Most of you reading this know that Maureen Dowd is an unhinged liberal columnist for the New York Times. Many of you also know that Maureen is an aging spinster who feels spurned by men because she never managed to get married. Fred Reed writes about Maureen's man troubles here and here (they're great, can't-miss columns by the way).
I'm bringing this up due in part to Dowd's recently snarky column about Sarah Palin (which I won't link here, Mo's not worthy of the traffic). Where I'm really going with this is to use it as a jumping off point for explaining part of the liberal mindset, particularly the liberal feminist mindset.
Maureen is (or at least was) an anomaly among feminists - she was actually not half-bad looking in her younger days. In fact, she was quite fetching. Yet somehow, despite her wishes, Maureen sailed through her youth, whisked through middle age, and is now entering her senior years as a never-married woman, and all the more bitter for that fact. It makes you wonder how a woman with her good looks and intelligence (well, book smarts at least) could end up this way.
The simple truth is Maureen bought into a set of values that can be considered to a bad set of values, at least for a woman that wants to end up married. She bought into the meme that yes, you can have it all, as if making choices is no longer a requirement in life. Sorry Mo, but it is, it has always been, and it always will be.
Furthermore, being a champion of a movement that is disagreeable to the very existence of men as men is not exactly the best recipe for attracting a man. What man wants to come home from a hard day's work and be bitched at for being part of the patriarchy, being an oppressor, being a potential rapist, and whatever other horrible thing that feminist dogma insists applies to any man (or at least those that are heterosexuals)?
In short, Maureen latched on to the one thing that can make even the best looking of women suddenly appear to be no more attractive than Madeline Albright - she aligned herself with the man-haters. And as a result, she ended up never having a man ask her for her hand in marriage. What sane man would want to marry a man-hater?
Her reaction to this, well outlined in the Fred Reed columns linked above, is instructive - she blames men. No, not herself of course. In her mind, it couldn't possibly be that she's a feminist that generally holds men in contempt. No, it couldn't be that she belittles them every chance she gets, that she chooses to see nothing good about them. Perhaps someday, they'll make a movie about Marueen's predicament. Call it "Clueless, Part 2 - The Spinster Years."
The Palin column I mentioned above, and her general reaction towards the subject thereof is also instructive. Here's a woman who's had plenty of worldly success, starting from relatively humble beginnings. Not only that, she managed to grab a man (and not some simpering little girly man either), had 5 kids, and has a thriving family life. In short, it seems as though Palin has it all, and obtained it while rejecting the same feminist ideology that Maureen latched onto like a hungry wolf to a deer carcass. Compare and contrast.
Now Maureen is reduced to sitting in her apartment alone, writing snarky columns, bashing women like Palin and men of all stripes. Old, lonely, and bitter. Well, Maureen, let me dedicate a song to you here. Like Mr. Thorogood, you too will drink alone. And while alcohol may not solve your problems at this point Mo, maybe it will ease the pain - however self-inflicted it may have been.