Feminist and Guilty Part 2: Who's Tired of Erica Jong?

Feminist Erica Jong wrote an article that trashed heterosexual white men (and had a couple of unhealthy barbs against men of other racial backgrounds) in Who's Tired of Pink. Kim at the Equal But Different blog has a recent link to the Huffington Post article, and it's not surprising after a certain point posts had been barred, including mine. But here's an excerpt for prosperity, at least, and another reaction to the ever-incessant condemnation of men that's openly tolerated and encouraged.

Here's Jong's rant reposted here first:

I am so tired of pink men bombing brown children and rationalizing it as fighting terrorism. I am so tired of pink men telling women (of all colors) what to do with their wombs--which connect with their brains--in case you forgot. I am so tired of pink men telling us we should stay in Iraq for generations. I am so tired of pink men buying bombs and cheating schools. I am so tired of pink men having wives who stand behind them and nod sagely on television. I am so tired of pink men expecting that someone--a brown, black, yellow or white woman--will trail behind them changing light bulbs, taking out garbage, washing laundry, keeping food in the house, taking care of kids of all ages, of parents of all ages. I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired of pink men spouting nonsense on TV. I am so tired of pink men arguing, blathering, bloviating, predicting the future--usually wrongly--and telling women to shut up. I am so sick of hearing that another pink man has dropped his children out a window, off a bridge or killed his pregnant wife or killed his unpregnant wife because he was infatuated with another pregnant woman. I am so sick of pink men making war and talking about peace. I am so sick of pink men appointing their mediocre cronies to judgeships, to political advisors, to cushy jobs, to columns in the paper, to multimillion-dollar posts as CEOS or actors (while the actresses make less) or producers or writers or newsreaders or talk show bloviators or supposedly sage counselors at law. I am so tired of pink men.

And by the way some brown men and tan men and wheaten men do these things too.

Don't tell me about women who kill. I know there are some--but fewer. So let's just remember our mothers--who bore us, protected us against our fathers and grandfathers and all the pink or brown men who wanted to rape us or kill us or starve us because we were girls.

I am not stupid. I know all generalizations are false. I know there are bad mothers, bad women, bad sisters, bad aunts, and bad females of every stripe. But I have seen enough men in high office to last a lifetime. Let's give women a chance!



It takes no bravery to speak up against heterosexual men, the men that helped provide women with the protections, laws, special treatment, the advances in medicine and technology, and the civility that her and Jong completely and utterly take for granted. Men are routinely attracked in the media and so many believe it's fair game or "just joking," even if their cavalcade of resentment and jealousy has been entrenched for a long time now.

Camille Paglia was right; upper class white women are the most spoiled on the planet, and Jong can spout off her hate diatribe without accountability or guilt. Men aren't telling them to shut up; if anything, women's voices have been the dominate one for many years, and making biased articles like this are one of countless examples. If a man wrote this (about women) and it got by editors, he'd be either suspended or canned, and his rep smeared in public to prevent him for being employed at other publication.

So much for equality. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"---right?

If Erica Jong thinks so lowly of us and doesn't need us, she can put her money where her mouth is and stay away for good. Men like me will give her what she truly deserves---our non-presence. And it was Steinem who made the comment that women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. But even she could not live up to her own ideology and hype.

Lookout for . . . Misogyny!

I was posting on another forum, and one of a few wasn't too bad so I placed it here. My apologizes if it's rather out of context, but I think it's stands on its own nevertheless. The item in italics, of course, is from another poster.

It's in response to a feminist (OP/MD) who started a thread on misogyny, and tried to take to task others that didn't agree.

Thankfully, not everyone agrees with the sentiment.



One the aspects of feminism is the undercurrent of the victimhood mentality, and demanding that men, innocent of any wrongdoing, still be held accountable for crimes committed by other men. Despite so many claims of that women should stand up for themselves, as the OP hypocritically demonstrates, her ways of combating any harm towards women is rife with outmoded Western codes and collective bigotry that is rampant within the gender feminism movement. The attitude is that men who are not actively supporting women in every aspect are still guilty via association simply because they are not promoting women's rights, and bending over backwards for them at any given moment, treating women like misguided and vulnerable little children that are not ultimately responsible for their own welfare.

I'm not a woman, but if I was, I would be insulted that an ideology---and those who held it dear---would perceive me in such a manner, but I digress.

