This is Feminism?

SRM referenced Maureen Dowd's article in the Times Magazine last weekend (which was excerpted from her book) in one of his comments. Since I do not have the mental energy after the last several days to write something new, I am posting portions of an email I wrote to a friend of mine about that article.

I think it's complete bull shit. And I am not a Maureen Dowd hater. I just think this is schlock.

From the email:

Thanks for the mention of the NY Times article. I missed getting the Times this Sunday and finally broke down and read it online (I hate reading the Times on line. I have something of a compulsion for the ink on my fingers and the elimination process, section by section, as I work my way through. But I digress...)

I have mixed feelings about Maureen Dowd. I enjoy her writing, but I often find that she makes blanket statements without sufficient evidence. It has made her a very successful writer - I don't fault her for it, but still, I tend to take her with a grain of salt.

And maybe I am just getting defensive because the generation that she denigrates the most in this article (and presumably, in her book) is mine - the tail end of Generation-X (raised on free-to-be-you-and-me and Sesame Street, we remember the Challenger, but barely remember the assassination of John Lennon.)

And apparently we are really into shopping for matching shoes and handbags?

They shop for "Stepford Fashions" - matching shoes and ladylike bags and the 50's-style satin, lace and chiffon party dresses featured in InStyle layouts - and spend their days at the gym trying for Wisteria Lane waistlines.

Who is this elusive "they" she keeps referring to? Is this conclusion based on some sort of research? I mean, yes - many of my female friends enjoy shopping, and those that can afford to follow through with those urges probably do it with some frequency. But so does my mother, and she fought the good feminist fight alongside women like Ms. Dowd. And so does my brother, who is straight as a line, but has embraced the result of shifting gender politics that say it is okay for a guy to enjoy going to the mall and using Kiehl's products.

I have friends with professional degrees that plan to stop working for some time when they have children. But wasn't that the point of feminism? That a woman would have that option? And they aren't planning to give up their careers altogether - god knows, raising a child in an urban center means that only the wealthiest percentile could even afford to "reject careers in favor of playing traditional roles, staying home and raising children". You can't do that in NY or DC - not with student debt, credit card bills, housing costs...
Again - who are these people she is talking to? The wealthy elite? Okay, maybe they are following this path. But I sure as hell don't know many "wealthy elite".

And the friends of mine (note: women AND men) who would just as soon give up work to raise a child are mostly people with lucrative careers who have discovered that they hate what they do. It happens. Sucks, but it happens.

And most of them are lawyers.

The other platforms of Ms. Dowd's argument (that women are re-embracing traditional dating rituals and that men ultimately want caregiver wives who are not all that bright) also give me pause.

Ummm, not in my experience.

Sure, I appreciate it when a man pays for a date. And, if the date is clearly a date and was initiated by the guy, then it is perhaps a bit of a strike if he pushes to go dutch (Come on! He asked!!!) And in cases where the gentleman I am seeing makes a whole lot more money than I do (which is frequently the case, not because I date rich men, but because I do what I do for the love not the money) then I don't fight that he treats more often than I do. But in instances where I am on equal footing financially as a guy or where we are hanging out and it is in that amorphous "We are sort of friends, maybe on a date" area I am totally fine paying my way.

Really.

I mean, really!

And I will also argue that the men in my life (ex-boyfriends, platonic male friends, brothers and cousins) have all tended towards bright women. No one that I know has ended up looking for the "calm cushion of romances between unequals." (Crikey - did Steve Martin romanticize this ideal!?)

That said, I do have a very bright, Ivy-educated male friend who told me stories about the Guatemalan grocery checkout girl he met near his Tenleytown apartment and regularly slept with.

But he didn't want to marry her. And he claimed that she was actually very bright and a great opportunity for him to practice his Spanish.

Heh, heh, heh.

Yeah.

But I really do think this is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the men that I have personally been involved with have indeed wanted smart, well-read, articulate women (unless they were totally lying to me, and really good liars).

Frankly, I think men want women who are really, really smart (or at least intellectually can stand toe to toe with them) and also really, really beautiful. Yeah, that part makes it tough. But I do not think they will only date a woman if she is "really, really, beautiful" (my words). I think it would just be a perk.

And the guys I know love sarcastic women, or at least "women who get their humor".

The straight male friends of mine that I know read this blog are all pretty damn smart fellas.

How do you all feel about the Dowd article?