maureen_dowd

Is Maureen Dowd necessary?

I really don’t think that she is.

I understand that she is not literally disposable but I don’t think we need her writing in a prestigious publication like The New York Times, and here is why.

In 2005 Maureen had a book published entitled “Are Men Necessary?” In 2013 she had an article published in The Globe and Mail entitled “Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving” which started “Are men necessary? No.”

After eight years all Maureen has come up with is one more word.

Good authors like to remind people that they’ve written something else when people want to talk about eight year old projects. Bad authors like to remind people what they wrote eight years ago. The fact that Maureen has nothing new to offer us has been noticed before.

Maureen’s main focus is to write silly sentences. She’s not so much interested in what those sentences say when put together. For example, she claims that men are “devolving” because they are acting like women. That she just claimed women are lower on the evolutionary scale does not concern Maureen because she’s in it for the sentences. Apparently her editors don’t care if those sentences link together either.

The one thing we can glean from Maureen’s ramblings is that she doesn’t understand evolution. After all, she is just an entertainer using old material.

Devolution is a concept used by people who think “that evolution must mean ‘progress’ to ‘more advanced’ organisms.” The term is mostly used by creationists. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach promoted the theory believing that Adam and Eve both existed, were white, and other ethnicities were a devolution. In his classification of how the various ethnic groups devolved he said “I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian because this stock displays the most beautiful race of men.”

When Maureen does write something intelligent, it’s a good idea to make sure she hasn’t plagiarized it. Despite winning a Pulitzer Prize for writing about Bill Clinton’s blowjob (apparently Pulitzer needs to worry about their standards as well) she hasn’t learned how to credit other writers for their work.

Maureen is either lazy, sloppy, dishonest, or a genuine cunt. Why pick just one?

For those who have low standards and like to cling to the predictable, Maureen Dowd is definitely your woman. Her tactic of belittling men by calling them “girly” is her standard recipe for cheap laughs. She was criticized by Ann Bartow for this tired routine in 2006 and yet here she is trying to tell us it’s still funny in 2013.

I have a theory about Maureen Dowd that explains her columns.

I suspect that Maureen has all of her old articles on a computer program and doesn’t actually write them any more. The computer picks out words and phrases reassembles them for her, then she slaps today’s date on it. That also explains why her articles don’t quite make sense. Garbage in, garbage out.

Maureen Dowd is a bot.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, here are some passages from “Are Men Necessary?” written in 2005 and the comparison passage from her Globe and Mail article in 2013. Let’s play a game called “I don’t see the difference, do you? ”

“[Manly discourse] was, unlike the feminine chatter in the parlor, thought to be impersonal, unemotional, forthright and reasonable.

For centuries, it was widely believed that women’s physical makeup made them emotionally unfit to be leaders.
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 79

compared to

For centuries, it was widely thought that women were biologically unsuited to hold leadership positions.

Power was best wielded by men, theorists felt, because men were impersonal, unemotional, forthright and reasonable.
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

You’ll note that the only real change was that she (or the computer program) flipped the order of the sentences and used a thesaurus to alter a couple of words.

Aristotle observed that women’s minds should be kept free from exertion because “children evidently draw on the mother who carries them in her womb, just as plants draw on the soil.” Darwin said that while the female spent her energy forming her ova, the male spent “much force in fierce contests with his rivals.”
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80

compared to

Aristotle wrote that women’s minds should be kept free from exertion because “children evidently draw on the mother who carries them in her womb, just as plants draw on the soil.” Darwin observed that while the female spent her energy forming her ova, the male spent “much force in fierce contests with his rivals.”
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

She (or the bot) merely changed “observed” to “wrote” and “said” to “observed”.

Even as late as 1970, Dr. Edgar F. Berman, Hubert Humphrey’s personal physician and an official on a national policy-making committee of the Democratic Party, declared that his “scientific position” was that “women are different physically, physiologically and psychically.”

“If doctors do not know that there is such a thing as premenstrual tension,” he huffed, “they’d better go back to medical school.”
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80

compared to

Even as late as 1970, after the social revolution of the 60s, Dr. Edgar F. Berman, Hubert Humphrey’s personal physician and an official on a national policy-making committee of the Democratic Party, declared that his “scientific position” was that “women are different physically, physiologically and psychically.” “If doctors do not know that there is such a thing as premenstrual tension,” he said, huffily, “they’d better go back to medical school.”
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

The Maureenbot added “after the social revolution of the 60s” and turned “he huffed” into “he said huffily”.

When his words caused a furor among women and he was forced to resign, he ruefully observed: “Pandora’s box is no tender trap.”
But at long last, the tables have turned.
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80

compared to

He stuck to his guns even after his remarks caused such a furor that he had to resign. He left his job with this parting shot: “Pandora’s box is no tender trap.”
But the tables have finally turned.
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

The bot got clever here substituting the “forced” part from the original with “stuck to his guns” but loved the last sentence too much to change it. Are bots capable of “love”?

