Are ugly, redheaded, Socialist, scorned columnists from the New York Times necessary?

For some reason I came across a reference to Maureen Dowd's treatise on man hate, Are Men Necessary? I'm not sure why I was subjected to that pain, one of the authors I like is going through some type of self-flagellation because he hasn't come out with a decent book in fourteen years and has decided to go liberal, Oprah, and oh, yes, Maureen Dowd.

So Maureen, the plain, snarky girl that is cool among the masses of women dissatisfied with their own attempts to have a meaningful relationship has a man problem. No man. My wife and I have some of these in our group of friends, snarky, single, liberal losers that couldn't hang on to a decent man to save their life, and boy did they get their chance. Maureen, girl that I wouldn't give a second glance to, I will answer your question.

I doubt you would know what a man is, since you are surrounded by women, and women in men's bodies like Aaron Sorkin. A man is not necessary for you. You will go to your dinner parties, surrounded by other women and women in men's bodies and live the life of the solitary snarky schoolmarm, a crazy old aunt with her cats. And your neices and nephews will shake their head about poor old Aunt Maureen who found fame and fortune in a failing newspaper, and like Helen Thomas, eventually the crazy old Aunt Maureen will say something so stupid all her blow away liberal friends will blow away. And your nieces and nephews will remember you but their kids will not, your moldy old books will rot on the bookshelves of a used bookstore and your snarky barbs will be forgotten.

So, no Maureen, no men for you, no children, and your genes will be removed from the pool. So if your genes are removed from the gene pool, isn't nature telling you, it's you who isn't necessary?