Hissy Cat

« Cute Little Lion Cubs | Main | OHNOES! I BROKE THE INTERNETS!!!! »

November 06, 2005

Dowdiana

Before I write my scathing critique of the NYTimes Magazine feature on the charming (by which I mean revolting and idiotic and, well, silly) notion of "literary Darwinism" I need to pause to say something about last week's lengthily discussed essay by Maureen Dowd on the shortcomings of feminism.

I should start by stating my own reaction to the piece: mild pleasure, which is about what I expect from the NYTimes Sunday Magazine. Nothing earth-shattering, nothing really challenging to the reader's worldview. But something smart enough, entertaining enough, well-written enough to make for a good Sunday read, preferrably in bed, with a lox bagel and a cup of good coffee.

I also read Maureen Dowd's article as a little more in the "small social observations" category than in the "feminist polemics" category some other bloggers seem to have been looking for. So, Dowd offers a critique drawn from her personal life and heavy on the personal anecdotes to make a point about a cultural shift she observes in her particular social world that she finds troubling and troublesome for women. Her point is rather a small one, and one I thought not very controversial: there's been a backlash against the ideals of feminism and whatever gains the feminist movement has made, and as a result we find ourselves in a bizarre cultural moment where women who are more educated and higher-acheiving in their careers than ever before yet being presented with a feminine ideal that is frilly and deferential. And that some women are listening to that message. And this is a little sad and dissapointing. This, to me, seemed like a milder and more limited version of the critique that a number of feminist writers and thinkers have been saying for years.

Whatever issues I may have with the ideas Dowd puts forth in her essay, I find the virulent reactions against Dowd by (surprise!) feminist bloggers far, far more troubling.

The first common criticism of the piece is that it is "classist." My reaction to that complaint isn't that it's wrong. My reaction is just kind of, 'Meh, what did you expect?' This is the NYTimes Magazine section, after all. And if, like me, you read the article as an essay about Dowd's social world then it is hardly surprising that Dowd wrote about, well, her social world. It's a classist decision, I suppose, to allot seven pages to an article about well-paid, college-educated women with prestigous and powerful jobs instead of, say, poor, rural women, but take that up with the NYTimes editors, I say. That's only typical of the editorial classism of the paper, and is not Maureen Dowd's doing.

Whatever. The snipes and swipes I find really disturbing are those like this and this. Feministing's post, in the form of "urgent messages" to Maureen Dowd, cites announcement after bloody wedding announcement from the NYTimes Styles Section of heterosexual pairings that are supposedly ample evidence that men marry women to whome they are age-, IQ-, and power- matched, and then points out the article on writer Mary Gaitskill as further proof that, see, all these smart, older women are getting married most appropriately, so it must be that something's wrong with you, Maureen.

Echidne's post lambasts Dowd for unreliable statistics and lack of data. That's true, but I can't say I see why she should have included stats in her social observances. I think Dowd is pretty fair in not positing her observances as anything other than her observances of a select layer of society. But then it's maybe my own idiosyncracy that I generally distrust the use of statistics in essays about subtle social phenomena-- they are so malleable as to be meaningless while giving an opinion/ observation a scientistic air that is at once deceptive and defensive (See! I have numbers! That makes my opinion more true than yours! See!). The stats Dowd used I found odd, but mostly because I think she misuses them to get to her point. I think her point would have been better served if used less, not more, stats. It was also confusing to what end she meant to use them. I didn't get the sense that she was endorsing Evolutionary Psychology or the notion that career women are romantically doomed so much as laying it out to critique it. But maybe that's just me.

But I'm getting distracted by fine points. There is plenty of room to disagree with Dowd's conclusion or take issue with her methodology, and that's fine, that's great, we should have these debates. My main concern, I guess, is with statements such as Echidne's low blow:

The funniest part of the excerpt has to do with the bit about oh-how-hard it is for successful women to find men. Dowd is very taken by this idea, and I wonder why. I have always had to swat men away like flies and I'm fairly smart and independent. . .

