Maureen Dowd’s angst-full essay ‘What’s a Modern Girl to Do? ‘ echoes a myopic view of men and women found in Cincinnati Enquirer staff reporter Krista Ramsey’s ‘Who are these women?’.

Expanding on the hopes shared in ‘Looking forward to the day when…‘ , Porkoplis is optimistic and looks forward to the day when:

Essays and reporting like that of Mses. Dowd and Ramsey are just a curiosity of our past.Our ‘popular culture’ reinforces the notion that the whole, represented in a loving marriage between a man and woman, is greater the the sum of its individual parts. That same ‘popular culture’ seeks the ‘fulfillment’ both Dowd and Ramsey distress over in a commitment to family, rearing of the next generation and community.

Clearly it would be difficult to live with this kind of personality. At least Bill Maher doesn’t contain his glee at his naturalistically unattached (but not unsexed) state. Maureen, who I’ve often suspected might have a not-to-be-sneezed at greater love for the bottle than for the kind of self-containment and humility that is the gist of at least some of what is involved in a happy partnership, is clearly looking for a date as part and parcel of her own personal exit strategy.

She is pretty, and keeps herself up. She can be adoring and obsequious, as we’ve seen her on sunday morning news shows deferring her already semi-retired colleague, William Safire. There is a weird Catholic creepiness (I grew up one so I can say this) that she throws into many discussions seemingly unnecessarily. And she holds herself with a kind of stillness that I don’t think men find as inviting as a more naturalistic manner.

Her main issue though is that a man does not want to imagine having his sexual performance or God-forbid his member discussed or -aagghhh! – critiqued in the savage way she takes to the paperwaves twice per week. She doesn’t seem to understand that she is fairly unique in this regard, and not really in the same position or necessarily able to understand the position of many other women who are modulated and enhanced by the requirements of managing others, for example.

“toting machine guns and fighting the global jihad. That’s the kind of women we’re going to need in 20-30 years”.

Damn, how depressing. OTOH, how potentially realistic. This will be a long war, with unforeseen meanderings. I hope your scenario is not necessary, but if it is, I hope you are right. The pendulum always swings, we occasionally alter its rhythm, but never its passage.

I was interested in the substance of her article though – mainly the social pendulum she is describing wherein the daughters of the baby boom feminists are now into marriage, family, home, and exuding sexuality (all of which we might infer will lead to higher reproductive rates in this coming generation of women). She wonders whether these women will, by the time they are in their 50’s, be lonely and isolated and popping valium and looking for Betty Friedan. That’s not an unreasonable prediction, given perpetual human dissatisfaction. But if that is how this next generation plays out – what of the subsequent generation of females – i.e. the ones who will be coming of age in 20-30 years time (the daughters of these new traditionalists, of whom there could be a great many, if the generation Dowd is describing procreates well). Will they swing back to feminisim after observing their mothers’ bitter disappointments with more traditional sex roles? And will they do so in a big way? It’s an intriguing idea actually. The granddaughters of the baby-boomer feminists as the uber-feminists, toting machine guns and fighting the global jihad. That’s the kind of women we’re going to need in 20-30 years. Maybe providence will inadvertently provide us with exactly what we need.

Believe me, never-married guys in their 50s bring problmes too.