Reply
Sat 12 Jan, 2008 09:55 am
Who's Tired of Pink?
by Erica Jong
Posted January 11, 2008
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!
We Deserve What We Get
We Deserve What We Get
by Erica Jong
Posted January 13, 2008
This column is not about Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards. The truth is if I had the choice I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich because he's against the war, for the impeachment of war criminals in government, smart on the environment and the economy, and he has a sense of humor about UFOS. He's not afraid to joke about 'em for fear he'll be labeled a nutcase -- as indeed he was.
But I don't have that option. Kucinich represents my views, but he only got 1% in New Hampshire. Too bad.
I want to talk not about candidates but about our media turning every presidential election into a high school popularity contest. And we let them get away with it. And we don't stop Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel, Disney, GE, Sumner Redstone and a few others from owning all the media all the time.
Our magazines and newspapers are so dumbed down that they never discuss issues, only stereotype or attack or puff up candidates -- and all for the most idiotic things -- like their marriages, which in truth we know nothing about -- or their weight or their clothes or their hair. They don't discuss brains, intelligence, psychological maturity, but only who's up or down in the polls, cuter in photos, who misted up, cried or didn't cry, said "my friends" like Reagan or mimicked Bill Clinton's style or JFK's or whomever's. Our press is a disgrace.
When Al Gore was a candidate, he was mocked and slimed by our stupid press. And look who we got? Cheneybush! Now Hillary's being slimed for being a woman, for being the wife of, for being smart, for being political, for being old, for not having left her husband -- just as she'd be slimed if she had left her husband. She has baggage -- like any old broad -- because the truth is that the older you are the more baggage you have. So there's ageism too. And a new fresh face, with less baggage, is like the latest starlet in Hollywood. We never heard about Edwards' ideas until his wife got cancer. We heard about his haircuts!
We never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father? We never talk about people being tested in power or how steady they are or whether they read books or understand what they read because we judge them on their looks. Or one idiotic sound byte, taken out of context.
We had gazillions of columns about Al Gore's weight gain and growing a beard -- I was even asked to write one for the New York Times -- and I obliged because that's all the news that's fit to print and I like shooting my mouth off on the Op-Ed page as much as anyone. Besides women writers are only drafted for the most trivial subjects. We comment on style not substance, beards not policy, clothes and shoes and chick lit and cooking. The men get the big topics like war, though women have the most to lose--like their children whom they carried and nursed and suckled and love more than themselves--as of course do many men.
Bush was considered a good ole boy and Gore was a considered a nerd. Now Edwards cares too much about his hair, Hillary "cried" in the press--though she didn't cry in reality. But we live in this parallel universe where there is no reality. Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not? But what a stupid way to choose a President!
If Eleanor Roosevelt were alive and running, they'd talk about her big teeth and her hoity toity accent. If JFK were alive and running, they'd reveal his affair with Marilyn and slander his wife for it. If Jackie O were alive and running, they'd say she fucked Onassis -- which she did -- while she was married to JFK. If Plato were alive and running, they'd say he was gay--though many Greeks were bisexual and thought nothing of it.
So kids, if you elect a President of the United States like you elected the President of the GO in High School, you deserve what you get.
I'm curious why you'd use the phrase "in a snit" in regard to these opinion pieces?
I said this on A2K last election time...
I cannot recall in my lifetime one president that wasn't hated by everyone as soon as he got into office.
I'm tired too, that's why I don't listen to it anymore.
I make up my mind, and let whoever wants to rant.
ehBeth
ehBeth wrote:I'm curious why you'd use the phrase "in a snit" in regard to these opinion pieces?
I like Erica Jong and found her complaints right on target.
snit (snt)
n. Informal
A state of agitation or irritation
Her complaints demostrated a justified "state of agitation and irritation."
BBB
So tired of this:
Erica Jong wrote:Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not? But what a stupid way to choose a President!
It's pretty obvious that she hasn't bothered to do any research -- on the level of, I dunno, reading the paper occasionally -- based on her first article here. Judging from this piece, Jong doesn't seem to think much of rushing to war. You'd think she would therefore favor the candidate who was against the Iraq war from the beginning, not the one who voted to authorize it. The one who was against declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, not the one who was for it. The one who advocated talking to Ahmadinejad, not the one who decried such approaches as "naive".
Guess which one's the "pink woman"?
It seems like Erica Jong's dislike of pink men is getting in the way of making an objective assessment of which candidate is more likely to be the kind of president she wants. She knows she likes Kucinich -- does she know that Kucinich has been supportive of Obama, including telling his supporters in Iowa to go to Obama as a second choice (over Hillary and Edwards), and that Kucinich is helping to pay for a recount in NH, where Hillary beat Obama by 3 percentage points?
