Maureen Dowd of the NY Times


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Maureen Dowd of the NY Times

Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times once ran yet another of her visciously anti-male columns on this very topic — about career women who have trouble finding “suitable” (a.k.a. similarly earning?) men.

Fred Reed (of Fred on Everything fame) had a very coherent response to her column which is located here:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Dowd.shtml

Thought you’d all enjoy!

08-29-2006 04:59 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Hedgie
Regular Contributor
Hedgie

Maureen Dowd is a classic case in point.

Dowd is a bitter, dried-up, childless, lonely woman who vents her disappointment and despair on men.

Her sole purpose today is to stand as a warning to young women just starting out in life: “Don’t do as I did, or you will end up as lonely, angry, and alone as I am.”

Dowd is pretty pathetic. I would almost feel sorry for her if she weren’t such a miserable harpy.

08-29-2006 05:03 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Quote from the article:

“So little of what Maureen says tracks with the world I know. She thinks men don’t like smart women. I know a lot of bright guys, and they all look for bright women. They just want agreeable bright women.”

Good read. Thanks for the heads up.

08-29-2006 05:08 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete
She is the future of many women on this board and elsewhere.

08-29-2006 05:26 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
aramasastry
Newbie
aramasastry

“agreeable bright women”? Please explain what is meant by agreeable.
Thanks.

08-29-2006 05:30 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
A great many of the women who are on this board are probably headed that way. But not all career women, I suspect. There are quite a few out there who seem to comprehend, you just need to know how to spot them.

08-29-2006 05:32 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms

> “agreeable bright women”? Please explain what is
> meant by agreeable. Thanks.

For example, an agreeable bright woman might be one who is:

a- Bright.

b- Understands that institutional roadblocks to women’s success are mostly gone and are not a huge impediment to their success.

c- Success is rarely easy and never assured. Therefore, lack of success is not a priori an indication of discrimination.

d- That a far greater injustice persists in the =system of family law, particularly as it relates to how fathers are treated in child custody / shared custody. This is in desperate need of reform.

And by reform, I mean a change in law, not an occasional  token sentiment of sympathy, or an occasional manganimous gesture at the time of divorce with no guarantee.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 08-29-2006 06:14 PM

08-29-2006 05:39 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
MidsummerKnight
Visitor
MidsummerKnight
What’s a Modern Girl to Do? Another bit by Dowd, wherein she appears to lament the failure of feminism. A very interesting read.

08-29-2006 05:49 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
blaineso
Contributor
blaineso
“agreeable bright women”? Please explain what is meant by agreeable.

I didn’t write the post, but as for me, i’d say “nice, kind, shows respect to her guy (the same as he should do for her)…”. It’s really not complicated.

Message Edited by blaineso on 08-29-2006 05:57 PM

Message Edited by blaineso on 08-29-2006 05:58 PM

08-29-2006 05:52 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

“agreeable bright women”? Please explain what is meant by agreeable.
Thanks.

Agreeable.

Pleasant company.  Non-contentious.  Non-argumentative.

Definitely never brings up Feminist Politics.

Doesn’t indulge in anti-male screeds.

08-29-2006 05:59 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Maureen Dowd of the NY Times

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

Notice not one mention of being ‘submissive’ or a doormat to be trampled on.

08-29-2006 06:05 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen

leeraconteur wrote:

“agreeable bright women”? Please explain what is meant by agreeable.

Thanks.

Agreeable.

Pleasant company. Non-contentious. Non-argumentative.

Definitely never brings up Feminist Politics.

Doesn’t indulge in anti-male screeds.

How about modesty? Something American Women have forgotten about.

http://tinyurl.com/fj3vd

Also:
humble
appreciative
grateful
considerate
honest

And how about striving to be consistent and predictable instead of being consistently inconsistent, and predictably unpredictable?

More Articles by Fred:

Against Marriage

http://www.fredoneverything.net/marriage.shtml

Marriage, Horror, And Susan Reimer

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Reimer.shtml

To Marry, Or Not?

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MoonPie.shtml

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

08-29-2006 06:46 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

Notice not one mention of being ‘submissive’ or a doormat to be trampled on.

Hey, I hadn’t had a chance to post yet…

Just kidding!

Actually, since no one is agreeable all the time, I think much more is needed. Not so much by the woman, but institutionalized protection by society of men from women. This is in women’s interest too, I’d claim, since they don’t want a man who’s been cleaned out or otherwise irreparably damaged by a previous woman.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 08-29-2006 04:48 PM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-29-2006 06:47 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
mun13f
Visitor
mun13f
On a totally unrelated subject, Fred Reed did a piece on soldiers and the press that is one of the most insightful things I have ever read.

08-29-2006 07:15 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
earthlaughs
Contributor
earthlaughs

Doc_Savage wrote:

Quote from the article:

“So little of what Maureen says tracks with the world I know. She thinks men don’t like smart women. I know a lot of bright guys, and they all look for bright women. They just want agreeable bright women.”

Good read. Thanks for the heads up.

Women likewise are more attracted to agreeable men. I think the entire world can use a dose of lovingkindness, in practice not just in requests and claims. Smart, agreeable men are to be treasured.

Message Edited by earthlaughs on 08-29-2006 05:19 PM

Message Edited by earthlaughs on 08-29-2006 05:20 PM

08-29-2006 08:19 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

aramasastry wrote:
“agreeable bright women”? Please explain what is meant by agreeable.

Thanks.

It is stupid for anyone to have to even ask this question in the first place. And a woman asking this question reveals herself to be utterly worthless. It shows an unwillingness and laziness on her part to answer a question she can and should easily answer for herself.

It is totally unnecessary for men to provide answers that women should already know for themselves. The effect of asking this question is simply to wear men down. It’s better to bypass this bulls**t altogether, and either outsource the women or go the “f**k and play with them” route with these generally worthless American women.

Message Edited by Pete on 08-29-2006 09:35 PM

08-29-2006 09:13 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
careerwomantobe
Newbie
careerwomantobe

I am curious…are you suggesting that the only way for a girl to get a guy is to be agreeable?  Are you supporting that notion?

08-29-2006 09:21 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

I am curious…are you suggesting that the only way for a girl to get a guy is to be agreeable? Are you supporting that notion?

DUHHH!!!!!!!

YES!! YES!!! YES!!!

I AM SUPPORTING THAT NOTION. YES I AM!!!

What? Did you think we liked disagreeable women? Do you like disagreeable men? Is that was this 40 year misunderstanding is about? … LOL

I actually like that Maureen Dowd book. I’ve read it. It’s not as funny as she tries to make it, it has absolutely zero point (it’s not even about whether men are necessary or not AFAICT), but it makes the idiot women expecting an anti-male tiatribe who read it face the fact that men don’t want women THAT ARE DISAGREEABLE.

It’s not rocket science girls.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-29-2006 09:26 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
careerwomantobe
Newbie
careerwomantobe

I guess my question should really have been — how does a girl become agreeable?

giving up her career?
never having one?
being a stay at home mom?
stay at home wife?
trophy wife?

Which one of these things would make her most agreeable?

08-29-2006 09:38 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Yeah you have a better chance of getting a response you can condemn if you load the question as much as possible.

Add “pleasant personality”, “not nagging or controlling”, “not blaming” to the list and maybe you’re getting somewhere.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-29-2006 09:51 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Maureen Dowd of the NY Times

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
careerwomantobe
Newbie
careerwomantobe

Ok then…How does a woman not having a job or career make her…

more friendly?
kind?
less inclined to nag?
more pleasant?
happy?

If that is your argument, I don’t understand it.

08-29-2006 10:29 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
MidsummerKnight
Visitor
MidsummerKnight
I don’t believe it’s a matter of causation, but correlation. I personally would LOVE to meet the kind of intelligent, ambitious, independent, loving, feminine woman depicted in Robert Heinlein novels. The problem is that — as the stats would seem to indicate, and as my personal experience informs me — banking on an intelligent, ambitious, independent woman to be a loving and feminine partner is a bad investment. Too much risk.