Now it is unstable male temperament that is causing alarm…
Men are engaging in shrewish, scolding, clawing, vengeful, sneaky, vain behaviour that is anything but reasonable and impersonal. Women are affected by lunar tides only once a month; men have raging hormones every day.”
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80-1

compared to

Now it is unstable male temperament that is causing alarm.
Male politicians are engaging in sneaky, catty, weepy, ditzy, shrewish behaviour that is anything but reasonable and impersonal.
Women are affected by lunar tides only once a month, after all. Men have raging hormones every day…
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

The bot kept “shrewish” and “catty”, changed three adjectives, and dropped one. I guess six adjectives became passé in the last near decade.

I’ll spare you the rest of the article, which is entirely just a copy of 2005′s Chapter Two: Why Pandora’s Box Is No Tender Trap”. Ultimately, the point here is that The Globe and Mail should sue Maureen Dowd for fraud. They paid her for an article “special to The Globe and Mail” and she gave them something already published elsewhere for which she’d already been paid.

To show this isn’t a single transgression, the next article Maureen submitted, “Why the Y?” in The New York Times on November 24th, is barely a rewrite of 2005′s Chapter Four: Why The Well-hung Y Is Wilting, Even As The X Is Excelling. The New York Times needs to fire Maureen Dowd on the grounds that we’ve already read the book.

So, is Maureen Dowd necessary when we’ve got a perfectly good bot doing her job for her?

No.

Maureen is so unnecessary that I debated whether or not to bother writing about her this week. Given her history, I could save my notes, publish it eight weeks or eight years from now, and it would still be just as relevant. At least, this time, Dowd only copy/pasted herself.

  • Laddition

    “Maureen is either lazy, sloppy, dishonest, or a genuine cunt. Why pick just one?”

    Typical DD generosity. Why pick just one, indeed.

  • Spitfire

    *sigh*

    Alright, I think I should say something here. I know the exact research she’s referencing when it comes to the Y-chromosome. I have an honours degree in genetics and we studied it for part of the coursework. She’s ALMOST right in that the y-chromosome is shortening. She’s wrong about just about everything else.

    First, while the y-chromosome is only KIND OF shortening, it’s also doing bizarre things that we don’t understand yet. Namely, it’s transversing and inverting parts of itself and we don’t know what those do (In layman terms, think of the number pattern 12345. What the y-chromosome is doing is going 12345432123454321). As well as this, the rate of shortening seems to be slowing. There is very little difference between human, chimpanzee and macaque y-chromosomes, which suggests that the rate is slowing or at least has since we diverged from our evolutionary cousins. It’s shortening on a relative timescale (we diverged very recently from chimps and macaques), not in an on-going way. The idea that the y-chromosome was disappearing was based on a linear estimation, which is looking more and more wrong as new research comes out.

    Second, the y-chromosome shortening is nothing to be concerned about. Divergence of sex chromosomes is no big deal. Chromosomes aren’t some sort of static structure that must stay exactly the same over time. They change and shorten and lengthen all the time. There’s evidence that a section of the x and y chromosomes was a translocation from an autosomal (non-sex chromosome) region, called the “pseudoautosomal region”. And there’s not reason that can’t keep happening.

    Third, y-chromosomes aren’t particularly crucial. There are a lot of species that have an XX/XO system, or haplodiploidy, or a bunch of other sex-determination systems. If the y-chromosome goes, it goes. The regions of the chromosome that are important will probably be integrated elsewhere. There’s only a single gene that determines gender (SRY), and that activates another gene (SOX9) which causes male development. SOX9 isn’t on the y chromosome, so there’s any number of other things that could develop to activate it.

    In short, 1) the y-chromosome might not be shortening at all. It’s certainly not doing nothing. 2) If it is shortening, then there’s other things that can lengthen it. 3) If it disappears, we’ll probably develop something else.

    Science says she’s wrong. Everyone go about your day.

    • Diana Davison

      Thank you for your informative input.

      People who are seriously interested in the scientific issues will, thankfully, not be counting on Maureen for a summary. I’m not concerned one ounce what Maureen has to say about science, men, or gender issues in general. I’m more concerned with her accounting for the fact that the last original thought she had happened in 2005.

      I want to know why Maureen shouldn’t be sued for academic fraud. (Assuming The Globe and Mail paid her for an original article.)

      As for science, that’s something we don’t look to Maureen to explain to us. Anyone who does defies logic in how they manage to get through a day safely without expiring.

      • Spitfire

        I absolutely agree. My only problem is that people honestly believe how she presents the information. The studies are out there, but the average person has no idea where to look or how to read them. So they read something like this, think “Oh, she must know what she’s talking about if she can write an article on it!” And she knows it too.

