Roadkill Journal

A MAUREEN DOWD MUST-READ

Via Drudge:

I'm starting with the venerable bottomfeeding muckraker on this story because Drudge has once again demonstrated that no matter what the flaws, foibles, or felonies of his subjects, he can always one-down them. Drudges tagline for Dowd's excellent work

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30feminism.html?ei=5090&en=8d50b0ccea5b798a&ex=1288328400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

"NYT DOWD TO MEN: WHY DON'T YOU GO JERK YOURSELF A SODA" says far more about Drudge than Dowd. His crass inclusion of a tacky photo and a taunting "name that photo contest"

http://www.drudgereport.com/dowd.htm is merely icing on the cake...

I don't know where that photo came from, I don't care whose choice it is, and I don't care that Maureen is damn good looking for a fifty-something feminist warhorse... That photo is still a four-star example of bad taste.

But to topic:

Long though it is, the article is a worthy read, even a must read. Just skip over the feminist daggers like "Throughout the long, dark ages of undisputed patriarchy" or "Men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women," and feel Maureen's pain...

Using anectdote and observation, Ms[???] Dowd tactitly admits the surrender of feminism and outlines its decline. It's not a surrender to that evil male patriarchy or even society but rather biology. Asking the questions "So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?" and pointing out ""Nowadays, the rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true..." Maureen dances around the answer, providing evidence after evidence that the un-natural nature of the feminist premise must doom it in the long run.

After 40+ years of the pill and 30 years of a million or better abortions annually, the original bra-burners finally are forced to admit the irrefutable, damning flaws in the feminist premise:

Foremost:

Society exists to maximize the chances that those absurdly dependent, big-brained babies of mankind will survive and man will thereby flourish. The most successful societies evolved along a single basic pattern - or were given that pattern by God, if you prefer - which best insures that survival.

And:

The survival of our species is dependent not on the equality of the sexes but rather their very real inequality. Millions of years of natural selection has honed the specialized differences in anatomy, behavior, and ability, and that can't be undone by a social whim.

Finally:

In the process of attempting to trump evolution with indoctrination, feminism largely destroys the natural stake men have in society, an attack which men, no matter how pussywhipped they may be, instinctively rebel against.

As Dowd Notes "Women... still strive to marry up. Men... still tend to marry down. The two sexes' going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids..."

Her colleague at the Times, John Schwartz, opined: "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."...

A study by The University of Michigan posited: "Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them... There it is, right in the DNA: women get penalized by insecure men for being too independent."

Inevitably, the whims of feminism will be their own undoing as they lead those who cherish them down the path to the insignificance of personal extinction.

And even Maureen Dowd has come to this understanding.

Whoda thunk it!