[lit-ideas] Re: maureen dowd {was, men are useless}

  • From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:16:01 -0500

At 01:03 PM 12/22/2005, you wrote: 

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.)

People don't dislike Dowd "just because". That they think she is wrong mostly, is not because they dislike her, I think it's probably the other way around. Also the "wit" that Peder Zane mentions is clangier than some of the bad-writing contest stuff. I certainly won't be reading the book.

Dowd isn't any kind of serious analyst of feminism or women's
comdition


"comdition"? Judy, what are you thinking about?

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

I can't speak for others, but I'm not a dowd-hater -- i kind of like her as a person -- but I think she's a bad writer with a misplaced agenda. The fact that a lot of people DO take her seriously is sort of a little disturbing.

p

##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada 

------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2005