And a quick glance around the comments suggests that it is this sentiment (oh Maureen's just so bitter and desperate) to which most people most strongly responded. There are exceptions, of course (and the comments responding to this post at Feministing are much more civil, much more varied, much better reasoned), but what else to make of reactions like these:

Another thing I can't help but thinking is that this book is Dowd's way of dealing with her own unhappiness. Any regular reader of hers can tell you that she's written numerous columns about her problems with men. . .But I'm smart, strong, and an outspoken feminist who also happens to be (very) happily married. And I know plenty of other strong, feminist women who are likewise happily partnered.

I don't know if this is Maureen's problem with men, but I have known women who are high-achievers yet will only consider men who are even higher-achievers as mates. You can't blame feminism for that.

If she does find a man, she'll quit her job and start writing about babies and marriage.

Ditto the comments on Pandagon, where the "Maureen's just bitter she can't get a date" chorus is nicely complemented by the "I'm a smart, sensitive guy and I date women who are my equals" chant.

The "Maureen just wrote that cause she can't get a date" is far too close to "you're just a feminist because you can't get a date" or "you're just a lesbian because men won't shag you" for my taste. I don't think writing off all Dowd's points as the harpy call of a bitter, desperate women really does much for women or for feminism.

Then there's the condemning chorus of "you're no feminist" "you're not my sister" that reminds me of a high school clique excommunicating a member as soon as she is humiliated out of fear that the aroma of desperation might rub off on the rest of them. Shh, Maureen! You're not supposed to admit that you think about boys and dating! That's so embaressing!

(I did not get the sense, by the way, that Dowd has any particular inclination to marry the chauvanist clods she describes in her article, and I think a lot of the readings really miss the humor in the piece. A man confessing he'd wanted to ask the author on a date "between marraiges" but didn't because he was scared of her? Funny. And I think it's meant to be. I was puzzled by the comments smattered around that said things like, "why doesn't she just realize he's a jerk anyway?" You know, I really think she does. I give her that much credit. Her writing can be very funny, very caustic, very sarcastic-- but that's another post, for another day.)

Well, everyone has her own ideas about feminism, I guess, but then one of my ideas about feminism is that it is relevant to all women-- even Maureen Dowd. We all make value judgements about which battles we find most compelling or important; you can't not prioritize; there's just too much. But my judgement that, say, access to abortion, is of utmost importance does not make other feminist issues-- say, representation of gender, marraige and family in popular movies-- any less "real." You may not care particularly about the politics of who on a date picks up the check when the check is from Nobu, but to assert that there is no issue at all is, I think, wrong-minded and false

Feminism is not a dating service: agreed. But I have to think there is something disingenous in the comments of the "What on earth is Maureen talking about with this 'men preferring docile babes' business? Doesn't she know that things are just peachy: I have a powerful career and I'm married. 'Pressure to conform to a frilly feminine ideal'? I have no idea what she could be talking about!" genre. Please! Feminists have been critiquing for years the cultural idealization of women as domestic, silly, deferntial, unambitious in career but ambitious in marraige sex-bots! For years! Well, at least I have.

Goddamit, this is going to require a second post. And I so wanted to make fun of Literary Darwinism. Harrumph!

Posted by hissycat at November 6, 2005 07:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.hissycat.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/172

Comments

Posted by: topicstarter at October 16, 2006 11:33 AM

Posted by: topicstarter at October 18, 2006 10:07 AM

Posted by: tester at October 18, 2006 10:07 AM

Posted by: karel at October 18, 2006 10:07 AM

Posted by: medved at October 20, 2006 02:40 PM

Posted by: timoshka at October 21, 2006 06:07 PM

Posted by: medved at October 21, 2006 06:49 PM

Posted by: thomson at October 21, 2006 07:10 PM

Posted by: thomson at October 21, 2006 07:11 PM

Posted by: timoshka at October 21, 2006 07:35 PM

Posted by: karel at October 21, 2006 08:10 PM

Posted by: medved at October 21, 2006 08:11 PM

Posted by: thomson at October 21, 2006 08:17 PM

Posted by: karel at October 21, 2006 09:31 PM

Posted by: timoshka at October 21, 2006 09:32 PM

Posted by: kolyma at October 21, 2006 11:37 PM

Posted by: thomson at October 22, 2006 11:42 AM

Posted by: karel at October 22, 2006 01:21 PM

Posted by: timoshka at October 24, 2006 06:19 AM

Posted by: babnik at October 25, 2006 01:45 AM

Posted by: pipetka at October 31, 2006 10:25 AM

Posted by: Anonymous at November 8, 2006 08:32 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at November 10, 2006 01:32 AM

