reason #678

Maureen Dowd’s new bookAre Men Necessary” has raised quite a ruckus. I haven’t read it – yet, but honestly i bet those who are railing against it have only read (or heard) the title.

Columnist Lori Borgman of the Indianapolis Star schools her readers in a piece entitled Yes, Maureen Dowd, men are necessary. A cute, if not original title during the holiday season bearing a close resemblence to the title of the film about little girl named Virginia who didn’t believe in Santa Claus. Lori reminds us that men, for the most part are, “maligned, vilified and marginalized.” After slapping around second wave feminism a bit (although without which, I doubt she’d have that columnist job, but we can set that aside for them moment) she goes on to say that:

“Men protect.
Men provide.
Men take responsibility.
Men tend to be steady.
Men temper women’s concerns for security and safety with a sense of adventure and risk.
Men teach boys what it means to be male.
Men and women together can accomplish what neither is able to accomplish alone.
Men tend to be direct and have simple needs; chief among these would be food, love and respect, though not necessarily in that order.”

So now that we’ve essentialized the genders down to the core and have set aside the need for food, love, and respect as things essential to men (?), we have an emperically based list of things that men, aside from “abusers, perverts, and slackers” do.

Considering that the wage gap still exists, women are just over 50% of the US population but in the state legislature make up at most, only 33.9% of the representatives (Delaware) and at the least 10% (Alabama) by state. There are only 14 women in the US Senate and 66 in the House, and there are few female CEOs, I’m not sure what Lori is getting all upset about. She sounds like she’s ready to get autographs at the next Promise Keepers rally, but don’t expect me to cry into my beer about the “much maligned” male sex.

Or wait, am i not supposed to drink beer?

  1. Nick. said:

    To be a complete skeptic, I would be opposed to book because the name seems completely geared to piss people off and thus, sell the book. What CNN reports the book to be about isn’t objectionable at all, but the title, in my opinion, is complete marketing BS. Controversy I’m fine with, but I draw the line with blatant marketing.

  2. sarah said:

    This post has been removed by the author.

  3. sarah said:

    yeah the title seems a bit incendiary, but that’s fairly common in this genre or literature.

    (previous comment removed to correct misspelling)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: