Maureen Dowd, Sexist Pig.
How fondly we look back on the old days. This is particularly true if you happen to be one of the few [okay, very few] readers who regularly peruse my work. Countless times have I opened up an email to discover sentences that evoke Stardust Memories: “I liked your early columns best, especially the Maureen Dowd ones. Why don’t you write some more of those?”
The reference alludes to my old “Maureen Dowd Two Minute Mock” feature on Mensnewsdaily.com which ran in 2003 and 2004. Ms. Dowd, the ancien debutante of the New York Times, is the perfect embodiment of all things that conservatives despise. Her reflexive leftism, misandric inclinations, disdain for America, obsession with race, devout elitism, and appalling self-righteousness made her an obvious target.
Yet these attributes are also why she so exhausts. As with most leftists, there’s simply no there there. Irrational garbage can only be bashed for so long before the drowsiness sets in. Eventually, her piñata disintegrated into diversity flag colored bits of sugar and paper. How sad that Ms. Dowd squandered whatever gifts she once had in the name of universal self-absorption.
Another factor in my absence from critiquing her was The Times misguided belief that people would pay for their online content. Known as “TimesSelect,” their pay-per-slanted-rant experiment failed; which revealed just how inflated the paper’s self-regard actually is. They hold their biased fare to be prescient and penetrating while the rest of us discern it as the propaganda it actually is. The discontinued venture has now made Maureen easy to access.1
Despite her increased availability, the gray lady’s snarky, faux-cute persona remained unsavory, but, after a month or so, curiosity caused me to check back in on her. I scanned a piece of hers on Hillary Clinton and the allegations of sexism made by her aides against the other Democratic pretenders as a result of their daring to criticize her during a recent debate.
Astoundingly, Dowd did not defend the junior gangster from New York. Instead, she lampooned the “estrogen equation” endemic to a woman wanting to have it both ways. When I read the line, “But she can break, just like a little girl, when male chauvinists are rude enough to catch her red-handed being slippery and opportunistic,” I honestly wondered whether Ms. Dowd had finally grown up and embraced logos as an alternative lifestyle.
Regrettably, my optimism was unwarranted. Her latest offering, “Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?”, documents Dowd only having left the emotional vortex for a moment. It was time to renew my battle with the beast—if only to experience the joy of seeing the boys at freerepublic.com post more pictures of Catherine Zeta-Jones as a response.
There is no truth in advertising here as the piece itself has nothing to do with Hillary but everything to do with the quagmire in which older women find themselves after discovering that, despite the denials of the media, there actually are rules inherent to dating. Could it be that men prioritize differently than women when selecting potential mates?
Perhaps an affirmative answer to this question will lead Ms. Dowd and her followers to accept the notion of viva la difference? Doubt bet on it. Why do that when you can blame “the other” for failing to subjugate their own needs to your own. That men are shallow, irrational protoplasm is too enticing a precept to forsake. That we fail to appreciate women for the things they appreciate about themselves is a sin unforgivable. As long as men have the temerity to think independently, America will remain a slow rolling rerun of Planet of the Apes.
The pretext for this article is rooted in science…well, actually social science…well, actually economics alone. Ms. Dowd came across a study by a Columbia University economist that precisely matched her preconceptions so she decided to tell us all about it. The fellow embarked on a speed dating experiment with a sample size and subject grouping wildly unrepresentative of the American people. His choice of venue was a bar near campus with a small number of ivy leaguers present.
He concluded that males are more stereotypical in their romantic proclivities than are women. Yawn. Could this mean that the progressive left will finally accept that there is a biological basis for human behavior? Never. A commandment among pseudo-liberals is to only celebrate authors who regard male and female preferences as being socially determined. Society mandates our acts which then perpetually fosters the stereotyping that makes reality discordant with utopian equality—a version of equality in which males tie themselves to female taste in the same manner that the renminbi is pegged to the dollar.
