A Feminist Hating White Men
Via Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger, a rant from Erica Jong about the evils of “pink men,” by which she means white men.
Feminists are constantly arguing that “we don’t hate men.” And doubtless the majority of women who call themselves feminists don’t.
But those who most loudly argue “we don’t hate men” are the very ones who, if you press them, will go into a tirade about how men are scum.
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.Those women are traitors to their sex, are they not? It couldn’t possibly be that they simply disagree with Erica Jong.
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.The last thing we need in public office is women who think like Erika Jong!
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!
Feminists are constantly arguing that “we don’t hate men.” And doubtless the majority of women who call themselves feminists don’t.
But those who most loudly argue “we don’t hate men” are the very ones who, if you press them, will go into a tirade about how men are scum.
Labels: Erick Jong, Feminism, Feminist Intolerance, misanthropy
posted by John McAdams at 11:07 PM
5 Comments:
Joe,
I assume you can read, did you read Ms. Jong's screed. But you are right, she's not ranting, cause she's attacking "the Man". Take a moment to think and recognize that attacking her argument is a good thing.
Anonymous,
If YOU could read you would see that JM does not actually attack any aspect of her argument in his post. I'm open to discussing arguments. But what you find here is JM's typical, extremely biased spewing about feminism that he seems to believe does not require any rational justification. Which feminists, for example, are the ones who argue most loudly that they don't hate men and then go into a tirade when pressed? Do you think JM has researched this or has any evidence that this is true besides the occasional anecdote he digs up on the web? (By the way, argument from anecdote is a type of fallacy.) Probably not. The way he operates is he starts with the bias and then looks around the web to find the random anecdote which he takes to confirm his world view. Of course, he is entitled to do this since it's his blog. But let's not pretend there is much more than biased ranting coming from this blog when it comes to posts on feminism.
So let me make this simple, Anomymous: I am not defending Jong's views. Rather I am suggesting that JM's comments on her views reflect his deep biases. I'm sure he thinks his views about what feminists think are rationally grounded. But the most we ever get from him on this blog are straw man versions of feminism and (fallacious) arguments from anecdote. If he is not just making stuff up, as it seems he is, let's see some actual supporting facts. Let's see, for example, the list of feminists who claim they don't hate men but then rant about how they're scum. These are actually empirical claims he is making and so they should be grounded in some rationally compelling evidence. Short of that, every time he says something about feminism it looks like he is ranting in much the same way Jong is.
Joe:
As a woman, I can wholeheartedly agree that we DO NOT need women like Erika Jong in public office.
I have evidence, if you'd like, of feminists - who are all about "choice" and women's independence - who are the *first* to lambast, criticize, and attack women who...for example...choose to be stay-at-home mothers, or women who choose to have more than 1 or 2 children.
Feminists are not about equality. They are about making women more powerful than men. And all feminism has wrought is a generation of women who think they don't need men, a generation of men who think women don't need them so they abandon them, and children who grow up in screwed up homes.
Feminists hate men. Period.
Man, what is it with you people and reading comprehension?
As I said in my previous comment: I am not defending Jong. (In fact, I think her rhetoric is way over the top.)
You go on to say:
"I have evidence, if you'd like, of feminists - who are all about "choice" and women's independence - who are the *first* to lambast, criticize, and attack women who...for example...choose to be stay-at-home mothers, or women who choose to have more than 1 or 2 children."
That's great. Good for you. I'm sure some feminists do. But JM was claiming something about feminists being man haters, not feminists criticizing other women. My point was that he has no evidence for that claim except a few anecdotes, and anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to support the claims he makes. And the same thing is true with your claim. I am sure you can come up with examples of feminists lambasting women for their choices. But it is fallacious to generalize from anecdotal evidence to a claim about all feminists. If you want to play that game, I can too. Here is my (fake) argument:
1. I know several feminists who do not hate men and would never even consider lambasting women for their choices.
2. Therefore, feminists do not hate men and would never consider lambasting women for their choices.
I am sure (or at least I really hope) you can see what is wrong that argument. And I also hope that you can see that it is precisely analogous to the reasoning that you and JM use to support your claims about feminism.
You go on to say:
"Feminists are not about equality. They are about making women more powerful than men."
And where is the evidence of this? Let's hear it. This is just ridiculous and shows you really do not understand feminism. It's the sort of silliness that you would hear from, well, McAdams.
"And all feminism has wrought is a generation of women who think they don't need men, a generation of men who think women don't need them so they abandon them, and children who grow up in screwed up homes."
That's all, huh. And I bet you long for the days when women couldn't vote, and were excluded from doing certain sorts of jobs, and were never paid what a man was for the same labor, and had their asses grabbed in the workplace. Things were so much better then.
Really, this claim about what feminism has wrought is so simplistic it's hard to know where to begin. So I am just going to let that one go.
And finally, you finish by doing exactly what JM does. You assert, without the slightest shred of evidence, the claim that: "Feminists hate men. Period."
I mean really, shouldn't you turn off the FOX News, the Limbaugh, the Michael Medved, etc. long enough to at least try to come up with a more nuanced, informed perspective on things? I know it's hard but getting at the truth involves a bit more than grouping everybody into mutually exclusive camps.
Even JM admits that it is probably less than 50% of the feminists that hate men. But here you make the even more absurd suggestion that all or most do.
I guess following up the claim with the word "period" is supposed to be your way of signifying that this is the sort of claim that does not actually need to be supported. It's kind of like making a claim and then sticking your fingers in your ears as you sing loudly "la la la la la...."
The best part of Erica Jong's whatever-that-was (verse of some sort?) is that it got zero play and caused zero controversy in the media. She should send you a thank-you note for at least paying attention to her. Hope I'm not accused by "Joe" of being a fox-news-watching sheep for expressing this opinion.
Sean Smith
Austin, Texas
Post a Comment
<< Home