With her reputation, and the title "When Sexes Collide" I expected a more serious and combative book. But it turned out to be rather amusing book where both sexes took their fair share of hits.Perhaps the book can be best summed up with a passage from Chapter 6 where Dowd discussed the state of modern day Iraq "With the loss of interest in the abilities of women the cradle of civilization that produced the remarkable Cleopatra fell behind economically and culturally, simply proving that societies need the participation of woman to prosper in every way."
A strong argument that obviously works both ways. And for what it's worth, I think Maureen Dowd is extremely sexy. ( )

So, you know the question isn't even answered in this book, right?

I picked this up on a whim at The Book Thing in Baltimore. The title made me laugh and I thought it might make a decent gag gift of sorts for a feminist friend. Of course, I needed to read the book before I passed it off. Only decent thing to do, isn't it?

I kind of wish I hadn't.

Generally I enjoy sociological tirades, however inflamed they are. I've a decent background in anthropology and I'm no stranger to strife between the sexes being decently examined. It can be interesting to view the more radical beliefs, though too often poor examples are used. It can be interesting to see what other people think, and in turn be made to view things from an alternative perspective. Even though I (foolishly?) believe I'm more open-minded than most I found this book to be ridiculous.

The examples [a: Maureen Dowd|73558|Maureen Dowd|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1206632305p2/73558.jpg] set forth to defend her rather shaky slightly non-existent hypothesis seemed to apply more specifically to her own situation than to women in general. She talked about being called a bitch, about men writing to respond to her column more generally than women did, and about her own experiences working in DC. Women in politics and offering political commentary, it seems, are the same as women everywhere else. I can't help but think that area is a bit more specialized and more volatile than others for some reason...

In addition to this her hypothesis was unclear. She seemed at points to believe that women would be better off if men no longer existed - an entirely chapter was devoted to how the Y chromosone will be extinct in 10,000 to 10,000,000 years and how women will then TRULY rule the world - but then also noted how men are feminizing themselves and how that should be viewed as a victory. She bemoaned flirting in the office, but then discussed how it's insulting when men didn't flirt. It was very confusing.

At the end of this book I don't feel I really understand what it was setting out to be. It was just disorganized vitriol pointed at no one in particular. ( )

Sharp, witty, yet not as bitchy as the title suggests! ( )

Is "Are Men Necessary?" necessary? And, I generally like Maureen Dowd's writing in the NY Times.... ( )

These are clever – often very clever – essays. They’re also a lot of fun to read. Dowd dishes about political figures, examines pop culture, and tries to figure out what’s happening to feminism. She’s hard on Bill and Hill, but harder on Bush and Cheney. She never really comes to grips with the question of the title, except in an essay on biology, in which she says that the Y chromosome is degenerating and will only last another hundred thousand years or so. Interesting. ( )