In an interview the professor’s politically correct level of misandry is pronounced (so expect to see him on television fairly soon):
For me, the most surprising thing was actually that in this population all of the old stereotypes — it doesn’t make you feel great about being a man — appeared in spite of the fact that we’re now in the 21st century and are looking at what should be among the most progressive, broad-minded of all possible populations. So that was a little sad, the fact that the stereotypes were all there.
Why won’t our pesky genes accept redirection? When will we stop coveting sugar, salt, and what often is packed in to curvy, pert, denim packages?
Frankly, my suspicion is that the professor probably did not feel great about being a man in the first place. This is just another example which illustrates that no matter how hard we try to replace nature with dogma nature will always find a way to win out. That this shocks a rising star of academe is a testament to just how dysfunctional our universities have become. We have reached a point in which the common man knows twice as much as the average scholar.
That a woman’s beauty is a keen predictor of how many dates she goes on is unremarkable. It is as startling as hearing someone describe London as “a big city.” That males embrace beauty and youth in women is appropriate and rational as these factors highly correlate with a woman’s fertility but not so a man’s. Mating with a non-fecund female is fruitless [pun intended] and fertility can best be summed up as, “sex is the route, reproduction [is] the destination.”2
As men age, a woman’s youth becomes more and more essential, and we practically make a fetish out of it.3 Men who marry a second time select, on average, a woman five years younger than themselves while those who marry a third time opt for wives eight years their junior.4 The man’s bias against older women is due to a need to find the “maximally fertile woman.”5 Those men who did not conform to these biological mandates—and chose spinsters or ones in terrible shape—never reproduced and have thus disappeared from the gene pool and our planet.6
Another central conclusion from Dowd’s cherished study is that intelligence is more highly prized by women in members of the opposite sex than it is by men. The professor asserts that men do not want their partners to be smarter than they are. You can see how such a claim would titillate Ms. Dowd. It affirms the sacred axiom that men are shallow, inferior, and threatened by their equals. This is undoubtedly the reason why (at this moment) her column stands atop the New York Times “most popular” chart.
Unfortunately for the professor and Ms. Dowd, they both happen to be wrong. Matt Ridley explains in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature that intelligence is esteemed by men as well: “The study was done by David Buss of the University of Michigan, who asked a large sample of American students to rank the qualities they most preferred in a mate. He found that men preferred kindness, intelligence, beauty, and youth, while women preferred kindness, intelligence, wealth, and status.”7
The significance of intelligence must be qualified, however. For both sexes it is weighty in regards to a long-term bond, but male tastes diverge when it comes to short-term unions. Youth and physical attractiveness are more than enough for fleeting amalgamations.
The endorphins really must have been circulating for Ms. Dowd after the professor confided to her that, “We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.” Just as she thought! A misspent life suddenly vindicated. Men don’t like successful, bright career women [read: Fraulein Dowd] because their own inadequate and corrupt nature prevents them from doing so.
Ms. Dowd’s future may be cursed, but at least now she knows why. Thanks to the professor and his PC friendly views, Maureen and her ilk will never have to rationally assess their situation again—as if they ever would anyway. Why bother to do so when you can rejoice in the intellectual limitations of half the citizenry?
When atheism is all the rage prejudice like this is to be expected. As Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov: “Without God and the future life? How will man be after that? It means everything is permitted now.” Everything is permitted and everything is believable. Only with a Godless mindset could one buy that 49 percent of the populace is beneath them. Here we see the dark side of women’s empowerment8 because one cannot reign supreme without a horde to rule over. Who needs a cross when you can wear a Rosie the Riveter t-shirt?
The rest of Dowd’s piece is a brief jeremiad of how difficult it is for the modern woman to deal with the fragile male ego. They have to hide their transcendence or we will run from them like the mice they suspect us to be. Our anti-priestess triumphantly noted: “Professional women in their 20s are growing deft at subterfuges to protect the egos of dates who make less money, the story said, such as not leaving their shopping bags around and not mentioning their business achievements. Or they simply date older men who might not be as threatened.”
Is there any truth to her statement? None. Even the “they” and the “are” are lies. I meant to address this last spring in a chapter on female ego in Women: Theory and Practice. Regrettably, it never got done. It will be my premise—whenever I get around to writing it—that the male ego is infinitely smaller than the female’s. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever worked in an integrated setting.
