Maureen Dowd, sexist pig
By Bernard Chapin
How fondly we look back on the old days. This is particularly true if you happen to be one of the few [okay, very few] readers who regularly peruse my work. Countless times have I opened up an email to discover sentences that evoke Stardust Memories: "I liked your early columns best, especially the Maureen Dowd ones. Why don't you write some more of those?"
The reference alludes to my old "Maureen Dowd Two Minute Mock" feature on Mensnewsdaily.com which ran in 2003 and 2004. Ms. Dowd, the ancien debutante of the New York Times, is the perfect embodiment of all things that conservatives despise. Her reflexive leftism, misandric inclinations, disdain for America, obsession with race, devout elitism, and appalling self-righteousness made her an obvious target.
Yet these attributes are also why she so exhausts. As with most leftists, there's simply no there there. Irrational garbage can only be bashed for so long before the drowsiness sets in. Eventually, her piñata disintegrated into diversity flag colored bits of sugar and paper. How sad that Ms. Dowd squandered whatever gifts she once had in the name of universal self-absorption.
Another factor in my absence from critiquing her was The Times misguided belief that people would pay for their online content. Known as "TimesSelect," their pay-per-slanted-rant experiment failed; which revealed just how inflated the paper's self-regard actually is. They hold their biased fare to be prescient and penetrating while the rest of us discern it as the propaganda it actually is. The discontinued venture has now made Maureen easy to access. 
Despite her increased availability, the gray lady's snarky, faux-cute persona remained unsavory, but, after a month or so, curiosity caused me to check back in on her. I scanned a piece of hers on Hillary Clinton and the allegations of sexism made by her aides against the other Democratic pretenders as a result of their daring to criticize her during a recent debate.
Astoundingly, Dowd did not defend the junior gangster from New York. Instead, she lampooned the "estrogen equation" endemic to a woman wanting to have it both ways. When I read the line, "But she can break, just like a little girl, when male chauvinists are rude enough to catch her red-handed being slippery and opportunistic," I honestly wondered whether Ms. Dowd had finally grown up and embraced logos as an alternative lifestyle.
Regrettably, my optimism was unwarranted. Her latest offering, "Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?", documents Dowd only having left the emotional vortex for a moment. It was time to renew my battle with the beast—if only to experience the joy of seeing the boys at freerepublic.com post more pictures of Catherine Zeta-Jones as a response.
There is no truth in advertising here as the piece itself has nothing to do with Hillary but everything to do with the quagmire in which older women find themselves after discovering that, despite the denials of the media, there actually are rules inherent to dating. Could it be that men prioritize differently than women when selecting potential mates?
Perhaps an affirmative answer to this question will lead Ms. Dowd and her followers to accept the notion of viva la difference? Doubt bet on it. Why do that when you can blame "the other" for failing to subjugate their own needs to your own. That men are shallow, irrational protoplasm is too enticing a precept to forsake. That we fail to appreciate women for the things they appreciate about themselves is a sin unforgivable. As long as men have the temerity to think independently, America will remain a slow rolling rerun of Planet of the Apes.
The pretext for this article is rooted in science…well, actually social science…well, actually economics alone. Ms. Dowd came across a study by a Columbia University economist that precisely matched her preconceptions so she decided to tell us all about it. The fellow embarked on a speed dating experiment with a sample size and subject grouping wildly unrepresentative of the American people. His choice of venue was a bar near campus with a small number of ivy leaguers present.
He concluded that males are more stereotypical in their romantic proclivities than are women. Yawn. Could this mean that the progressive left will finally accept that there is a biological basis for human behavior? Never. A commandment among pseudo-liberals is to only celebrate authors who regard male and female preferences as being socially determined. Society mandates our acts which then perpetually fosters the stereotyping that makes reality discordant with utopian equality—a version of equality in which males tie themselves to female taste in the same manner that the renminbi is pegged to the dollar.
In an interview the professor's politically correct level of misandry is pronounced (so expect to see him on television fairly soon):
Why won't our pesky genes accept redirection? When will we stop coveting sugar, salt, and what often is packed in to curvy, pert, denim packages?
Frankly, my suspicion is that the professor probably did not feel great about being a man in the first place. This is just another example which illustrates that no matter how hard we try to replace nature with dogma nature will always find a way to win out. That this shocks a rising star of academe is a testament to just how dysfunctional our universities have become. We have reached a point in which the common man knows twice as much as the average scholar.
As men age, a woman's youth becomes more and more essential, and we practically make a fetish out of it.  Men who marry a second time select, on average, a woman five years younger than themselves while those who marry a third time opt for wives eight years their junior.  The man's bias against older women is due to a need to find the "maximally fertile woman."  Those men who did not conform to these biological mandates—and chose spinsters or ones in terrible shape—never reproduced and have thus disappeared from the gene pool and our planet. 
Another central conclusion from Dowd's cherished study is that intelligence is more highly prized by women in members of the opposite sex than it is by men. The professor asserts that men do not want their partners to be smarter than they are. You can see how such a claim would titillate Ms. Dowd. It affirms the sacred axiom that men are shallow, inferior, and threatened by their equals. This is undoubtedly the reason why (at this moment) her column stands atop the New York Times "most popular" chart.
Unfortunately for the professor and Ms. Dowd, they both happen to be wrong. Matt Ridley explains in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature that intelligence is esteemed by men as well: "The study was done by David Buss of the University of Michigan, who asked a large sample of American students to rank the qualities they most preferred in a mate. He found that men preferred kindness, intelligence, beauty, and youth, while women preferred kindness, intelligence, wealth, and status." 
The significance of intelligence must be qualified, however. For both sexes it is weighty in regards to a long-term bond, but male tastes diverge when it comes to short-term unions. Youth and physical attractiveness are more than enough for fleeting amalgamations.
The endorphins really must have been circulating for Ms. Dowd after the professor confided to her that, "We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own." Just as she thought! A misspent life suddenly vindicated. Men don't like successful, bright career women [read: Fraulein Dowd] because their own inadequate and corrupt nature prevents them from doing so.
Ms. Dowd's future may be cursed, but at least now she knows why. Thanks to the professor and his PC friendly views, Maureen and her ilk will never have to rationally assess their situation again—as if they ever would anyway. Why bother to do so when you can rejoice in the intellectual limitations of half the citizenry?
When atheism is all the rage prejudice like this is to be expected. As Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov: "Without God and the future life? How will man be after that? It means everything is permitted now." Everything is permitted and everything is believable. Only with a Godless mindset could one buy that 49 percent of the populace is beneath them. Here we see the dark side of women's empowerment  because one cannot reign supreme without a horde to rule over. Who needs a cross when you can wear a Rosie the Riveter t-shirt?
The rest of Dowd's piece is a brief jeremiad of how difficult it is for the modern woman to deal with the fragile male ego. They have to hide their transcendence or we will run from them like the mice they suspect us to be. Our anti-priestess triumphantly noted: "Professional women in their 20s are growing deft at subterfuges to protect the egos of dates who make less money, the story said, such as not leaving their shopping bags around and not mentioning their business achievements. Or they simply date older men who might not be as threatened."
Is there any truth to her statement? None. Even the "they" and the "are" are lies. I meant to address this last spring in a chapter on female ego in Women: Theory and Practice. Regrettably, it never got done. It will be my premise—whenever I get around to writing it—that the male ego is infinitely smaller than the female's. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever worked in an integrated setting.
Regardless of Dowd's mistaken assumptions, the hiding of shopping bags is a fine tactic but not for reasons relating to ego. It has to do with the pronounced materialism of the western woman. When a man ascertains that a prospective girlfriend has dedicated her life to shopping and the acquisition of "stuff," the corrupted words of Khrushchev apply; as "she will break and bury you." Women who spend money like it is carbon dioxide are best left alone so they can verbally process the past alongside their debts, their cats, and the glimmer of the Lifetime channel.
In my experience, a woman's salary has little to do with their net worth. I recall once going out with a girl who made $90,000 a year but owed far more than I ever could. Her purse brimmed with credit cards and I never saw her wear the same thing twice. When she told me that she dreamed of being a soccer mom and driving around town in a hoped for 700 series BMW, I drew the necessary conclusions. Our affair immediately had a definite expiration date attached to it. A woman devoted to conspicuous consumption is one who should be marked for short-term consumption.
Overall, what should we make of this discussion? Most of us already know Dowd to be a lightweight [here is a hilarious picture of her skimming through her version of research materials]. Allan Bloom knew more about the sturm und drang of the modern woman than she ever could even though The Closing of the American Mind  was penned two decades ago:
Rather than deride men, women should be grateful for male lust. Without it the species would never have reached the twenty-first century. A man's devotion to younger females is not a societal construct; it is a biological imperative and a predisposition which will never fade (or be nagged) away. The optimum means of handling our tendencies is to simply adapt and adjust. Women should turn off their televisions, tune out the likes of Maureen Dowd, read, study, and pray but also be sure to donate their self-help books and chick lit to charity while keeping their slightly dated clothes in their closets. Hectoring males to become more like them is as profitable as running up the balances on their Visas and MasterCards.
 Wordplay intended?