posted on November 16, 2005 09:38:44 AM new
Just reading the book reviews on Maureen Dowd's latest book.
The reviews aren't very impressive and it's not selling well, after only one week.
But with all the feminism that's been pushed in the last couple of generations...I wonder just were YOU stand on this issue.
Are men really necessary in our lives? We know that having children now-a-days doesn't require having any kind of a relationship with a man....only need their sperm...so...are they necessary in our lives?
I'd be interest in hearing from both males and females on the topic of this new book.
posted on November 16, 2005 12:12:10 PM new
I haven't read the book so the question "are men necessary" is a little too vague to answer. Necessary for what? As for buying or reading this book - I don't really think thats.....ahem....necessary.
posted on November 16, 2005 12:30:42 PM new
I have not yet met one that has even proven himself worthy, much less neccessary. They can be occasionally convenient and even amusing but neccessary? Nope.
I'm about to brain the step. The night of my mothers surgery decided that she is not allowed to be the center of all attention and that all cannot be beyond his control so... he claims to have developed a kidney stone and did the agony dance for two days. Right up until he had a CAT scan (?!?!) that showed nothing. Last night he apparently threw a temper tantrum at having to fix dinner for the third night in a row.... HELLO! Your wife just had her back opened up and her spine scraped drilled and screwed in two places you selfish SOB. Get over yourself damnit!
Definately not neccesary...
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 16, 2005 12:37:42 PM new
But, classic, are they even 'necessary' for that purpose?
After all...other women can give pleasure....and then with the sex-toy industry....a man is almost really NOT needed for that purpose any longer.
I guess it just caught my interest because there IS something that 'draws' men and women to one another....and I wondered what others believe that really is.
---------------
Hey, Red, great to see you back again. Here's a little clip from the NYT review....maybe if you can't read the link this might help.
---
The title, "Are Men Necessary?," refers nominally to scientific speculation that the Y chromosome, which has been shedding genes over evolutionary time, may disappear entirely within the next ten million years, a hypothesis countered by newer studies showing that the Y of the human species has been stable for the past six million years.
Neither development, of course, has any bearing on the coupling opportunities for humankind as we know it. But it is exactly this kind of "news" that offers Dowd a provocative snag, tweaked to advantage in her columns. Her Cuisinart style of info processing and her embrace of popular culture invite all manner of unexpected applications, allowing, for example, a "Seinfeld" character to help us understand the relative simplicity of males, whose sex is determined by only one Y, as opposed to the female's two X's. "Maybe that 'Seinfeld' episode is right," she muses, "where George Costanza tries to prove that man's passions can all be fulfilled at the same time if he can watch a hand-held TV while 'pleasuring' a woman while eating a pastrami on rye with spicy mustard."
Beyond science, "Are Men Necessary?" addresses the confusion of postfeminist dating, gender conflicts in the workplace, the media's disparate treatment of men and women, American culture's saturation with sexual imagery, our collective obsession with youth and appearances, the objectification of women by men and, finally, sex as "a tripwire in American history."
[then later in the review]
Producing one of her trademark staccato repetitions - for example, on cosmetic surgery: "We no longer have natural selection. We have unnatural selection. Survival of the fittest has been replaced by survival of the fakest. Biology used to be destiny. Now biology's a masquerade party" -
Dowd effectively dismisses a subject by virtue of proclamation. Does she let loose three arrows instead of one because she can't choose the cleverest among them? Typically, her formula is to articulate a thesis, punch it up with humor and then follow with anecdotal support or examples taken from TV shows, advertisements, overheard conversations - all cultural detritus is fair game. Often she quotes from reputable sources, CNN or The Times or a professional journal like Science; more often she applies witty asides, snippy comparisons ("Arabs put their women in veils. We put ours in the stocks" and tabloid-style alliteration (e.g., "dazzling dames" and "He mused that men are in a muddle".
posted on November 16, 2005 12:41:12 PM new
lol....boy, can I relate to that situation, fenix.
