Eight-Hundred-Year-Old Jong Responds to Callow Youth Taibbi

One of the great things about being eight-hundred years old is the sense of perspective it gives. Not as old as Sappho or as old as Herodotus nor Aesop but old enough to see boy wonders like you come and go.

So I ask you: What exactly is the point of talking about body deformity rather than ideas? We live in a time when great chunks of Antarctica are floating off into the sea, raising sea-level beyond what scientists predicted even a few years ago; when people are being tortured despite our heritage of the Magna Carta and the Constitution. How does it serve us for you to take cheap shots about age, looks, body fat or any other physical characteristic of men and women?

It's the easiest form of ridicule. It takes little wit and much malice. Plato was ugly. Aesop was a hunchback and slave, Sappho was swarthy and dark -- but who cares? Bodies rot. Ideas can change the world.

I love your tirade about how much malice you've spat at male politicians as well as female. Congratulations. You are an equal opportunity insulter. But insults are not arguments.

I am sure you've never read my books or you wouldn't be echoing the most vulgar and simplistic book chatters in calling me "a sex novelist." Besides, what is wrong with sex or novels? Nothing in my book. Your writing smacks of ignorance and insecurity. You lean on insults because ideas evade you. Propaganda often relies on physical mockery. Remember the stereotypical images of Jews the Nazis circulated? The hooked nose, the thick lips, the swarthy complexion, the protuberant eyes? None of these things can undo the genius of Sigmund Freud or the many other geniuses banished by the Nazis. Similar caricatures were used against African-Americans. And against women. It's a very low form of discourse. You don't even have to know how to draw.

If you were my writing student, I'd challenge your reliance on physical mockery and ask you to find better ways of arguing your points. I'd try to engage your brain not your spleen.

As for my age, I love being eight-hundred years old and still here.

Related:
Matt Taibbi: Erica Jong Rolls Out Every Liberal Cliche in Existence

Previously:
Erica Jong: Misogyny, Momism and Militarism
Matt Taibbi Responds: Erica Jong Thinks I Want to Do My Mother

Comments

[dahpunkster]

I like this article, i thought it was a witty response to the remarks made by mr tabaii.
this quote really stuck out for me personally.
"So I ask you: What exactly is the point of talking about body deformity rather than ideas?
It's the easiest form of ridicule. It takes little wit and much malice. Plato was ugly. Aesop was a hunchback and slave, Sappho was swarthy and dark -- but who cares? Bodies rot. Ideas can change the world."
I like it so much I am putting it on my facebook :)
thank you for you smart funny writing

sincerely punky

[TroubleNYC]

I wonder what the strawman did for Erica Jong to abuse him so.

[JimR]

This feud is boring.

[AdrianLesher]

Calling "swarthy and dark" a negative physical attribute is certainly racist. I would also expect a noted writer to be more careful about redundancy: swarthy means dark.

[bored2tears]

"Noted writer."

How you flatter Ms. Jong. She is as relevant today as Philip Roth, another dessicated fossil's opinion is of no relevance to me today.

[S1m0n]

"What exactly is the point of talking about body deformity rather than ideas?"

"So I ask you: What exactly is the point of talking about body deformity rather than ideas?"

You reach a different audience.

Or you amuse the audience you have, in a different way.

Or you indulge your gift for a certain kind of invective.

I'mn pretty certain, Ms Jong, that you have acted from all three of these motives on various occasions in the past, so your pretended virginity now isn't convincing.

In any case, for all your protest we're all aware that the realm of 'ideas' ranks somewhere below "good hair" and perhaps above "nice teeth" in the scale of political importance in any election in the post-TV era.

The key trait for a president is 'good judgement', not 'great ideas' or heavy-duty wonking capacity. If the nation wanted a wonk as president, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be plummeting from the skies with her tailfeathers on fire.

[BOBZILLA]

By ERICA JONG
Published: August 18, 2001
New York Times editorial

What do American women want in a president? The same thing we want in a husband. Someday we might have a woman candidate, but until then, women want someone masculine but not so masculine that we can't control him. We want someone empathic but not so empathetic that he'd be soft on Saddam Hussein. In short, we want the impossible androgyny that dares not speak its name.

