the title of dowd’s editorial seems to acknowledge the implicit or explicit role of sex in determining western womens’ rationality, at least in regards to politics.
and it does so in a way that would at least on the surface seem highly suggestive and offensive to women at least in polite society.
beyond the political quid pro quo, the title seems to allude to prostitution, and invite the parallel between the sex for money paradigm.
john gray, author of men are from mars (etc) has a Ph D. but it is from Columbia Pacific University, a correspondence school which has long since become defunct. this is not exactly a ringing academic bona fide. it has been a long time since i read the book but what is the summary? that men and women think differently and need more communication? i would agree with dowd if she is claiming that that seems dated (along with her own book on the topic from 2005).
it is established fact that western women think differently from western men. but why, especially if we accept the feminist premise that women can think just as well as men.
dowd undermines most of whatever she seems to be trying to argue for by going on an irrational TDS rant early in her editorial. did she eat some bad baloney in her fridge? bad wine in the box? what?
her editorial title and her points are self defeating. what would she, or her presumed savior, round-heels, say to netanyahu or iranian mullahs in a mideast peace conference? how badly do you want it? she (or surrogate roundheels) would be laughed out of the conference in 5 seconds.
note to she who wants what she can never have: power is power. and p**** is p****. don’t confuse the two.