I won’t personally pretend to know why, and I don’t believe Noer offers an explanation. All I can say is that I do believe the correlation is there. I can’t adduce what causes it, and won’t try to proffer my own vapid speculation as fact. But I’m not going to argue with the weather, either.

08-29-2006 10:54 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Yeah correlation based on my own personal findings, other’s personal findings and the personal findings of the subjects of the statistics Noer cited.

What? Obviously you don’t think “just because” a woman has a career we don’t like her, or a divorce will occur? Nope, it’s because she was lacking in some or all of those qualities guaranteed.

I don’t care why.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 08-29-2006 11:37 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-29-2006 11:34 PM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
Guys, let’s try not to jump on the defenseless frail women here just because they ask questions. ASking questions is a sign of an inquirying mind (or it could be a sign of a cunning mind trying to pick the male brain for information she could use at a later date against her intended male victim to dupe him into marrying her, but that’s another topic).

To answer a sincere woman’s question about what is an “agreeable” woman, I would first preface my comments by reciting current divorce statistics(i.e. 50% divorce rate today, with 70% of divorces initiated by the wife). Sorry that I have to keep putting that out there, but a lot of times, when I say the things I’m about to say, some women misconstrue certain thoughts of mine into thinking that if I found the “miss right” american girl for me, that I would marry her, and that simply as an impossiblity no matter how you slice up those current divorce statistics for Americans.

That aside now, let’s delve into the question at hand, being, “What is an agreeable woman?”

She is a woman who has her own ideas, opinions, and thoughts, but she realizes that a real man did not marry her because she has ideas, opinions, and thoughts. If they did, then cosmetics for women would not be a multi-billon dollar business, instead women would be walking around with no make-up on but carrying piles of books and papers to look sexy. I keep saying nature trumps nuture every time, but you “equal rights” women have been led to believe by the feminazis that “nurture” can change “nature”, and you should really learn to face reality and stop believing the feminist lie that nurturing can undo nature. It can’t and it won’t, not even in a zillion years. All that can happen when people deny nature, is that nature will come back and bite you in the arse, and if you think “modern man” with all the medicine, sperm banks, science, etc. can break nature, you’re fooling yourselves still. So when you give up the pipe-dream and face reality, then and only then, you can start to become an agreeable woman, because nature will tell you that in any organization there needs be a clearly defined leader in that organization to have ANY possible chance of success. An army with conflicting leadership is doomed to fail, so is a business organization or political organization with conflicting leadership. The same rules apply for any organization throughout the world, even a bee-hive! At this point in our discussion, we have only ascertained that nature dictates there be a leader in any organization, even a marriage. We haven’t determined yet which be the better leader, male or female? To answer that, nature once again gives the answers. With modern medical science, we now know what was presupposed for centuries, and that is that males inherently are better leaders, and we know this to be a certainty now because modern medical science has shown that the typical female brain contains 90% more connective tissue between the two hemispheres of the brain, as compared to the typical male brain. Given that one side of the brain processes logic and the other side deals with emotions/feelings, it means that the typical female brain will be much more difficult to seperate logic from emotions while making decisions, and this is detrimental to good decision making. Studies have indicated that when people make emotional decisions, about 80% of those decisions turn out worse than if more logical decisions were made – this is taught in Management 101 college classes even, taught to teach students that managers need to make as logical decisions as possible, for the sake of those decisions being as right as possible. So, when you follow nature this far, nature dictates that the typical male brain is far more suited for decision making as compared to the typical female brain, and since organizational success depends upon good logical decisions as much as possible, it’s a no-brainer to put males in leadership positions if you want to see the best chance for organizational success, including in the marital organization. So, where does the agreeable woman fit in all this? Well, in the marital organization, an agreeable woman is the woman who understands and accepts her place in nature instead of trying to deny it or fight it. The agreeable woman in this organizational structure offers her ideas, thoughts, and opinions to her male leader, and the male leader either accepts, rejects, or incorporates his wife’s ideas/thoughts/opinions into his decision making, without any threats of coercion, intimidation, or retaliation on the part of the agreeable woman. In this manner, any organization such as a marriage, has a clearly defined leader where both male and female are respected as human beings and treated and dealt with honestly and rationally, and the organization then has the best chance, not only for survival, but for success! Now lastly and perhaps the most interesting/ironic aspect of everything I have wrote heretofor: In the case of success for this type of organization, generally successful marital organizations of this type always defer the credit of the success to the FEMALE. That’s why the old saying “Behind every successful man, is a good woman”. Whereas, in the case of failure for this type of organization, the credit for failure always defers to the MALE! That’s why you will never see a bunch of screwed up kids and hear someone say, “If only those kids had a better mother!” No, society always blames the MALE when they see screwed-up kids, very very rarely do you ever see a society blame the mother as the reason for any screwed-up kids. We have a lot of screwed-up kids in our society today, and I guarantee you the most of them had a mother even if they didn’t have a father, but you never see them mothers held responsible for their screwed-up kids, you only see the fathers chastised. This is nature, that’s why. This is perhaps the strongest point of all, why the husband should be the clearly defined leader in the marital relationship, and that’s because if that marital relationship produces children, and those children become screwed-up, nature will tell all of society to look at those screwed-up kids and then look at their father with contempt! This is nature’s way of avoiding a society of screwed-up children, and that is to put the responsiblity for failure upon the male father, and thus it goes to reason if nature puts the responsibility for screwed-up children upon the father, then the father should have the right to rule his roost, because with rights come responsibilities in the natural world. I hope that helps define the who, what, when, why, where, how, of an “agreeable” woman IMHO, you’re certainly welcome to disagree with me partly or wholly, as I’m sure many will, but this is my last post here as I will be gone on business for a couple weeks to places where internet connections are spotty, so peace out….

