Ham on Rye question

I personally loved this book, along with everything else Charles Bukowski writes. I know a lot of women (and I'm sure some men) who consume his literature find him a misogynistic bigot, but I don't see his writing or the personality that comes through that way at all. He seems more like a man who's spirit was broken at such a young age, that he gave up trying to hold onto love or caring for anything/anyone else out of personal defense, and thus started to view the world in much more of a cynical way than most people admit. I can empathize with his situations and emotions in this book, Post Office, etc., even as a woman. I also find his writing exceptional for how raw it is. He didn't sugar coat anything he wrote - just put it out on paper and had an attitude of "I'm a worthless POS drunk writer, but it's all I have and those who don't like it are not worth my time and wouldn't like me anyway." There's a constant struggle of loneliness vs. emotional defense in his writing that I admire being so open about.

Bukowski made it very evident that he did have a way of seeing the world in a careless manner. He tried many different ways to understand how his life should have been in high school, a foreboding jealousy he could not get around. If you think about the way some people are treated in high school, that may have added to his mental formation and depiction of women. Cant have any in high school, once older, he could have any he wanted. I respect his honesty regardless of the way he speaks of women. The time of the book being written also adds a different view of his raw-even vulgar- way of speaking. Maybe misogynistic, but i see his writing to be open and allow the reader to understand the time and just be himself regardless of the readers opinion. I also see this as an addition to how he was able to thrive as an author. There are not many authors that write in such a way. I enjoyed the descriptions, his ability to make the reader create a "mental movie" because of how descriptive he was.

I am a woman, and frankly a woman who sort of falls on the borderline of millennials, tipping off into gen z. Having said that and given the context of my very progressive and feminist ideologies, I don't shy away from openly claiming that I absolutely love Bukowsky and would continue to do so for so many reasons!!! First and the foremost, Bukowski does not ONLY hate woman, HE HATES EVERYONE LITERALLY EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD. So if he is labelled as a misogynist (which he was, I am not defending or justifying his actions as right), he probably should also be labelled as a misanthropist (which he was, again). To narrow down and get into the nitty gritty and basing most of my argument on "Ham on Rye", his views about women are shit, but then he never said anything bad, like inherently bad about his mother, he always pitied her, loved her in a way. Same for men, he hated all men except a few on occasions who were his friends for some time, which really shows he does not necessarily have anything against women, but he is bitter about the whole mankind. However, yes, never ruling out the time and period when this book was written, it was actually a shitshow for women at that time so seeing hints of that would not be a surprise AT ALL. Secondly, I've always read Bukowski as someone who is telling what actually happens instead of saying that whatever that is happening is right or should continue to happen.

When I see Bukowski, I see a man who does not like how he is, how he behaves, how the world works, but he does not have a choice. The world forces him into all these things and he has to act or behave a certain way in order to fit in. His innocence peaks through some instances of the book. Throughout, the book, I noticed, he never really loses his virginity, even when he got the change. Rest of the boys around him were actually doing it, which sort of tells that he actually was not like that, he had to be a certain way in front of other people, which ultimately made him into a person like this (fake it until you make it shit happened to him) plus HE IS SHOWN AS A TEENAGER and I think he did a really good job at depicting the shitty teenage era in boys (again noting he never said it was right, in fact he implied several times that he disapprove of a lot of things). One more instance is when he loves to write and take notes of the passing planes, it was such an innocent part in him and maybe he would have turned out better if he did not have to go through what he did as a child. i think this is what he is showing to the world. He is a specimen for people to see the really. He is not one of the writers who write to bring a change. He is just writing. You know, many times throughout the text I wanted Bukowski to give in his own thoughts about the things happening around like some classic authors do (spilling their own moral philosophies and directing the minds of the readers in a certain way), but he did not, he just rolled with it. he did things without giving reasons and explanations which can be interpreted in two ways 1) He wants us to form our own judgements 2) he does not give a F about us; he was narrating what happened and it actually is like that in childhood. We do things without reasons, without the sense of morality, and to note there was no one for him to teach what is right and wrong. As far as the adult Bukowski is concerned, he is a shitty dude, he a very bad man, but we love to read because he gives us an insight into how people fall into these things.

I feel like a pick me girl, justifying the most toxic man ever lmao, but a girl can love his writings without approving of them, to have insight and understanding of human psychology and i think most people who love Bukowski never really say he is write, they can say he was cool AF but never the right person. He was never the HERO. So people who read him knows what they are getting themselves into. I read a review, and someone had written that Bukowski is not for everyone and that is true.

Not a woman but my mum called me 'faggot' a lot when I was a kid so I both relate to this book and get a pass as an honorary woman.

I think my wife liked this book many years ago. But not as much as me.

I don't really understand labels such as misogynistic, perhaps that's why I can't recall feeling any of those reactions when reading it.

I watched a video recently where a sceptic was trying to define misogyny or sexism and discovered it was whatever the accuser wanted it to be. Holds true for any Progressive label these days it seems.

I think unless you've been called names by a Progressive you're probably not worth talking to. And though I reckon Bukowski would've hated me, I've dedicated at least one poem to him and still respect him as a poet.