Status
Available
Publication
Putnam Adult (2005), Edition: First Edition, 352 pages
Description
Four decades after the sexual revolution, nothing has worked out the way it was supposed to. The sexes are circling each other as uneasily and comically as ever, from the bedroom to the boardroom to the Situation Room, and now Pulitzer-Prize-winning columnist Dowd digs into the Y and X files, exploring sexual combat in America. She explains why getting ready for a date went from glossing and gargling to Paxiling and Googling; why men are in an evolutionary and romantic shame spiral; why women are fixated on their looks more than ever; why male politicians and male institutions get tripped up in so much monkey business; why many alpha women, from Martha to Hillary, can have a successful second act only after becoming humiliated victims; and much, much more.--From publisher description.… (more)
Similar in this library
User reviews
LibraryThing member deargreenplace
Sometimes you just have to admit defeat. I gave up with this at page 157. It's been on my bedside table since 16th May (I am reliably informed by Revish) and it took being ill in bed over the long weekend to finally pick it up again, and realise that I just couldn't carry on reading it. It was a
Why did I pick it up in the first place? The author did well to pick a controversial title for starters, which I imagine lured in the sales. I'm not sure what I was really expecting from the book. Not the intellectual rigour of Simone de Beauvoir for sure - it's not presented as an academic study - more a light-hearted look at the battle of the sexes - but certainly not this. The blurb on the book assures us that Maureen Dowd is a "Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Times". How silly of me to think that that speaks of any kind of academic pedigree or ability to conduct serious research. When I think of the Pulitzer, I think of Woodward and Bernstein and meaningful journalism. A quick Google tells me that she won for her commentary on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair - fair enough, I guess. I didn't ever read any of it so I came to Are Men Necessary? fresh as a daisy and oblivious to the author's previous work.
I have a few reasons for being unable to finish the book. Firstly, I found it rambling and incoherent. Every chapter seemed to be the same, and progressive reading didn't reward me with any development of an argument for or against the book's title. The author uses films and anecdotes as evidence to back up her statements (calling them arguments would be a step too far) and relies too much on namedropping many of her "good friends" as though they are somehow an authority on the subject because they have a degree of fame or celebrity. Where she does refer to academic studies, she fails to analyse them in any meaningful way and skips over them quickly to get back to Bette Davis quotes and the like.
The writing was my second stumbling block. I got the impression that Dowd imagined herself as an older Carrie Bradshaw, but it really wasn't working for me. Carrie's mum, maybe. There was a lot of valley girl speak and some truly appalling puns and plays on words - like "hair apparent" on p.92. Absolutely awful, and suffocatingly American in the worst sense. Plenty of American authors are capable of writing in coherent English, and I'd have expected that from an NYT journalist.
Forgive me for sounding po-faced. I don't think for one minute that the author intended this book to be The Second Sex for the 21st Century, but at the same time I expected a little more. Can you really build an argument out of cutting and pasting your friends' opinions and quotes from old films and squashing it all together? Yes, there is some research in there, but you get the impression that it's been wedged in just to prove that it was carried out, rather than because it supported any argument (evidence of which I was unable to find in the first 157 pages). I'm sure what she does works in a 200 word column, but not so much in a book of this length. Elizabeth Wurtzl did this so much better.
Show More
liberating decision.Why did I pick it up in the first place? The author did well to pick a controversial title for starters, which I imagine lured in the sales. I'm not sure what I was really expecting from the book. Not the intellectual rigour of Simone de Beauvoir for sure - it's not presented as an academic study - more a light-hearted look at the battle of the sexes - but certainly not this. The blurb on the book assures us that Maureen Dowd is a "Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Times". How silly of me to think that that speaks of any kind of academic pedigree or ability to conduct serious research. When I think of the Pulitzer, I think of Woodward and Bernstein and meaningful journalism. A quick Google tells me that she won for her commentary on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair - fair enough, I guess. I didn't ever read any of it so I came to Are Men Necessary? fresh as a daisy and oblivious to the author's previous work.
I have a few reasons for being unable to finish the book. Firstly, I found it rambling and incoherent. Every chapter seemed to be the same, and progressive reading didn't reward me with any development of an argument for or against the book's title. The author uses films and anecdotes as evidence to back up her statements (calling them arguments would be a step too far) and relies too much on namedropping many of her "good friends" as though they are somehow an authority on the subject because they have a degree of fame or celebrity. Where she does refer to academic studies, she fails to analyse them in any meaningful way and skips over them quickly to get back to Bette Davis quotes and the like.
The writing was my second stumbling block. I got the impression that Dowd imagined herself as an older Carrie Bradshaw, but it really wasn't working for me. Carrie's mum, maybe. There was a lot of valley girl speak and some truly appalling puns and plays on words - like "hair apparent" on p.92. Absolutely awful, and suffocatingly American in the worst sense. Plenty of American authors are capable of writing in coherent English, and I'd have expected that from an NYT journalist.
Forgive me for sounding po-faced. I don't think for one minute that the author intended this book to be The Second Sex for the 21st Century, but at the same time I expected a little more. Can you really build an argument out of cutting and pasting your friends' opinions and quotes from old films and squashing it all together? Yes, there is some research in there, but you get the impression that it's been wedged in just to prove that it was carried out, rather than because it supported any argument (evidence of which I was unable to find in the first 157 pages). I'm sure what she does works in a 200 word column, but not so much in a book of this length. Elizabeth Wurtzl did this so much better.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sussabmax
This was all right. It is so dismaying how many terrible things men can do to women, in so many different cultures. Some of the anecdotes from this book were so arresting and so well told that I have re-told them many times. I can’t see Christiane Amanpour’s name anymore, for instance, without
Show More
thinking about the time a waiter in a Muslim country tried to send Amanpour and Dowd to a segregated room for women and children, and Dowd started to meekly head that way, but Amanpour told him to bugger off and bring them their coffee, and he did. And don’t even get me started on the disgusting concepts of slump busting or road beef from professional baseball players. But as a whole, this book…well, it didn’t seem like a whole. Men treat women badly is not really a unifying theme for a book. And if she made an effort to answer the titular question, it was only a passing one. Still, it was a quick, easy read. Show Less
LibraryThing member extrajoker
Are Men Necessary? examines perceptions and portrayals of women, from pop culture to politics. Some of the topics disturbed or frustrated me (and the section on the prevalence of cosmetic surgery really squicked me), but it's definitely a worthy read. Intelligent without being tedious.
This book was
This book was
Show More
my introduction to Dowd (the NYT op-ed columnist who also authored Bushworld). She seems to be a person of true integrity...who's taken a lot of flak...for being a person of true integrity. I think what really proves this integrity is that she's not so partisan as to deny the failings of Democrats...while sniping at the Republicans. ;P Show Less
LibraryThing member angiezone
Like some of the other reviewers, this was my first exposure to Ms. Dowd's thought - which seemed rather scattershot at times. I was never quite sure whether I was reading a feminist manifesto, a critique of feminist failings, a memoir or political punditry. Rather than a summation of key points,
Show More
the book ends with an ambiguous assessment of Hillary Clinton's chances in the 2008 Presidential race. Humorous and snarky at times, shrewdly observant, as well, Ms. Dowd has the talent for keeping the reader engaged, despite the topic drift. Still, I couldn't help but feel that she could have stated her points more succinctly. Lastly, her use of examples from the New York publishing scene and the Washington power clubs, were somewhat less than effective, at least for an audience who is not familiar with those rarified climes. Show Less
LibraryThing member JenneB
I'm reading this for my book club but I can only bring myself to skip around and read bits and pieces. She's a very readable and engaging writer, but I can't really deal with the subject matter. I get all angry and depressed.
It seems like her question is more "are women necessary"--men actually
You see why I can't read this.
HOWEVER, I think also she's taking the horrific problems of wealthy people in New York and applying them to everyone, as wealthy New Yorkers so often do.
It seems like her question is more "are women necessary"--men actually
Show More
don't come off as badly as you might think. Women on the other hand, are either smart and rapacious and unmarriageable and constantly dieting, or dumb and pretty and married to CEOs and spend all their time either at Yogilates class or at Starbucks with their strollers and nannies. Plus all these depressing statistics, like that MORE women are taking their husbands' names when they get married than they were ten years ago. I mean, REALLY?? WHAT?? WHY??? @%@^%^#%*@#$@(!! You see why I can't read this.
HOWEVER, I think also she's taking the horrific problems of wealthy people in New York and applying them to everyone, as wealthy New Yorkers so often do.
Show Less
LibraryThing member astrologerjenny
These are clever – often very clever – essays. They’re also a lot of fun to read. Dowd dishes about political figures, examines pop culture, and tries to figure out what’s happening to feminism. She’s hard on Bill and Hill, but harder on Bush and Cheney. She never really comes to grips
Show More
with the question of the title, except in an essay on biology, in which she says that the Y chromosome is degenerating and will only last another hundred thousand years or so. Interesting. Show Less
LibraryThing member astrologerjenny
These are clever – often very clever – essays. They’re also a lot of fun to read. Dowd dishes about political figures, examines pop culture, and tries to figure out what’s happening to feminism. She’s hard on Bill and Hill, but harder on Bush and Cheney. She never really comes to grips
Show More
with the question of the title, except in an essay on biology, in which she says that the Y chromosome is degenerating and will only last another hundred thousand years or so. Interesting. Show Less
LibraryThing member bookblotter
Is "Are Men Necessary?" necessary? And, I generally like Maureen Dowd's writing in the NY Times....
LibraryThing member AmbeReads
Sharp, witty, yet not as bitchy as the title suggests!
Subjects
Language
Original language
English
Physical description
352 p.; 6.24 inches
ISBN
0399153322 / 9780399153327