Sunday, October 30, 2005
Maureen Dowd Makes Some Good Points-I Know, I Didn't Think She Could Either
What's a Modern Girl to Do? - New York Times: "Female sexuality has been a confusing corkscrew path, not a serene progressive arc. We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered - shock, horror! - that men and women are not alike in their desires. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls on 'Sex and the City' had, the grumpier they got."
Of course, this is not about politics. It is actually about the confusion of 21st century sexuality, from the boardroom to the bedroom to the keyboard. She explores whether the Feminist Movement is extinct. Quite a question as it may be more of a morphing after so many twenty-somethings have watched their families try to have it all ending in crumbles. It is a worthwhile endeavor to attempt understanding what has happened. Do women now care less about having it all? Are women scared to be intelligent and successful as it may be the biggest turn-off to men at their own intellectual level? Do men really want women below them intellectually so that they can mold them into nurturers and care-takers? If so, is this a natural instinct or a fad coming back in fashion? How many equals marry and have successful lives together? Or does the man marry and pretend to have a successful life with his equal, but just have affairs with the secretaries and other intellectual dimwits? What has happened? How does mating happen? They say it is bad to meet people in bars, but how many busy, successful people have time to hang out in libraries? They say it is bad for women to chase men, but aren't some women aggressive naturally? Does that put them at a natural disadvantage? Maureen, by bringing this up, may have done all of us under-fifties a service by making us consider who we want to be. For men, it is whether we want to be shallow and taken care of. For women, it is whether we want to be successful at the risk of not having it all. Interesting questions indeed.
Of course, this is not about politics. It is actually about the confusion of 21st century sexuality, from the boardroom to the bedroom to the keyboard. She explores whether the Feminist Movement is extinct. Quite a question as it may be more of a morphing after so many twenty-somethings have watched their families try to have it all ending in crumbles. It is a worthwhile endeavor to attempt understanding what has happened. Do women now care less about having it all? Are women scared to be intelligent and successful as it may be the biggest turn-off to men at their own intellectual level? Do men really want women below them intellectually so that they can mold them into nurturers and care-takers? If so, is this a natural instinct or a fad coming back in fashion? How many equals marry and have successful lives together? Or does the man marry and pretend to have a successful life with his equal, but just have affairs with the secretaries and other intellectual dimwits? What has happened? How does mating happen? They say it is bad to meet people in bars, but how many busy, successful people have time to hang out in libraries? They say it is bad for women to chase men, but aren't some women aggressive naturally? Does that put them at a natural disadvantage? Maureen, by bringing this up, may have done all of us under-fifties a service by making us consider who we want to be. For men, it is whether we want to be shallow and taken care of. For women, it is whether we want to be successful at the risk of not having it all. Interesting questions indeed.
