Not what I imagined.
Erica Jong concludes that “we’re” stealing Jewish men because they’ve been circumcised:
Ever wonder why Jewish boys are so fucked up about sex? Ever wonder why they fall for mile-high models from Slovenia who wear those big cold crosses? Ever wonder why they like Chinese girls, Chinese-American girls, Blonde shiksa cheerleaders from Kansas? Or those cool black models who dance like Beyonce?
… The mothers usually run in the other room crying. But they get blamed for it anyway. And Jewish women bear the brunt ever after. Either they marry you and run around with Diana Ross or Beyonce or Naomi Campbell — or they marry Sandra Oh or Lucy Liu or Yoko Ono and she converts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/next-time-boychick-we-ta_b_83994.html
Let’s forget for a minute that the vast majority of American males are circumcised, only a small percentage of whom are Jewish. Let’s forget also that an eight-day-old Jewish boy child is far less likely to remember his “mother, father, grandfathers and grandmothers looking on, teary eyed” during the bris than the majority of girls who undergo female circumcision between the ages of 4 and 10 years. But that’s not so big a deal, according to Jong, because “at least women have other things to think about than their pussies — like children, like politics, like writing.”
And apparently I’m not supposed to notice Jong’s racist implication that black women are only good enough for extra-marital affairs while Asian women may be lucky enough to actually marry these cultural traitors. I guess I also shouldn’t mention the fact that black AND Asian women can actually be Jewish. (In fact, I’m clearly hallucinating my own ancestry, that of several other black Jewish women I know, and the huge number of Ethiopian Jews–perhaps I bumped my head last night and am having an episode.)
Oh, I could go on, but I don’t have the time. Maybe when I’m done working and phone-banking for Just Cause and looking for a new home for my dog, I’ll spare a moment to fuck with Jewish women by screwing their men. Hey, it’s their fault for getting their sons circumcised in the first place. Karma is a bitch, and so am I.
I’ll say it once, and I won’t say it again.
I won’t mock Clinton for getting choked up on camera.
But as for the “MLK was great, but we wouldn’t have had the Civil Rights Act passed if it weren’t for LBJ” bit…. Are you fucking kidding me?
And then we’ve got Gloria Steinem’s whining and divisive defense of Hil in the NYT filled with such gems as “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women,” the whole while claiming not to be “advocating a competition for who has it toughest” and that “the caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together.” Is that so?
Let us not even address the fact that plenty of white women jumped the abolitionist ship and instead waved flags of racist rhetoric when they realized that black men might win the vote before them. And no, the suffrage of black women wasn’t being discussed at all, either by their men or those white proto-feminists whose ideological descendants would later benefit far more from affirmative action programs than either black men or women do–so much so that their sense of entitlement to seats in universities encouraged two of them to charge the University of Michigan with “reverse racism” for maintaining race-based admissions policies.
But if I don’t vote for Hillary, I’m apparently a traitor to my gender: “some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system.”
And as for the furor over which candidate is more experienced–Barack Obama entered electoral politics before either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, running for the Illinois Senate in 1995. (Here is a great article from 
whittles written about him that year that gives his credentials as a community organizer and activist as well as some insight into his racial politics.) And if we really want to buck sexism in our analysis of Clinton as a candidate, can we all please stop substituting her marriage to Bill for years of real political experience? Being married to the President doesn’t make her a politician. It makes her a politician’s wife.
And finally, what the hell is wrong with supposedly progressive folks talking up Ron Paul like he’s the second coming? He’s anti-choice. He’s anti-affirmative action. He’s anti-immigrant. He is, in fact, an isolationist, though he keeps denying it. (If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…) Just to be clear, here–the man wants to amend the Constitution to do away with citizenship as a birthright.
He also would like to do away with the Departments of Education and Energy, and of course, the IRS.
He’s voted in support of bills that prohibit adoption by same-sex couples. He’s pretty fully on the “Christians are being oppressed by the secularists” bandwagon.
So, what are the pros, here?
And with that, I’m done.
Fighting Words. 