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)