um, ew. I vomited in my mouth.

ATTENTION, ALL WOMEN: STOP DATING ASSHOLES!!!!! can't keep a man? Maybe it's because you keep dating asssholes who look down at you and treat you like crap?

seriously, WTF.
this pisses me off so much.

Wow, attitudes like this make me want to be single and celibate. Oh wait, thats not my choice, its my ginormous ass keeping me single. My mistake.

I think I speak for us all (most):

FUCK THAT SHIT!

But seriously. What's most pathetic about this is not that he feels entitled to demand this of women: what's saddest is that he thinks that every woman is so desperate for a man that she will stoop to being treated like this.

I would sooner dedicate my life to my "vibrating friend", which I know will never compare me (or other women) to "nast(y), smell(y), rotten... fruit". Seriously, this guy makes me want to burn things.

As for his method being sucessful... well, we'll see about that a couple years down the road, when being "commanded" gets old with Khanequa.

I could go on, but this particular rant could spiral out of control....

Wow, what a complete douche.

By the way, has anyone told him that fat women have been getting sex the whole time? It's actually not really a problem.

I'm would rather be happy alone, with a vibrator AND anything flannel THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

What a fuckin' UBER douche.

UNBELIVABLE. Seriously. I have no words to express how grossly disgusted and appalled I am. Normally, I am one of those bookworms that implores everyone to celebrate the act of reading, proclaiming "Books are our friends!" in an idealistic sort of way. However, I think it's time, my friends, that we took this book of "knowledge" and had ourselves a old-fashioned book burning! Waddaya say? Meet me in the park by the clearing at 3?

Actually I think this ass just rendered a public service. He outed himself as a shithead who is not worth two seconds of any woman's time. And he has given us a clue as to how some men think. If I were still single I would probably carry (a used!) copy of that book around. If a man responds to the book with anything other than horror and/or laughter, then you know he's a shit and you don't want to date him.

Saves time and energy.

The worst part is that there are plenty of women who'll fall for this crap.

The worst part is that there are plenty of women who'll fall for this crap.

The worst part is that he has a girlfriend. A girlfriend who seemed like she had common sense enough to cuss him out and leave, but then stayed and changed (though it seems a little) for him, according to the manuscript she found offensive.

There will always be women who 1) agree with this sentiment and 2)date and marry and support men like this. It's sad but I'm feeling super cynical today and I'm afraid that it's going to be like this for a very, very long time and no amount of feminism is going to change it. Though I hope I'm wrong.

And Zane's name on the book is giving it an endorsement no matter how far she sticks her head in the sand. Women who are her fans are going to see her name, buy the book and be very confused.

This is my favorite:
"I want to express my anger and frustration as a man with the women I feel are miseducated, misinformed, and ill-prepared about their responsibilities in getting and maintaining a relationship with a man of quality."

It makes me giggle.

Oy. Man of quality...how about a relationship of EQUALITY.

But, if he calls women "broads," I don't think there is any hope.

What? I've read some of Zane's erotica and it's not bad. But why would you even ... give this crap a venue, as Zane has apparently helped to do by "presenting" it, when you could have just thrown it in the trash? If not an endorsement, it's at least a type of support nonetheless, considering the public could have had the blessing to never see this shit AT ALL if no one had published it. It takes a lot of time and resources to publish something, and it's ridiculous to say, "I put all this time and these resources that could have been used on a women's-empowerment or social justice cause instead into making sure more of the same trite crap women have read for decades gets published."

I echo the sentiments already expressed. I am disgusted by this.

I am also disheartened by the fact that this filth is targeted at black women. I have a feeling that black women generally (but not all, of course) would be more susceptible to these ideas. There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by "their" men, as though they are disgracing themselves and their heritage by dating outside of their race. I have several times seen reference to the shrinking number of black men due to incarceration and consequently a shrinking dating pool, the implication always seeming to be that women have little choice but to date in this pool. Furthermore, there is the specter of single motherhood looming over black women. I fear that the expectation that black women date black men and the fear of scarcity of good black men will cause the women who identify with these issues the most to buy into these horrid ideas for fear of ending up alone otherwise.

I can't believe Zane expects people to believe that she's presenting this as a "warning." Ha! She is undoubtedly supporting this trash regardless of what she says her intentions are.

Gah. Well, of course, I also find this disgusting and lame to the point of ridiculousness. You almost have to wonder if this was written by The Onion, you know??