        If being paid to mislead the public is fraud, then I’m afraid Ms. Dowd is beyond guilty.

        EDIT: I just looked up self-plagiarism. Turns out it is definitely a thing. Most academic journals apparently have safeguards against it. Guess we know why she doesn’t get published in those then.

        • TarzanWannaBe

          Thanks for this, Spitfire. Dowd makes Orwellian use of science. She’s not alone, of course. Just as we have, in the political world, criminal and civil courts with their respective law, I wish it were possible to have a court of rhetoric and it’s accompanying law — something akin to ‘truth in advertising’ applied to speech. “Free speech” would then not only then be more reliable, it could be actionable. lol

        • sondjata

          Seconded. The amount of misinformation out there that is assumed to be “common knowledge” is staggering. And worse some of it is taught by academics in university.

  • John Narayan

    It’s 1965 Dowd is in grade 9.

    Failed maths, check, failed science, check, hmm oh boy,
    hmm, oh I know gender studies, and journalism, yea this will shut the feminists up for a while.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    MoDo has always viewed what she does as “entertainment” and “satire” and her defenders frequently use this to deflect any and all criticism. This “entertainment” defense is used by all sorts of disingenuous and shallow pundits from all parts of the political spectrum. This to me is lazy, for effective satire is actually biting with truth, even if it’s exaggerated or inflammatory in style, but MoDo and others like her frequently don’t bother with that, using “satire” as a defense to defend any unfair or inaccurate or misleading statement.

    Dowd’s well known for getting extremely frosty and nasty with anyone who offends her, and not even having the good grace to accept apologies.

    Fact is I can’t stand this woman, I’ve always considered her intellectually lazy and shallow. I’d list other pundits I consider lazy and shallow too but that would probably just start a partisan shitfest.

    That she’s recycling old material and passing it off as new doesn’t surprise me. In the end, she’s never been a very sharp or original thinker.

  • Never Blue Again

    I don’t know why some feminists are so obsessed with and hate Y chromosome. Do they envy it …. ?? But why … ?? Okye, got it. …. “They are feminist”

    Second, why these stupid feminist ties Y chromosome to males and X chromosome to females … ?? Males have one X chromosome too … remember …. ?? It’s XX= Females and XY=males. Not X=Females and Y=males. And in females one of two X chromosomes shutdowns itself automatically in every cell to save the cell from overdosing genetic materials. One company can’t have two CEO’s dumb asses. If it does …………. it will brake apart eventually.

    And third, for the shake of argument even if we consider that males are going to extinct in a few millions years, why feminist are cheering on it ……. ?? Is this not a matter of to be concerned … ?? But no ….. let’s dance on it…. hurray ….. men are going to be extinct …. in a few million years … whether or not even their own distant decedents lives to see it let alone themselves.

    Do some one really need to look any further to see that…… Feminist/Feminism hates men ……… and “FEMINISM = HATE” …… ???

    Do they seriously ask themselves why almost all higher form of species have two separate sexes … ?? It’s for a reason …. geniuses.
    Do they seriously believe if men are extinct, women could continue mankind (fuck…. the word is mankind …. !!!! ) …… okey humankind ?? Even with all that parthenogenesis bullshit ….. !!! Seriously ….. ??

    If they do ………. Then let’s have a dress rehearsal of the future. Men are going their own way and women have the floor to do as they want with it. Feminist should support MGTOW for their own shake ………. !! For their own better future … no ….. ??

    Practice makes it perfect. So practice ladies …..

  • Bewildered

    One of feminism’s achievements has been to elevate mediocre writers to “greatness”.

    • Torgo

      As an unjustly vilified writer put it:

      “Don’t set out to raze all shrines, you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity-and the shrines are razed.”

  • Mark Trueblood

    “Feminism is dead. The movement is absolutely dead. The women’s movement tried to suppress dissident voices for way too long. There’s no room for dissent….Feminist ideology is like a new religion for a lot of neurotic women. You can’t talk to them about anything.” -Camille Paglia in a recent interview

  • TarzanWannaBe

    Wow, Diana! You’ve done some digging. Thanks. Sorry, too. haha It just seems like reading that much Dowd would be like listening to all the “deep cuts” from old Barry Manilow recordings.

  • Anti Idiocy

    My Sweetie Pie, Maureen Dowd, was one of four women in a recent a Munk debate that, by the Munk standards, determined that men are obsolete.

    And for the next Munk debate, four men will determine “Are Women too Hateful to Vote?”

  • Dennis

    As a former subscriber to the NYT for many years, I couldn’t agree more with Diana. I stopped reading Dowd’s slop years before I canceled my subscription due to the incessant misandry in the NYT pages. I just got fed up with NYT feminist bullshit.

    The NYT in general, isn’t the quality publication it used to be. Their view of human affairs is sanitized and slanted. They generally suck up to Wall Street. They often ignore or distort important trends happening in the Middle East and Asia, especially the PBOC’s changing monetary policies. Add to this the other editorial crap they publish that is at once both racist and sexist and I’m gone. I’d rather throw my money into a shit hole than buy the paper.

  • Mickster66

    Whatever Maureen says the first time isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, never mind the second, the third…

  • graham strouse

    Years ago I sent a drunken midnight screed to a libertarian blogger on the subject of la Dowd. Somewhat to my surprise Ms. Mercer cleaned up the typos & printed it on her feed. It reads a little like this: http://barelyablog.com/letter-of-the-week-maureen-dowd-im-available-by-graham-strouse-2/

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

    I knew the New York Times had gone over the edge, when around 20 years ago some moron writer did a story on girls in education and used the phrase “8-year-old-women” (going by memory, might have been a different age of girl, but it was a ridiculously young childhood age). The conformist social constructivist politically correct mindset is authoritarianism is a evidence of immature cult-like delusion. Fertile ground for the sewing of a totalitarian social control Nightmare State from Hell. It is truly amazing how many millionaire socialists there out there. Say hello to millionaire heir Bill Ayers for me, will ya, doll-face.

  • feeriker

    See Fred Reed’s brilliant takedown of Maureen eight years ago: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

    Maybe I’m being a little arcane her, but Maureen Dowd sure reminds me of another empowered “career woman”: Anujka de Poshonja. I dunno. Can’t put my finger on it. Something … something just reminds me of Anujka. Maybe you can pin it down. Take a look:
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/10/witch-of-vladimirovac-anna-pistova.html

  • Cam

    From Feerika

    “See Fred Reed’s brilliant takedown of Maureen eight years ago: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml
    ———————————————————————————————————

    Very amusing and pointed article. Thanks. Everyone here should read of this one..

    • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

      I humbly disagree. You have understated your case.

      This Fred Reed piece is a brilliant scathing utterly hilarious bit of polemic word-smithery. A hoot and three-quarters. Gotta, gotta read it. DO NOT MISS.

      Thanks!

      PLUS: Fred Reed, Feminist Tarantulas,” (Fred on Everything website)
      http://www.fredoneverything.net/COL1.shtml

      • feeriker

        Over the last decade Fred has written several red-pill articles that strongly advise young American men against even thinking about marriage (at least marriage to Anglophone women, which he urges avoidance of at all costs; Fred has been expatriated to Mexico for nearly a decade and has been married for the last five-plus years to a Mexicana). These articles can be found in the archives at his site.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    Maureen Dowd, like the common cow, many rats, worms, chimpanzees and gorillas, as well as the donkey, mule and sloth, also dogs and moonwarts in addition to autistic humans and those exhibiting down syndrome, have more genetic material than the standard human male. Apparently it is this additional, unrefined genetic material that accounts for those extensive qualities which she shares in common with her kin organisms.

    In a related recent scientific discovery, the cunt phenotype was traced back to a gene locus on the second x-chromosome.

    • Paul Johnson

      Don’t forget amoebas. Amoebas have an enormous amount of genetic material, and, like rats, are still rapidly accumulating it.

  • Astrokid

    Thoroughly enjoyed this piece.

    “Maureen is either lazy, sloppy, dishonest, or a genuine cunt. Why pick just one?”

    LOL

    Great work figuring out the cut+paste of the Globe And Mail article Diana.
    The references were excellent. I didnt know DEVOLUTION was a serious biological term.. good to learn. The below quote from one of the references is gold.

    Maureen Dowd makes me lose faith in journalism. Apparently, I work in a field in which writing pseudo-intellectual gender- and machismo-based nonsense that isn’t particularly funny, witty or amusing, and which includes no actual reporting, doesn’t get you fired. It gets you eight more years in the most hallowed space the industry offers.
    —Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones blog (11/19/07)

  • John Narayan

    I was talking to a women at my local cafe this morning, she contradicted herself so many times! She has three sons, so I did my usual thing of putting her sons in the middle of a false rape allegation. Made her think for the first time ever.

  • Paul Johnson

    This reminds me of the IT specialist talking shit to one of his colleagues: “You could be replaced by a shell script.”

    • Fredrik

      Daaaamn. That’s harsh. Right up there with “You would fail a Turing test.”

  • jerrytheother

  • JinnBottle

    Ar, you folks don’t have to be as gracious to Maureen Dowd as you are to actual homosapiens. Dowd is an anthropoid of the shit-chucking variety, as she hasn’t invented any tools or weapons yet. Can’t even think to pickup a rock. Nope, just shit.

    Dowd, without men you’d be picking your nose & eating it for as your only food source.

    You are one very lucky baboon, my dear.