In the jacket blurb of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's latest book Are Men Necessary?: when sexes collide, it says that the book looks at the sexual politics between men and women.
It makes the book all very intellectual and I was inclined to pick up the book after seeing the book on New York Times' 100 Notable Books of 2005 list.
However, I was rather disappointed at the read as she doesn't seem to be exploring new ground with her observations on the gender situation in dating, the home, workplace and politics. OK, probably she makes a case for the fact that men are really the ones responsible for screwing up the world (main target of bashing being Bush Junior) and that the world would probably be better if women ruled it. That is, Condi Rice (as she likes to call the US Secretary of State) would do a much better job had she had the reins. OK, perhaps I might just go with her theory on this. Haha.
No new ground is broken in this book and I think it's a book you could pass on if you chance upon it.
Posted by DSD at February 25, 2006 12:43 AMno, really, men AREN't neccessary! hahahahah
Posted by: binksy at February 26, 2006 11:45 PMi remember the furore her comments in the NY Tiems(based on her book) created a few months back, and am disappointed to note her book didn't break new ground. Is it available at Kino?
Posted by: a l at February 28, 2006 9:25 AMal: Well, maybe others might think differently, but I really didn't think it broke new ground. I borrowed the book from the library so I'm not too sure if Kino has it.
Posted by: dimsumdolly at February 28, 2006 9:42 AM