Wannabe feminist and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has written a book called Are Men Necessary?
The answer to her cute little book of course is yes. Without men Maureen Dowd be alive. Without men Maureen Dowd wouldn't have a job. Every accomplishment that Ms. Dowd has accomplished is in the shadow of a man that came before her. I'm not saying that to be sexist. I'm saying that because it's true. Men built the buildings that Ms. Dowd does her work in. Men started the businesses that Ms Dowd gets her goods and services from. Men put the satellites in the sky that allow Ms. Dowd to use her cell phone and her Blackberry. It's just silly to get angry about this because that won't change the fact that it's true. It's how society works. The hunter/gatherer in all of us men was there when we were born.
This doesn't mean that woman should ever be a second class citizen. On the contrary, women should be equal with men. Equal in the aspect that their role in society is just as important as ours is. Men know that we cannot live without women. We just don't have to become them to be equal with them.
Ms. Dowd simply is trying to conjure up the 'good ol' days' of radical feminism. These were the days when women started burning their bras. These were also the days that the abortion rates and the divorce rates took a huge spike north. Somehow when the radical feminist tossed out her need for men, she also tossed out her moral compass and let herself became #1. The problem with radical feminism is that it attempted to bring men down to the level of the woman. Woman roared and then basically tried to emasculate men. I doubt that Maureen is gonna be able to convince women to rise up again and try the same thing again.
So is Maureen Dowd necessary?
The answer of course is no. She is necessary as a human because all human life is precious. As a left wing commentator and talking head she is not necessary in the slightest. She works for the New York Times, which itself is unnecessary. If the New York Times was shut down today twenty more newspapers would rise up to take it's place with the same leftist bias. I'd say 85% of all media is left wing. Trust me, we don't need another left wing talking head.
As a feminist, again, Maureen Dowd is not necessary. As I stated above her brand of radical feminism is harmful to women and isn't going to be accepted by women living in rural middle America away from the sky rises of New York, This is the real American woman. The real American woman is someone who has a family and a husband. The real American woman balances family with career without trying to only look out for herself. She is equal with men because her goals are the same. Her goal is to give to her spouse and her children first before herself.(This should be the same goal for a man.) She doesn't have to bare-foot and pregnant. She doesn't have to stay home, she simply has to put herself after others. Maureen Dowd wants every woman to look out for #1. This is a bad strategy.
There are much less radical and more effective spokeswomen for females then Maureen Dowd. Phyllis Schlafly is a great example of a pro-woman, pro-family columnist that has a much better chance of reaching the real American woman.
So as a feminist Maureen Dowd isn't necessary.
Let's recap. Men: Necessary. Maureen Dowd: Unnecessary.
Nice try though.