08-30-2006 12:40 AM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
mock_turtle
Newbie
mock_turtle

A woman who wants a man to pay her bills is already a selfish narcissist.

As a foreign woman with “traditional values” that seem to be so highly valued here, I don’t get this article at all.
So the author wants a wife with “traditional behaviour”, but doesn’t want to behave that way himself (i.e. get the bills, let the girl take the only seat, give her gifts etc.)?  Then I’d say he wants too much.
And I thought that all those stories about otherwise well-mannered American men who think it’s okay if the girl pays her way on a date were made-up… no wonder no respectable girl in my country would ever date an American

08-30-2006 10:32 AM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
——————
“A woman who wants a man to pay her bills is already a selfish narcissist.”

As a foreign woman with “traditional values” that seem to be so highly valued here, I don’t get this article at all.
So the author wants a wife with “traditional behaviour”, but doesn’t want to behave that way himself (i.e. get the bills, let the girl take the only seat, give her gifts etc.)?
—————–

Since when does “traditional values” in a woman necessitate that a woman not have a job or career? It doesn’t.

Remember, the article is written by a guy named Fred, not a guy named Michael Noer.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 08-30-2006 11:44 AM

08-30-2006 11:42 AM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
mock_turtle
Newbie
mock_turtle

Since when does “traditional values” in a woman necessitate that a woman not have a job or career? It doesn’t.

Remember, the article is written by a guy named Fred, not a guy named Michael Noer.

I’m sorry, I must have phrased my reply incorrectly (English is my second language).  My post was not about Michael Noer’s article, it was about the article written by this Fred that many men here seem to support.

I’m not implying that a woman shouldn’t have a job at all – in fact, I have an interesting job myself and I’m not planning to give it up

I was wondering why these men want a woman to act ‘traditionally’ (devote more time to housekeeping than to a job or not have a job at all), yet don’t want to hold up their side of the ‘bargain’ – act traditionally themselves.

08-31-2006 04:05 AM

Re: Maureen Dowd of the NY Times
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
Fred now lives in Mexico and has married a Mexican woman.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MexicanasII.shtml

as for the people on this board, there are a lot of them with a lot of different opinions. Some in favor, some not in favor, of women who have jobs.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 08-31-2006 06:11 AM

08-31-2006 06:10 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: