Inspired by this Salon article forwarded to me by Allison, I thought I would say a few words in Dowd’s defense.
Despite all the sloppy, unscientific, elitist, parent-hating parts of Dowd book, there are a few truths in it. As I said on Monday, Dowd doesn’t criticize men in this book, as much as take women to task.
We’re the ones who have gone back to dressing like sluts, who have totally given up on climbing the corporate ladder, who have directed our energies in the home rather than in the world, who continue to pacify men, who have just given up.
She says that women have not yet learned to assert themselves. Dowd explains that she rarely receives letters from women responding to her columns, but guys write her all the time. One guy from Virginia writes her every day. Though I often respond to columnists on my blog, I never dreamed of sending them the link. Why would they care what I think? But I guess that guys do it all the time and so should I.
As much as Dowd’s snide comments about parents annoy the hell out of me, she is right that motherhood shouldn’t be the goal for all women. A life at home is great for some women, but a public life is better for others.
I could have gone either way. I have definitely enjoyed motherhood; my family is the center of my life. But I could have skipped the whole experience also. I never planned on being a parent; it just happened. I was trained to compete with the guys and take over the world. I could have been extremely happy as a workaholic, party girl in Manhattan. As much this is family-friendly blog, I would never tell any girl that being a mom should be one’s only ambition.
As many in my generation rush to reject the notion that a public life is the only way to go, it is important to not backlash too far. There has to be a middle road somewhere.
Apt. 11d 
This has been my favorite commentary so far on the article:
http://progressive.org/mag_rcb110705
LikeLike
So did you send Dowd a link to this, or not?
LikeLike
I don’t know any women who dress like sluts (except maybe for an occasional night of clubbing); I don’t know many women OR men who are focused on climbing the corporate ladder; and I know men who would love to be stay-home dads with their kids if they could.
I still say MoDo doesn’t speak for me or indeed for most women.
LikeLike
I’m not sure there is such a thing as a workaholic party animal. Some people heading home to their families might think that the single folk at the office are off for another evening of hookups, but that won’t be the case for the ambitious ones. My own terms have always been very simple: respect your family responsibilities if you wish, ask me to fill in if it will help, but give me first shot at the promotions and recognition. Job markets tend to understand those terms.
LikeLike
Stephen, to make a connection with the following post about byline inequities, it is not simply the hardworking singles getting advancements, while the family-minded couples get the second tier jobs. If you look at the New Yorker bylines, as mentioned by RC, most of them are male and married. Gopnik. Married man. Frazier. Married man. Lehmann. Married man. Only unmarried man is David Sedaris.
There was also that study that found that married men were more likely to get tenure, while married women w/children were less likely.
Men with kids get ahead. Women with kids stop.
Oh, and there are workaholic party animals, but they tend to die young.
LikeLike