The American Journal of Bioethics' editor responds to Saletan.

What's happening in our readers' forum.
Nov. 21 2005 7:44 PM

The Monasticism of the Kass Crowd

The American Journal of Bioethics' editor responds to Saletan.

As a frequent reader of William Saletan's Human Nature column, American Journal of Bioethics (and AJOB blog) editor Glenn McGee jumps into the Fray to respond to Saletan's recent dispatch from a forum sponsored by Genetics & Public Policy. The marquee panelists at the event included William Hurlbut, a conservative member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Laurie Zoloth, a professor Medical Ethics and Humanities, and of Religion at Northwestern. 

In his column, Saletan assumes his traditionally measured posture—a skepticism of Hurlbut's incoherent conservatism coupled with a skepticism of the liberal Zoloth's certitude. McGee, increasingly annoyed with "Human Nature," believes that, too often, Saletan mistakes "the monasticism of the Kass crowd," a group that includes Hurlbut, with a moral seriousness that bioethical issues require. 

McGee's response to Saletan can be found in the Fray here:

In a piece that is just a bit too clever, William Saletan accuses Laurie Zoloth of being a bit too clever. He reviews a dialog between Zoloth and William Hurlbut that took place at a typical forum about stem cell research. The impression he takes from the encounter can be summarized very briefly, although the nuanced "I was there-ness" that Saletan's pieces have taken on will be lost in my summary. Which is not, you will see if you read his new piece, an altogether bad thing.

Saletan points out that Hurlbut's dopey idea (altered nuclear transfer, which we have written about so much in this blog that I won't bother to put the links here anymore) unraveled under Zoloth's retorts, leaving Hurlbut livid and incoherent. If you read this blog you will find the latter fact easy to believe. Hurlbut, I have argued, has devolved into a charlatan selling a snake oil science-based solution to the stem cell debate. But he does a fabulous impression of a sincere and devoted scientist who only means well. And, equally, Saletan likes to perform—his act is "the liberal who feels bad for neoconservatives," and when he is in character he writes with a voice that begun to quite annoy me.

In what seems like a dozen columns for Slate it goes like this: he begins his commentary by telling us that he is 'sitting in the audience' at events in which the neoconservatives participate, and the message he brings back each time is that although he himself is liberal, the problem with liberals is that they are too cavalier, too loosy-goosy with the facts, and not ... Second ... here it comes ... serious enough.

So the account he gives of this event is all-too-familiar to me as a loyal reader of his new and fairly comprehensive writing about bioethics issues. It amounts to the claim that Zoloth wins the debate but cheats, and not because she is intending to cheat but instead because the overconfidence of liberals leads them to fail to question facts.

The problem with this argument is simple. It is wrong. Zoloth, he claims, had her facts wrong. His example is the question of whether ANT will reliably produce an embryo that will not implant. He says that he trusted Zoloth - her authority on the matter as a disputant - until she got them wrong:

At lunch, Zoloth said the idea behind ANT—knocking out a gene called Cdx2 to prevent development of an implantable embryo—wouldn't reliably succeed because gene knockouts produce a range of outcomes. I asked for her evidence that a range of implantation outcomes would occur with Cdx2 deletion. That's how it works, she assured me. But as I write this, I'm looking at the published report on the ANT experiment. It says "none of the Cdx2[-deleted] nuclear transfer blastocysts formed visible implantation sites (0 out of 40)." There goes my faith.

Well, that is a clever claim to make but all Saletan had to do was look deeper and he would see that while this is the report made in the Nature piece, it does not in any way exhaust the claim Zoloth is making. Her point is not that the group who conducted this single experiment should have found "implantatability" but that work on Cdx2 deletion has shown that there are a wide variety of effects on the developing cells that would include some embryos having the potential to be implantable, and that from a pro-life point of view if that potential exists at all, we're killing someone. Her point is subtle and frankly that is what makes me furious. And not with some sort of simple "liberal indignation" of the sort Saletan has begun to assert that liberal bioethicists hold.

So there's the rub. Saletan misses the fact that Hurlbut is at bottom disingenuous, he has heard countless times from many disputants including many of the top biologists in several related fields that his purported solution is voodoo and a political tactic at best. Hurlbut is clearly thrilled that the bad science that undergirds the attempts to avoid the stem cell debate has advanced as far as it has, so far in fact that perfectly respectable stem cell researchers are publishing wacky science in Nature in order to keep the dogs at bay. Hurlbut, it should be restated in this regard, apparently has no training in ethics, and is not a stem cell researcher. He is the one playing fast and loose, and Saletan should perhaps have taken just a few minutes to identify that multiple claims to that effect in the voluminous literature on the matter.

