Maureen Dowd asks “are men necessary?” To which her mother replies, “Men are necessary for breeding and heavy lifting.”
Despite my annoyance at Dowd’s boiled-down-book article from last Sunday, I decided to pick up the book and read the whole thing. I have to admit I liked the title. Until the politically correct police grab me, I’m good with a little old fashioned male bashing.
Last week, I stood in a circle talking to the other mothers outside of Ian’s pre-school. The topic of conversation was how on the weekend we really have three kids. Number three is the husband. One woman even turned to a divorced mom and said, “you have it good.” (Honey, I merely smiled demurely during this conversation. I promise I said nothing about your socks on the living room floor.)
So, Dowd’s question doesn’t come out of nowhere. I wanted to see what she had to say on the topic.
I could go on a long diatribe about the crappy editing job on this book. She goes on for long passages that seem to have no point. I don’t feel like she really hits her stride until p.97. She spits out every observation on gender equality and every personal slight that she has absorbed. Another reviewer recently pointed out her unscientific methodology. I could live with that. The former editor in me recoils at disorganization and contradictions. The publishing industry will roast in hell for this one.
“Feminism lasted for a nanosecond, but the backlash has lasted forty years.
We are in the era of vamping, self-doubting Desperate Housewives, not the strong, cutting Murphy Brown. It’s the season of prim, stay-in-the-background First Lady Laura Bush, not assertive two-for-the-price-of-one First Lady Hillary. Where would you even lodge a feminist protest these days.” (p.97)
She despairs about the lack of women in anchor positions in her industry. In fact, she doesn’t see too many women in top positions of anything. And those in the top positions, like Martha Stewart and Hillary, have to be burnt at the stake first.
Maureen tells me that “Maybe there would be more alpha women in the working world if so many of them didn’t marry alpha men and become alpha moms, armed with alpha SUVs, which they drive in an alpha, overcaffeinated manner down the freeway while clutching a venti skim latte. They’re equipped with alpha muscles from daily workouts and alpha tempers from getting in teachers’ faces to propel their precious alpha kids.”
Hey, watch it. I’m writing this in Starbucks. And I thought this book was going to be about bashing men. Where’s my man bashing? Seems like Maureen is doing a lot of woman bashing in this book. I feel cheated.
In her chapter “How to Set Your Bear Trap in Mink Department of Bergdorf’s,” Maureen ponders mating patterns. She harkens back to some mysterious age when strong, feminist women went out on dates as equals. They went dutch. Now, girls are all flirty-flirty, refusing to pay for dinner since they only have “girl money,” and wearing T-shirts emblazened with the word “MRS.” (Um, Maureen, may I introduce you to the word “irony.”)
OK, I thought I would just isolate that one point for this blog post. Is there such a thing as a “feminist date?”
When I was in my twenties, I only dated grad students and medical students. The medical students always impressed me with their use of terms like “foley tubes” and “colostomy bags.” None of us had any money. Dinner consisted of a couple pints of Bass and a slice of pizza. I can’t even remember who paid for what. Nobody even really asked each other out. Just met up at the big parties in Park Slope and made out on the A train back up town. Slacker dating. So, I know little about proper dates that involve two sober people at a restaurant with cloth napkins.
For my single friends, has dating really gone down hill? Is it all about nabbing a husband? Is paying for dinner important? Is there such a thing as a feminist date where both parties are equals, trading intellectual jibes and where women aren’t just angling to get a hubby?
(tomorrow – more, but I don’t know what yet)
Apt. 11d 
About the topic, since I don’t intend to read Ms. Dowd’s book, I submit the first sentence of this article from last week’s NYT book review:
LikeLike
has dating really gone down hill? Is it all about nabbing a husband? Is paying for dinner important? Is there such a thing as a feminist date where both parties are equals, trading intellectual jibes and where women aren’t just angling to get a hubby?
A. No. B. No. C. No. D. Since I don’t fancy myself Katharine Hepburn or Rosalind Russell, I’m not into “trading intellectual jibes” with dates, but “having a good time” has not gone out of style.
And I bet you money that my dating experiences are closer to the norm than MoDo’s.
LikeLike
I think the sexist form of dating is when the man is *always* the host and the woman is *always* the guest. But going dutch is a terrible alternative–nobody ever gets the pleasure of being host OR guest.
A much better solution, I think, is to alternate–one plans and treats, the other attends and thanks, then next time you trade roles. That also makes it easier for couples of disparate incomes to date “equally” (I’m a secretary, and there’s no way could I have gone dutch with my husband at the restaurants he favored but does it follow that he should be limited to places within my means?)
Anyway, I last dated in the mid- to late-nineties, and taking turns always worked, although some men were surprised when I took the initiative to be host, even when we’d been dating awhile, so it must not have been the norm.
And don’t even get me started on the–“I’ll get the check, you get the tip” guys. Ugh.
LikeLike
I’m back on the dating scene after a hiatus, and what’s been a pleasant surprise is the men that won’t let you pick up the check, even when there is no chance of a second date (either from mutual agreement or otherwise). After a while, I guess they would stop paying or I would start cooking more meals at my house but it’s nice to be out of “the grad school all I can afford is a slice and can you get the tip and the cab” period of dating.
LikeLike
The woman that I am currently dating takes a rather more egalitarian view on host/guest things: if she asks me to go somewhere, she’ll pay for dinner. If I ask her, then I pay. From time to time (particularly when I was unemployed for 5 weeks recently), she prefers that we split the check. Usually when we argue (fairly good naturedly), I’m trying to pay for it and she’s trying to pay for it. I have no problem with buying meals for a woman I’m dating. But given that single women usually make the same sort of money as men, most other factors being equal (and I’ll point out that my lady friend makes rather more than I do), it seems that taking turns paying for evenings out is a reasonable solution. What does this mean in terms of societal roles, I have no idea. But I do know it means we go out rather more often than we would if I were paying for everything….seems like a positive outcome to me.
LikeLike
I have no idea what to do about the check on a date; some men seem a bit offended if you offer to pay, some are comfortable with it. I myself feel that we should either split the check or that whoever does the inviting should pay; having guys pay automatically is weird. I think this is true even if they make more money, although once you get comfortable with someone it might not be an issue.
The other thing about feminist dating is that you’re not quite sure if you’re supposed to alternate asking each other out. I do try to do that, and am sometimes the first to ask, but I’m not sure all men are entirely comfortable with this.
LikeLike
One very weird phenomenon I’m seeing is men who don’t actually want to date or go out, but want some sexual encounter short of sex. (Often they have a girlfriend.) They want to do phone sex or email sex. But they don’t want to date. And very strange– kissing is out. Kissing is too “intimate”.
Of course, there must be women who go along with this, or the guys would try something else. But I do wonder what the women think they’re getting out of this arrangement.
LikeLike
Killing bugs. They’re also necessary for killing bugs.
Boy am I glad I’m not in the dating whirl anymore. I don’t remember who paid for what. Just who was kind to whom and who was funny and who knew how to cook.
I enjoy reading about Maureen Dowd’s weird world but I wish she’d at least hint at an awareness that it is but a slice and lots of people (most?) have very different experiences of the opposite gender.
LikeLike