Slate now has its own take on Maureen Dowd's epic length "Are Men Necessary?" Basically, the author Katie Roiphe says, Maureen Dowd's half-journalism, half-caricature snarkiness has no place in an arena so seriously complicated as sexual politics. Roiphe takes issue with the title of the piece, saying its sensationalism is exactly what feminism--and women in general--doesn't need. Now, I recognize that I'm not a woman, but the title struck me as absolutely perfect, though now I guess it was just too clever.
"Are Men Necessary?" is a question that asks precisely those self-reflective questions Roiphe demands--it asks 'are men necessary for us (women) to dupe ourselves into believing in a new fantasy of homogeneity?' As Connor so rightly pointed out, the conclusion--and thus the message of the text--has nothing to do with men.
The fault, dear Katie, is not in our bras, but in ourselves.
dude, that pun in the title was malchow-esque. we're better than that.
ReplyDelete