So why, when Laurie presents cogent arguments that position stem cells in relation to complex social and political phenomena and scientific issues, is Saletan hammering her for that sin?

Simple. He likes the seriousness, the monasticism of the Kass crowd. It is appealing because it feels academic, sincere, earnest. When Hurlbut pleads for us to take things more seriously, to not be "rude," it is because that political - and strictly political - tactic works for him. He is flying all over the country on an entrepreneurial mission to kill stem cell research, shows up everywhere he can and courts profile articles like nobody in the history of bioethics, never once confessing to be an amateur in a field where most folks believe you should actually read ethics before professing to be an ethicist.

Saletan is taken in by the claim that moral seriousness is a phenotype, a thing you can see and smell on people when they talk. It isn't. Real moral seriousness comes from thinking and writing carefully, and that is precisely what Hurlbut does not do. In fact with the exception of the one piece in which he argues for cheating the stem cell debate through the theoretical use of ANT, Hurlbut does not as best I can tell write in the field at all. Either field, in fact, stem cells or bioethics. How can you be a morally serious tutor of bioethics if you don't write in the field? This the problem Saletan misses: if you are going to take issue with trusting bioethicist, start with the scholarship.

82_horizontal_rule
Advertisement

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Slate's "College Week" and the nation's persistent religious revival provided fertile soil for fraygrants this week—though N and T thanks MsZilla and MichealRyerson for reminding us of the infinite value of the personal and the much maligned (too often by Fray Editor) off-topic testimonial. 

...The problem is that quantifying prayer is the first step toward commodifying it. Once you can prove prayer works, you can isolate whose prayers are most effective and sell their services-- both literally and figuratively. New-Agers already successfully sell prayer (although they don't call it that) in the back pages of holistic magazines with less scientific evidence. You can hire 'faith healers' who will come to your bedside to perform miracles for a pretty low price.

…The unspoken but patently hoped for outcome of all this "research" is to prove which religion's prayers are better than others, to prove that Christians are better than atheists, that one religion is "true" -- and each conflicting view of God is angling to be proven most "true" at the expense of others. We compete for proof of God's attention like a bunch of neglected fledglings eager to push the others out of the nest.

Too many religions already treat God as a possession, arguing about who's "got" God on their side, claiming they know what God is thinking, or what God will do. That's not prophecy, that's profiteering God as surely as if Pat Robertson were selling Of Pandas and People online. He's an extreme example, but he's not alone. How do you tell the difference between a true believer and a lying charlatan? A true believer will not wave God around like a flag and substitute belief for knowledge, or offer faith in exchange for cold hard cash. It shouldn't cost anything to believe…

Isonomist, here, suffering from faith-based sticker shock at the most recent prayer healing research


There are lots of sources of conflict between the Islamic world and the U.S., but it seems like a lack of mutual understanding and a severe cultural disconnect are at least a significant part of the problem.

So let's go back to the ancients practice of royal hostage exchange. When warring rulers wanted to enforce peace, in many cultures the rulers would exchange children. This allowed them to control each others' behaviour (somewhat) by using the children as hostages, while also letting the children gain familiarity with the opposed culture and people.

But not on a small scale. We're a democratic republic, we need to get the people involved. Let's do massive, wholesale child exchanges. Millions at a time. We have about the same population as Pakistan, Iran, and Egypt combined. Send 'em over. Just think of the collateral benefits: our spoiled, directionless, thankless, hedonistic kids get whipped into shape and humbled by poverty and strict fundamentalist morality. Their angry, indoctrinated, uneducated, desperate kids learn how to consume and how not to care too much about anything. Ours get cowed, theirs get sedated. It's win-win. Five to ten years should make a good start.

I have a feeling we'd have to make a rule, though, that you're required to take yours back eventually. Otherwise, it'd just be pointless.

HLS2003, here, with a modest proposal.

…A sin isn't merely an immoral act. A sin is an act that deserves eternal torture. I've seen a lot of horrible acts in my life. I worked in a county jail as a deputy for a time so those acts include some that are outside the experience of most people. And while I would've used force up to and including lethal to keep the most extreme of those acts from happening again, I wouldn't condone torturing anyone for even one fraction of a second for any act I've witnessed.

I guess I'm funny that way.

So when it comes to someone deserving eternal torture, no, I don't buy into that absurdity. And that's coming from a less-than-omnibenevolent human being.

Perhaps that's why confession in the Catholic Church is down. People are coming to recognize that the foundation of Christianity, not just Catholicism, but all forms of Christianity—that humans are born damned because of a legend based on moral responsibility passed down through generations—is just plain poor moral reasoning. Maybe people are recognizing that while churches might well provide social and emotional support, Christian mythology no longer holds such strong sway.

One can hope.

Gilker_Kimmel, here, blowing the lid off Catholic confession

These observations and debates concerning education make me wonder whether the purposes … of education reflect our conceptions of human teleology … If self-examination and intellectual enrichment are not either important or necessary educational goals … and instead the creation of "global tourists and consumers" or skilled workers is the educational summum bonum, then aren't we saying that the "purpose" of human existence is to live it in a kind of utilitarian, maximize-pleasure-minimize-pain kind of way? That is, quite apart from the educational goals of individual professors, wouldn't this be an admission that American society … has internalized a utilitarian ethos, one that informs its view of human teleology on a general level? If self-examination has given way to consumerism as the end-goal of education, then does that reflect a conception in society that there is no good reason for self-examination -- that we must live temporally? We can talk about our Christian (for example) souls all we want, but in fact we live our lives, and view our education, detached from this religious worldview.

I realize that this is all a bit more complicated than I have suggested here. For example, no one has had, I think, a greater influence on the way we think about higher education than John Dewey, whose ideas about the democratization of education were inextricable from his ideas about the purpose of education (to train an able workforce and informed citizenry). Whatever we might think about the relationship between our ideas of education and our ideas of human teleology, one also has to wonder if, in an age where education was meant to be "enriching" on an intellectual and moral level, whether such enrichment was really only to be confined to the elites who could obtain education. I'm thinking here more about Catholic Europe, not Protestant America: It's beggars belief that a Western society having so deeply internalized a Christian ethos would encourage intellectual and moral enrichment only among elites, but perhaps I'm begging the question. That said, contemporary ideas about American education, even if aimed at consumerism, seem to allow greater opportunities for self-examination to a greater number of people . . . .if that even matters.

ChrisH, here, celebrating Slate's "College Week" by wondering if self-examination fits into the new curriculum.  

Abortion is the most important issue in American politics. It shouldn't be. Others have as big an impact on the lives of individuals and a far bigger cumulative effect on society…

And many others (including me) believe that forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth is the most extreme unjustified government intrusion on personal freedom short of sanctioning murder…

Wow, those sentences were in the same schizophrenic paragraph. What political issue has an impact on an individual's life that is bigger than the most extreme government intrusion short of murder?

I guess that extreme government intrusions on people's lives just aren't that big a deal to Kinsley. Or is it that this intrusion just isn't as extreme as some believe? Either way, if all men straddled fences as firmly as Kinsley does here, there wouldn't be any more pregnancies to abort.

not_abel, here, introducing Michael Kinsley to Michael Kinsley
 

…As I read the account of Drezner admitting in his first blog entry that he knew this was professional suicide, I was confused (and kinda outraged) as to why someone would make such a foolish choice. Yet, this is exactly the type of reaction that academia wants its professionals to have. We are supposed to be scared to step out of line for fear of not getting that prime spot of professional achievement.

Foucault spent 20 something years examining this very process of using discourse and tactics to control. Institutions create disciplinary tracts such as tenure and peer-review, not because it wants to guarantee quality research but because it is a way to ensure employees are towing the line and projecting the image/reputation that the University wants academia to see. In some university departments, a tenure-track professor can explicitly be instructed not to publish in highly respected, frequently sourced, peer-reviewed journal simply because that journal is "too radical" or not the "right type" of journal. The implicit message being 'you won't get tenure if this publication is on your CV.' That, indeed, is about control not quality.

Academics see ourselves as being renegade non-conformists but in reality we are subject to many of the same modes of control to which the average working stiff in a corporation is subject. The only difference is that the working stiff was smart enough to find a job that he/she can obtain with less time spent in school and always being paid a living wage-unlike his graduate school counterparts…

funkgenie, here, on whether academics should venture into the blogosphere

…I realize I have gone on about this pedagogical stuff, but it's for a reason. The replacement of grammar with "intuitive" forms of knowledge distribution, I want to argue, really has enormous historical consequences. We live in an age where in our society those who occupy epistemologically privileged positions, who are in the position of the one who knows, frequently "withhold," as our Slatester so admirably put it in her article. Just look around, and see what has come of the Boomers' preoccupation with cool, antiauthoritarian personality: a society that is more divided, verbally inarticulate, becoming more classist, in every way, relentlessly and inexorably, more stratified.

Grammar, I would argue, is a necessary aid to the development of democratic mores. For when the precepts of the system are generally acknowledged it becomes easier to correct not only the student/subaltern, but the teacher/authority as well, when either fails to get it right. In this way social relations become more transparent. Rules are indeed ineluctable, either explicitly through pedagogical instruction, or implicitly through behavior, but to serve as the ground for intellectual or political struggle, rules must be capable of being articulated.

MarkEHaag, here, on whether students should "have the 'right' to their own language," as the National Council of Teachers of English maintains.

…My younger son is apparently in some sort of romantic spot again. I can tell because he's started writing poetry instead of drawing Square-meets-Gary Gygax weapons in his journal. I don't mind that so much, because he at least writes it out longhand and isn't sharing it out somewhere on the Internet for the whole world to see. What I mind is the music.

When he's happy about the whole thing it's not so bad. The usual Angry Young Man Mix comes creeping out into the house from under his bedroom door like a damp, thumping fog. The glass in the pictures in the hallway vibrates along like T-rex is coming up the sidewalk. Typical stuff, really.

When it's not going well things get really drippy. Like bad Good Charlotte ballad drippy, and it's played loud enough to melt the walls. And it's the same @)^%#$&' song over and over. And he sings along. Badly. After a while, the mood infects the whole rest of the house. Everyone starts to bark, and before I know it my living room looks like one of those old Tasmanian Devil cartoons - just a cloud of dust with various limbs sticking out of it and comic book cussing floating in the air above.

I don't mind that music so much under normal conditions. In the right state of mind I actually enjoy that stuff. But not when it starts coming in on everything that isn't plastic and I'm dealing with Surly, Jerk-boy, Sybil and Eve.

I made them all watch "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" before bed. Lightened things up considerably.

MsZilla, here, fighting overwrought straight-boy adolescence so you don't have to.  

Sunday, November the 20th is the anniversary of Marcel Dalio's death in 1983. It was the end of a serendipitous life. You know him. He was a citizen of the world. Born Israel Moshe Blauschild, in Paris, in 1900, he became a much sought-after character actor. His lovely animated face with its great expressive eyes became familiar across Europe. He appeared in Jean Renoir's idiosyncratic Rules of the Game, and Grand Illusion, arguably the greatest of all films. True to his Frenchman's heart, he married the very young, breathtaking beauty Madeleine LeBeau. He worked with von Stroheim and Pierre Chenal. He had it all.

But then the Germans crushed Poland, swept across Belgium and pressed on toward Paris. He waited until the last possible moment and finally, with the sound of artillery clearly audible, with Madeleine, fled in a borrowed car to Orleans and then, in a freight train, to Bordeaux and finally to Portugal…

After a short time, friends in the film industry arranged for them to arrive in Hollywood. Nearly broke, Marcel was immediately put to work in a string of largely forgettable films…

In early 1942, Jack Warner was driving production of a film based on a one act play, 'Everybody Comes to Rick's' but had no screenplay…

…[W]hen Claude Rains delivers the signature line, 'I'm shocked! Shocked! To find that there's gambling going on in here!' the croupier, Emil, played by Marcel Dalio, approaches from the roulette table and says simply, 'Your winnings, sir.' It is a delicious moment ripe with scripted irony, one among many in this film, but one made all the more so knowing where Dalio came from and what he and his wife had endured to arrive at that line.

I have often wondered exactly when they saw the final script or if they only realized the many parallels to their own lives when the film was released.

Late in his career, when Mike Nichols was looking for a vaguely familiar face to deliver a long and worldly, near-monologue in Catch-22, he turned to Dalio. Faced with a hopelessly idealistic young American pilot, Dalio, as simply 'old man in whore house', in tight close-up, delivers a discourse on practical people faced with impractical circumstances, of the virtues of expedience in the face of amorality. Using his wonderful plastic features, now beginning to sag, in a voice full of melancholy, the old man reassures the young man that regardless of what 'grand themes' may be afoot in the world, in the end, little matters but survival.

