Most third wave feminists don't even consider themselves feminists. Thanks to the first and second wave, feminism was just something we took for granted, like fluoride in our drinking water. We all grew up thinking we could be moms or president or both. Personally, I thought I might be a librarian, sports journalist or lawyer. (I ended up a lawyer) I thank the second wave for securing my rights so that I was born into a world where any of my dreams were achievable.

But as a third wave feminist who still calls herself a feminist, I agree that the second wavers sound hopelessly out of touch and not a little crazy. If they are "feminism," no wonder most people don't want to be labeled a feminist anymore. Based on Jong, I gather that feminists are hysterical, racist, and obsessed with being victims of the patriarchy. Men are the cause of all that is wrong in the world and all of Hillary Clinton's problems? How about a little credit to women for choosing our own destinies and our own presidential candidates?

Could you be more specific about which second wave feminists are "hopelessly out of touch and not a little crazy"?

I think she's referring to the recent pieces by Erica Jong, Robin Morgan, and perhaps Gloria Steinem.

You're basing your assessment of second-wave feminism on one person's writing? Doesn't seem quite fair to those women you thank for expanding your own opportunities.

Nobody in the Second Wave of feminism ever said Erica Jong was a feminst except Erica Jong. Doesn't anybody remember the discussion in the 70s?

I still would like to hear some some specific so-called "crazy" stuff you say the Second Wavers are saying. My feeling is that you have a prejudice without substance or specifics.

How about some evidence, counselor?

>> You're basing your assessment of second-wave feminism on one person's writing?

Last I checked, Erica Jong, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan were three people.

"Nobody in the Second Wave of feminism ever said Erica Jong was a feminst except Erica Jong. Doesn't anybody remember the discussion in the 70s?"

To me, this is part of the problem. What gives these women (and I'm referring to Steinem/Morgan/Jong because their pieces are very similar) the right to define who is and isn't a feminist? They have made many sacrifices and accomplished a lot, but that doesn't mean they speak to me or my experiences. I have a lot more to say about this, but perhaps I'll save it for another point.

As for an actual crazy quote from one of these pieces, I honestly wouldn't know where to begin. The Jong piece from the Huffington Post and the Morgan piece are nothing more than long rants. One of the best examples is Jong's completely incoherent paragraph complaining about anti-intellectualism rearing it's ugly head in presidential elections. She warns that the last time we ignored "substance" we got GW (and although she acknowledges obama is "brilliant" she's really drawing a parallel here). Then, she talks about victims of this anti intellectualism, such as Al Gore and John Kerry, who were dismissed as "eggheads." Then, bewilderingly, she criticizes Kerry for not being tough enough in fighting the swiftboaters (and in the same sentence takes a swipe at Obama, because why not?). Isn't the "nerds are wimps" argument part of the anti intellectual strain she is complaining about? How did she make such an absurd about face in the course of one sentence?