Regardless of Dowd’s mistaken assumptions, the hiding of shopping bags is a fine tactic but not for reasons relating to ego. It has to do with the pronounced materialism of the western woman. When a man ascertains that a prospective girlfriend has dedicated her life to shopping and the acquisition of “stuff,” the corrupted words of Khrushchev apply; as “she will break and bury you.” Women who spend money like it is carbon dioxide are best left alone so they can verbally process the past alongside their debts, their cats, and the glimmer of the Lifetime channel.
In my experience, a woman’s salary has little to do with their net worth. I recall once going out with a girl who made $90,000 a year but owed far more than I ever could. Her purse brimmed with credit cards and I never saw her wear the same thing twice. When she told me that she dreamed of being a soccer mom and driving around town in a hoped for 700 series BMW, I drew the necessary conclusions. Our affair immediately had a definite expiration date attached to it. A woman devoted to conspicuous consumption is one who should be marked for short-term consumption.
Overall, what should we make of this discussion? Most of us already know Dowd to be a lightweight [here is a hilarious picture of her skimming through her version of research materials]. Allan Bloom knew more about the sturm und drang of the modern woman than she ever could even though The Closing of the American Mind9 was penned two decades ago:
Women are still pleased by their freedom and their capacity to chart an independent course for themselves. But they frequently suspect that they are being used, that in the long run they may need men more than men need them, and that they cannot expect much from the feckless contemporary male. They despise what men used to think women had to offer (that is partly why it is now offered so freely), but they are dogged by doubt whether men are very impressed by what they are now offering instead.10
Rather than deride men, women should be grateful for male lust. Without it the species would never have reached the twenty-first century. A man’s devotion to younger females is not a societal construct; it is a biological imperative and a predisposition which will never fade (or be nagged) away. The optimum means of handling our tendencies is to simply adapt and adjust. Women should turn off their televisions, tune out the likes of Maureen Dowd, read, study, and pray but also be sure to donate their self-help books and chick lit to charity while keeping their slightly dated clothes in their closets. Hectoring males to become more like them is as profitable as running up the balances on their Visas and MasterCards.
Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Notes:
[1] Wordplay intended?
[2] Barash, David P. Barash and Nanelle, R. Madame Bovary’s Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature. New York: Delacorte, 2005. p. 79.
[3] Etcoff, Nancy. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York: Anchor Books, 1999. p.64.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Tooley, James. The Miseducation of Women. (London: Continuum, 2002). P. 168.
[7] Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. (New York: Penguin, 1994). Pps. 267-268.
[8] A real of leap of faith here by me as I am not aware of any upside of the movement.
[9] I don’t know how many readers know The New Criterion, but it’s the finest of all conservative publications and they have a symposium on The Closing of the American Mind this month…for free. Hit this link.
[10] Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. (New York: Simon & Shuster, Inc, 1987). p.124.
Stumble It!
Posted in: Culture, Current Events, Feminism, Men and Mating, Sex & Metropolis, Vox Populi | 78 views
Trackbacks & Pingbacks • comment feed
[...] Opinion: Reading Bernie Chapin's fun column today on MND about men, women, sex, and Maureen Dowd’s obviously ridiculous opinions on life, got [...]
Comments • comment feed
Bernard.
I was happy to see you going after Dowd on this one. When I read her article today I thought “how lucky is she to be so stupid and to have a job with her photo and ideas in the papers nationally, reinforcing the sexist views of men, and getting paid for it. What a perfect job for a stupid man-hater.”
In college Psych classes, decades ago we learned that when it came to dating and porno some guys lied about both… but “shocking” as it seemed, so did females.
They (Psych experiments) randomly put couples together saying the computer matched them for many qualities when it was random. It turned out that the only factor that was consistent and caused both men and women to be happy with their dates, – looks.
They showed porno movies – Europe – to women whose mouths were saying “disgusting” but their bodies seemed to be getting turned on sexually according to the instruments used. (Was the study duplicated, I don’t know)
One – and I hope someone can find this – finding was that with married couples IQ were closely related; stupid people tended to hang out with each other and so did smart ones.