And if she doesn't know these things, whose fault is it, really?
Erica Jong's been around for a long tiime, and now she just recycles herself doing her whiny shtick, which will appeal to a lot of whiny women and some men who are "feminists."
Gala wrote:Erica Jong's been around for a long tiime, and now she just recycles herself doing her whiny shtick, which will appeal to a lot of whiny women and some men who are "feminists."
heh...we feel the same way.
sozobe wrote:So tired of this:
Erica Jong wrote:Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not? But what a stupid way to choose a President!
It's pretty obvious that she hasn't bothered to do any research -- on the level of, I dunno, reading the paper occasionally -- based on her first article here. Judging from this piece, Jong doesn't seem to think much of rushing to war. You'd think she would therefore favor the candidate who was against the Iraq war from the beginning, not the one who voted to authorize it. The one who was against declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, not the one who was for it. The one who advocated talking to Ahmadinejad, not the one who decried such approaches as "naive".
Guess which one's the "pink woman"?
It seems like Erica Jong's dislike of pink men is getting in the way of making an objective assessment of which candidate is more likely to be the kind of president she wants. She knows she likes Kucinich -- does she know that Kucinich has been supportive of Obama, including telling his supporters in Iowa to go to Obama as a second choice (over Hillary and Edwards), and that Kucinich is helping to pay for a recount in NH, where Hillary beat Obama by 3 percentage points?
And if she doesn't know these things, whose fault is it, really?
She could've done her research, but then she would have nothing to write/complain about.
Also, I'd have to agree with her about what do we really know about Obama-- sure, his record is impressive, etc. But this doesn't say anything about what he'll be like as president. Regardless of whether you find it tiring-- she has a point.
I'm not aware that any former presidents are running in 2008. (Former first ladies, yes.)
Since none of them have been president, we don't know what any of them would be like as president.
Jong certainly isn't saying that Obama has an impressive record -- she's saying that nobody really knows who he is.
sozobe wrote:I'm not aware that any former presidents are running in 2008. (Former first ladies, yes.)
Since none of them have been president, we don't know what any of them would be like as president.
Jong certainly isn't saying that Obama has an impressive record -- she's saying that nobody really knows who he is.
Sure, you've done your research, but a lot of people are not as literal minded when it comes to choosing a candidate---
Obama is in the running, unlike Kucinich, who's a minor candidate. So of course he's going to be examined more closely.
The impressive record is my view. Jong says the man can write, which I interpret as a form of being persuasive and impressive-- in this case, beautiful prose can be seductive. Nonetheless, in more general terms Jong has the sentiment of a lot of people because it's a fashionable, though tired view.
OK. I just get annoyed about the divergence between how many specifics Obama has provided and how easily those specifics can be found, and the idea that Obama is all pretty face and smooth baritone, no substance.
I'd love to ask people here to quickly summarize Hillary's positions and Obama's and see if they really can come up with so much more for Hillary, but it's pretty much impossible to do that in this format because of course people could do a bit of Googling to prove one point or another. I've done it in person, though, and people couldn't come up with much. Mandated health insurance for adults vs. no mandate; and voted for the Iraq war vs. against the Iraq war has been about the size of it.
Do you really know that much more about where Hillary stands on various issues than you know about Obama, Gala?
Re: We Deserve What We Get
Given what the second piece was about, I would have thought you'd appreciate it, soz.
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:We Deserve What We Get
by Erica Jong
Posted January 13, 2008
I want to talk not about candidates but about our media turning every presidential election into a high school popularity contest.
Our magazines and newspapers are so dumbed down that they never discuss issues, only stereotype or attack or puff up candidates -- and all for the most idiotic things -- like their marriages, which in truth we know nothing about -- or their weight or their clothes or their hair. They don't discuss brains, intelligence, psychological maturity, but only who's up or down in the polls, cuter in photos, who misted up, cried or didn't cry, said "my friends" like Reagan or mimicked Bill Clinton's style or JFK's or whomever's. Our press is a disgrace.
soz said
Quote:I just get annoyed about the divergence between how many specifics Obama has provided and how easily those specifics can be found, and the idea that Obama is all pretty face and smooth baritone, no substance.
Yeah, there is certainly an element of media shaping here. Two things. A) Erica Jong is a professional commentator who is professionally commenting on this -- she's in a position to know this stuff, and it reflects badly on her that she doesn't.
B) I'm talking more about everyday-type conversations. People I know, people here, people on other sites, tend to spout this thing about "all talk, no substance."
But yes, point taken about what Erica Jong is saying about the media in her second piece. There are elements of that that I agree with. The first one annoyed me more.
sozobe wrote:Do you really know that much more about where Hillary stands on various issues than you know about Obama, Gala?
Hell no, I don't know the specifics. You sound like my 2nd grade teacher, who thought our little minds were gravely deprived (then again she was a product of the uptight 50s).
I'm not interested in getting excited about one or the other, especially considering how they're whacking the crap out of one another. It's ugly and expensive-- in more ways than money.
If you don't know specifics, though, why are you comfortable saying that Jong has a point that we don't know much about Obama? We evidently don't know much more about Hillary...
Ah well. I'll let it go. I saw the original article (first post) when I was checking in briefly, when it was first posted, and had a strong reaction but didn't have time to respond then. Then was reminded of it when BBB posted the second article and it came up in "new posts." I've said my piece, also not interested in getting too het up about it. Peace. :-)
Because Jong has a point, regardless of how experienced/or inexperienced he is. And, as I said, I am not as literal minded when it comes to the candidates-- Once we have a nominee is when I get involved. In the meantime, they're free to whack each other around.
One more point that has to do with David Souter the supreme court guy---He turned out to be more liberal than Bush expected. And Blackmum reversed his opinion on abortion.
Although the presidency has a much shorter life span, we simply do not know how any of them will play out once they get into office.
Soz
I have checked out Obamas stance on various beliefs and find that he dosent deal in specifics only in generalities. I cant tell what he believes about anything. He hasn't really done anything in the senate to impress. Check out his record in the Illinois house and see how many times he didn't vote even though present. Seems to me he dosent vote because he dosent want to be pinned down on any subject. If anyone thinks his declaring that he is going to change everything in washington is true remember Bush, he made the same claim, and ran the same kind of campaign.
rabel22 wrote:Soz
I have checked out Obamas stance on various beliefs and find that he dosent deal in specifics only in generalities. I cant tell what he believes about anything. He hasn't really done anything in the senate to impress. Check out his record in the Illinois house and see how many times he didn't vote even though present. Seems to me he dosent vote because he dosent want to be pinned down on any subject. If anyone thinks his declaring that he is going to change everything in washington is true remember Bush, he made the same claim, and ran the same kind of campaign.
If you've done such extensive research on Obama's record in Illinois they you should know that making use of the "Present" vote in the Illinois Senate is just as valid a vote as "yay" or "nay" and is often at the request of the Bill sponsors while negotiations continue on revisions.
Quote:Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal -- to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]
Quote:Obama Said He Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes Even If They Made Good Politics. The Sun Times wrote, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [Chicago Sun-Times, 9/13/04]
Quote:' The State Journal-Register reported, "Sen. George Shadid, the Edwards Democrat who is pushing the legislation, promised Senate Education Committee members that he wouldn't move ahead with Senate Bill 368 'unless I can get a good consensus.'Â…Four committee members cited unresolved worries when they voted 'present' on the measure, which passed 7-0." [State Journal-Register, 2/27/03]
Have you read these responses from leaders in the choice community to attacks on Sen. Obama's record on reproductive rights that were emailed to New Hampshire voters at the last minute?
Quote:"The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of
choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate,
Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it." -- Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council
Quote:"During his years in the state legislature, Barack Obama was a strong andconsistent supporter of women's reproductive rights. He workedhand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood in developing and executing
strategies to make sure that women had access to reproductive health care. I also want to thank him for standing up with us in the effort to openthe Aurora clinic and for his introduction of legislation guaranteeing
access to low-cost birth control. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area hasproudly endorsed Barack throughout his entire political career." --SteveTrombley, CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action
Pleas
For his very detailed analysis and strategy explanation of each "Present" vote by Obama, you can continue your exhaustive research into Senator Obama's voting record in the Illinois Senate here.
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php
It addresses Bills on the subject of Juvenile Justice Reform when a last minute change completely altered the intent of the Bill.
Also a Bill that would seal sexual assault victims' court records because he felt it was unconstitutional and needed to be revised.
Another was a bill that would require aggravating allegation tp be included as an element of an offense. The author of the bill requested "present" votes saying it was not finished and they'd revisit it, but never did.
Obama voted present on a bill to amend the School Code by requiring public school teachers to teach pupils discipline and respect for others. Obama said the Bill was "meaningless, meddlesome and an example of the General Assembly wasting its time.
Obama voted present on a Bill that restricted adult business location restrictions near homes and schools saying it was a local zoning matter and should not be legislated by the state.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace