Maureen Dowd should be labeled sexist

KEITH LAFERRIERE/Times-Union | December 2 2005

I've seen so many letters going back and forth about Maureen Dowd's wit, bias, pure poison and incisive criticism. However, especially in light of her new book "Are Men Necessary?," how is it that there is no mention that she is overtly sexist?

In this book she claims, "Men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office" and "now that women don't need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is ... you know we need you in the way we need ice cream, you'll be more ornamental."

If a man had written these statements about women, or had a white author asserted that black people are "not biologically suited to hold higher office," would we still be discussing that individual's political commentary as if it deserved a second thought? No, we wouldn't. He or she would be labeled sexist or racist, which is practically a social mandate to dismiss the author's opinions.

What does this tell us about our society's willingness, or lack thereof, to defend certain social groups when they are written about in this way? Are men and boys expected to tolerate this and "take it like a man"? Have we really been silenced to this degree?

Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.