November 3, 2005
By Sunday evening, single women across America were trying to slit their wrists by inflicting a hundred little paper cuts from the Sunday New York Times Magazine, featuring an article by Maureen Dowd, "What's a Modern Girl to Do?"
Feminism is over, Dowd writes, men only want to date non-challenging, non-career-oriented women, and women are willingly returning to traditional gender roles.
If "Sex and the City's" Carrie Bradshaw were writing this article, she'd type in her familiar courier font: "Sometimes I wonder ... are men threatened by smart, successful women?"
But Carrie's era has ended, apparently, says the real-life (non-sex) op-ed writer Dowd, pictured in the Oct. 30 magazine in an austere black suit paired with fishnet stockings.
"So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?" she laments.
I felt like I was listening to my father, or my rabbi -- if I still had one (a rabbi, not a father) -- with this return to men as providers, women as caretakers and never the twain shall meet.
Dowd's basic theory posits that "The Rules" -- that once-silly guidebook on how to entrap a man, which is now read nonironically, as in The Torah of dating -- was just the beginning. The end, a decade later, is women in their 20s who go to law school planning to drop out to get married, women who won't call a guy because men don't like to be chased and men marrying nurturers like their secretaries because they don't desire a challenging woman (like "the boss"). Which leaves some smart, successful women wondering, alone, where they went wrong.
It's not that Dowd said anything particularly new. It's just that, well, the thing is ... a lot of it is true. I wish I could deny it; I wish I could say that feminism is safe and Dowd is bitter. And that the people she quotes are a small random selection; and that plenty of people find an equal partner; and my friends and I will too someday (soon). But I've had too many recent experiences that suggest otherwise:
He'd go out with these bartenders, dancers -- secretaries -- for a few months till conversation ran dry and he couldn't stand the sight of them any longer and then flee like an escaped convict to socialize with the likes of me -- people in his "class." It was not a question of looks.
"You're just too smart for me," he said sadly.
Look, I've tried dating down. My last two boyfriends were by no means my intellectual equals; they weren't threatened by my brain, but they weren't particularly interested either. Or interesting, really. I chucked them in hopes of finding my intellectual equal, my soul mate, the man I can ask advice from and discuss everything with -- from literature to politics to religion to child rearing, to even this stupid New York Times article.
But I hear that he's off dating his secretary, his physical therapist, his nanny, his cook -- all the nurturers we thought we could hire while we provided the intellectual stimulation, which he apparently prefers to get from "The Daily Show."
Look, maybe we can't have it all -- the perfect career and the perfect man and the perfect family -- and if I could do it all over again, maybe I'd do some things differently: Maybe I wouldn't have done all that I've done if I had known the price for independence is ... being alone.
Maybe. But maybe not.
Dating for women of my generation has always been about the conflict of being yourself vs. behaving like someone else in order to get the prized man. But what kind of guy would I get if I behaved like someone else? Who would I be? What kind of we would there be if I weren't me?
The women of the generations before me, well, maybe they were lucky. Lucky without feminism, lucky to be in the haven of their traditional roles. And maybe that's the happy fate that also awaits the women of the future.
What is a Modern Girl to do, Ms. Dowd? Sadly enough she doesn't answer that question, so I guess this is one article I'm going to have to write on my own.