There's no secret that the breeding grounds of Socialism coincided with feminism, and no coincidence either. Neither see the rights of the individual as important as the State, far from it. And this largely includes men in general. When DM posted all the things that man can do to end gender violence, there's virtually nothing in the points that say women should do the same for men. And since women are quite apt to verbally trash men, all the way down to premeditated murder of husbands or systematic executions of their children, it's curious that the converse----supporting men and asking women to examine their attitudes toward men, and assisting men that are victims of violence--is just absent completely.

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. " ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

Should add; "And regards men with unwarranted suspicion, as second class citizens, and possibly capable of criminal behavior because of their gender" . . . even though so many of them attest gender is a social creation. And while we're at it, Mizz D. is content with not just sprouting rank and file style lines from feminist memes, but also has a strong theme yanked from Western chivalry. You read that right---benevolent sexism---also known as CHIVALRY---is okay as long as it's something a feminist demands, but if you open a door for her or treat her as a gentleman and it's unwanted, you may just get the cold glare because women are supposed to be fully functioning adults---which flies in the face of the overt amount of unreasonable protectionism so many feminists cry about.

The above basically states that the OP can oscillate from traditionalist protections from men, and still glean the license from a more "liberated" stance, without having to do self-reflection on her cognitive dissonance, hubris, passive aggressiveness, or histrionics.

What's the one saying I've heard from a self-entitled person? "I'm a feminist when I want to be." And this means using men by proxy to get their dirty work done, and exploiting men's desire to help and uphold women's virtues, at men's expense without reciprocation. And if you question the party line, you're suspect; if you think feminism is rife with sexism and spreads misandry, you're either an idiot or a misogynist by default.

If the OP is so strong and independent, she can take out her own damn garbage for once.

Why can't so many women see men's points?

Unfortunately, C., there's a large percentage of egocentricism amount today's women; just look that the one T-shirt that proclaims, "It's all about ME. Deal with it." It's the irrational conclusion of extreme selfishness and playing the victim card when the going gets rough and courage has to be enacted through someone else to get things done. Men's issues and concerns take a backseat, because it's the notion that women and their sexuality has greater import and value.

By definition, it's sexism. Blatantly towards men.

And getting back to misogyny, what's the famous quote about it from H.L Mencken? "Misogynist - A man who hates women as much as women hate one another." Although the main thrust of my post wasn't about this, there's a pretty darn big truth in that thought.

Escape And the Art of Self-Interest

through the years and the tears
under black cloud skies
seems the lower that I go
is where my true heart lies
and when I'm stuck in the thick of it
there's no need to roam
some think of me as fried but it's a choice all my own

I've been called a dinosaur relic
stuck in the twilight zone
but stickin' in the sub-basement
keeps me lit to the bone
like the bats hanging dormant
in their nocturnal fleet
I'm still around underground
gettin' my peace without sleep

"Sub-Basement" ---Pentagram


I admit I was rather depressed today. Not to the extremes that people in the throes of serious depression experience, or seasonal affective disorder even though I care little for the bitter cold Northern Indiana is engulfed in. I wanted to go out, and do the things I wanted to normally do; practice mixed martial arts training and either lean heavy on striking or grappling depending on my mood. No dice; our training is temporarily on hiatus. I have little debt, but the past two months I spent way too much, money which I should have stowed away. I may have even stopped at a Thai restaurant that I have skimmed over for months; my desire to curtail my spending make me skirt mid-town and go home to raid my cabinets instead.

But there's still my personal outlets. Our team is re-locating and the price for training is still the same, no contracts. My debt so low, my credit card bill just under---gasp---eighty bucks. My world, despite hiccups and hurdles, is absent of the travails that others seem what to punish themselves with, in the roundabout search for the dead American dream they still insist on exhuming.

It stinks. And I refuse to live the life of a rat race that ends in heart failure and dismay.

A good friend of mine felt similar around the holidays. He found himself still rather alienated in his own family, who parrot the same things every time they congregate. To them, perhaps avid interest in RPG video gaming and other pursuits would be deemed fruitless, or simply a matter of not being grown up.

Our gynocentric culture demands men to be real men. What does that mean?

