Maureen Dowd makes me want to throw-up. Yes, I mean vomit, regurgitate, puke. And it's not just because she's jealous of Caitlin Flanagan because Flanagan has a husband, children, and does some writing on the side (hardly an 80 hour a week "career") and might just be happy with those demanding, energy-depleting humans: editors. Well, maybe that's a little bit of it.
First problem: not every woman attends Harvard. Second Problem: not every woman will attend Harvard. Third problem: not every woman has attended Harvard. Fourth problem: not every successful woman (and this can cut anyway you slice successful) has attended Harvard, nor will every potentially successful woman attend Harvard. Maybe the problem is Harvard, and not men.
It is really infuriating that Dowd presumes that those of us not in the journalism field or that haven't attended an Ivy League school aren't smart enough to analyze statistics like this one:
A 2005 report by researchers at four British universities indicated that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to marry, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.
Oh, so that's the real issue: the smarts. Smart women can't get a man, but wait, I thought they don't want one? Or is it that the less intelligent women aren't intelligent enough to reject the abominable sex? So are we complimenting those who have smarts and feeling sorry for those fools lacking enough to find only a man appealing and not a graduate school application? Or could it really be that the small sample of females in the British study actually represent just that? A small sample.
Silly women taking the name of their husbands and embarrassingly wearing unfeministic unfashionable tee's with sequined "Mrs." on them. Damn it! They are supposed to be fighting to retain their own surnames, or to at least do the name scaffolding and hyphenate! Haven't we taught them anything? After all these years it should be the men throwing wedding showers for other men,eating cucumber sandwiches and drinking mimosas. They should be wanting to wear t-shirts that say "Mr." Oh. Wait...Poor women, having to pay all that money to Harvard Business School and not able to say anything because all the men will tuck tail and run. That's why the women went to HBS, right? To gain bragging rights? Or wait, was it to because they wanted to be able to get a man, or was that a man's job?
You see, all men are the same, while we women are a varied and multi-dimensional sort. All men want exactly the same exact thing from a woman: her job. Or did I misunderstand the article?
h/t: The Llamas via Lileks.
Posted by Rae at October 31, 2005 08:19 AMMaybe, the problem is just Maurene.
Posted by: bigwhitehat at October 31, 2005 11:36 AMyea, i think Maurene is the probelm.
Posted by: Ann at October 31, 2005 12:40 PMMrrrrooowww, Rae!
(I do love a good rant, and you are exceptional at them! :::grin::: )
Actually, I found the article pretty amusing. She notes some very real trends, although I personally don't come to the same conclusions she does about them.
Posted by: Cindy at October 31, 2005 01:49 PMBWT and Ann- yes. I definitely see MoDo as one big part of the problem, or at least the wealthy liberal fems she represents.
Cindy, pardon me. Was I that tiger? Heh. Thank you :D You know, it's not that I didn't find the article amusing, or also agree with the trends she points out, I just get soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
tired of it all being the Big Bad Man's fault.. Men, men, men. Darn sex, or is it gender. Stop! it's the degree program! no! the school! wait! the (:::looking around for something, anyone else to blame:::)...
I sometimes find it very tempting to take a women's studies class and make comments like: "I love men." Heh.
Posted by: Rae at October 31, 2005 01:58 PMMore pathetic nonsense from the people who like to think the rest of us need their "aren't-you-glad-we're-smart-and-here-to-take-care-of-poor-misguided-you?"
Posted by: Altar Girl at November 2, 2005 10:18 AMI'd rather have an intelligent ambitious and engaging woman, than some silicon enhanced bimbo. Why? The former lasts longer and can give you a good run for your uh oh, money. ;) The latter will only last a certain time before you get bored and want the former.
Posted by: the english guy at November 2, 2005 11:28 AMmm, i'm glad you wrote this, rae. especially the last bit put me in a good mood.
Posted by: amelie at November 3, 2005 12:18 AMActually men are the problem. I should know. I am a priveledged college educated white male from an intact middle class midwestern suburban family. Now with that settled where is my dinner and remote control? Now really-the article is very entertaining and thought provoking in the standard liberal sort of way. Dowd conveys some ideas that are right on-How media and fashion shape what we do and find acceptable, how much women in the past have done for women of the present. Having four daughters has made me rethink many of my own paradigms of life in general. Maybe the problem is not men in particular but the problem of our own selves (women and men alike)striving against what God would have us be all the days that we are here on earth. The problem is us.
Posted by: R at November 7, 2005 04:06 PMSun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |