My formerly-favorite NY Times writer Maureen Dowd continues her recent male-bashing and brings it to a new level in todays column X-celling Over Men.
Here’s the email response I sent her, though I should not have bothered. Anything I say, or anyone can say, will only reinforce her predjudice. That’s why they call it predjudice.
"Who can be surprised that this particular column of yours is the most email Times article of the week? Bigotry of the type you espouse here is always an attention getter. Presumably none of your readers are men because, as we now know, men don’t read the Times. We are too busy parked in front of wall-sized TV watching sports or porn. I’m sure you know well enough that there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that we are not simply what our genes say we are. You also conveniently forgot that a man painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Another man wrote "The Great Gatsby," another one discovered the polio vaccine. But those accomplishments were all made before the invention of take-out pizza and ESPN.
There’s one word in your article that I question. You call the study in NATURE "startling." I submit that you do not really find it startling all, but quite expected. When bigots like yourself find some kernel they can take away to justify their own prejudices they feel gleeful and satisfied. They do not find themselves startled. –Mike Canfield"
Updated11:00 am -But here’s a better rebuttle than my poor male sports-and-barcalounger brain can come up with: The New York Times: Maureen Dowd (Forum/Message Board).