Reply #61: Oh please. [View All]

Ms Dowd entitles the editorial "Men Just Want Mommy". She starts off (or nearly so) with the statement: "Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women" and ends it with "But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too." Frankly, this sort of thing is offensive to men who have consistently sought true partners, not some kind of servant. (And this is apparently Ms Dowd's intention -- if not yours -- to be offensive.)

What? This is not broad brush stereotyping? If this editorial was by a man and said things like: "Women Just Want Sugar-Daddies", what would be your reaction? Is it ok when men are the targets, but not when women are?

And the bulk of the remaining material (setting aside those studies) is strictly anecdotal, speaking to her personal observations and other such "scientific" data as movies.

Besides, there are (at least) two other obvious interpretations of Ms Dowd's "evidence", that might well be better explanations. First, and supported by even Ms Dowd's own anecdotal evidence, is that "accomplished" men are taking as partners women who are found in close proximity to them. (I personally know of several cases of this -- it was more or less SOP in the grad school -- and often faculty -- of the college that I attended.) Personal assistants, P.R. women, secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers are all people (women) that "accomplished" men would be exposed to in the course of their normal lives (and who are not in potentially adversarial roles). What is unnatural about being attracted to people in one's vicinity? And aren't "accomplished" men frequently very busy and don't they find themselves short of time to seek other "partners"? And are men supposed to be attracted to people that they might find themselves battling with in the office the next day (where such relationships are even permitted)?

Second, maybe the issue isn't "accomplishment", but ego. Men with large egos may well deliberately avoid in their private lives dealing with the same sort of large egos (as these men imagine anyway -- and these egos being other than their own) that they have to deal with in their professional environments. And yes, it would be natural that people with large egos seek to have their egos massaged and bolstered, and to be treated like "the moon, the sun and the stars" or "like kings". All this I have no trouble believing, but then, again, the issue is ego not "accomplishments". And if the two are tied closely together, then this says a lot about our society -- and the point should be directly and clearly made.

And if women find that men of large ego (and, perhaps, "accomplishments"), who battle other large egos in their daily professional lives, surround themselves with sycophants and seek such as their partners, then this is more telling about our business culture (in the broad sense of anything that pays) than about anything unusual in the behavior of these men (of large ego). And perhaps concerned women should work (along with concerned men) to reform our business culture so that advancement is based primarily on merit and true qualities of character, rather than ambition, the drive for self gratification and the other elements of selfish, narrow-minded, unbridled, overblown egotism and materialism (or sex). -- But I will go so far as to say that, if for one reason or the other, significant numbers of women who do not match this typical behavior (historically male in the business arena at least), find themselves in positions of "accomplishment", then there are unfortunate aspects to this situation. But this is all the more reason to reform the system, and such women will just have to make do -- just like all those other unfortunates who have difficulty finding equal partners. At least these women have their "accomplishments" to fall back on -- which is more than most Americans have -- or can hope to.

Moreover, there is material in this article that is offensive to women too. "Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection." I know of plenty of marriages (some even of "accomplished" persons) where there is a good (rough) equality between partners and these involve strong, independent women who would be offended if they bothered to read this. Indeed, the only truly unequal marriages that I know of are to found among my fundie acquaintances.

And what of this: "So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax?" -- Far from it, women have made certain progress, and I see very few of the unequal marriages (around me in my modest circumstances) that surrounded me as a youth. Is there more progress yet to made? -- Of course. But statements like hers don't help.

And I say again, replace the references to men in this article with references to women and see how you like it. -- I don't like it either way. And what, Ms Dowd is allowed to throw in all sorts of statements because she sites two studies (both questionably used as far as I am concerned -- if not questionably analyzed originally) and her statements are in the same ballpark? The right wing does this sort of thing all the time, and it is without value. If you have a problem with people not dealing with the actual study data, then maybe you should start off with Ms Dowd (it is only a small part of her editorial). -- Moreover, I think that Ms Dowd is obscuring an important point about our business culture with this editorial -- and that this does us all a disservice.

But you are free to think whatever you like. It is clear to me what you wish to make of this -- I have no more time for it -- and perhaps you should ponder your own preconceptions. If there is a gender war here, then making broad brush statements and questionable insinuations are the weapons of this war -- not of reasonable discussion.