I'm not even sure what point I want to make about Maureen Dowd's weekend piece on girls today. We're oversexed, have undervalued ourselves, face the prospect of losing upstanding men to lower achieving women, are likely to choose either families or a career and be dissatisfied with either and . . . well, we're taking pole dancing classes for fitness, is this what Betty Friedan had in mind?
That I'm not sure is only an indication of how unsure Dowd seems in her rambling "essay" that is really just a collection of highlights from an upcoming book tellingly titled "Are Men Necessary."
For my money, they are - but the implied "for what" is the real topic of discussion, isn't it?
It's easier to let one's mind wander down these switchback paths when one isn't in the midst of an intellectually-and-otherwise satisfying relationship with a member of the opposite sex. But the questions are still important - especially as my peers begin to birth daughters who will carry the burdens we design for them. Will we be raising tomorrow's purposeless yet well-shod Carries? Or will the true heirs to feminism mirror Charlotte or Samantha?
I think Miranda's era is over. At least her seasons 1-4 persona. Even her 50-hour work week compromise persona seems to be falling from favor lately. And what we're left with is the untenable, historic construct of Charlotte-in-the-Kitchen, Samantha-in-the-bedroom sexuality and personhood.
(Thanks to Amber for the link. And the Dorothy Parker quotation.)