Posted by: last comic standing at November 10, 2006 12:29 PM

Posted by: car rates at November 13, 2006 10:39 AM

Posted by: Methodology at November 17, 2006 07:45 AM

Posted by: free young sex at November 24, 2006 12:24 AM

Posted by: carisoprodol at November 25, 2006 01:20 AM

Posted by: pussy at November 25, 2006 08:22 PM

Posted by: xanax at November 27, 2006 04:11 AM

Posted by: nude at November 27, 2006 10:46 AM

Posted by: allstate car insurance quote at November 27, 2006 11:29 AM

Posted by: sexy ass at November 28, 2006 07:55 AM

Posted by: xanax side effects at November 30, 2006 02:31 PM

Posted by: ash soma at November 30, 2006 08:04 PM

Posted by: beastiality sex at December 5, 2006 06:39 AM

Posted by: Paxilus at December 13, 2006 12:23 PM

Posted by: nude girls peeing at December 14, 2006 05:01 PM

Posted by: propeciab at December 14, 2006 06:02 PM

Posted by: RiceAlex at December 15, 2006 09:16 AM

Posted by: ProzacJ at December 16, 2006 01:13 AM

Posted by: genzoloft at December 16, 2006 09:27 AM

Posted by: RicenAlex at December 18, 2006 07:42 AM

Posted by: girls gone wild at December 18, 2006 10:22 AM

Posted by: CelexaYes at December 19, 2006 10:30 PM

Posted by: shorturl at December 20, 2006 03:15 AM

Posted by: Topamaxer at December 20, 2006 10:00 PM

Posted by: diovanj at December 25, 2006 09:44 PM

Posted by: gay twink at December 26, 2006 07:48 PM

Posted by: Alex at January 1, 2007 06:46 PM

Posted by: ass in thong at January 2, 2007 03:07 AM

Posted by: drug soma at January 5, 2007 12:19 AM

Posted by: gay boys fucking at January 8, 2007 06:53 AM

Posted by: carisoprodol soma at January 10, 2007 09:27 AM

Posted by: shgoverm at January 12, 2007 02:54 PM

Posted by: free big black tits at January 14, 2007 09:22 PM

Posted by: free teen porn solo at January 17, 2007 12:25 PM

Posted by: kmyraez ormxlyu at January 17, 2007 02:09 PM

Posted by: catch girls peeing at January 18, 2007 06:51 PM

Posted by: tramadol at January 21, 2007 07:29 PM

Posted by: breast huge natural at January 22, 2007 01:21 PM

Posted by: gay sex at January 23, 2007 11:36 AM

Posted by: life insurance companies usa at January 23, 2007 06:07 PM

Posted by: mortgage quotes at January 24, 2007 12:47 PM

Posted by: nude black men at January 26, 2007 07:48 AM

Posted by: drug soma at January 30, 2007 04:52 AM

Posted by: propecia generic at February 8, 2007 01:06 AM

Posted by: soma online sales at February 8, 2007 07:12 PM

Posted by: carinsurance at February 13, 2007 03:32 PM

Posted by: carisoprodol soma at February 14, 2007 10:42 AM

Posted by: Shannon at February 22, 2007 03:48 AM

Posted by: Chapman at February 24, 2007 02:40 PM

Posted by: Chapman at February 24, 2007 02:40 PM

Posted by: Chuck at February 25, 2007 08:30 PM

Posted by: Shemale at February 26, 2007 02:04 AM

Posted by: Hairston at February 26, 2007 08:39 PM

Posted by: Coble at February 26, 2007 11:05 PM

Posted by: exBuspar at February 28, 2007 03:35 AM

Posted by: IamEffexor at March 3, 2007 02:42 PM

Posted by: Victor at March 6, 2007 01:55 AM

Posted by: Rose at March 11, 2007 09:46 AM

Posted by: Rose at March 11, 2007 09:46 AM

Posted by: Johnie at March 13, 2007 01:11 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)