But the saddest thing is not that this guy really believes this stuff, but that there are women out there who have so little self-confidence, so little self-esteem, and such a low opinion of their own worth that they think this is all they deserve, that being treated like a servant and a sex object is as good as it will get for them. Women who are in abusive relationships (and let's face it, even if this guy doesn't hit his girlfriend, he is most definitely abusive) usually stay in them because they believe the garbage they're fed about it being their fault, about them not being worthy of a better life.

I dated a guy for over two years who was an alcoholic with signs of impending paranoid schizophrenia (which his mother and uncle both had). He quite literally nearly drove me crazy and in fact was the reason I started going to therapy (though I'd needed it for a while). He was never physically abusive but he abused me emotionally and mentally, and I stuck with it for long after I knew I should get out. And I've been a feminist from the time I was old enough to understand what it meant...but I also had next to no self-esteem and the thought of being alone again was honestly more troublesome to me than he was. Today I know I will never, ever be in a relationship like that again, but there are a lot of women out there who aren't able to pull themselves out of that way of thinking and who cannot seem to recognize what kind of man a guy like Moore really is - a cruel, cold-hearted, unloving egomaniac who I truly believe does not care a whit about anyone other than himself...and deep down, probably not even himself. Guys like this are often overcompensating for their own self-doubt, though they'll never admit it. It's like the over-the-top homophobia you see that's sometimes a cover for possible homosexuality. And it's just as despicable and just as hurtful.

Having read the article, it seems that "a man of quality" is one who'll cheat on you if you don't put out, expects you do do everything he says without question, expects you to be ready for sex at a moment's notice, and is only going to date you until someone better-looking comes along.

While these are, in a technical sense "qualities", they're certainly not ones that people should be looking for in a partner.

What bothers me is the unanswered (anywhere in the article) question of just why the Washington Post dedicated time and space to a signing in a basement in Cherry Hill, NJ.

There are plenty of good books by black men. Are any of them getting this kind of coverage?

So why focus on this book in order to conclude that, "Maybe feminism is dead. Or maybe women are just humoring Moore (and men everywhere), reading his book and others for a good laugh."

I'm not saying this book isn't ridiculous (because, yeah, clearly it is). But again, a black man writes an anti-feminist book and it gets negative press coverage.

Meanwhile, the author cites Greg Behrendt as another example of these "unvarnished ilk," and if you click on the linked name, you get to a sympathetic article in which Behrendt is quotes as an expert on relationships.

So, yeah, stupid book and stupid author, but I question the effect of it being covered as it is in the Wash. Post, and I wonder what it says about this blog--which doesn't generally cover the works of black authors--when it holds this one black man up as an example of antifeminism even as white feminists have spent a ridiculous amount of time insisting that black women aren't doing enough to distance themselves from these very men and, in so doing, somehow qualify as "good feminists."

I second Miram Heddy.

because of all the coverage this book is getting, people will go and buy this stupid book. hence, more success and money for the author.

*BANGS HEAD ON THE WALL*

I've been thinking about the kind of men who need women to be subservient and obedient and restrained to this degree, and I think I - honestly - sort of feel sorry for them. How severe must that level of insecurity be? And how frustrating, confusing, and overwhelming, the day the woman who lets herself be ruled finally gets a clue and actually argues, or leaves?

It's ultimate powerlessness that would have to drive the need for that forced position of authority on the man's part, right?

And, I have to wonder, who are these women so willing to step into that kind of role? At what point are they to be blamed for not having a spine? And who's fault is it? Is it the way they're raised? Is it the media, our culture, that's to blame? How the hell does that happen?

This reminds me of a similar book by Amy Sunderland (http://www.newsweek.com/id/109614?g=1). She says you should use animal training techniques to 'train' your husband to get rid of his annoying habits. When will people learn that being in a relationship is not about 'training' your partner to fit your ideal of them, but rather compromising so that both your needs may be met?

Wow. I have no words for this.

Why on earth would Zane put her name on this? It looks like, and will be interpreted as, an endorsement no matter what her poorly-conveyed intentions were.

"I want to express my anger and frustration as a man with the women I feel are miseducated, misinformed, and ill-prepared about their responsibilities in getting and maintaining a relationship with a man of quality." I hate this sense of entitlement that I see in so many guys, as if they're somehow pre-destined to wind up with their submissive, smokin' hot dream girl and cruel fate is keeping them apart.

Okay... so I did have a few words. But not many.

While these are, in a technical sense "qualities", they're certainly not ones that people should be looking for in a partner.

that almost makes it worth someone having published this crap.

and, yeah, miriam heddy, that's pretty on point. not to mention that old trope that there's no such thing as bad press (although the wapo is a bad newspaper)...

also, that's a really keen point around problematic relationships between white feminism and african american culture... perhaps there can be some suggestions of black male feminist authors for another "not oprah's book club" post... i nominate michael awkward, greg tate and david ikard.

any takers?

@AwakenedDesires

I am also disheartened by the fact that this filth is targeted at black women. I have a feeling that black women generally (but not all, of course) would be more susceptible to these ideas. There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by "their" men, as though they are disgracing themselves and their heritage by dating outside of their race.

Divergent question: anyone look at the tagline? A book every woman should own and every man should read Huh? What's the distinction? Women should waist their money on it and the dudes should get a loaner?

Every decade or so a book like this comes out directed at women. And someone of course has to put out something directed at black folks, 'cause you know, our shit is even more fucked up.

What you are witnessing is the dying grasp of male privilege.

And somehow an idea got started in the black community that women are supposed to compensate for the failures and mistreatment of black men. Yup, everything is our fault.

But I wonder if he addresses the soaring HIV rates in young black women, which according to the CDC is attributed primarily to heterosexual contact with black men? Sky high out-of-wedlock birth rates and absent fathers continues to be the norm, yet this guy decides to write a book about cleaning the house in lingerie?

Fucking.Incredible.

Oh and PS assholes, a recent study confirms what has been long suspected: that a woman's BMI actually has NO correlation with the number of partners she reports having. On the other hand, men with higher BMIs report fewer partners. Imagine that.

To begin with: I'm going to be arguing what I perceive as a valid point that this book makes. I've not read it - I don't largely care about the point - and I'm not attacking any of you or your relationships.

Questions for you:
What standards do you hold important to you?
What standards do you hold yourself to?
What standards do you hold someone you are in a relationship to?
Finally, what standards are the person you're in a relationship with allowed to hold to you (with your consent that it's "fair" that they hold them to you)?

The point of view in this book, while it disagrees with what you may value in a relationship, isn't it in the efforts of equality that you allow each person to find their own way?

I agree that it sounds despicable to have such base and pedestrian demands for your partner of looks, obedience, etc - if I look at what I value in a relationship (communication, support, intimacy, patience, respect) - I have the same sort of expectation structure that is put forth in the book.

He is just putting it more bluntly than most. "You give me sexy obedient cleaning lady and I will give you monetary support, faithfulness, and connection to my status."

That sounds like a more honest and open relationship contract than what most men offer women, or what most women offer men.

I think that in spite of himself, Moore does teach a very important lesson to single straight women:

There are worse things than being lonely!

spike the cat
"Oh and PS assholes, a recent study confirms what has been long suspected: that a woman's BMI actually has NO correlation with the number of partners she reports having. On the other hand, men with higher BMIs report fewer partners. Imagine that."

So wait, you are saying that women discriminate against overweight men (since the higher BMI men don't have sex, they aren't being offered partners) but men aren't discriminating against overweight women? How does that make men the assholes?

@ James:

He is just putting it more bluntly than most. "You give me sexy obedient cleaning lady and I will give you monetary support, faithfulness, and connection to my status."

That sounds like a more honest and open relationship contract than what most men offer women, or what most women offer men.

well then, scumbags deserve to date scumbags. So maybe you got a point there.

This is the kind of literature that is marketed to the Black community? No wonder there is an growing trend of internalized racism and adoption of oppression especially with Black females. At one point they are told that their sexuality is not only taboo but also animalistic and dangerous and now they have moved into full-on exploitation and submission because men command it.

This book not only degrades women , but it also degrades men, simplifying them to be guided by only their sexual desires and influences. How many steps backward have we taken when strong , powerful women who exercise their own sexual freedom and autonomy need to be "reeducated " by men to be submissive... I take that back, maybe we are doing something right, in that, the patriarchy that we are living in is getting scared and has to do something drastic like this to "keep women in line" So perhaps we need to keep doing what we do, and laugh at these futile attempts to place women back in the kitchen (or worse) making sure our voices are stronger and louder

damnit the editing tool...

I mean this:

@ James:

He is just putting it more bluntly than most. "You give me sexy obedient cleaning lady and I will give you monetary support, faithfulness, and connection to my status."

That sounds like a more honest and open relationship contract than what most men offer women, or what most women offer men.

(please note that I'm quoting James, in case anybody is confused)

Black women are perhaps the most misrepresented people in our society.

BROWN TRASH PUNK!
"well then, scumbags deserve to date scumbags. So maybe you got a point there."

Exactly.
Literature like this makes me want to say "If women would raise their standards, these neanderthols would be extinct." Not victim blaming here - just saying that a relationship is a partnership and there is no victim.

Matthew
"Black women are perhaps the most misrepresented people in our society."

I'm amused by your comment - because I'm not sure if it's your place to say that black women are misrepresented (by your screen name I'm guessing you are male, it would just be all the more amusing if you were a white male saying that everyone misunderstands black women).

First of all, his use of the word "female" - GRRRR!
Second, "what you won't do, ten broads around the corner will." Am I supposed to be jealous? WTF?
Third, he pretty bluntly positions men as subjects and women as consumable objects with his little grocery-store fruit analogy (even though the plumpest are typically the most desirable, but whatev). But we already know he doesn't think of us as people.
Lastly, why the HELL did the WaPo review this?

@ James: "So wait, you are saying that women discriminate against overweight men (since the higher BMI men don't have sex, they aren't being offered partners) but men aren't discriminating against overweight women? How does that make men the assholes?"

Look at how quick you are to infer that which I did not say. First of all, the study didn't state the reasons why men reported fewer partners. Could it be that the men with higher BMIs simply approached women less? And where did you get that higher BMI men weren't being offered partners? I said they report fewer partners. Can you see the difference?

Furthermore, the study didn't specify the quality of sexual partners (e.g. long-term vs short term, etc). Perhaps men reported fewer partners overall, but traded drunken booty calls for longer-term partners.

But yet you assume automatically that women are unfairly discriminating against overweight men.

The point I actually wanted to make is yet another example of how women are being shamed into changing OUR behavior with outright false information in order to "get a man". Well, it turns out sexuality is a bit more complex.

The assholery comes into play when people perpetuate and support this bullshit instead of calling it out.

James_

correlation =/= causation
her point was that the argument that women need to lost weight in order to get dates is without merit. to draw anything more from the statement than that is pure guesswork.

further, where did she say that the BMI study proves "men are assholes"? that's a serious stretch. the point was, rather, that it's wrong to suggest that women must lose weight to get a mate.

as an aside, given that heteronormative culture encourages men to approach women (and not the other way around, as women who approach men are "too forward" or "tramps" or some such)... if men with higher BMIs aren't partnering as much, it may be due to the ways in which they're made to feel less valuable by media and so forth and, therefor, don't approach women. these same women don't approach them because they don't want the negative valuation women i just mentioned.

What you are witnessing is the dying grasp of male privilege.

sure hope so.

Lastly, why the HELL did the WaPo review this?

um, maybe because the wapo isn't fit to line birdcages. shoot... i remember getting mentioned in a writeup about anarchists in DC and almost the entire article was about my (15/16 years old at the time) friend's bra straps... ugh. and the bastard who wrote had the audacity to let us buy a drink for him.

I mean, it is common (unfortunate but probably accurate) advice to men that being nice gets you nowhere with women (because nice is seen as lacking confidence and being an asshole is a sign of confidence). But this is the first I've seen advising women to deliberately feed into the problem rather than the way they do subconsciously.

spike the cat
I'll agree that I didn't understand what you were getting at, hence all the question marks. In fact, I'll still make that claim.

If you're saying that reporting sex and having sex are different, then how can we infer or understand anything about sexuality (a complex issue) via studies? Also since each situation is individually different, why should any study matter to the public at large since it's just a collection of different experiences.

So if you're saying that it's a mistake to take any generalizations to heart, then I agree with you (generally).

@tonisjadin
“Divergent question: anyone look at the tagline? A book every woman should own and every man should read Huh? What's the distinction? Women should waist their money on it and the dudes should get a loaner?”

I’m pretty sure that he was implying that women can’t read and are only good for buying things.

WOW - sounds A LOT like the crap found in Dr. Laura Schlessinger's The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.

Ooops, I guess my husband didn't read this book. He should have ditched me for a waif since I'm definitely a "fatty" according to this guy's definition. Also, I think my husband should be informed that he is treating me with far too much respect. I cook but he does the dishes and other cleaning. Who knew he was getting a raw deal this whole time? And I have no idea how we managed to get a daughter out of our marriage since I'm too much of a fatty to get sex.

Wow, this man has really opened my eyes...and now I can roll them.

Bondo

I see it as 3 different stages (and this seems to apply to women and men)
1: The bitter
2: The asshole
3: The confident adult

Also there seems to be a progression from 1->3 as maturity comes.

"I'm a nice guy, why won't girls date me?"
It's because you're not really being nice because you're a kind person - you're being nice because you expect it to get you somewhere. This person is really just a bitter person typically lacking in personality or interests.

Once they get over that, they get to where the author of this book seems to be speaking from.

"If being nice didn't work, fuck it - I'll just look out for myself no matter the consequence to others."
So great, you're a jerk - good job. You're still unhappy though.