I had high hopes for this, expecting a bigger dose of Maureen's refreshing liberal arguments and interesting points. No such luck. It's hard to start the analysis considering how she jumps from point to point throughout the book and throughout each chapter. You'd think the title might give it focus, but that very question doesn't even come up until the mid-point of the book (about where I am now; not sure I have the will to finish), and her wittest method of answering it is some cutesy tangent about genetics and how sperm is no longer necessary to fertilize eggs. harharhar.

Up until that point, it's mostly a collection of random rants and anecdotes about how men supposedly can't handle women who are smarter than them or make more money, etc. Also, that all these societal standards are the fault of men, completely omitting women's responsibility in upholding them. (Get a clue: women are at least as insistent on the man being richer or more powerful no matter her standing, just like women expect the man to be taller no matter her height.)

If Maureen truly believes men desire ditzes, maybe she can find comfort in knowing the release of this book just increased her compatibility.

Many people are condemning Dowd's book as 'under-researched' and criticizing the lack of in-depth analysis of social structures. Dowd is a JOURNALIST, not an ACADEMIC. If you want a critique of society and gender, find an academic text, if you want something amusing and occasionally insightful, read this book.

I too think it is very interesting how many people were inspired to trash Dowd on this review panel. That people are so angry proves that they fear the grains of truth hidden within the entertaining writing. If people, especially the indignant mothers, weren't absolutely terrified that their sons may grow up to be unpleasant human beings who mistreat women, then they would not be in such a hurry to attack the book. Fear inspires very strong emotions, but frankly, it is just that: fear. It blinds people to reality and makes it impossible to acknowledge that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. There are issues with gender relations, and many of them are on the male end.

My theory-in-development is that since the second wave of feminism, women have been brought up to believe they can do anything. For the most part, they have been told they can work, have children, and do only 50% of domestic labor b/c their partners are ethically and, in all fairness, required to share the domestic burden. That is all well and good; it has produced many strong independent women who have achieved quite a lot.

HOWEVER, in this rush to educate women on their potential, we forget to change the way we raise little boys. Few people raise their sons to do laundry, cook meals, and learn how to clean house. They also do not inform their sons that domestic labor is their responsibility as much as it is women's. These boys then grow up without a clear understanding of how to run a household and what 50% of that job actually entails. They are abruptly confronted with women who have an entirely different expectation of how a relationship works than men. The serious lack of attention paid to boys' education in this country is the source of many problems that even go beyond the gender divide. Some of the results of this antiquated education can be seen in other aspects of society as well: women make up more than half of college classes, women's graduation rates are higher than men's, etc.

Are Men Necessary is a question that can be revised to ask "Are men as they are currently an asset to society?" The answer is: Sometimes, but often times no. Could they be brought up to be equal minded individuals who accept 50% of household labor as their natural duty, have a healthy respect for all points of view, and are considerate, compassionate humans beings? Of Course. A change in the fundamental values with which men are raised is bound to be slow in coming, but books like this provide a necessary shock. They force people to reevaluate pressing problems, like gender relations, and hopefully help them to form effective solutions (at least more effective than writing off men altogether!).

I hope some of the extremely angry people on this review board understand that the book does not pretend to be an academic text and does not presume to even answer the question it poses in the title. It is an exploratory text that brings all those questions we don't want to ask to the surface. The book's purpose is to stimulate thought and discussion, and frankly, it's done its job when it has made you even consider why the answer to "Are Men Necessary" might, at this particular time in history, be answered with a no.

Since this seems to be the subtext of the book Are Men Necessary, I think it should have been the title.

I read her excerpt from Are Men Necessary: "What's a Modern Girl To Do." I am giving it two stars because as a graphic designer, I like the 50s-style book cover illustration of the woman in the red dress reading a book in a subway train while the male passengers are watching her.

I am a single woman just like Maureen Dowd. But I think I know why she is having trouble dating.

She only goes out with rich, powerful men; usually celebrities, Republicrat or Demopublican politicians, and Beltway journalists sycophantic to them. These men probably really don't want a smart, talented woman. Why would they, when they're used to dating women who are just as shallow as themselves, and, if they're Beltway journalists, don't seem to dare criticize the Bush Administration like she does? For this very reason, her making fun of the Bushies and John Kerry in her columns probably alienates these men from her even further. I wouldn't be surprised if these very same men loathed Stephen Colbert and anonymously left death threats on his voicemail after he ranked on George Bush at the correspondents' dinner last April. Although her columns do sound bitchy and childish and no less superficial than her dates do; since these articles dwell on the politicians' personalities more than their policies.

I live in San Francisco, and do computer art and consulting for a living. I'm sure this requires more brain-power than writing a fluffy book complaining that men don't like smart women. I've been to Burning Man. I'm in the Green Party. Why am I mentioning these all-too-personal-and-irrelevant things? Because if these men don't want to date Maureen Dowd because she's too talented as she claims, they would probably not want to even think about dating a semi-hippie computer geek like myself. If she's really too smart for them, they'd consider me too much of a freak.

But I accept this. I guess it's much easier for me to not lose sleep over the fact that elite men are probably not going to like someone like me than it seems to be for Maureen Dowd. Because these men are not part of my world, but hers.

I'm not surprised she assumes that all men hate smart, talented women. It's because these are the only types of men she associates with. Fortunately, there are lots of decent, thoughtful, hard-working men out there who are not nearly this petty. But if she really wants to find them, she'll have to get out of her Hollywood-Beltway ghetto/ivory tower and into the real world.

To summarize, "What's a Modern Girl To Do" is nothing more than a sour-gripes-fest complaining that she can't get a rich, powerful man. Well, I can't either.

Maureen needs to hang out with a different crowd, like I do.

This is an extremely enjoyable look at the battle between the sexes. Dowd makes it plain that this is not a scholarly thesis, but rather a compendium of anecdotes and commentary, many culled from her own experience, about men and how we as women view them in the 21st century. And, of course, vice versa, using some delicious insight and keen wit to make her many (and often deadly on target) points.

I especially enjoyed the section about the encroaching death of the Y chromosome, as well as her observations about Hillary Clinton and her encounter with the one and only Monica Lewinsky. I completely disagree with previous reviewers who paint Dowd as sexist; this is even-handed treatment, and I would venture to say that her boldness is seen as temerity on the part of these reviewers. Her title lets you know right away what you are in for, yet it's not a scathing indictment of the male sex. Rather, it's more of a humorous and fun look at where men and women are anchored today in the cultural spectrum. And it's one hell of a confusing picture.

If you don't take the book deadly seriously, I think you will find it very enjoyable. Dowd's an excellent writer, and her book is timely and relevant. Are Men Necessary asks precisely that, but the answer is open-ended. Personally, I think they are necessary, but that women are still struggling towards complete freedom and acceptance. Dowd helps to create a more complete view of what women's experience in a man's world is like, while keeping her tongue planted firmly in cheek.

A book for both men and women, in the final analysis.

If Maureen Dowd was a woman I would think she was sexist. But since she is a cyborg sent to "dowdify" quotes to serve her own purpose, I will just think she is a moron. Because let's face it. No one wants to be called sexist.