article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dowd Scares You
Posted by: Rattlesby on Nov 14, 2005 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sheerli Avni, you sound very defensive and frightened by the whole experience of Maureen Dowd's book, which is basically telling you that feminism isn't working out very well. The details are personal, and she clearly says so. Her observations are fair and useful illustraions of what she has seen and experienced.
Dowd is funny, sharp, and often cuts so close that it hurts. Perhaps you just needed to cover up the wound.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dowd Scares You Posted by: Riverside
» RE: Dowd Scares You Posted by: ShaSpirit
don't quote anti-feminists as feminists
Posted by: redbecca on Nov 14, 2005 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disappointed in Avni for this misleading representation of the "female Blogosphere's" response to Dowd. Is Wonkette as some kind of authority on feminism? And guess who else doesn't like Dowd ? Katie Roiphe, the woman whose mom's job at the NYT has got her into print w/her own anti-feminist books. (remember Roiphe's attack on the campus anti-rape movement, "The Morning After"?) Her beef w/Dowd: she's exaggerating. Wonkette's beef w/Dowd? (she claims to be smart...Wonkette's article on Dowd suggests that Dowd's a slut. Now that's nice feminist politics for ya, a really useful commentary on the substance of the article.
I don't travel in Dowd's circles, but I found her observations about dating and marriage culture among white middle class people in the Wapo article to be on the mark. After thirty+ years of feminism, "Sex in the City" was a hit w/lots of young and old women.
I don't have money, but I do have a PhD, and I've found men to be - guess what? intimidated by that. The stats. on marriage Dowd sites are hard to argue against. Does the fact that I'm white and middle class eliminate me from having anything to say about "gender issues"? Isn't it news that women who have advanced at the same professional level as men in the post-feminist era are still experiencing gender stereotypes and returning to pre-feminist ideals? Did you read Faludi's Backlash? It was true then, and it's truer now. Yes, sexism affects working-class women, but that doesn't mean that sexism doesnt have its specific effect on wealthy or middle-class women.
The whole point of acknowledging such a category as "gender" is recognizing that we need something else besides class to explain women's oppression. That's right, even rich women can suffer from sexism. Do they have a right to complain? If not, then I guess Susan B. Anthony, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the Grimkes and the rest didn't have a right to talk about "women's issues" either.
I expect better from Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

having no Dowds about book or column
Posted by: Toast on Nov 14, 2005 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I need airtight political commentary, I look to David Gergen. For snarky and fun, only Ana Marie Cox at Wonkette will do. For that beautifully-formed, fresh, sometimes wild observation about my world from a voice that barely overlaps with my own, it's always Maureen Dowd.

For this reason, I've bought the book and I'll read it as her speaking to me about my world from a completely opposite place from my own little corner of the world. In the press surrounding the release of this book, I've found her to be way more nuanced than I'd thought her to be. She's that quirky virtual friend I do not have to have, while my real friends and I are enjoying what she does write. She's steadfast in her views, infuriating as these are to some and as badly as she's demonized by others.

If she ignores modern research in favor of observations about her circle, fine: she's not writing academic research. Let's remember given a column BECAUSE of her fresh voice. And hasn't research shown time and again that we the people are obsessed with celebrity culture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no, marriage is not necessary....
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 14, 2005 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Avni does a wonderful job of pointing out that Dowd has a very limited viewpoint of gender relations. The fact that a woman's self worth (any woman, any color, any class) is linked to her ability to find a suitable (i.e wealthy, high status) man for marriage is a prime example of our ingrained cultural misgyny. Marriage is not the panacea that our culture makes it out to be, nor do all women crave it desperately. To be really fair, not all men are afraid to marry or want living Barbie Dolls for partners. Feminism is far from a failure just because the mainstream media constantly feed us Sex in the City/Desperate Housewives type crap as legitimate evidence that women are unhappy with feminism. Dowd's piece falls neatly into this anti-feminist propoganda camp. Dowd is just another pawn in the Neo-con scheme to drag gender relations back into the Victorian age. Neither men or women win under this scenario.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Nice Guy Syndrome" and bad science
Posted by: CrystalD on Nov 14, 2005 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The science that Dowd quoted to support her assertion that "men don't want smart women" is bad, false science. The U of Michigan study and the one about women with high IQ's not being married have been debunked. Reputable social science has shown that, increasingly, men marry women with equal or even greater educational levels than themselves, AND they want a woman with a decent job. Perhaps Masters of the Universe can get away with marrying the maid but Joe Next Door is looking for a helpmeet because it takes two jobs to ensure a middle-class lifestyle these days.

Dowd's polemic falls into the same trap that Susan Faludi described backlash literature as doing in "Backlash:" There's no hard science to back it up. She uses movies, TV shows, and anecdotes - "my friend says" type evidence. If men like to watch "Maid in Manhattan" that doesn't mean they want to marry a maid, chances are it's because they think that Jennifer Lopez (who is a wealthy, high-powered woman) is hot. And so what?

I believe that any woman can get married if she truly wants to. Dowd's complaint that "men don't like smart women" reminds me of men whining that "women don't like nice guys!" Chances are that it's not "smartness" or "niceness" that gets in the way, it's one's own bad personality! And if Dowd does NOT want to get married - good for her! Isn't that one of feminism's goals, that women don't have to get married to escape poverty or attain respectability? Can't Dowd admit that she likes her freewheeling single life? Lots of people do, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The "Downmarket Mate" syndrome Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Is "Making Love Last" a gender issue? I don't think so.
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 14, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciated the reminder above that, indeed, feminists from Wollstonecraft to the "The Feminine Mystique" were privileged.

Except for Hollywood's penchant for framing human issues with liesure class characters (maybe Dowd watches too many flicks?), I am not aware that romance is a class issue.

Love is not enough; never was and never will be. But the absence of love is even worse.

Curious how we tip-toe around that, with the result that nobody's listening to critics. Vicarious love is better than no love at all. Hurrah for Hollywood!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get a life!
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Nov 14, 2005 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It appears that Sheerly Avni, and perhaps AlterNet, haven't much to do during these war years. Maureen Dowd's column in is one of the few bright spots in the otherwise dreary old NY Times. While she might not be everyone's idea of a feminist (I put her in the Dorothy Parker faction), she has consistently satirized and denounced the Bush-Cheney Stalinist-style regime. You cannot otherwise find gems like hers in corporate media.
Find something better to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Dowd Necessary?
Posted by: Stonecutter on Nov 14, 2005 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a guy pushing 60. My idea of a man is Kirk Douglas or Burt Lancaster in "Seven Days in May", or Sean Connery in "Dr. No", with a dash of Alan Alda's Hawkeye Pierce for "sensitivity". These guys could break rocks with their gaze and mirrors with their manliness, defend their loved ones against all comers and were the original babe magnets.

The current PC, consumption-driven revision of masculinity into the flat, "Queer Eye" mutation of metrosexualism is enough to send me to my knees with my head hanging over the bowl. It's a world, thank God, my sons don't inhabit, but with which Maureen Dowd is probably very familiar. As distinct from her often witty, ascerbic prose and the mythology of progressivism it suggests, her persona on TV is usually of a "delicate flower" consumed with self-consciousness, aware of every nuance of her appearance, how each strand of hair falls across her face, and which angle of that face may best grace the camera.

She cultivates an air of mystery, or maybe it's just an air. Amy Goodman or Candy Crowley or Lisa Myers or Christiane Amanpour, she's not. She seems much closer to Helen Gurley Brown or Anna Wintour...a female Charlie Rose in an urbanized, stylized, metrosexualized mutation of gender roles and prerogatives.

In short, she comes off like the middle-aged princess she probably is, not surprisingly shaped by the elitist world she travels in, as out of touch with real men and real masculinity as Ann Coulter is with real femininity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is Dowd Necessary? Posted by: SophiaE
» RE: Is Dowd Necessary? Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Is Dowd Necessary? Posted by: SophiaE
» Middle-Aged Princess Posted by: BlueTigress
montana freeman
Posted by: montana freeman on Nov 14, 2005 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are we so fucked up that gossip is good news ? watched the fululiga tape this morning and am still in shock that bush has that kind of power ,god damn are we fucking sheep or what,check it out on alternet, if this does not get your hackles up you are one dead mother fucker.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aww...poor MoDo
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Nov 14, 2005 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it's true that, as rebecca (or handle somesuch) above noted that undoubtedly accomplished, intelligent women have difficulty finding husbands/partners who are secure enough to date successful women, I think that the author is on to something in this article. Yeah, again, I think Dowd's basic points are right, but really, for the vast vast vast majority of us, we are not mingling in such elite circles and reallythere's usually some sort of accommodation that can be reached between men and women so that we can get along (full disclosure: I'm 30 year old man in a relationship with a 36 year old woman who is more successful than I, at least at this point...I'm a poor grad student and she's a successful medical professional).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dowd, Where's My Country
Posted by: squadsright on Nov 14, 2005 5:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maureen Dowd? Who the hell is Maureen Dowd?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dowd's really got everyone's hackles up hasn't she?
Posted by: richards1052 on Nov 14, 2005 9:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had lots of criticisms of Maureen Dowd's NYT Magazine piece. The tendency to move from anecdotal evidence to making sweeping generalizations was terribly unfortunate. The focus on her own personal dating dilemmas & "men problems" also was unfortunate & distracting.

