Heck breast havent even been sexualized for that long in western society. The term boobies was coined in the 16th century sailors term for an awkward gull like bird. Why do I bring that up, well it was the bird that named the organ. See in Spanish Bubi meant stupid, and the birds which had no contact with humans were stupid (or at least oblivious) they landed on ships and being larger than gulls got eaten. But bubi's or Boobies were also bad fliers, nearly useless. English sailors soon started calling useless things boobies. Eventually it started to be used to describe the organs on a womans chest. So the most common american expression for breasts is actually a recent construct meaning useless. Hardly a good description of a sexualized organ. Yes we have sexualized it, but many cultures particularly tropical ones attach no shame and no sexualization to the breast. Just like most americans attach no shame to the ankle. Show an ankle in victorian times and people would have been all a titter. See what we sexualize has a lot more to do with changing sexual mores than it does with something actually being sexy. Sometimes stuff falls to the wayside (after all how many bustles do you see around today) and sometimes new stuff becomes sexy. its all a fad.

Whatever culture you name, there will be a boobie equivalent which is the desirable "norm" for women. And women who don't have it will be pond scum.

As for bustles, they're not attached under dresses anymore. They're now injected into the buttocks.

Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.

Great post, Diana. You're absolutely being slammed by those who enjoy male privilege (as well as those who do not enjoy it themselves, but are victims of hegemony) because you're simutaneously against rape and comfortable with (displaying) your body.

Sign me up for enjoying all the things you're imagining. For my part, in the more immediate future, I'd also like to see the day when your detractors at "Cardinal Martini" develop some reading comprehension skills and learn to make an argument supported by facts, rather than misunderstood and decontextualized quotes. As I mentioned in my own blog today, their claims are bogus. Their web site would actually be kind of funny if their ignorance wasn't so frightening.

Dr. Blaine, I am not at all outraged, upset, or inconvenienced that you chose to show your breasts on a Web site.

I am more amused at your self-styled image on your Web site:
"Dr. Diana Blaine is a PhD philosopher, writer, adventurer, bon vivant and buttkicker."

I certainly would be the last to challenge most of your description, but if you actually believe yourself to be a "buttkicker", then you are only fooling the weak-minded.

Perhaps you can fool those individuals that you are a "buttkicker" in your mind and theirs, at least in the sanctuaries of academia, or at best, in a protected sanctuary of nearly any developed nation.

ACTUAL "buttkickers" might have all of those credentials (albeit not likely so!) but they wear BDU's, have to engage some of the world's worst scumbags on their own turf, or at best, neutral turf, using their wits and weapons to fight, overcome, persevere and survive.

As for your photos, your sexiness is that of about an LA-area 5.

No interest in trying to "oppress" you with "objectification", Diane......

Whether you're a "skank" or a "feminazi" depends upon how quickly you take your clothing off to engage in sex, rather than to engage a camera.......

....... and whether you believe that men and women ought to have equal social and civil rights, not to mention equal responsibilities.......

....... or instead that misandry ought to be as ingrained as deeply as possible into American institutions and society.

Just giving my (patriarchal) opinion....

cheers!

fourthwire

So you've "steadfastly refused" to engage with your enemies because they offer not "one single valid point."

Is that why your grant such a lengthy post to an argument that you can easily tear down?

Come take a look at the real contentions that have been advanced against the Blaine:
http://cardinalmartini.mu.nu

Your inability to refute any of are arguments underlines the conclusion that you cannot accept viewpoints outside of your own. And your continual discussion highlights your obsession with your breasts and your consistant narcissim.

Thank you, Chairman of the Board for providing Diane Blaine's quote on the relevant subject of rape:

"So if a few bad eggs don't respect women's right to decide if to have sex with them, why should I hold the whole football team accountable? Because I do. Because I hold every single male on this campus responsible. Because every single male on this campus has the responsibility for stopping rape. Every fraternity brother, every science major, every professor, every one of them. Because they all rape? Of course not. But because only men rape and only men can stop other men from raping."

You held all of the USC men responsible for a rape that likely never occurred BECAUSE YOU DO?

Thanks for providing a bit of "group guilt", Diane.

That quote, taken from Cardinal Martini's site reflects the rancid misandrist mindset of the feminazis, an apparent lack of common sense, ability to reason and think logically, not to mention that basic human quality of compassion.

Your written idiocy that somehow every single male on the campus was responsible for stopping rape makes as much sense as the Nazis' rants against the Jews holding THEM responsible for THEIR collective guilt.

In fact, your statement that ONLY men rape is also ludicrous. Women can and do rape occasionally. Here's a recent article from www.mensnewsdaily.com pointing out one of the recent alleged female rapists: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/NEWS01/605100306

"Men" as a sex are not capable of stopping rape of individual men, unless of course the act of rape happens right in front of one of us.

So stick your assignment of collective responsibility for rape to the entire campus.

Like that deranged scumbag Dworkin, you apparently hold the most vile misandrist views, at least concerning that particular topic.

Are you going to hold all of the women campus equally responsible for stopping false rape accusations against men?

Do you even have a clue about how frequently women falsely accuse individuals men of rape?

When misandrist women engage in their brain-dead emotional stampede on the subject of rape, the lot of you are not worth the oxygen that you are wasting.

fourthwire

You may not be aware, but Dworkin actually made herself rather unpopular at a feminist conference once because she spoke out against a group of women who were advocating the idea that women are innately superior to men, and should wipe men off the face of the earth etc. Of course you'd have to read Dworkin (rather than some out-of-context quotations) to learn that. (It's in Right Wing Women, if you're interested.

Interesting that you brought up Nazis and Jews, but I think you have it a bit back-to-front. For instance, not all members of the Nazi party gassed Jewish people. Lots of members of the Nazi party never killed a person. But would you blame a Jew who suffered at the hands of a Nazi for holding every Nazi accountable? Of course not-- the Nazis all worked to promote a hideous ideology, whether they personally murdered Jews or not. Likewise, men who adopt a patriarchal sense of masculinity are contributing to a system in which men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape, and women are largely the victims, even if these men do not rape anyone themselves. I read Dr. Blaine's piece as being about this choice to adopt a type of masculinity, rather than being about having an XY set of chromosomes. Of course there are (a few) men who do actively try to adopt a non-patriarchal model of masculinity, and the fact is that by doing that they ARE taking a stand against rape.

You know, I personally have no clue on how often women file false rape reports. And, Fourthwire/Bill, until you (or anyone who wants to use it as an argument) cite a source and a number I am going to assume you don't either.

What about the women who are raped who are too afraid to file a report in the first place? Now that seems like an undefined (and undefinable) number worth talking about. Generally the reason rape victims don't report the assult is because there is a fear of not being believed. Now where would that fear come from?

ANYWAYS, I actually just wanted to comment to mention Lauren Greenfield's work (her website I put in the URL link). After finding your blog it would be interesting to know what you think of her work, Dr. Blaine.

I happened to find your page from a news article on google. I'm surprised that you (and others) are surprised about these photos generating a great deal of attention in the press. The reason for the attention is not (in my opinion) because anyone does or does not find the pictures indecent, although everyone no doubt has an opinion on that.

That which is unusual tends to be newsworthy. What is unusual is seeing someone in a known, and respected, job having pictures of themselves with their shirt off. Even for a man that would be unusual. You won't often find a man with a website saying, here, I'm a top corporate lawyer and, BTW, here is a photo of me bare-chested. Of course it is common to see men, and in certain countries women, on the beach topfree. But if one sees photos of such people, they are usually anonymous. People with established positions in society usually are expected to dress the part--and that usually means little skin showing, for both men and women. Yes, there are lots and lots of anonymous 20-something nude women with photos on the internet. But it is quite unusual to see an established 45-year-old woman bare her tits on the web.

The thing is that you have a good job. Most people with good jobs don't do anything to risk it like baring their tits. Even as a man, it is something I would be cautious of. The fact that you have makes it newsworthy. Should you face any negative consequences for doing so? Absolutely not. But it is clearly newsworthy because it is something you don't see very often. Again, the unusual tends to be newsworthy.

Even though it may be *legal* for a man to go topfree, and generally not for a woman--what is generating the attention is the violation of a clear norm. Maybe the norm is ridiculous, but as long as it exists, rare violations will be newsworthy, as silly as that may be.

ps--thought you might find the following link interesting given your interest in death:

http://infocult.typepad.com/dracula/

Men are always whining about something. They injure easily and suffer poorly. For a gender who consistently has more so-called privilege than they have actually earned, men sure are a bunch of crybabies! Women should not have to conform to their madonna/whore ideas of femininity just to help them feel okay about themselves. Be quiet already!!!

>>>>You know, I personally have no clue on how often women file false rape reports.

I don't doubt the level of your personal cluelessness on the topic.

The answer to the percentage of rape accusations that were reported as actual rapes depends upon the "studies" quoted.

Take Wendy McElroy's recent words on the matter:

"Politically correct feminists claim false rape accusations are rare and account for only 2 percent of all reports. Men's rights sites point to research that places the rate as high as 41 percent. These are wildly disparate figures that cannot be reconciled.

This week I stumbled over a passage in a 1996 study published by the U.S. Department of Justice: Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial.

The study documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.

At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.

The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned.

They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

The authors continued, "these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate."

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

Before analyzing the competing figures, however, caveats about the one just mentioned are necessary.

First, the category of 'false accusations' does not distinguish between accusers who lie and those who are honestly mistaken. Nor does it indicate that a rape did not occur, merely that the specific accused is innocent."

>>>>And, Fourthwire/Bill, until you (or anyone who wants to use it as an argument) cite a source and a number I am going to assume you don't either.

Bad bet, Diane.

>>>>What about the women who are raped who are too afraid to file a report in the first place? Now that seems like an undefined (and undefinable) number worth talking about.

Why would that number be any more worth talking about? It those women were actual victims, that's a real shame. But those women were victimized by individuals men, not by a woman harnessing the power of law enforcement and our nation's judicial system for her own reasons, which might include her insanity, desire for vengeance, interest in attention, or any of the other documented reasons behind the filing of false rape accusations.

>>>>>Generally the reason rape victims don't report the assult is because there is a fear of not being believed. Now where would that fear come from?

Between their ears.... where ALL fear "comes from". Considering that they are "shielded" from their pasts (as Crystal Gail Mangum, the alleged rape victim/stripper/single mother of two with a police record that involves leading police on a high-speed pursuit while intoxicated, then attempting to hit an officer with her automobile at the end of the chase).

Frankly I believe that in at least THAT single case, the alleged "victim" is being overprotected.

fourthwire

>>>>>>You may not be aware, but Dworkin actually made herself rather unpopular at a feminist conference once because she spoke out against a group of women who were advocating the idea that women are innately superior to men, and should wipe men off the face of the earth etc. Of course you'd have to read Dworkin (rather than some out-of-context quotations) to learn that.

Dworkin was insane, and made quite a few inconsistent statements. And whether I read her quotations "out-of-context" is far less important than the nature of her man-hating vitriol.

Dworkin was the scumbucket whose quotes include:

"Sexual sadism actualizes male identity. Women are tortured, whipped, and chained; women are bound and gagged, branded and burned, cut with knives and wires; women are pissed on and shit on; red-hot needles are driven into breasts, bones are broken, rectums are torn, mouths are ravaged, cunts are savagely bludgeoned by penis after penis, dildo after dildo—and all of this to establish in the male a viable sense of his own worth."

It's true that this quote is taken "out of context". Irregardless of that fact, it's fairly apparent to anyone with an IQ somewhat above that of a bucket of pond water, that Dworkin was a raging man-hater who seemed to see male oppression everywhere.

That she presumably let men put their penises inside her own vagina shows that she was far from consistent on the subject of male sexuality, not to mention that her male lovers were possibly insane themselves.

>>>>>>>Interesting that you brought up Nazis and Jews, but I think you have it a bit back-to-front.

Not at all. Both the Nazis as well as the feminazis believe in the concept of "collective guilt".

Jews were unable to redeem themselves in the eyes of the Nazis because they were born Jewish.

Similarly, men who were born with a penis instead of a vagina between their legs are unable to redeem themselves in the eyes of the feminazis because they were born male.

>>>>>>For instance, not all members of the Nazi party gassed Jewish people. Lots of members of the Nazi party never killed a person. But would you blame a Jew who suffered at the hands of a Nazi for holding every Nazi accountable?

Interestingly, some men's rights advocates bring up the same point, albeit with a slightly different emphasis.

The individual in question posts on www.mensnewsdaily.com under the name of "denis". Denis points out that those women who use the title "feminist" to describe themselves are no better than those Nazis who even today identify themselves as Nazis.

>>>>>Of course not-- the Nazis all worked to promote a hideous ideology, whether they personally murdered Jews or not.

No arguments. I believe that feminazis all work to promote a hideous ideology themselves - that men are their enemies, even men with whom they have never had any contact, simply because that (almost) half of the world's population were born with a penis instead of a vagina.

>>>>>Likewise, men who adopt a patriarchal sense of masculinity are contributing to a system in which men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape, and women are largely the victims, even if these men do not rape anyone themselves.

LOL.... "a patriarchal sense of masculinity"? Here's a clue: there IS no "patriarchal senses of masculinity", any more than there are "matriarchal senses of femininity".

Some fruitcake of a feminist probably coined the term.... and a variety of idiots (usually female ones) continue to use the phrase as if it makes any sense. And it does not.

So stuff your idiocy about men "contributing" to a "system" that leads to rape rape - it's simply another feminist myth-repeated-as-fact.

The vast majority of men do not condone, protect, or encourage rape. The male-run "system" that idiots like yourself believe to exist that contribute to rape are figments of your imagination.

>>>>>I read Dr. Blaine's piece as being about this choice to adopt a type of masculinity, rather than being about having an XY set of chromosomes.

"a type of masculinity"? Would that be like a "type of femininity".

Here's another clue which you badly seem to need: Men don't adopt a type of masculinity, any more than women adopt a type of femininity, or jaguars adopt feline behavior.

>>>>Of course there are (a few) men who do actively try to adopt a non-patriarchal model of masculinity, and the fact is that by doing that they ARE taking a stand against rape.

Sorry, but the patriarchy was an invention by fruitcake feminists, so those men who manage to avoid being part of the dreaded patriarchy are likely to be vaginized males, irregardless of their views about rape.

>>>>Men are always whining about something.

Actually, if you pull your head out of wherever you have it stuck for the warmth, you would see that women do quite a bit a whining themselves.

Good luck on getting your head dislodged....;-)

>>>>>>They injure easily and suffer poorly.

The vast majority of homo sapiens fits that description, Einstein.

You be sure to start searching for women who are "difficult to injure" and who "suffer well".

>>>>>For a gender who consistently has more so-called privilege than they have actually earned, men sure are a bunch of crybabies!

Which moron told you that bit of nonsense, and why were you stupid enough to believe her?

As the matter of fact, women have not "earned" their privileges any more than men have, my mental midget.

>>>>>Women should not have to conform to their madonna/whore ideas of femininity just to help them feel okay about themselves.

Happily, most of this nation's women do not feel obliged to conform to any ideas, except those which they garner from "Oprah", the other daytime divas, and whichever form of "groupthink" seems to be most fashionable in their circles.

>>>>>Be quiet already!!!

Bit of an incongruous statement for a public forum, my Rhodes Scholar.......

Sez Fourthwire:

I am more amused at your self-styled image on your Web site:
"Dr. Diana Blaine is a PhD philosopher, writer, adventurer, bon vivant and buttkicker."

Yes, I am amused by that too. I did not write it. The former student who built my website did. She said I reminded her of Indiana Jones. This would not be my own self-description, and I was certainly surprised that she viewed me this way, but I thought it was cute and it speaks to the way I provide an alternate model of power for my students, so I left it as written.

Your compassionate refusal to engage in conversations with the folks who seem to have nothing better to do than spew mindless rhetoric and set up websites devoted to hating you (wow. just, wow.) is admirable and inspirational.

Let's hope "FlyFishinTrojan" keeps to the lakes & streams and keeps wearing Trojans so he never passes on his fuckedupedness to any offspring.

Asshat.

At Burning Man there are women running around all over the place without their tops, and more than a few without their bottoms. And it's great, mostly because it's just so good to see people comfortable about freely expressing themselves. If Asshat's theory held any water, given the number of inhibitions that are weakened or tossed aside altogether at the Burn, you'd think there'd be women getting clunked over their purdy little heads and dragged off to caves all over the place. But guess what? Doesn't happen. Doesn't happen because once the taboo is lifted and little boys start acting like adults and treating women like peers instead of objects... everybody gets along just fine.

You're awesome, Dr. B. Just wanted to pop in & mention that.

Not sure why I'm doing this, since I'm not sure that you're actually interested in engaging in discourse, but I'll give it a shot.

Dworkin was insane, and made quite a few inconsistent statements. And whether I read her quotations "out-of-context" is far less important than the nature of her man-hating vitriol.

Dworkin was the scumbucket whose quotes include:

"Sexual sadism actualizes male identity. Women are tortured, whipped, and chained; women are bound and gagged, branded and burned, cut with knives and wires; women are pissed on and shit on; red-hot needles are driven into breasts, bones are broken, rectums are torn, mouths are ravaged, cunts are savagely bludgeoned by penis after penis, dildo after dildo—and all of this to establish in the male a viable sense of his own worth."

It's true that this quote is taken "out of context". Irregardless of that fact, it's fairly apparent to anyone with an IQ somewhat above that of a bucket of pond water, that Dworkin was a raging man-hater who seemed to see male oppression everywhere.

You're right it is out of context-- is she, for instance, talking about pornography constructing a particular type of male identity? Really, you can't just say "context is irrelevant, because it doesn't help my argument." You also say that the idea of identity constructed by patriarchal ideologies is irrelevant because it doesn't match your assumptions about men and women-- however, it's important to note that she is talking about IDENTITY, not chomosomes. She's talking about something that is constructed, rather than something that is innate. Even without knowing the context, surely you can see that much.

You know, for many years I absolutely hated Dworkin, for the out of context quotes that I had read from her work. When I actually read her work, I didn't agree with everything she said. I certainly don't consider her works my Bible. But until you've read at least a little of her work in context, don't go around insulting the intelligence of those who have, or indeed her own intelligence.

That she presumably let men put their penises inside her own vagina shows that she was far from consistent on the subject of male sexuality, not to mention that her male lovers were possibly insane themselves.

No, this just indicates that you've totally misinterpreted what she says about heterosexual relationships. This is pretty easy to do, and you know, if I'd been trying to make the points that she was making, I'd have probably used different language. But considering that you clearly consider your own IQ to be well above pond-scum, I'm sure that you're a highly critical reader who is capable of comprehending her entire argument, if you actually bother to read it. (Hell, I don't even agree with the entirity of the arguments of hers that I've read re: heterosexual intercourse-- but I can at least appreciate the argument that she's constructing).

Not at all. Both the Nazis as well as the feminazis believe in the concept of "collective guilt".

?Jews were unable to redeem themselves in the eyes of the Nazis because they were born Jewish.

Similarly, men who were born with a penis instead of a vagina between their legs are unable to redeem themselves in the eyes of the feminazis because they were born male.

I believe that feminazis all work to promote a hideous ideology themselves - that men are their enemies, even men with whom they have never had any contact, simply because that (almost) half of the world's population were born with a penis instead of a vagina.

Okay, you are so clearly showing now that you've never actually read much about feminism, and the variety of women who call themselves feminists. Look, we don't believe in eradicating men, okay? Seriously. If any woman calling herself a feminist suggests that people should be eradicated based on their chromosomes, I'll argue against them, just like Dworkin did.

Here's another clue which you badly seem to need: Men don't adopt a type of masculinity, any more than women adopt a type of femininity, or jaguars adopt feline behavior.

Sorry, but the patriarchy was an invention by fruitcake feminists, so those men who manage to avoid being part of the dreaded patriarchy are likely to be vaginized males, irregardless of their views about rape.

Huh? Hang on, a second ago you were saying that it's wrong to make essentialising statement about people because of their genitalia and genetics. Now you're saying that we CAN make such essentialising statements.

It must be my pond-scum IQ letting me down again, but I'm not sure what a "vaginised male" is supposed to be. Personally, I'd be happy with men who doesn't treat vaginas as objects, and doesn't define women by their vaginas (by saying stuff like, people with vaginas just act in a particular way because it's in their nature-- same goes for people with penises*). Hint: You don't need your own vagina to do this.

And thanks for the heads-up about patriarchy. The next time I see a parliament dominated by male politicians, the next time I notice that children tend to take their father's name, the next time I notice that women are defined in relation to men, I'll just remember that it was the feminists who invented all those things. Yeah, cause women had so much power when all those institutions were established. Feminists made it that way so that they could rip on men later on. It's all clear to me now. Ooooh.

*By the way, if you do argue this, then you need to say that since the overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by men (which still holds true even if you accept the ludicrous 41% of false reports figure), then rape must be an essnetialised behaviour of men. I personally, have a different view. I think men are autonomous moral agents, who are not in any way genetically pre-destined to do horrible things. That's one of the reasons that I fight against cultural ideas that let people think that this sort of behaviour is just "natural." This is why I see "masculinity" as a set of adopted behaviours, rather than as something intrinsic. If it was natural, it couldn't be changed, but I strongly believe that men are not innately predisposed to do horrible things, and therefore also believe that these horrible behaviours can be changed.

Bill writes:
>>>...if you pull your head out of wherever you have it stuck for the warmth, you would see that women do quite a bit a whining themselves.

Oh Bill, you're so funny! Actually, I have a tiny head, which prevents it from getting stuck in places that your (obviously) larger head inhabits. I'm sure you'll have a field day with that one because you just can't resist (men aren't known for their impulse control). Go aHEAD! LOL!!!

>>>The vast majority of homo sapiens fits that description, Einstein.

Are you making generalizations?! Weren't you just on the rant against such things?

>>>You be sure to start searching for women who are "difficult to injure" and who "suffer well".

Tell me about the number of times you've given birth to a child, Bill. Oh and be sure to include a story about how many times you've been on the receiving end of domestic violence or rape.

>>>...my mental midget.

We just work your one little nerve, don't we?

>>>>>Not sure why I'm doing this, since I'm not sure that you're actually interested in engaging in discourse, but I'll give it a shot.

Allow me to put your uncertainties to rest by giving it a shot myself.

>>>>>>You know, for many years I absolutely hated Dworkin, for the out of context quotes that I had read from her work. When I actually read her work, I didn't agree with everything she said. I certainly don't consider her works my Bible. But until you've read at least a little of her work in context, don't go around insulting the intelligence of those who have, or indeed her own intelligence.

For many years I absolutely hated Dworkin myself. Now that she’s dead, only her foul legacy of misandry remains.

Nobody with the IQ of a bucket of pond water needs to read Mein Kampf in order to understand the evil and ambitious nature of Hitler.

What makes you believe that anyone who reads Dworkin's own words, however out of context, needs to read her loathsome "works" in their entirety in order to understand that she was a foul misandrist whose chief value on this planet was to provide food for the worms (as seen from most men's perspectives, not to mention those women who LOVE men)?

Dworkin was a bona fide nutjob, and a man-hater to boot, and one would have to be very stupid indeed to require reading a complete work by her to understand those particular characteristics of hers.

Mind you, I would have no such difficulties getting your understanding if Dworkin had been a raving misogynist instead of a misandrist.... since you are apparently programmed to accept her sort of male-hatred without invoking distaste for her.

Whatever else Dworkin wrote, her general misandry is unmistakable through her quotes..... at least for those individuals intelligent enough and honest enough to recognize those attributes.

And if Dworkin was "misunderstood" about her hatred for men and boys, then she has nobody to blame but herself for that “misunderstanding” to ever come to pass.

Hitler supported the development of the autobahn, the world’s first high-speed motor transportation network built for both civilian and military use, but don't expect many individuals to celebrate his life and accomplishments as a result of anyone pointing that fact out.

As I pointed out previously, radical feminism provides for the collective guilt of men, while the Nazis provided for the collective guilt of Jews.

That's why I despise human vermin such as Dworkin, whose misguided, rancid words attacking men can be legitimately seen as dehumanizing men, as the Nazis dehumanized Jews.

>>>>>You're right it is out of context-- is she, for instance, talking about pornography constructing a particular type of male identity? Really, you can't just say "context is irrelevant, because it doesn't help my argument." You also say that the idea of identity constructed by patriarchal ideologies is irrelevant because it doesn't match your assumptions about men and women-- however, it's important to note that she is talking about IDENTITY, not chomosomes. She's talking about something that is constructed, rather than something that is innate. Even without knowing the context, surely you can see that much.

When deranged misandrists like Dworkin wrote their foul works, they don't seem to worry particularly about their misandry being misunderstood, in or out of context.

Dworkin apparently correctly saw herself as both victim and enemy of that part of homo sapiens born with a penis instead of a vagina..... not their "identities".

She was a thoroughly detestable man-hater, no matter how you want to wiggle and squirm on that particular point.

No doubt if Dworkin were a man, and "he" wrote some painfully misogynist perspectives of women, suddenly the light bulbs would go on in your head.

Anyone wanting to capture the essence of Dworkin's hatred for anyone born with a penis instead of a vagina need only read Cathy Young's column about Dworkin upon the latter's death. I don’t agree with everything that Cathy Young writes, but she’s likely to depict Dworkin’s mental illness accurately:

"To put it plainly: Dworkin was a preacher of hate.

Her books are full of such declarations as:

- "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

- "Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women's lives, can run wild."

- "Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right."

In Dworkin's world view, the Marquis de Sade and Jack the Ripper seem to be representative of all men (though she made an exemption for some men in her own life).

Meanwhile, women who defend their right to enjoy heterosexual sex are branded "collaborators", more base than other collaborators have ever been "experiencing pleasure in their own inferiority."

Dworkin's defenders insist that she has been unfairly maligned as equating all heterosexual sex with rape when she merely assailed male sexual dominance.

Yet in her 1987 book, "Intercourse," Dworkin argued that penetration itself is a form of "occupation" and "violation of female boundaries," however enthusiastically enjoyed by "the occupied person."

She wrote that "intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior" and is "the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women."

"All sex is rape" is fairly accurate shorthand for these ravings.

While allowing that intercourse could survive under gender equality, Dworkin was skeptical ("intercourse itself may be immune to reform").

In the 1976 book "Our Blood," she proclaimed, in language too blunt to be reproduced here, that the feminist transformation of sexuality requires male impotency -- though how she would achieve this goal remains unclear.

Perhaps you believe that poor Dworkin was simply misunderstood out of context? That bucket of pond water would look positively academically-gifted if you believe so.

>>>>>Huh? Hang on, a second ago you were saying that it's wrong to make essentialising statement about people because of their genitalia and genetics. Now you're saying that we CAN make such essentialising statements.

First of all, I would never post such tripe as "essentialising" statements, so refocus and reread my actual words and intended meaning.

Let me know how you fare, and please do not hesitate to ask someone born with testicles if your confusion continues.

>>>>>It must be my pond-scum IQ letting me down again, but I'm not sure what a "vaginised male" is supposed to be.

"Vagininzed males" are those boys and men who were raised with their testicles kept in some woman's handbag, and believe upon adulthood that it's a perfectly natural place to keep them.

One symptom of those particular individuals is that they likely don't even understand how to piss while standing up.....

....... let alone understand how to behave, how to thrive and prosper as happy, healthy, productive male members of society while avoiding becoming willing or unwilling third-class citizens in their own countries.

>>>>>Personally, I'd be happy with men who doesn't treat vaginas as objects, and doesn't define women by their vaginas (by saying stuff like, people with vaginas just act in a particular way because it's in their nature-- same goes for people with penises*). Hint: You don't need your own vagina to do this.

Hint: while I enjoy vaginas for recreational sex, I would not particularly want to own one. Never have. Certainly never will.

Here's another clue: "vaginas" and "penises" are body parts of particular interest to men and women respectively.

No matter how politically incorrect that point may seem, both men and women are constantly being objectified.

Worse yet, while women are constantly being "objectified" as sexual objects, men are constantly being objectified for their wallets and bank accounts by many of more attractive owners of vaginas.

Women (and men) certainly tend to act and behave, and show certain capabilities and characteristics because those capabilities and characteristics are often inherent in their nature, a bit that never fails to slide right by most feminists' ideological blinders.

That's one of the reasons why no amount of laws, threats, cajoling, skewed educational efforts, and political correctness will ever provide equal numbers of women working as engineers, physicists, and mathematicians as men in those professions.

Ever wonder why the NBA does not draft any women as forwards?

Sure, height, strength and stamina are physical characteristics, but why would there not be emotional, psychological, and mental characteristics inherent to each sex as well?

Whether or not you are willing to understand or admit it, women would generally be FAR less interesting to men if they did not have vaginas.

It's "objectification" all right, and many women support it.

It's difficult to feel particularly bad about a phenomenon that is as widespread as any other human phenomenon.

Millions of years of evolution went into providing men with such an interest in women's vaginas, as politically incorrect as that particular facet of human behavior seems to be.

Mind you, many women APPRECIATE being valued for their vaginas, since those, plus their breasts generally guarantee attention from men, at least if those women are young and attractive.

Many, if not most women crave attention the way narcotics addicts crave their next doses, and women's breasts and vaginas practically guarantee some level of attention, provided that those individuals are young and “hot”, as I have already pointed out.

>>>>>>>And thanks for the heads-up about patriarchy. The next time I see a parliament dominated by male politicians, the next time I notice that children tend to take their father's name, the next time I notice that women are defined in relation to men, I'll just remember that it was the feminists who invented all those things.

Did you ever figure out why the "patriarchy" in Congress ever passed a feminazi pork-laden bill like VAWA by any chance?

If you want a list of "all those things" that feminists invented, then you only have to consult your "Womyn's Studies" ideologist..... after discarding their ideology and misandrist dogma first.

Take note of the fact that the Communist Chinese are filtering the Internet for a number of reasons, including an attempt to keep the adverse effects of radical feminism from infecting their society.

I don't much care for the Communists, including their policies and ideologies, but I recognize that while they are many things, they are not stupid.

They see how feminism has undermined Western societies' economic growth and social stability through the destruction of the families in those nations, and the Communist leadership wants no part of it.

>>>>>>>>That's one of the reasons that I fight against cultural ideas that let people think that this sort of behaviour is just "natural." This is why I see "masculinity" as a set of adopted behaviours, rather than as something intrinsic. If it was natural, it couldn't be changed, but I strongly believe that men are not innately predisposed to do horrible things, and therefore also believe that these horrible behaviours can be changed.

First of all, not all male behavior (or female behavior) is learned.

Some male behavior IS intrinsic.....

..........which is why boys will tend to fidget in the classroom or disrupt class more so than girls typically will, for example. Or why men prefer to hunt and fish in numbers far greater than women seem to prefer….

You might PREFER to believe that "masculinity" is a set of "adopted behaviors", but that's not any truer than the statement that "femininity" is a set of "adopted behaviors".

Feminists generally have no problems speaking about their alleged inherent strengths, but you would deny that men have their own inherent characteristics?

Some men (as well as some women) certainly ARE predisposed to do horrible things, like rape, murder, torture, and other forms of violence. Many are not, have little or no interest in doing so.

In nature, rapes occur frequently. It's one of those dirty little secrets that any zoologist can tell you about.

In nature, mothers of certain animal species neglect or outright kill their own young.