Pop quiz ladies and you are hooked up to a lie detector: Would you rather go out with Donahue, who “understands” women, or Clint Eastwood who doesn’t talk much? Eastwood won easily. (Ya, he is, coincidently “rich” but so is Donahue. Eastwood was taller, sexier, tougher. Toss in the low paid, nurturing male preschool teacher, … that loser won’t be considered by well-educated women.)
Another question for younger women. You have a choice for dating, not marriage. The airline pilot, fighter pilot, crop duster pilot, or the MBA in accounting from your office. Pilots rule.
Males dating. Do you want the airline stewardess who smiled at you and said “what hotel are you staying in, I will be in Dallas three days, call me?” Or the dry woman MBA in accounting (stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason sometimes) who put you to sleep on the flight but wanted to go to the opera while she was in town and had tickets for two?
But, for marriage, is it really the stewardess men want, long term. (Some are smart some are not, being smart isn’t a job requirement.) Bottom line, do men REALLY want a stupid woman they can dominate to spend their lives with because men are sooooooooo superficial. That sexist stereotype is a cross between an old wives tale and the stories from women’s studies. It’s bullshit. (I tried for another word to get past the censors but that word, bullshit, does a much better job of discribing the male bashing by Dowd rather than, say, the world “lie”. )
When women say they want a man who is intelligent, capable, hard worker, and looks don’t matter, but humor does, whereas the feminists have the “click” phenomenon … men need – when they hear that STORY that puts women in such a good light – men need the feminst click equivilent, let me make one up, let’s call it the “Ka-ching” phenomenon. If the qualities lead to more cash, women want it.
Women want men with character, education and brains because that’s where the money and stability is. They want travel, romance, and sex with the exciting pilot when dating and young, but for marriage “Ka-ching” carries the day. A rich pilot is OK. A hobbyist who spends his teacher’s salary for lessons, sorry, no deal.
The woman will say, “Ya, I will take that pot-bellied, sexless man with money… because for me, (pat on the back) looks don’t matter.” While she over looks the starving artist that she might have to support.
Men want curvy, sexy, young and healthy because – recent news reports and studies show: intelligence and health are more likely found there and both lead to children more likely to survive. On the back burner for both genders is survival of the children and spreading genes. Men can be more reckless inseminating the good, the bad and the ugly, and his genes are more likely to survive. She wants a man she can control who will take care of her but that doesn’t make her superior. Both have the same goal with different stratagies. Does a woman with advanced degrees plan on taking care of the children, or are the odds better with a “smart” woman with more modest aims? The future father really wants to know.
For Dowd to think that men only think with the little head, and it’s all about sex, and if the women is stupid he can control her shows ignorance. She really is a sexist pig.
November 15th, 2007
When women have a choice, for dating that is different than for what they might choose for marriage. For fun, when young, they tend to prefer exciting guys, romantic, handsome, troubled, wild, dangerous men, but for marriage it’s different. for marriagte theywant stability and intelligence, lots of education too. Is that because they are superior human beings, compared to shallow men who just want young and curvy but stupid playthings they can dominate? That’s Dowd’s view. No, it’s about money and security, and nothing else.
There is a “click” phenomenon in women’s studies where young women are taught to see things they didn’t see on their own. For men I have a word men should use to understand women, it’s the “Ka-ching” phenomenon. Why don’t women want the male pre-school teacher, but prefer the older, better educated, dominate male “Ka-Ching” that’s where the money is. Why don’t more women take up with the struggling (kind, nurturing) starving male artist who is sensitive and romantic but will need to be supported financially until he is discovered and can sell his art. The professional female who wants marriage would take the male MBA who is not romantic, has a pot belly, but looks don’t count for her “personality does” “Ka-Ching” more cash. Once the artist has made it, is rich, then he becomes marriage material because “Ka-Ching” …
A man is on a plane and the female seated next to him, has an MBA – discusses her long term goals with children low on the list wants to share her two tickets to the opera with him, does he want to go with her during his two days in town. The cute stewardess asks the same man who she learns is going to the same hotel she is if he wants to “go out on the town” … whatever does he do… If just dating the men take the stewardess and maybe for marriage too if she wants to focus on the man and “their” children rather than her career. It’s not about domination, it’s about raising a family and what other reason is there to marry for most of us? Women of average abilities or well-trained, well-educated, professional, often want the man, at some point, to take care of them…
Dowd’s views are based on old wives tales and modern feminist views of men. Ya, we want sexy and cute and there is nothing wrong with that. But we don’t marry stupid women if we are smart. Dowds views are not based on the truth. She is a bigot and lucky to have a high paying job where she can do what she loves to do, trash men.