But much of the media/blog criticism of her work under discussion here also goes over the top just as Dowd herself does. For exampe:

"Dowd extrapolates from these concerns to a much more ambitious project -- the death of the women's movement"

It's a big overstatement to claim that Dowd posits the death of the women's movement. Does she think feminism is in crisis? That gender inequality is as bad as it ever was & anti-feminist notions among young women are sad & demoralizing? Sure.

But I see her work as a cry for women (& men) to rededicate themselves to the best values represented by feminism. I don't see it as a funeral oration for the death of the movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHO IS SHEERLY AVNI
Posted by: AJWeishar on Nov 16, 2005 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book review seems to carry a bit of underlying resentment. I am wondering the age and experiences of
Sheerly Avni. I am a white male, couple years older than Ms. Dowd, with life experience at all class levels. Her observations are very true. The married women who took offense with the NYT article must have blinders on or some self esteem issues. The feminist movement has died, as has the Civil Rights movement. Anyone who caught Britt Hume threatening to hose down Juan Williams should be aware of that. Women are still paid less, physically and verbally assualted, and traded as sex slaves. The US still won't sign the UN bill on that issue. Where's Hillary while this goes on? The book is Ms. Dowd's observations of behaviors and her satirical solutions. We are in an age when people like to argue that they didn't see it on Fox, so it's not true. A bit like this review.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well-Paid Twit
Posted by: BlueTigress on Nov 16, 2005 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen discussions of Maureen Dowd on other forums.

I've never had a pass made at me on a job interview, so I guess I'm just not as pretty as her.

I would suggest that Mo is of the age where the thought is women marry equally or up, and in her circle, those guys are either already married for good, wanting bed partner/arm candy (no LTR), or gay.

She could probably marry down if she wanted to and no one would really say anything, but she cannot think like that.

I recommend professional escorts. And a vibrator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple kudos
Posted by: lamva3 on Nov 21, 2005 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for your very perceptive and refreshing take on this strange woman. I saw her do an interview on the book with MSNBC this week and, quite frankly, I don't know what to think about her. Your article answers my perplexity - she's simply not the sort of woman I'll ever meet or interact with. She belongs to some other universe, where skewering men while flirting with them makes sense, I suppose. (I swear she was making serious eyes at the interviewer!) Thanks for explaining her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seriously, are men necessary?
Posted by: dbaldwin on Nov 22, 2005 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments on Dowd's book don't deal with the question raised by the title. I think we would understand ourselves better if we realize that in traditional terms men truly are not necessary.

As George Gilder pointed out in the '70s, "money has replaced muscle" in the role of providing for women and children, and women are quite capable of earning money. Women can control reproduction, not merely by preventing conceptions but also by relying on non-sexual means of fertilization. Women can fly jets and run corporations, even nations. In terms of any conventional notions of male identity, men are not necessary.

This can be a good thing, but not until we learn to provide our males with more humane foundations on which to construct not only their personal identities but our national identity as well. (To position my comments: I am a white male businessperson married for 43 years to a woman with a doctorate.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maureen Dowd should date a mechanic
Posted by: rclord on Dec 29, 2005 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure what MoDo says about the men she dates is probably true. I think many rich, powerful men are probably very narrow-minded and sexist; especially if they run the world. Look at the way the government is controlled by these types of men, and how the entertainment industry reflects their mentalities. They're probably way out of her league. They likely made her well-known because they knew she'd makes a good token female columnist that writes a lot of fluff. But these men are a small if not tiny minority. If she took up with a different crowd she might have better luck dating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]