I've got my MIL acting almost the same way since her boyfriend had veins replaced...and she's not being taken care of. So maybe?? that's just not a male trait? I don't know.
posted on November 16, 2005 12:43:51 PM new
Men will remain necessary until, a vibrator is created that will cuddle after a session and then go cut the grass.
posted on November 16, 2005 12:58:57 PM new
It's an assinine troll question...what are you going to do if you find they aren't necessary...kill them all off like you advocate for all other groups you don't like ?
PS: The necessity of men has nothing to do with feminism. Equal rights for one group does not call for the elimination of another group.
posted on November 16, 2005 01:03:34 PM new
I'm still not sure I understand Dowd's question. When looking at the definition of necessary, "logically unavoidable" or "absolutely needed" my answer is still, needed for what? If the question is, "are men necessary if you want a male companion" then my answer is yes. If the question is "are men necessary to further mankind?" my answer is, how much time does someone have on their hands that they posit such stupid questions and then write books about it?
As a man, I'll probably be excluded from the jury anyway since I may have a...shall we say...built in bias. So I'll answer a different question: are women necessary? To that I answer, absofrigginglutely.
posted on November 16, 2005 01:06:34 PM newIt's an assinine troll question...what are you going to do if you find they aren't necessary...kill them all off like you advocate for all other groups you don't like
Is that question directed at Dowd, who wrote the book called "Are Men Necessary?"
posted on November 16, 2005 01:08:59 PM new
lol HillBillyMo - I've yet to talk to a woman who was pleased with the length of time a man wants to 'cuddle' after sex. Usually they're sawing logs within an extremely short period of time.
And on mowing the lawn....again, something a woman can do for herself...and have done for themselves.
----------
Ron....yours is the worst. Most men aren't good at 'listening' to their women. Imo, most would like their women to just shut up....I'll call your name when I want something from you.
-------
But for me personally this is an issue I've been dealing with. addresses the confusion of postfeminist dating.....as a widow who finds herself in a totally new 'dating' game situation.
It's not at all like it was back in the mid sixties....we used to get to know one another....and then have sex. Now, it appears it's have sex and then get to know one another. Not at all emotionally like it was when I was young and dating. Now men seem to have this attitude that women are only good for one thing....and don't want to be bothered with anything that involves emotions....or giving emotionally to a women.
So....IF that's the case....they what's their value to a woman?
[just random thoughts]
hey fenix....you being single here could probably really help me out here....if you were so inclined.
posted on November 16, 2005 01:19:44 PM newNow men seem to have this attitude that women are only good for one thing....and don't want to be bothered with anything that involves emotions....or giving emotionally to a women
My answer to this would be that if you meet a man like this, find another man. I know these kind of men exist, some of them are friends of mine but I also know plenty of guys, myself included, who do not subscribe to this kind of attitude. There are losers on both sides of the gender fence but not everyone resides in Loserville.
[ edited by RedStateRising on Nov 16, 2005 01:20 PM ]
posted on November 16, 2005 01:26:43 PM new
Thank you for that answer, Red. It's more reassuring to me than you'll ever know.
After coming out of a 35 year marriage, extremely loving relationship of 41 years, this has been quite a shock to me. And I only have friends who also have been in long-term relationships. So...now I can at least be hopeful there are [i]some[i] men who want a relationship where they both really care about one another. Many thanks for the encouraging words.
posted on November 16, 2005 01:35:59 PM new
LoL Hillbilly.
Maybe the question should be, are people necessary. I happen to love men - all of them. My closest friends have always been men because they're more honest without all the emotional attachment that women put on things (too high maintenance).
posted on November 16, 2005 01:39:02 PM new
Like what do you mean, KD? I've always thought all people, whether men or woman have a basic need to love and be loved. Love is different from just having sex.
posted on November 16, 2005 01:49:55 PM new
And I always thought Linda spent her endless hours here trolling for that one Sweet Neocon Platinum Power Seller Bachelor to hitch onto.
posted on November 16, 2005 03:55:38 PM new
Linda - I may not be the best person to talk to on the dating issue. One of my male friends jokes that I "date like a man". I don't have the desire for a deep relationship. I don't have the time or the patience and overall, I find that most men don't actually know what they want and those that do, want something much different than me. Basically there are three types.
1) Last single guy in the group. They want what their friends have.. Wife, kids, house. They want a family and stability and they want it now... maybe.
2) Want strong independant woman... but not really. They insist this is what they want but what they really want is someone with their own money and enough of a life of their own as to not be "clingy" but not so much of one that they cannot be available at a moments notice to be, do, say exactly what the man wants.
3) Seeking more of a "friends with benefits" relationship. Someone they can relate to, have a great laugh with, sleep with when the desire stikes but without the ties that bind.
The problem is that although most men are in one of the these three catagories, they always seem to think that they are in one of the two that they're not.
It's enough to drive you crazy.
I would rather find the type 3's but have a bad habit of attracting the 2's.
My most successful relationships have come from introductions from male friends who actually know me and know their friend and are more realistic. My most disasterous...female friends who operate from a standpoint of romance rather than reality. Doesn't matter if the guy is fundamentally disfunctional, he's alone, so he must want love, you are alone, so you must want love so of course you will be perfect together.
If you want to find someone that you actually have a chance to click with, don't ask your friend if she knows anyone... ask her husband.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Nov 16, 2005 03:56 PM ]
posted on November 16, 2005 04:52:09 PM new
Necessary is what you need. ::Shrug:: I like having my man around. He drives me nuts sometimes, but also takes me to heights of happiness I would never see without him. (and I'm not even talking about sexually.)
posted on November 16, 2005 06:26:30 PM new
Dblfugger anagram's out to;
BEG DR GULF
FLUB DR EGG
My name had a couple hundred but here's few of the best ones.
SPIKE THY IN
PIES THY KIN
KEN PITHY IS - helen's favorite.
NE PITHY SKI - helen's second favorite.
YEP THINKS I
YES HIT PINK - appropriate for this thread.
YE HITS PINK - also appropriate for this thread.
posted on November 16, 2005 06:40:07 PM new I like: "flub dr.egg" flub-a-dub-dub...lets get in the tub!! Hurry up I need a back-rub!
"yep thinks I" is a good one for you! did you do that on purpose? And Yes hit pink is good too. (Pink is the color of your lover. Take note of that Helen! )
why do the paypal'ers and ebays call themselves pinks? I never did figure that out.
posted on November 16, 2005 06:55:10 PM new
::why do the paypal'ers and ebays call themselves pinks? I never did figure that out::
When they post their posts are (or were, haven't checked lately) on a pink background.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 16, 2005 07:09:53 PM new
I did one for Maggiemuggins, this is so funny.
A EGG MIMING GUS
A EGGING SMUG MI
A GIMME GIG GUNS
A GEM GIG GIN SUM
GAGE GUMMING IS
MAGGIE GINS MUG
AGGIES GUMMING
IMAGES MUGGING
SHOWS TITS TO GUYS
SUMMAE GIGGING
MEAN GIG SIG MUG
SEA GIGGING MUM
SEA MUGGING MIG
GAG GENUS MIG MI
NAGS ME GIG MUG I
GAS MENU GIG MIG
SAM EMU GIGGING
AS EGG GUMMING I
USA GEMMING GIG
posted on November 16, 2005 07:13:45 PM new
mingotree posted: Oh! so this was meant to be a trolling post...linda..looking for love
Looks to me like you have your OWN weird way of dealing with your own personal problems.
crowfarm [aka mingotree] posted on November 7, 2004 06:04:36 PM
[i]Maggie your """microcephalous, hairy-livered
inbred trout-defilers[/i]. ""
was a work of art! My inflatable husband is laughing his butt off.
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 16, 2005 07:23 PM ]
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
