[lit-ideas] Re: maureen dowd {was, men are useless}
- From: Judy Evans <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:03:55 +0000
Thursday, December 22, 2005, 4:50:34 PM, Paul Stone wrote:
PS> Here is an article about Dowd's book:
PS> http://www.triangle.com/books/zane/story/2860596p-9317087c.html
PS> This basically says EVERYTHING I tried to say about her a couple of days
ago.
I haven't read the book and suspect I won't. But I do have comments
on Peder Zane based on Dowd's NYT Times piece and also a general
comment, with which I'll begin.
General: that people dislike Dowd (and they certainly do) doesn't
mean she's wrong in this instance. (And it would be good if they
didn't try to justify an attack on _Are Men Necessary_ by explaining
their dislike... -- to be fair, Peder Zane doesn't only do that.)
PZ>Her main point is that modern women just want to be girls
that's a funny way of putting it
PZ>Dowd's notions about the retreat from feminism are not dead wrong
to put it mildly
PZ>So here's my New Year's resolution: I vow to lighten up
PZ>and take Maureen Dowd on her terms, always remembering
PZ>that a girl's got to do what a girl's got to do.
oh yeah sure...
Dowd isn't any kind of serious analyst of feminism or women's
comdition but the NY Times piece was not that bad; it's been so bashed
by Dowd-haters that it's almost impossible to say that
--
Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK
mailto:judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