MichaelRyerson, with an homage to character screen actor Marcel Dario. Please read the post in its entirety here

82_horizontal_rule

Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Fraywatch will update later today once readers have had a chance to digest the relative importance of electoral contests in Virginia, New Jersey, and California. In the meantime ...

Overview: The_Bell offers his roundup here and concludes that results aren't as promising for Democrats as the punditocracy believes:

In Virginia, many had seen the passage of the Governorship into Democrat Mark Warner's hands as a "fluke." The victory of Tim Kaine, his Lieutenant Governor, over Jerry Kilgore repudiated that and bolstered Warner's 2008 Presidential ambitions. What is more, the Virginia race represents another black eye for President Bush, who made a special point of stopping in Richmond Monday night on the way back from his Latin American trip to campaign for Kilgore at an election-eve rally.

The bottom line, however, is that both wins reflect voters maintaining the status quo. By and large, that was the case around the country despite some unusual results here and there.

Both California and Ohio soundly rejected a series of ballot initiatives sponsored by those states' respective minority Parties in order to loosen their opponents grip on the Statehouse.

…Some of the wins were progressive and others reactionary. Yet the dominant theme was that even when individual incumbents did not triumph, the existing power structure tended to prevail. That is not such good news for Democrats heading into 2006 who hope to recover Congressional seats or even gain control of a chamber.

The exception? The_Bell's stomping ground of Cincinnati.

Texas: One element of absurdity in the language with which Texas voters "defined" marriage yesterday is examined by Thrasymachus here:

By forbidding their state and local authorities from recognizing any legal state "identical to marriage," Texans might very well just have forbidden Texas from recognizing marriage!

If the courts apply a plain language interpretation to the new Amendment, they'll be forced to conclude that marriage is, by definition, a relationship "identical to marriage," and is therefore now among the domestic arrangements that the great State of Texas is now barred from ever extending legal recognition to.

So congratulations, noble Texans! To briefly borrow the words of the immortal Gandhi, your sons and daughters are now bastards, and your sisters and wives are now whores!

NOW will you consider funding public education?

Texas' syntactic issues aside, Fraywatch poses this question to those who voted in the affirmative—precisely what sort of arrangement do you propose for two same-sex partners who wish to spend their lives together? We have jokers like this absolutely horrified at the prevalence of risky sex among a small segment of the gay population. Yet when pushed to define what sort of social arrangement for same-sex partners is best for Texas (or anywhere else, for that matter), there's a dastardly silence from these same cretins. Well, which is it? You can't render gays and lesbians outside the protections of the law and then turn around and lambaste them for … well … not playing by the rules. We realize that your overwhelming preference is that we cease to exist. But in case you haven't taken a gander down Cedar Springs Road lately, that's a pipe dream.

A civil society works only if you include everyone within the boundaries of the law. So, to the opponents of gay marriage or "recognizing a legal status similar to marriage" for gays, Fraywatch asks again—what's your proposal?

Paris: Two well-composed posts on the disaster circumscribing Paris, one from The_Bell here, another from Ele_ here:

Isolation from the mainstream society breeds more Islam and Islam breeds more isolation. The mullahs of course figured it out a long time ago. They are not interested in seeking assimilation and economic opportunities, for their power would start dissipating. Accordingly, their basic position toward the French authorities is very simple: Leave us alone. We want you no more than you want us. We shall dress our women in our own tradition, bring up our youth in our own schools, and disperse justice in our communities in our own way.

The Maghrebian flavor of Islam is quite mainstream and a far cry from the Islamic fundamentalism. The mullahs have no desire to wage jihad on either the French authorities or the French population, for they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Yet, in their quest to wrestle governance of Islamic communities away from the French authorities they do not waver. The current riots are no more than another message to the government. It is also no less.

Ele concludes that "an appearance of de-facto independent Islamic quasi-states in France as well as in many other countries of Western Europe, where the situation is about the same, is just a matter of time."

Darfur: Fraygrants long opposed to the war in Iraq seem conflicted to lap at the chalice of Hitchens on the matter of Darfur, but not_abel recommends that the best way to read this week's Fighting Words column is to "pretend Hitchens didn't write" it:

It's not that Iraq isn't part of this picture. It is a large part of the context for any answer. But both the questions and the potential answers are much more important than whether Hitchens is or isn't a hypocrite. Whether you agree with his answer or not, he gets the question right.

…Hitchens precisely points out the dilemma facing interventionists. Had intervention prevented the genocide there, we would never have known the cost of not intervening. Without that side of the ledger known, many would have been outraged at the cost of intervention, had there been one, both in dollars, and in the inevitable loss of innocent lives that must accompany…

Now Darfur is happening and happening at a time when both the Rwandan genocide and the Iraq debacle are fresh in our minds. Please, those who both believe that we should have intervened in Rwanda and Darfur and say that we should have stayed out of Iraq, please suggest the criteria to be applied that do justify intervention.

What made Hussein's oppression of Kurds and Shiites in Iraq something to be tolerated as long as he was "inside his box", if the genocides in Africa were intolerable?

Would any intervention in either Rwanda or Darfur have made things any better?

If intervention can ever be justified, what combination of moral bounds of tolerance and pragmatic probability of effectiveness can be applied to tell us when and where to intervene?

Should the presence or absence of a strategic interest be a factor at all?

But Shrieking_Violet won't detach the message from the messenger. She begins her post by plucking this from a 2002 Hitchens column:

"Facile equivalences are to be avoided." -- Christopher Hitchens, April 2002

Then she proceeds to call out Hitchens for charting Darfur as the moral equivalent of Iraq:

It's quite easy for the Fifth Infantry Division of Gin-Soaked Oxford Intellectuals to cast shame and blame on the world leaders who have failed to intervene in the Sudan, and much of the blame is richly deserved, indeed. It's quite a bit more difficult to identify the decisions the United States would have to have made in the previous 4 to 12 years to put themselves in a position to intervene effectively in Darfur, and still have a free hand to defend our own shores and combat international terrorism.

But Hitchens can't help himself. His current agenda is built around condemning Brent Scowcroft's brand of foreign policy "realism" and defending his own decision to back the invasion of Iraq. So, just as surely as the leaves change color in Washington at the start of November, Hitchens grasps and gropes for the facile equivalence between Darfur and Iraq...

An equivalence between a regime that is actively slaughtering its own citizens without anyone raising a hand against them, and a regime that slaughtered its on citizens a decade previously, prior to the establishment of no-fly zones which were highly successful at stemming the violence...

An equivalence between a military operation designed to stop atrocities against a civilian population, and an operation designed to invade and indefinitely occupy an entire large nation for a variety of nebulous reasons that have mostly evaporated under scrutiny...

An equivalence between the military operation we SHOULD BE engaging in, and the war we chose to fight instead.

MarcEHaag echoes SV hereKA8:45 a.m. PT

82_horizontal_rule


Thursday, November 3, 2005

The Fray's best reading today can be found in Culturebox Fray in response to Katie Roiphe on Maureen Dowd. The responses vary—from the hetero-male confessional (radwatts) that corroborates Dowd to the gentle retort that "Dowd in an editorialist" (Ozymandias1), therefore stylized anecdotes, not empirically based reporting, are her stock in trade. Sawbones offers a variation of this here:

Maureen Dowd's anecdotal evidence of anti-feminism in the dating scene is only marginally less funny than Katie Roiphe chiding her for this weakness, then attempting to rebut her argument using only anecdotal evidence. Both are making sweeping, unsupported generalizations (almost never a truly revealing line of argument), but only one of them seems to be doing it with at least the hint of a wink at her audience. Hint: I don't think it's Roiphe.

In reality, I think both writers are on-target for certain groups of men; there are certainly men who have adjusted to and enjoy the ongoing effects of feminism, just as there are those who are threatened by and recoil from them. To attempt to describe an amorphous blob called "men" and pretend that either categorization fits all of them or even is becoming a trend is silly, at least until one of them provides some numbers.… though

Breathe nails it best:

Roiphe, perversely, gets sucked into defending the rest of the world's women by trying to logically attack satire. Poor choice. You bought into the game. Dowd wants you to be offended. You can't fight comedy, even poor comedy, with facts, figures and first hand personal testimony refuting Dowd's position. It makes you look like a sucker.

The most interesting thread on the board was launched by topazz, who concedes that while "stereotyping and characterizing an entire sex is ludicrous – it's even more so not to admit what she says is real and occurs every day to women in work environments everywhere." From there, topazz elaborates:

That being said, attention should also be given to the men who treat women as colleagues and as their equals and peers, who hold admiration and respect for women in positions both above and below their own, the men who do not feel superior to women, not even to those "maids, masseuses' and secretaries" - but rather who appraise each woman on her individuality and worth as a human being both in relation to the work environment and outside of it.

