I have written elsewhere that I find Mo Dowd simply incoherent, based on reading a bunch of her Op/Ed pieces a few years back. It’s not so much that her ideas are bad as that her ideas are hard to identify as ideas at all. What, exactly, is she getting at? Upon what does she base her assertions? These are unhappy and unrewarding questions to ask of Ms Dowd’s writing, so I did the sane thing: read other things. Life’s too short for that kind of crap.
However, others, no doubt made of sterner stuff, have continued to plow through her output (so to speak) and the results have been entertaining.
Ed Peters has this to say.
George Weigel says this. My favorite part:
Ms. Dowd believes in the sexual revolution as fervently as Archbishop Dolan believes in the Creed in which he leads his congregation at St. Patrick’s every Sunday. The difference between them is that Archbishop Dolan can rationally defend the articles in the Creed, while Maureen Dowd is impervious to the massive empirical evidence that demonstrates that the sexual revolution has been a snare and a delusion for a) women, b) children, c) men, d) marriage, e) family stability, and f) the country’s political culture (cf. Clinton, William Jefferson [whom Dowd helped save in 1998]). Interestingly enough, and in this respect, Maureen Dowd is not the linear descendant of Nast and the rationalist anti-Catholics, who were more often than not the “progressives” of their day. Rather, she is the rhetorical great-great-granddaughter of Elder W. C. Benson and his 1928 anti-Catholic screed, the difference being that Benson’s fundamentalism involved notions of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, while Dowdian fundamentalism involves an irrational and empirically unsustainable belief in the sexual revolution.
It takes a particular kind of fundamentalism to believe, in the face of what we primitives call ‘facts’ and ‘reality’, that, for example, a 3rd trimester baby isn’t a baby, or that divorce doesn’t destroy children, or that casual sex doesn’t lead to emptiness and pain, that the sexual revolution isn’t, in fact, a body of lies founded on the ever-popular ‘la-la-la I can’t hear you’ argument. That the mental tools used to deconstruct the western world into a male-dominated hell can just as easily be used to deconstruct feminism and multiculturalism into sawdust. (DISCLAIMER: not that there’s nothing to the claims of feminists and multiculturalists – it’s just that attempting to deconstruct the West in support of their grievances is a classic snake-eating-its-tail exercise. On the contrary, all real progress has been made by appealing to the ideas held most dear in the West: women didn’t get the vote by deconstructing, they got it by appealing to men’s sense of fairness. And so on.)
And now, with any luck, this will be the last I think of Maureen Dowd and her shrieking non-thought.
Hey, one can dream.