Recently a report came out that cury women, compared to skinny and fat, have higher IQ. Also, younger women are more likely to have healthy babies. Just as women look for the best survival of their genes, so do men. But men have an advantage. Men can spread their genes with: the good, the bad and the ugly, while choosing to care for and live with an Alpha female if they can get one. In the past, before the state took over, most females needed protection and care of a man. Both genders are being “greedy” by going after what they want which might not always be what their partner wants but it’s only the male sexual strategy that is criticized as immature and greedy.
In Psych classes, 70’s a random pairing of students who were told their dates were chosen by computer found that both males and females tended to be happier on the dates when they ended up with attractive partners. The females might say, humor, personality come first, but in real life, that’s not what either gender notices.
There were studies in the 70’s showing that with married couples the one constant in relationships were that the male and female tended to be equal in IQ. Stupid people married stupid people and smart married smart. That would support something other than Dowds sexist and piggish comments about men always wanting stupid women to dominate.
Question: do women want Clint Eastwood or Donahue? Donahue loses although both are rich. But if it comes down to either one of them and a guy who is handsome, romantic and poor, the preschool teacher or starving artist, which is chosen? Ka-ching, follow the money.
November 15th, 2007
A badda bing Bernie, and great comments from Steve as well. The professor quoted seems right in line with the general comments I hear from students at institutions of higher learning aka colleges these days. Feminized, toe the girly man line and all will be well.
One interesting footnote to my life will be the later years I spent dating the later 40’s to fifty crowd of Frau’s who couldn’t wait to dump their ex-hubbies. Almost to a Frau the term “I’m a strong independent woman” is the point at which I know that sex is close and the breka-up closer.
What do I think to myself do I say in response, I’m a strong independent man? So, cupcake, does being a strong independent woman mean you’re kinda like a man? Almost but really still a woman?
I always hone in for hours of ceaseless fun asking exactly what she means by her assertion she is a strong blah blah blah. Usually it means she doesn’t need a man to take care of herself while describing in grisly detail the low child support and alimony and insurance she receives which in her opinion should be much much higher. I’m sure the soon to be divorced Ms. Michael Jordan who will get 165 Million will no doubt agree. And of course that statement always presages the “but I still have traditional values” which is code for “you pay the bill whenst I go pee”.
Like the “Friends first” statement in personal ads which is code for “no boom-boom” till I decide you are serious about being my boy-bitcjh and letting me tell you whats what. Those I cross out out first.
And really, whats in any of this for us? Why wed a woman at all if not to have a family? In my 50’s its proof positive Forrest Gump was right describing his mother’s box of chocolates theory about life. The modern woman isn’t worth the bother. Look at the divorce rate for 2nd and 3rd marriages. Wait! How about love, you say? Well, listen to this woman’s words and you’ll see what the average woman thinks about you and how can she love you if she thinks of you in those terms?
She earned her lonliness. Let her enjoy it.
Does anyone really care what Dowd tinks or writes?
November 16th, 2007
sorry about the double message above
Sometimes I hit submit comment and it doesn’t show up (because my computer knows better than I that it wasn’t written well enough) so then I cram out a shorter, faster response, with some of the same stuff. Then, the next day, both show up. Reminder, brain damage army, chemo brain recently (the chemo is over so that is getting better) Sorry for the sloppiness and mistakes. Sometimes I think, just don’t bother… because others write you off for poor grammar, mistakes in spelling, but when I read Dowd I think, damn, the girl studied her grammar and spelling, but what a bunch of MS.information she spreads. So, messy or not, I just can’t ignore her male bashing even if she looks better on paper.