[MSB]

Erica,

I happen to like Matt Taibbi. I admit, his numerous attacks on people's physical appearance may not be the most mature of actions, but I laugh anyway. Most of these people are more about their celebrity and power than they are about being any kind of public servant. He always skewers these people. Hillary Clinton is just another of these empty people and Matt treated her as such. It is your relentless defense of Hillary that is tiresome and predictable.

Your defense of Hillary is oddly shallow. You should vote for her because she is a good candidate and person, not because she doesn't have a penis (or, 'not because she isn't inflicted with a penis' if you like). As has been mentioned, I would love to vote for a woman president, this woman is not that candidate. My decision has nothing to do with genitalia.

I have found your posts to be beyond pretentious. I am a self-described liberal, yet I find most of what you say to be fairly obnoxious. I see much of your ideology to be that which I find myself arguing against. When I convince more conservative folks that all liberals don't sound like you, I usually have a much easier time getting them to listen to my ideas.

Get off you freaking soapbox. Your opinions are not that enlightened.

[Clinton]

Beyond pretentious is the norm for Ms. Jong and her ilk. Part of the reason liberals end up having to explain themselves so much.

[XCITIZEN]

I'm relieved finally people are opening up and really saying what they feel about this shallow, pretentious discourse coming out of Erica Jong. I have been adamantly criticizing her posts - since day one, and nearly all of my initial comments got censored right out of the comments section. Now suddenly everybody's commenting. Well, I guess that's progress. Sad though, that so much censorship is going on re: the issue of her insubstantial rants.

[ThatSharkeyGeezer]

Erica Jong has 'writing students'???

What does she teach them? How to put nice curlicues on the ends of their Ts?

She certainly doesn't have any other knowledge worth imparting.

[JohnnyCanuck99]

I think Huffington Post has jumped the shark here likely. Cycle of blogs about blogs, meta-opinions, really doesn't matter. I could write more, but when I tried to say this yesterday it didn't make the editors' cut. So I don't want to spend the time just to be ignored.

[jojojo]

Sorry Erica, it won't work.

When he deflated your argument that he exclusively mocked HRC's looks, you tried to change the argument and say "well it's really about this other thing."

And you're judging HIS intellectual integrity and " ignorance"?

Sounds like HRC's constant moving of the goalposts. It's about this...no it's about this...nope, the important state is THIS...MI and FL don't count....no,no, wait, they DO count...

I voted for her twice, but cannot do so any longer. My preference for another candidate does NOT make me sexist, either. YOUR apparent stance that we should vote for HRC because she's female is, however, entirely sexist.

[Clinton]

There is a less than subtle attempt to sneak the anti-semite smear in the mix as well.

[YellerDawg]

Only to those who cannot read analytically.

[bethinCary]

Agree with ya Erica.
Read Matts' response, which was essentially a defense of his ridiculing "flabby arms" comments-"Well, I spread the love around-I insult everyone-males & female."

He still doesn't get it.
People-could we move beyond high school please.
Stop insulting the intelligence of Americans by trying to be "cute" -and making sophomoric, immature
comments about looks, physical characteri­stics..ove­r substantive issues related to a campaign.
It's an effort to throw sand into the electorates' eyes about what the issues truly are,or else it's some insecurity complex on the writers'/commenters part to build his/her own ego up at someone elses' expense-either way it's WRONG.

Stop the stereotyping.
Stop holding women up to physical standards-while holding men up to intellectual ones..
Stop trying to obfuscate the fact that women can be attractive and smart-and don't need or want to be pigeon-holed by men as one or the other..
Stop trying to make the world--a melting pot of colors and shape-be seen through the eyes of white males.
People can see themselves for themselves who and what they are-and don't need Matt or anyone else to tell them.
So stop trying to feed stereotypes to make people feel bad or insecure about themselves-or stereotypes for "white male" perfection.
Cause what stereotypes are really about are control and manipulation..

[Clinton]

Which is why HRC makes such extensive use of them. They're just different stereotypes. Like the white male stereotype.

[accountability]

citations please?

[classof77]

Or the "typical white person" stereotype, right?

[Clinton]

More Jong drivel. Poor 'students'.

[richsmith]

Full disclosure. I have never been much of a fan of yours. Tried reading your stuff, not bad, but I'd rather be reading Faulkner, Vonnegut, Lessing, Rushdie, lots of contemporary non fiction....... I'm a slow reader and need to optimize my use of precious time. I'm not a fan of Clinton, and haven't been for many years. To present my reasons in a nutshell, I've heard people expressing ambivalence about voting for Clinton vs. McCain in the general election, but have never heard anyone suggest that they were struggling with the idea of picking McCain over Obama or vice-versa. I sense my sister-in-law, in struggling with the Clinton-McCain quandary, is torn between her sexual identity and what she considers "stability". Lastly, I first read the Taibbi blog before I read this one - I am a big fan of Taibbi the younger.

I have to concur with him on his opinion that you took a scatter shot approach to your short blog posting here. (Continued……..)

[accountability]

To present my reasons in a nutshell, I've heard people expressing ambivalence about voting for Clinton vs. McCain in the general election, but have never heard anyone suggest that they were struggling with the idea of picking McCain over Obama or vice-versa.

This is what your "reasons in a nutshell" are for not liking Clinton? or for voting for Obama?

Either way.

DUH?

Is this really how people make decisions on who to vote for?

Because they see that other people are struggling between 2 candidates, or made an easy decision between 2 candidates?

or:
Because they don't like someone?

Despite your allusion to some great authors your comments belie a rather shallow reasoning "process" for deciding on who to vote for.

Yipes.

[richsmith]

I'll explain the logic, although I thought it was clear. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who would even think of voting for McCain either hasn't a clue as to what has gotten the US into such an abysmal state or is really so well off and/or so ideologically driven that he/she really doesn’t care as to how bad things are in general – one of that 19 or so percent that think things are just ducky. Those who are considering Clinton verses McCain are the clueless ones, and there are many of them.

Standing with a friend, watching from the Watchung Hills in NJ as the twin towers burned, I answered her speculation as to the course of the US from then on into the future by saying I was cynical enough to believe the status quo would prevail. I was wrong; things have gotten terribly worse. McCain is raving mad and I believe will start a war with Iran next year or soon thereafter if the evil Dick Cheney doesn't this year. Clinton represents the status quo to me. My perception is, although while not quite clear, that Obama provides the only likelihood of change, and a complete change of the political management and national course is necessary if the US is to survive.

That’s where I think thing are without compressing it down to a nutshell size.

[accountability]

By the way, what does liking someone (not being a fan of) have to do with anything.
Do you vote for someone based on if you "like" them?

I'm not much interested in if I like them I'm interested in what they are capable of.

[richsmith]

I like leaders (and other people) that I perceive to be honest, enlightened, in possession of a broad world view, humble, generous, sympathetic, and civil. I would never vote in an election for public office for someone who did not possess most, if not all of these qualities.

Why would anyone vote for some they didn't like?

[richsmith]

To get so much stuff into such a short piece, dropping all those allusions in a helter skelter kind of way and then rearranging them and wiring them together as a kind of afterthought, is not your style. Allusions to Sappho's, Aesop's, and Plato's looks are fine in the context of judging the values of 6th and 5th century BC Greeks (we know they idolized the looks of their heroic girly-boys), but that doesn’t add much here. I see where you were driving that, but it doesn’t quite make it. Matt asks rhetorically whether he should ‘let you intellectuals do your job’, but I would more bluntly and less ironically apply the modifier “effete intellectuals” in the question.

One last thing. Matt can be really, really funny. Lighten up! Who we ‘mericans pick for president could very well mean the end of the US or of humanity as we know it, but there isn’t nearly as likely a chance that the choice will lead to the end of the world but rather just of Disney World Orlando and of habitable southern Florida .

[richsmith]

Full disclosure. I have never been much of a fan of yours. Tried reading your stuff, not bad, but I'd rather be reading Faulkner, Vonnegut, Lessing, Rushdie, lots of contemporary non fiction....... I'm a slow reader and need to optimize my use of precious time. I'm not a fan of Clinton, and haven't been for many years. To present my reasons in a nutshell, I've heard people expressing ambivalence about voting for Clinton vs. McCain in the general election, but have never heard anyone suggest that they were struggling with the idea of picking McCain over Obama or vice-versa. I sense my sister-in-law, in struggling with the Clinton-McCain quandary, is torn between her sexual identity and what she considers "stability". Lastly, I first read the Taibbi blog before I read this one - I am a big fan of Taibbi the younger.

I have to concur with him on his opinion that you took a scatter shot approach to your short blog posting here. (Continued……..)