The Maureen Dowd Two Minute Mock

The Incredible Shrieking Dowd

July 9, 2003

Why are men so insecure?

Let us begin with a story.  There was once an industrious, but goofy, lad named Bernard who decided to fight some injustice.  He contacted a great hero of our people, Mike LaSalle, Editor of mensnewsdaily.com, and asked if he could start a piece that responded to the man-hating, New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd.  He got the go ahead and most people seemed to like the product but a few readers contacted him and requested that he stop writing.  It was Bernard’s perception that they did this out of chivalry.  They felt that Bernard was picking on this woman even though she is very powerful and could buy and sell Bernard 50 times over.  Then one morning Bernard awoke and saw that she wrote a column titled, "Incredible shrinking Y."   The first thing the column asks is “Why, oh Y, are men so insecure?”  With that opening sentence, the reasons as to “why, oh Y” Bernard writes this column become self-evident.

Dowd argues that, “The darlings [note: that's us] have been fretting for some years now that they may be rendered unnecessary if women get financial and biological independence, learning how to reproduce and refinance without them.”  Any time Dowd says something like “darlings” to refer to a group you know that she has the knife out.  I recommend for this columnist to read her own pieces on affirmative action to see exactly how women have progressed so far.  It is due to the state manufacturing an advantage for them in their competition with other citizens. 

Dowd unveils her own incredible insecurities in the next sentence: “What if nature played a cruel trick and demoted men, so they had to be judged merely by their appearance, pliability and talent for gazing raptly at the opposite sex, no matter how bored?”  Feeling a bit insecure, Maureen?   I admit that we can’t always talk about dermal issues so our conversations, by definition, do not meet your requirements. 

We see here that Dowd has undoubtedly noticed that that when women turn 50 the future does not hold the same promise that turning 20 does.  Woe to discover the truth so late in life.  She should blame herself for her lack of intelligence gathering and not try to castigate men in order to make herself feel better. 

This is what feminists don’t understand.  They spend so much time staring at themselves and their narcissistic personalities in the mirror, that they miss the train called “Reality” which hums by them everyday.  They pay no attention to what men say or think so they know nothing about us.  Now for the truth.  First, someone should tell Maureen that we can’t be demoted as we already have been through affirmative action and the vicious misandry of the media and entertainment industry (See Nathanson and Young’s Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture).  Second, we like being judged on our appearance and “objectified.”  Go ahead, stare and whistle, we enjoy it!  Women using men for their physical pleasure is like “using” a shovel to dig a ditch. Third, I don’t know any women with a “talent for gazing raptly” at men so this, like much else that she writes about, exists only in her hallucinations.  

Dowd then states that she has read that the Y chromosome, also known as the male chromosome, is degrading as time goes on as it contains fewer and fewer genes.  The Y chromosome is getting its genes from itself which Dowd calls “[t]he ultimate guys' night out.”  No, the ultimate guys’ night out would be…never mind.

What she fails to state is that there is nothing unique about this observation and that the Y chromosome has always been smaller than the X.  There is nothing new here and nothing to suggest that males are “dying out.”  Besides, out of the 46 chromosomes, Dowd is referring to the only one that automatically differs between men and women.  That tells you how closely related we are to one another as human beings, but to Dowd the expanse is as great as that between her youth and the present day.

Then she provides some hate speech for the avid NYT disciple.  She states, “Self-love as a survival mechanism: the unflinching narcissism of men may send women into despair at times, but it has saved their sex for the next 5 million or 10 million years.”  What f----- bull----!  I can’t believe they let her print this stuff.  We’re narcissistic?  That’s a complete lie.  Men are not narcissistic creatures and this is particularly true in comparison to women.  Please examine the poll data on the percentage of males to females who frequent spas and nail boutiques (other than a few meterosexuals, it’s all women).  Tally up the amount of time on a monthly basis that men spend shopping and juxtapose it with the amount of time that women spend shopping.  The results would not please Dowd or the rest of the feministas.  How much time do we males spend on our appearance every day?  Not a lot.  You know how I know?  It’s because women complain about it ubiquitously on television. 

Further, I always thought there was considerable narcissism in the modern day mating strategies of women.  It seems to be “love yourself and then others will love you.”  They spend little time pondering what concerns the opposite sex might have.  They are rarely instructed by magazines or self-help books to deal with a man’s perceptions except in a rare work like, The Rules, and this was universally derided by the media.

Let’s counter-impose this with the male’s timeless mating strategy of “chicks dig it.”  “You like this shirt?”  We’ll wear it.  “You like these shoes?”  I’ll buy them.  Why do males work themselves to death?  For women.  Chicks dig men with money and careers.  That’s the end of the story.  Are any of us really concerned about what some hot girl in their 20’s thinks?  Of course.  All of us are concerned (at least for a few months anyway).

The fact that chicks dig well off men is a reason why we have all these laws favoring women in the workplace.  Men will always excel and outperform women in the business world because women have nowhere near as much at stake.  For a woman, the battle against her peers is won or lost when they leave the house in the morning.  No man cares how much status a woman has.  Madeline Albright was a former Secretary of State but to me she holds the allure of a bleach and ammonia cocktail. 

To continue with the words of our Morgana Le Fay, she quotes from the book Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice for All Creation but neglects to mention to the reader the book’s actual title.  The passage states, “For a long time, it was assumed that promiscuity was good for males and bad for females in terms of the number of kids they could have…But it wasn't until 1988 that it really started to become evident that females were benefiting from having sex with lots of males, with more promiscuous females having more and healthier offspring.”  I don’t believe a word of this and neither should you.  A promiscuous female has one road ahead of her: being a single parent.  Dowd leaves out here that the female single parent, certainly not in every case, is one of the greatest threats to the stability of our society as 70% of our prison population comes from single parent homes. 

Another contention I have with this is that once again, Dowd and the Doctor, are not even considering a man’s viewpoint on the issue.  The majority of men will not marry promiscuous women (I acknowledge that some do) as there is no great shame to a man than to have married a slut.  Think about it, how could promiscuity benefit a woman?  She has a finite number of eggs and at any particular 36 week span she can only be pregnant by one suitor so what need does she have for other men?  More chances to get STDs?  Is that an evolutionary advantage?  Being promiscuous would be counterproductive as it would negate a man’s desire to offer support to her and their offspring. 

Friends, this is why women should run from radical feminism.  Dowd and her ilk do not care about them.  They want to change the world, which means, they want everybody to be as unhappy as they are.  They are despicable creatures indeed and they need to be vociferously deconstructed as much as possible.  

Dowd extols the virtues of the praying mantis and quotes Dr. Tatiana as being very fond “of the green spoon worm. . . . The male is 200,000 times smaller, effectively a little parasite who lives in her reproductive tract, fertilizing her eggs and regurgitating sperm through his mouth.”  Oh, they’d like that kind of “marginalization” wouldn’t they?  Sadly, for them, the spoon worm is not our reality but if our foolish politicians keep considering and enacting laws like the Equity Pay Act, VAWA, and years of paid maternity leave, it is the way our world will soon be. 

She then quotes from another book, that men are becoming the “second sex.”  This is a fair assessment given the rule of radical feminists in the United States; however, since women are now so superior, let’s do away with all of the legislation that yields unholy advantages to women.  That would solve many a problem for all concerned but, then again, she and her kind do not want this individual problem to ever be solved.

She has a solution for us though and it’s own that could have been penned by that great Jabba the Hut, Andrea Dworkin.  Dowd recommends we all become sissies: “Perhaps that's why men are adapting, becoming more passive and turning into ‘metrosexuals,’ the new term for straight men who are feminized, with a taste for facials, grooming products and home design.  Better to be an X chromosome than an ex-chromosome.” 

Here, Dowd informs the uninitiated that radical feminism is really all about hating men.  They don’t want us to be ourselves, they want us to be them.  Well, I say burn in f----- hell!  You won’t see me get a facial or buying this years’ outfits.  Yet, anger aside, isn’t she missing an important point here?  Without men, there would be little that is feminine in the world.  Without male ingenuity, our lives would continue to be nasty, brutish, and short.  Without science, that bastion of the “patriarchy,” we wouldn’t live past the age of 25.  If we turned engineers, doctors, and manual workers into Maureen Dowds we’d have nothing in this world.  We’d be walking around asking each other if the sea water is okay to drink. 

Maureen, if you’re listening, and I know you’re not, other than radical feminists, nobody likes a jaded harpy with a full-time hate speech habit.  Maybe it’s time to just move over to the gossip or fashion side of the paper and stop giving the word “Liberties” a bad name. 

Bernard Chapin