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.

A few/several/lot of years later #2 turns into #3 who is the confident person with interests of their own, a backbone to stand up for themselves when it's appropriate, concern for others (at their own expense at times).

#1 wants to date #2 or #3, #2 wants to date #3, #3's end up in healthy relationships.

So in summary, there's a difference between being an asshole, and standing up for yourself.

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

I'm pretty sure that this book is being given too much attention for what it is. I'd say that this book is one guy writing about how he changed from being a sycophant to an entitled egotist and how it has made his life better.

Sure he may think that every guy should follow his example, but that's because he hasn't gotten to the point where he knows that there are better things to be than what he is.

James_,

way to break down the "nice guys don't get dates" myth. concise, to the point... maybe it's not always that linear a progression, but those are definitely three distinct places to be...

god, what a tool!

james, right on with the stages. although i wish more people who start out in #1 and #2 actually made it to #3. society certainly isn't doing its part to help that though.

Thank you Ann for linking to my piece.
As you can tell, I feel pretty strongly about
Black Female sexuality being the beached whale of Human sexuality.

This book is symptomatic of patriarchy, nothing more nothing less. It isn't any more or less pathological or dysfunctional than the dominant white mainstream narratives we see on TV and in the movies.
It may be more crass and upfront, but its message appears to be the same. "Shut up, make me a sandwich and don't get fat".

What are the unexamined assumptions that go into the following statements?
=========
*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.

Isn't it dangerous to make the below statements without offering any evidence therein?
==============
****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.

Zane is in an interesting position. I mentioned in my piece how she recently experience a boycott, which reeks of heterosexism, of her new book that is about Black Lesbian Erotica.

On the other hand she is endorsing this book that appears to operate under the subtext of "How to Tame Your Black Woman". Sharazad Ali anyone?

"There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by 'their' men..."

Tammy Wynette, Phyllis Schlafly and Laura "The Surrendered Wife" Doyle are black? Well, damn, Allegra, I never knew.

More fodder for the "thug life" culture!

Awesome!!!

*snark snark*

James, I don't buy your classification. There probably are people who try "nice" as a strategy and then try "asshole" as a strategy, but I don't think being genuinely nice and being frustrated by lack of achieving the fundamental need of companionship/sex are mutually exclusive. There are people who are only ever assholes and people who are only ever nice and then there are people who take on what ever tact that will achieve their goals, which makes them assholes. So I don't think it is a maturity sequence.

That said, I do think the genuinely nice men, who might be less successful initially, do succeed in the long run. Perhaps because the scales fall off the eyes of women as they realize that the assholes are all show and no satisfaction.

In my experience, men who label themselves "nice guys" (as in "nice guys finish last" nice guys) are either underconfident men who lack personalities and/or require substantial emotional maintenance OR they follow the traditional (gallant door-opening male, delicate swooning female) gender notions in a misguided attempt to be nice.

NEITHER is someone I'd like to date.

Genuinely nice guys (as in, considerate of others and able to compromise like any other well-balanced human being) don't label themselves as such. In my experience, those guys just figure they're just regular old civilized human beings.

P.S. This book makes me gag and I would not tolerate a loser like that author for even a second. Also, James's progression of nice guy --> asshole --> human being seems pretty plausible to me.

This guy makes me ashamed of being a guy. I pray to god no more than 5 people take this scumbag seriously.

Oh god... when did vintage sexism come back in style?

I don't know how black women's rights got stuck in or regressed to the 50s Good Wife's Guide...

Oh and thanks Ashanti for showin' the gals how to keep their men with your music video for "Good Good". Maybe Ashanti would be a great wife-slave for Dante Moore.

"There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by 'their' men..."

Can someone tell me how strong this sentiment is? And where? And from who? And did somehow Black women invent this? I keep having people who are not Black and female like I am tell me that this is apparently the law of my community. I would like to know how I have missed it. Or even better yet, the historical reasons why people who do feel that way might actually do so.

In general I would really like to know why so many so-called feminists, can eagerly ignore Black women's criticisms of mainstream white feminism, or completely ignore women of color feminism in general, but can go out of their way to ponder this sort of bullshit when presented by the mainstream media?

Never mind. I have a migraine from this foolishness already.

This book really isn't anything to take seriously and I wouldn't given him the free pub. And please god lets not make some scribbling by someone looking to make a quick buck a statement of the lives of black folk.

Delux,

Don't get mad gurrrl.

She don't know no better.

That ain't nothing that a little Pat Hill
Collins, Hortense Spillers and a Black best
friend can't fix. Lols.

However, I marveled at the above posters statement
of "Black Womens Rights", as if our
rights ain't human rights like everyone else's.

Three words. Sexual. Beached. Whales.

At the end of the day, I try and operate from a place of empathy. Lord knows, someone had to teach
us what we know, so I try and share what I have learned with others.

Think my next post is going to be called
Black Feminism is Humanism.

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.

I had a friend who often made offensive references about "sluts" and read sexist books like this. Mike told us he was dating a new woman, who worked in law enforcement, deportation issues. Then one night my boyfriend went out for a drink with him and he brought a guy friend. When Mike got up, my boyfriend asked the buddy what he did for a living. Guess what?
Mike was acting like a sexist creep to cover up his hidden feelings. He eventually came clean about his relationship with his "buddy," but he lives out of town, now so I am unsure if he has cleaned up his sexist language.

Oops, that first paragraph of my post was from miss.meshuganer. Looks like I didn't quote properly.

m.dot,

I'm just tired of the insistence on speculation and conjecture when there has been so much clinical research, feminist analysis, and personal testimony by women of color about their own lives.

delux, white woman here, totally with you.

James,

"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"

No, I'm not saying that reporting sex and having sex are different. I'm saying that the study didn't delve into the whys and the hows. It simply challenges age old assumptions about women's sexuality and weight.

And actually the study was done because health care providers have a tendency to assume that overweight or obese people, especially women, are not sexually active. Thus they might not offer these patients certain services, treatments or tests.

Some researcher had the foresight to simply find out if this was an assumption that could be substantiated.

Which leads us back to why we continue to pretend that women changing superficial qualities will result in better pairings?

For example: isn't there a saying that goes "for every beautiful woman, there is a man tired of fucking her"?

Or in some latin cultures they throw in a splash of racism as well when they tell what a man is supposed to want: "A black woman to clean, a mulatta to fuck and a white woman to marry."

So please someone, tell me, how this book has any relevance for any woman, let alone a black woman in dealing with men, other than as warning.

People need to stop with the dangling rotten carrots already.

Delux,

I hear you.

Speculation and conjecture are garden variety tools to perpetually regulate us to the "other".

We both know that.

Being a blogger at the intersection of Hip Hop and feminism has tired me out from time to time as well.

However, I have found that when folks come their faces, I try and ask questions.

Talking Mobb Deep, No Homo, Patriarchy and video vixens as it relates to capitalism and Hip hop is no joke.

That doesn't mean hella bullshit is tolerated.
It means that I try to ask questions.

Again, I hear you, and I have been where you are.

In my experience, men who label themselves "nice guys" (as in "nice guys finish last" nice guys) are either underconfident men who lack personalities and/or require substantial emotional maintenance OR they follow the traditional (gallant door-opening male, delicate swooning female) gender notions in a misguided attempt to be nice.

But the perception of what signals confidence or personality or acceptable emotional state are all gendered. So these men you dismiss may well be confident people with personalities and suitable emotions, but they don't meet YOUR sense of this which is likely fixed to masculine aspects. Confident and extroverted are not the same thing. Or put another way, shy people can be confident, but they are rarely seen to be confident because society tells us that a confident male is suave and outgoing.

AnnaRose,
and I'll bring the matches....and marshmallows (what the hell, why not)

I don't think Zane used her name as a Warning, like she claims, but as a sly way of expanding her brand image and gain an unreached target demographic. If she thinks her target demographic thinks books like this qualify as edgy, sexy or "urban" she may well be trying to tap that market while at the same time attempting to keep her image safe by issuing a supposed condemnation of it. Either way, shes a sell-out and this is very disappointing.She should know people wont read it that way.

"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."

I agree thats its very weird that a seemingly rational person would flip onto his side. Unless that story is simply a PR/promotion stunt, it reflects a scary issue for feminists. I read a story about some rabid right-winger who goes to campuses giving basically what can be said to be misogynistic hate speeches and he said that even though the crowd ranted back at him, after awhile they listened and thought he had something to say. He later said that a young woman came up to him after he gave his show and thanked him. This is appalling! What does this say about our current society? What caused this irrationality with her? Could it be self-esteem issues, growing up within a backlash culture, or a coercive conservative family that puts subtle pressure on her to conform? Was she not raised by the same Boomer generation that championed womens rights and basic respect for women? What would cause such a drastic distortion for her to believe he was doing something good? Ultimately how do we cure this?

Bondo
As with any generalization - it doesn't exactly fit anyone, but it does paint a decent picture - which is why it's something you can see as being true. I'm not saying that the frustrations experienced with sexuality are only for the insecure "nice guys". Sexuality is a frustrating thing for anyone. Minus masturbation, it's something that has to be shared between two people - and that will always lead to complications, hurt feelings, frustrations, etc (even if the negative feelings in great relationships are few and far between, they are there).

I could give you a bigger breakdown of what I meant by the 3 groups bit, since I didn't type up much description for it. Typically when I talk about it, I refer to it as amorphous blobs (people lacking personality, backbone, confidence), people with a stick up their ass (jerks, abusive types, still don't have their life together very well), and then people who remove the stick from their ass and discover that they have a backbone. It's more of a conversation than something that can be posted very elagantly on the internet.

Confidence is an internal quality that introverts and extroverts can both have - and yes, each individual will express that quality differently.

To put it more shortly and bluntly: Shy people, who are frustrated with relationships, but still qualify themselves as 'nice guys' don't necessarily have to fall into category 1. I think women can tell the difference between misdirected "nice" guys, and genuinely kind, but relationship-ly frustrated men. "Nice" guys come off as sleazy, plotting, and pathetic.

Black/Non-white Feminists in this thread:
I think I have a decent grasp on the difficulty in white culture for white women (to white women in here, I'm not saying that I have experienced it or that I perfectly understand it - just that I'm able to empathise) - but when race comes into it - I have no idea what you go through.

I've a question for you though: how would you say that race plays into your feminism. In your culture what would you say is different coming from men of the same race as you (or men of other races - but when it comes to relationships).

And so I don't have to make assumptions - if you field this answer would you let me know your heritage (Black, Asian, Latina, Hatian, etc...)

His advise on BMI is strange since in my observation, black males are the most likely to be okay with larger women, at least when it comes to larger white women, though I would suspect from the plethora of porn sites that cater to 'BBBW' that black females aren't left out either.

Hey, Dante Moore, if you want to be a dom, why don't you just be a dom?

Oh, right... because BDSM has stopwords.

gwyllion,
Yeah, this DOES sound alot like "Dr." Lauras crap book. Maybe that comparison could be a way of positioning her philosophy in a much more lucid light for the public. I mean if THIS guy and Dr. Laura both see eye-to-eye then how low (the possible consumer would ask themselves) am I stooping.

Maybe he and Doctor Laura should hook up.

"What would cause such a drastic distortion for her to believe he was doing something good? Ultimately how do we cure this?"

Well gopher, I've had several experiences wherein what appeared to be a "man of quality" and I have become very close, shared a very loving and equal relationship, and then we reach that stage of comfort where I seem fine to keep loving him just as before, and he starts realising he can get away with things because you love him and he knows you won't leave him, or he just doesn't care if you do. Basically they use the love you have and they try to manipulate jealousy so as to make you feel that if you don't do these things, or change this or that, then you'll lose him. (I think this can be seen in the original quote about how there'll be 10 other girls on the corner who'll be willing to do XYZ). And usually the moment you start hinting that you're getting sick of it, they turn around and act nice until they know you're theirs again. That's not to say it's all a guy thing, some girls do this to guy-friends of mine too, but I can totally see why his girlfriend would accept it after a while, especially if they've been bf/gf for a long time and living together.. personally a book like this would be too much for me in a relationship, but nevertheless the heart can make us do some really stupid things which go against what our heads say.. especially when we feel a sense of emotional dependence on someone, as though we couldn't live without them.

How on earth is this going to help anything though , in the mind of the author, if it's the men who are reading it? That's the bit I don't get - guys already seem to have a lot more trouble than girls in picking up and keeping relationships, imho.. and now telling them they should start "commanding" and forcing their girlfriends to wear lingerie around the house???

My god.. I think.. I'm seeing.. the future.. there are.. so many.. so many single men still living at home and.. my god.. they're all.. still virgins.. and they all think their mum.. and sister.. should wear lingerie around the house.. it's horrifying!! horrifying!!!

Also, I don't think it's right for us white feminists to blame "macho black culture" for this, considering how much misogynist white culture there is reinforcing this same shit. The mote in thy neighbour's eye vs. the beam in thine own, etc.

When I first saw the cover of the book, I thought it was going to be a book on how women are reeducated in a BAD way. As in the book was going to condem the practice of expecting women to be sexed up and available to men's demands. I got that impression because my first reaction to the cover was that of revulsion. I was surprised to find that the book was saying that this was all a good thing.

First, ew.

Second, if you want a guy to stick with you, be interesting and vibrant and yourself. No one likes a boring push-over, and the men who DO like those types of people are nut-spongers that you don't want to date in the first place.

hmmmm.... I want to be a lesbian more than ever now. Apparently it's possible for women to switch? Anyway, I feel like writing a parody of this book, called "how to snag a woman and keep her", with outré, exaggerated Paris Hilton spoil-me advice, followed by a be-a-good-male-slaveboy series of suggestions...

James, I responded to your
request for feedback from Black feminist's on my blog.

I was ambivalent about leaving a comment
for reasons that I go into within the post.

I hope you find it responsive.

James, I responded to your
request for feedback from Black feminist's on my blog.

I was ambivalent about leaving a comment
for reasons that I go into within the post.

I hope you find it responsive.

m.dot, not sure if you posted a link to your blog, but in case it's not on this thread, here's the url:

http://modelminority.blogspot.com/2008/08/feministe-zane-and-black-female.html

great post, by the way... and it's really important to point out that a blog post can only ever be the tip of the iceberg... makes me think there could be something like the "feminism 101" i saw a ways back (anyone know that link off hand) for a whole lot of perspectives...

Ann posted at August 28, 2008, at 11:30AM: "But Zane says her name on the book is not an endorsement -- it's a warning: 'There are some men who feel exactly like he does. I feel like women should be forewarned and realize what's out there.'"

OTOH, she didn't need to publish the book to give the warning. Zane could have rejected the manuscript (this wouldn't be censorship and stop Moore from publishing it elsewhere). Then, she could have released an accurate review if and when the publication of the book was announced, and/or spoken up at some other times and places.

puckalish commented at August 28, 2008 2:08 PM: "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."

Thanks for the recommendations! :)

SarahMC commented at August 28, 2008 2:36 PM: "First of all, his use of the word 'female' - GRRRR!"

Indeed. The advice is bad enough, but aiming it at girls as well as women?!

James_ commented at August 28, 2008 3:25 PM: "'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."

...and/or because you're nice to the ones who want jerks and you're a jerk to the ones who want nice partners.

James_ commented at August 28, 2008 3:25 PM: "So in summary, there's a difference between being an asshole, and standing up for yourself."

Right on!

Bondo commented at August 28, 2008 5:02 PM: "That said, I do think the genuinely nice men, who might be less successful initially, do succeed in the long run. Perhaps because the scales fall off the eyes of women as they realize that the assholes are all show and no satisfaction."

Also, perhaps because they're willing to consider other women - those of us who were never attracted to the assholes in the first place.

ShifterCat commented at August 28, 2008 8:37 PM: "Hey, Dante Moore, if you want to be a dom, why don't you just be a dom?

"Oh, right... because BDSM has stopwords."

Yeah, I doubt any straight submissive lady who identifies as sub instead of "traditional" would settle for him.

ShifterCat commented at August 28, 2008 10:41 PM: "Also, I don't think it's right for us white feminists to blame 'macho black culture' for this, considering how much misogynist white culture there is reinforcing this same shit. The mote in thy neighbour's eye vs. the beam in thine own, etc."

Doesn't that only apply when the mote and the beam aren't the same shit? Consider how many misogynist customs are shared by cultures white, black, both, and neither...

It's like Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia.

Puckalish,

Thank you.

Because I "clearly" dropped the ball there.

LOL. When I first saw the washington post article on the book, I was like -- WOW, unabashed patriarchy. Then my second thought was -- out of 151 million American women, probably most actually do want a patriarchial-male ... who wines-n-dines them, pulls out chairs, holds doors, helps pay their bills, promises to be monogamous, give them babies, make them a mother, permit them to work as a part-time breadwinner, and all other kinds of "manly, strong, things":)

Let's face it ladies, there is the "what is" and the "what should be" -- and the former (patriarchy) is the norm ... not "gender-equality". In the black community, patriarchy is even more expected, acceptable, than in less patriarchial, more feminist-educated, communities. Few black women prescribe to dutch dating or reciprocating taking a guy out. And because there is so much racism, poverty, and lack of feminist education in poor and low income communities, one can expect lots of testosterone males and women who love them -- including "thugs".

BET, MTV, hip-hop, and even mainstream culture embrace and validate "the patriarchy-male model" ... including thugness. Most TV commercials show a "woman" doing any domestic chore for the kids ... cooking, tending to the kids, etc, ... Matha Stewart became RICH by selling women (mostly white women) the finest of domestication skills ... the fine art of being domestic, lol. Oprah Winfrey became RICH pandering to mostly white women's issues -- their relationship problems.

In short, if you're a heterosexual woman, most of you want not "equality" but "patriachy" in the form of monogamy, kids, hubby, money, house, etc (The American Dream -- middle class or better). I am always amazed at how so many women will "sell their soul" to men if he looks good, has money, and will give her the cinderella fairy-tale, especially the more poor or low income she is. So, yes, the book is not feminist in its message or vision. But it sure nuff speaks to the daily reality of 90% of the 151 million women in American -- and let us not even talk about other countries ... middle east, africa, china, etc. Bill got his penis sucked because he was a powerful rich white patriachy male ... The Presidential Patriach ... lol ... not because he was some sensitive, feminist, effeminate, joint-decision-making, let's be equal guy, lol. And Hillary did not achieve her career in that cut-throat elite mysognist political world of Senators, Congressman, and mostly male leaders by being "anything traditionally female" but just the opposite " manly with a domestic twist":)

As I've heard many of males state ... at bars, clubs, on the job, at church, and elsewhere amongst themselves and often to women ... if individual women and women as a group want independence, equality, then why are they choose to be so desperate, dependent, on the male dick and move, all in the name of love ... meaning women (not men) are obsessed with needing and seeking love and sex (and babies and marriage), not men ... which is why women complain so much, are always trying to change men. Sad to say, this is a lot of truth to this vulgar belief, and most men know it. There is probably only one group of women on the planet who really view men as optional, a necessary evil until technology makes them obselete, that would probably be lesbians ... who truly love themself and other women (and yes some males too) in fundamental and cultural ways heterosexual women cannot fathom:)

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger, lol:)

In the black community, patriarchy is even more expected, acceptable, than in less patriarchial, more feminist-educated, communities. Few black women prescribe to dutch dating or reciprocating taking a guy out. And because there is so much racism, poverty, and lack of feminist education in poor and low income communities, one can expect lots of testosterone males and women who love them -- including "thugs".

There is so much wrong in this statement I don't know where to begin.

First of all, from what I've experienced as a Black woman, I find that the Black community as a whole leans more towards the matriarchal. The community leaders (church leaders, councilmen, etc) may be men, but the people who actually run the households and get things done (the grandmothers, the "aunties", "Big Mama" down the street, the ones who care for the neighborhood kids while their parents are working) are all women. This may not seem very "feminist", but don't get it twisted: The women are running things.

With that said, even though you may not find Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro, or Jessica Valenti on the bookshelves, there is definitely feminist/womanist teachings happening in these neighborhoods.

And another thing: Black women are not the only women who fall victim to the "Bad Boy"/thug types.

OneVoice commented at September 1, 2008 3:15 AM: "In short, if you're a heterosexual woman, most of you want not "equality" but "patriachy" in the form of monogamy, kids, hubby, money, house, etc (The American Dream -- middle class or better)."

Personally, I'm a straight woman and I'd like to have mutual monogamy (like neither of us cheating on the other), have no children, have a husband who's my partner instead of patronizing me, have money from my job (like both of us paying our bills), have a nice urban apartment instead of a freestanding suburban house, etc. ;)

"In short, if you're a heterosexual woman, most of you want not "equality" but "patriachy" in the form of monogamy, kids, hubby, money, house, etc (The American Dream -- middle class or better). I am always amazed at how so many women will "sell their soul" to men if he looks good, has money, and will give her the cinderella fairy-tale, especially the more poor or low income she is. So, yes, the book is not feminist in its message or vision. But it sure nuff speaks to the daily reality of 90% of the 151 million women in American -- and let us not even talk about other countries ... middle east, africa, china, etc."

Let's look at some facts now. Let's not forget though that birth rates are actually plummeting world wide (even in developing countries). Traditionally, marriage is a contract for raising kids. So when people have less kids, that's a good gauge of how women really feel about marriage.

Furthermore, the economically developed countries with negative population growth are those where women are educated but remain in bastions of traditional patriarchal dogma where men feel less inclined to lend a helping hand with the kids.

Take my new home country, Italy for example. Italy, Spain and Greece are examples where older educated women are making the choice to be new moms as often if not more (depending on the geography) than women from lower economic classes.

Turns out that women are appreciating of fathers who will contribute to parenting (pretty egalitarian, wouldn't you say?); These are women who are not looking for a man to be paychecks.

Because Italy is aging fast, women can no longer depend on childcare help from grandparents. This is what was key in the past. Thus today a less well-off woman from a "traditional" background sees that she most likely won't get that much help from her aging parents let alone her husband. She then chooses to defer having kids until she is economically ready (perhaps she can get a nanny then). Or she decides not to have kids at all. This is the trend now.

And unlike the US, even super-Catholic Italy doesn't withhold comprehensive sex education, doesn't deny women access to birth control. Birth control is part of the UNIVERSAL health care and is very affordable to all women who request it.

I could go on about trends in northern Europe and Japan. There have been many articles on this, most recently in the new York times.

The US is a truly unique for a modern country that we claim to be. We seek to deny women basic education and reproductive choices and yet wonder why some women make "poor choices".

The fact of the matter is, even choosing "thugs" is a very rational choice depending on a woman's circumstances.

And when given access to basics such as education and birth-control many women do choose to be with egalitarian fathers who are willing to help more with actual child-rearing.

Great post, Spike --

As you say, birthrates are plummeting in developed European nations, although interestingly not in the US. These countries face huge future labor shortages and eroding tax bases. It is not inconceivable that Europe in a few generations will be a civilization of the past.

Interestingly, the US has managed to buck the trend, although mainly only because of decreasing use of contraceptives and access to abortion, poverty, and poor education.

Ironically, I think it is precisely the Leftist/secular worldview - esp. a belief in education, socialism, and feminism, and at the same time the death of religion - that explains what is happening in Europe, even as much I too hold this worldview.

you women are all the fucking same i am a nice guy i am always the best friend never the boyfriend people say its cause im to nice
i didnt think that was possible so i went to the source i went to some of my amazing women friends and i asked them why do women like assholes and they say i dont know why we like assholes but i sure dont i cant stand to be with an asshole yet there boyfreind is one and there in fucking love and lust and im still in the dust some women ask where have all the good men gone well ill tell you.Yu are slowly driving us away i sit there and i get calls from my women freinds about there relationships freinds that i want to be more then freinds with but i am an honest person so tell them the truth i help women i want to go out with go out with other guys and its heart breaking and you can totally bag on me and make me feel like shit but you know its true you dont want no alrighr looking nice guy you want the hot looking asshole is the worst feeling in the world knowing the girl you want is going out with another guy because she is your freind and she asked you for advice and that you will not go out with her cause you are her best freind it is so fucked