"As a Seven Sisters-educated girl early in her career," naddyfive believes that "in the end, [Dowd] wants more of a Stepford life than she realizes." And chadosaurus, appreciative for the "even-handed perspective," maintains that Dowd may have the wrong idea about a guy like him and his "absolute beauty of a wife":

Somebody like Dowd might well see a couple like us out in public and mentally place me in the category of a pig who bagged a trophy wife while all the smart, ambitious girls like her were left home alone watching MacNeil-Lehrer.

But not only is that inaccurate and an insult to me, it is an even graver insult to my intelligent and strong willed wife, who never buckled under to me on anything that mattered to her. If I have spouted nonsense on occasion, she never bought it. And she maintains that attitude without ever trying to make me feel stupid. And she treats me with respect, as I do her.

Not quite so simple is it, when real people have relationships? We are more than saints or reprobates, and women may be smart, pretty, or both.

CDouglas, whose "circle of stay-at-home friends includes a lawyer, a teacher, an engineer, a publicist," writes that Dowd may be "channeling P.G. Wodehouse":

His character Bingo Little was constantly falling in love far beneath his station, until he secretly tied the knot with a waitress. Of course his wife turned out to be Rosie M. Banks, the famous novelist, gone undercover for research.

CD explains her decision:

Women like me decided to stay home because our income wasn't adequate compensation for the extra expense and work of leaving home for a job. Or, we felt our presence was necessary when our kids were very young. I personally feel blessed for having had the opportunity to be a stay-at-home mother; I know that in this economy, this is only a dream for many working women.

Successfully married women share a common commitment with their husbands to home and family. That commitment is greater than any commitment to career or self-actualization. I sense that Dowd was never willing to do that.

Several women on the Fray lament that Dowd seems to turn her back on the fundamental virtue of the women's movement—choice. Here's m-, and here's funkgenie:

The goal of feminism was indeed to foster a sense of choice for women. Women can choose to stay at home, seek a 9-5 job, or do both. But, I'm not so sure that women who choose this path are any happier than 'spinsters' like Dowd (or myself even) More and more often I hear friends who have chosen the SAHM path act quasi-embarrassed about their choice. Hinting at regrets about not getting the MA, PhD etc. I've also been at parties where the wives of colleagues answer my question of "so what do you do" with "I'm just a stay at home mom." I think its a legitimate choice so I don't think any less of her. I'm just trying to make conversation at a party where I'm highly uncomfortable as well. But there's an awkwardness that permeates the moment where it becomes clear that the problem is not with the career driven woman but with the SAHM who's not so thrilled about her chosen role.

Splendid_IREny doesn't align herself with CD but isn't drinking the revivalist-Dowd Kool-Aid:

Yeah, there are men looking for June Cleaver redux. Some of those men are in their 20s, some in their 40s. Culturally, this suggests that, in the age of internet dating, of virtual sex and porn-on-demand, some men and woman are recoiling from sexual freedom overload. Or, what might be perceived as such…

However, unless O'Dowd looks for which percentage of the population actually thinks along this route, then she's not doing her readers any favors. And, she's definitely not representing the many different stories out there. Some of those readers might look around, see one or two examples of what O'Dowd presents and not look further for examples of other lifestyles and styles of interaction. And they do exist. I know of men who, not making as much money as their wives, elected to be stay-home-fathers while the mothers were the bread-winners for the family. Those are successful and balanced marriages. Does O'Dowd explore this phenomenon?

Clearly not, since she wanted only to paint a generalization of Leave it to Beaver for the new century, then skew her findings to represent that generalization. A lot of intelligent, attractive women who use sarcasm don't have O'Dowd's credentials or her address list. To bad, then, that O'Dowd chose to stay close to what she knew.

That leaves a lot about what real women think about themselves and their relationships unknown.

Of course, there are a bevy of guys on the Fray who boil Dowd's singlehood down to a much simpler explanation. Here's Jaymon:

Going on a date with her would require three seats - one for you, one for her, and one for the enormous chip on her shoulder

Finally, take a peek at rundeep's KRo/MoDo mirror conspiracyKA9:55 a.m. PT

Kevin Arnovitz is the author of Clipperblog and a contributor to NPR, Out, and the New Republic.