If anything, it's a code word, a shaming tactic to push men into going against their own instincts of self-preservation and engage in sacrifice at their expense. It's often due to unscrupulous figures in our life; whether it be a hypocritical politician that would never put his or her self on the line for a political cause, or a skank that is ever unhappy and a financial and emotional vampire on her mate, who was duped as a youth to treat women with chivalry and deference, all the time being blamed for what's primarily wrong in a relationship; you're damned if you do, if you damned if you don't.

Solace, that ever-elusive quality ultimately comes from within. If anything, the only definition of a real man is one that makes decisions for himself, and lives with both the good and the bad. Feminism will not solve that problem for us. Our government is unreliable and bullying filled with would-be aristocrats, and provides illusionary comfort at best to placate the masses, often at social ills they urged on themselves. We can try to find fulfillment in a loyal mate; the nature of post-modern woman is fickle and self-absorbed, and often quite unhealthy for men despite cries that marriage enable men to live longer---the studies of which are sponsored by organizations with an agenda; "Get married, and everything will be more blissful."

Yeah, right.

If serenity means removing oneself from the feminized madness, that churning maelstrom of anti-male bias and the burden to emasculate his own integrity and masculinity, so be it. One may choose to be a semi-hermit and indulge in activities that are escapist to our society that's deemed inane, if a man makes that conscious choice and decides it enriches him. Another becomes extroverted and uses his personal powers to better his life and others. The next employs his position and authority to fight against unjust and unlawful policies. And so on, and so forth.

As men, we are castigated for being single and bachelorhood, despite the benefits attached to being single. The real trick is to be okay with yourself, and being in that state. And if we must surround ourselves with others, make them mentors and proteges that nurture and encourage us. We've read all the lies and shaming barbs designed to get men to commit. Despite what feminists might think, many, if not most, men have a basic drive for honor and integrity. When their sense of these traits and the actualization of them yields painful lessons and the scorn, men eschew the twisted norms that work against them and re-learn to be on their own side.

With women, they are generally terrified of rejection (hence the lack of asking most men out unless they are certain of a good reaction), and although the verbal and online assault against men is seemingly endless, deep down they are also afraid of being alone, hate the idea they are not desirable for a relationship, and don't carve the brave paths men do when striking out on lonely and uncertain ventures. They will blame men for not wanting them after we refuse to jump in the precarious fire again and again with them, but we are learning. We are learning that the women that decry, "We don't need a man" is usually bullocks, and that we responded on our terms and survived without them in kind---even when society dubs as losers and nobodies without female approval. We are learning that if the hedonistic and feminist-minded will not be lawful and honorable with us, we will reject them as they have countlessly rejected us . . . and move on. When men are considered nothing more than tools and walking ATMs ripe for exploitation all under the banner of social obligation and the ersatz ideal of being a "real man," the only thing we really are obliged to do is be true to ourselves above all else.

Beauty Is Only Razor Deep, Part I

Recently, I offered more unorthodox commentary on the blog End of Men and a recent article on alcohol, responsibility, and feminism. Although my perspective is more combination of the archetypal with a smattering of sociobiology at times, I figured it was too important to be missed although right at this moment it's awaiting moderation. I'll let the feminist minded go round and round with as the blog creator permits, since I have low tolerance of them here, and let them chew on it for a time.

My counterpoints are addressed in typical fronts here, their reactions in italics from here: End of Men


I don't dismiss women's accountability in creating the grave problems we are seeing now. Feminists have blamed men for so many evils underneath the sun---it's backfiring, including with the spotlighting what women are doing to men out of entitlement and selfishness.

"Having worked in a public environment among alcohol consumption, I truly have witnessed more males acting like **ses than women “acting like sluts.”"

Apparently someone here hasn't spent as much time in bars and lounges as I have. I work within strolling distance of more than one of them, and work beside one. For years. There's a lot of foolish female behavior there, and women will often rationalize it one way or another.

"Let’s not forget the male’s part in this, and the fact that a “single parent” always involves one side scampering off (usually the male) into unrestrained oblivion, also burdening the “taxpayers” to finance rearing the innocent young."

Those taxpayers are often men forced to pay for women's mistakes and taking on the burden for women sleeping with the wrong guy and getting impregnated. Women are still the gatekeepers of sex, unless you're an alpha male that gets women knocking on your door 24/7. Meanwhile, the good men are holding up the machinery of society and get little or no credit for it. It's invisible, and expected by us from women who take everything about for granted.

But aside from that for now, I'm not saying someone else doesn't benefit from all of this; obviously, psychotherapists, the pharmaceutical industry, divorce court lawyers, politicians, and feminists in academia have quite a stake in perpetuating men's miseries in Western society. There's nothing conspiracy theorist about how denying men more rights (which many didn't have to begin with) and penalizing men more and more with inane laws to criminalize human behavior fuels political careers and deepens pocket books. I roll my eyes at the idea feminists truly believe women are exploited, when men are far more, even at the threat of a lawsuit or jail time. Which they will bear the brunt of more than women, usually.

Women can and often do invent their own problems, many of them more than you might think, and believe one personal or social savior should come along with a safety net and rescue them. If women wanted things to be different, the face of this nation would look far different. What you see is often what women have desired by their own manufacture or design; demanding proof is absurd because it's quite obvious. Women have reproductive choice and men have little or none; in Michigan alone a woman can do just about anything to claim her offspring, kill it off (abortion), or give it up, and men have to bow to consensus when the State backs women via enforcing anti-male bias in laws that expect men to pay up and still support a woman's decision no matter what. The list could go on and on.

I could even state the very politically incorrect sentiment that the sex that has more power in reproductive choice (women, of course) by extension, should be the one that ultimately ponies up for it, on purpose or on accident. But that's too harsh for most to take; there's always someone, usually a man, that has to foot the bill. If not, still blame men by default. Why not; feminists have been doing that for decades.

Fmwatkins states feminists don't represent women; I don't think they represent all women, but women have clung to feminists memes and have wielded myths and punishments about men out of brutish nature. Feminism appeals to female selfishness and superiority, and when something goes wrong, it's a convenient tool to scapegoat others without much merit.

Most feminist radicals are too extreme for many to accept; there is a continual rumble of the concept that masculinity is faulty and either should die off or even be eradicated. Not every woman is prepared to embrace such a nasty paradigm (at least not yet, thankfully) despite incessant resentment Western women seem to have against so many men. Just read any dating forum with a significant amount of women ranting about men, if you don't believe me.

Women wanted men to protect them in one capacity or another in the past, so most men responded because they felt that was the right thing to do. Then women wanted "freedom" from the restrictions of what they felt confining, such as home, hearth, and childbearing, and despite what feminists say, men where often backing that as well. True freedom comes with tremendous responsibility, and despite the cries that men are all pigs and not living up to being real men (i.e. supporting women and their options), I don't think a good chunk of them realize what true latitude entails, and the consequences mean. There is also another crucial factor; more men are perceiving the "strong, independent" woman as a exercise in affectation, and the huge side effect of double standards that come along with it that benefit women and harm men. And men aren't liking it too much.

Several American women have made particularly bad choices and skewered judgments for a decent portion of their lives. The above article is simply another illustration of that, just as with their selection of mates to sire offspring, the laws they clamor for, or any other major push they engage that ultimately serves myopic short term gain and long term pain. And society suffers because of it.

"You seem to place all the blame for unwanted pregnancies on women. It takes two to tango. What of the responsibility of men to act with restraint and to be sure to engage in safe sex in order to minimize pregancy?" ---Z

Boy, do I hear that from feminists a lot. It rests on more than one false premise; do you know what the reality is? Women still have the final say in whether or not sexual congress happens or not. It may take two to tango, but one still has more fundamental say so. So much for sexual equality (although it goes further than that, even). Or the fact when men do take responsibility for their sexuality, they are seen as no fun or has not having the bravado to take risks---men who want women to get checked for STDs possess "trust issues," men who get vasectomies are denying women out of a child, god forbid. There are even scores of women who get a thrill out of "flirting" with the possibility getting pregnant and will lie to men about it, even though, again, that's something we can't bring out in the open because women wouldn't ever be willing to take that kind of risk, right? And blame men for being so weak to be duped into it, correct?

But back to the article . . . women wanted to party hard like men (although many men give up the party scene or tamper off), and now that the consequences are steep---acquired STDs, unwanted pregnancies, alcohol-related diseases, flattened pocketbooks,and hollow one night or brief liaisons . . . so really, who wanted the endless joy ride---sans responsibility---to begin with now?