November 16th, 2007
I think it’s the greatest hoodwinking of all time that feminists try to portray men, MRA’s and conservatives as old-fashioned and close-minded thinkers.
Feminists are some of the most old-fashioned stodgy people ever! Why do I say that? Because they hold on (for dear life) to this outmoded way of thinking about sex.
And that is that sex is a gift that women give to men.
It’s everywhere in what they’re trying to do. Whenever a man “doesn’t pay full price” i.e. jump through the hoops the woman wants they go into four alarm fire mode. This new bill lawmakers in the UK are trying to pass about drunken sex is a prime example.
“A woman can’t consent to sex if she’s drunk!” Really? But she could sell her car (or drive one!), join the military, or gamble all of her money away, with the understanding that she gave consent and can’t change things back. Why target ONLY men this way, and not other entities. Oh that’s right because sex is a gift women give to men.
Seen in this way the “no drunk consent law” makes a lot of sense–to feminists.
It’s like I can almost picture an imaginary discussion between two hard-core butch feminists:
Fem1: What would you like to picket today? The gap for using underage slave labor in China?
Fem2: Nah, that’s sooo 90’s.
Fem1: Want to protest outside city hall for the Iraq war?
Fem2: Naw, there’s only 2% female casualties, and the Iraqi women are all daughter-honor-killers anyway.
Fem1: hey! the news just said a girl in the dorms is claiming she was raped because they guy got her drunk to raise his chance of consent!
Fem2: Whaaaaaaat!?? A man got access to a vagina for less than full price!!! Let’s rolll!!!
Isn’t funny how no matter what huge calamity is going on in the world, they’re always willing to pass them up to attack any man that has access to a vagina at a discounted price? And they CLAIM the world revolves around penises!
November 16th, 2007
Hookers in a foriegn country, I won’t say which just because – but I am sure it’s the same many places, hated it when some women lowered the price, or if some found men they liked and “did it” for free. Drove the price down. When we say a woman is “cheap” it means she gets laid too easily and too often, drives the price down.
Jackal got it right. I really do want to push the “Ka-ching” phenomenon as the counter part to the feminist “click” because often, in divorce court, marriage, sex harassment law suits, or even when negotiating during dating – as in “I am a woman who believes that the one who asks for the date should pay” Ka-Ching. He has already sacrificed once by risking rejection and now for the honor of her company “Ka-ching.” Ask he, when was the last time you asked a man out?” “Well, I don’t” “Why not?” Because I got a boob job, a vibrator, and my sistahs and I don’t feel the “need” to initiate because men are lining up.
Truth is, I believe that many men if women were as driven sexually would do the same, just wait, choose the one who wants it most, is willing to sacrifice most, and then sit back and watch while saying “I think the one asking out should pay.” It’s only a trick of nature that has given men a stronger urge in general. Add that to a society that teaches men that they have less value unless they can provide “things” … so between the two, men lose. Some men don’t find themselves second class though and the men that do should learn from them. Don’t sell out for sex, and don’t go for the “men are less evolved so treat us like little princesses” story. Be a man, walk away from women who use men. Reward only the women who are fair.
Some men do find equal partners but most feel that they must work more, provide more, compliment more, cater more and for those men who won’t, in many cases they won’t be missed.
It’s my wife’s birthday today, …I feel fortunate to have found a woman who expects to take care of herself and doesn’t need a man for material things. Time to stop complaining about women in general and to go spend time with mine. Have a nice Thanksgiving.
SD
November 17th, 2007
great piece, bernard. I recall trying to read Dowd’s pieces, but my eyes glazed over, saving me the the insult of wearing out my brain on the meanderings of nutcase.
November 18th, 2007
Great piece. If I was a writer, the terminology I would have used would be “Sexist Sow” or “Sexist Cow” Only men are pigs. eh?
November 25th, 2007