Are Men Necessary?

ARE MEN NECESSARY?
(When Sexes Collide)
Maureen Dowd

(Berkley, 2005, 338 pp; $15)



When Maureen Dowd first ‘googled’ her name in the internet, she claims, the first return was a video of her giving Bill Clinton a job, probably because her coverage and commentary on Clinton’s impeachment and trial over the Monica Lewinsky affair were what clinched the Pulitzer for her in 1999, and she was perceived as critical of the deranged and hypocritical Ken Starr. But her ascerbic columns on the Bush dynasty and the stupid Republicans were what really caught my attention four or five years ago.

In ‘Are Men Necessary’ I am a bit disappointed but I had been forewarned. In her introduction she dowsed expectations with the usual warning that she was going to raise questions but did not necessarily have answers. To be fair, I still thoroughly enjoyed reading this book because the questions she raises are questions I also ask, as a man with doubtful claims as a feminist.

What strikes me as most relevant at this time is her ambivalence over Hillary and Bill. Although she castigates them both for their failings, and the latter for her betrayal of feminist principles and aspirations for pragmatic and other political aims, her liberal bias still shines through, and her bias is my bias too. If I understand Dowd, she would still probably prefer Hillary winning against the Republicans in 2008, although the timeframe in the book excludes the dawn and rise of Obama.

One thing which really confuses me about the dilemma over principles vs. pragmatism is that the opposing forces never really make their priorities clear, although the clash implies that there has to be a prioritization of principles which one holds dear and that pragmatism merely means that one gives up lower principles over higher ones, at any particular time. In practice, however, one may appeal to the lowest common denominator to get the support of a plurality or a majority to implement a common agenda.

The only solution I can propound at the moment is that ‘principles’ held by individuals and groups may not really be internally consistent and it will take some time to sort them out.

Take for example, Dowd’s plaint against the aspiration of western feminists to be ‘equal’ to men only to later find out that what men wanted was not worth it (at) all. For when the doors were opened, many actually opt to stay home as their version of fulfillment.

In the political sphere, the Philippines can superficially be called more advanced than the U.S. because we have already had two women presidents while there is still a ‘macho’ bias in the U.S. Dowd covered the campaign of Geraldine Ferraro for the vice presidency and recounts the experience in the book, from which I learned a lot of the details.

Yet, the Philippines remains an obviously backward country in terms of equality between genders. Even the so-called Left political parties---especially the party-list parties---are hesitant to advocate genuine divorce laws out of fear of the backlash from the Catholic church, of which many of them still swear allegiance to., and which is why the Philippines still remains as backward as ever. Obviously, gays and lesbians, according to segments of the Philippine Left, don’t belong in hell. But women who escape from unhappy marriages and abusive husbands do. And that is pragmatism.