It's another dirty little secret of zookeepers that pandas give birth to "an heir and a spare", but end up raising only one offspring.

Care to wager a guess why?

Not that humans must always do as animals do, but you are only fooling yourself if you believe that men or women could be cured of socially unacceptable behavior by brainwashing the population with politically correct ideologies.

Telling all men on campus that they are responsible as a group for stopping rape is no more intelligent than telling all women that they are responsible as a group for stopping giving birth to murderers........

.......and quite a bit less intelligent than indoctrinating individual women to avoid placing themselves in situations where rapes are known to be more likely, such as drinking oneself stupid then walking home alone in unlit areas, for example.

>>>>Oh Bill, you're so funny!

Not half as funny as you seem to be when you're trying to make sense.....;-)

>>>>>Are you making generalizations?! Weren't you just on the rant against such things?

Focus, please.

Which moron told you that I was "against generalizations" and why are you stupid enough to believe her?

>>>>>Tell me about the number of times you've given birth to a child, Bill.

How would that information be of any value with respect to my statement:
"You be sure to start searching for women who are "difficult to injure" and who "suffer well"?

>>>>>>Oh and be sure to include a story about how many times you've been on the receiving end of domestic violence or rape.

Same point as directly above, my intellectual powerhouse.

What makes you believe that being on the "receiving end of violence or rape" requires a vagina, for that matter?

Look, grow a brain, if you can, otherwise you are simply grist for the mill.

You haven't written one intelligent sentence yet.

>>>>>We just work your one little nerve, don't we?

Are you posting on behalf of your pretensions to royalty or perhaps on behalf of your multiple personalities?...;-)

>>>>>>>She said I reminded her of Indiana Jones.

This would not be my own self-description, and I was certainly surprised that she viewed me this way, but I thought it was cute and it speaks to the way I provide an alternate model of power for my students, so I left it as written.

Sure, that certainly sounds like you - Indiana Jones, just as Spielberg, Lucas, and Kaufman portrayed him......;-)

Pardon my directness on that particular point but your former student apparently wasn't exactly the brightest bulb........

...... or else she had some serious gender confusion issues.

Perhaps she meant Laura Croft?

At any rate, thanks for clearing up that particular mystery.

Your point about "providing an alternative model of power" needs a bit of clarification, but I'll let you determine whether it's worth the bother.

cheers,

fourthwire

>>>>Which moron told you that I was "against generalizations" and why are you stupid enough to believe her?

You are your own moron. Read your second post.

>>>>How would that information be of any value with respect to my statement: "You be sure to start searching for women who are "difficult to injure" and who "suffer well"?

>>>>What makes you believe that being on the "receiving end of violence or rape" requires a vagina, for that matter?

Both sexes can be on the receiving end but I asked YOU to provide examples from your own experiences, my whiny little knuckle-dragger.

>>>>You are your own moron. Read your second post.

I WROTE my "second post", dimbulb.

Why would I need to "read" it, simply because your furry little head spent too much time as someone's anvil?

>>>>>Both sexes can be on the receiving end but I asked YOU to provide examples from your own experiences, my whiny little knuckle-dragger.

You are welcome to "ask" whatever you please, but you probably ought to spend your time picking lice out of your fur, hanging from your tail, and enjoying my laughter.

Let me know if you have difficulties understanding any of that.......

.....and no banana ration for you, Bonzo......;-)!

I think women should have the choice to go topless. Sure there are rapists out there but their's a lot of horrible stuff out there. Not only that but it's immoral to physically force women to keep their shirts on. That in itself is a form of violent control. I guess there are still alot of men out there who feel they have a right to control women. In that respect they're similar to rapists.

Seems like a lot of grandstanding going on on both sides. It's seems especially ironic to me that while Blaine and those solidarious with her want to encourage consciousness of the violence perpetrated by "rape culture" and its dangers to women, they are engaging in the most violent and least civil of rhetorics. Is this the path towards convincement of the less aware? I personally feel assaulted on a figurative level that's disturbingly similar to the practices - rape and the whole tissue of practices around "rape culture" that are being decried here. On the other hand, those barking against the feminazis and the skankettes, finding idiocy behind every disagreement don't do good service to their position. I can't really pooh-pooh misandry (it does exist, sure) when the misogynism and vitriole ooze off the screen.

That said, best to all. It looks like some academic careers are on the make.

Your boobs are gross and you're a narcissist.

Wow, the discussion got so far from breasts and mother’s day that I wonder what distorted virtual dimension I’ve entered. So I’ll go ahead and say a word about breasts and the Professor’s point…

We should all love natural breasts because they nourish and please. We should stop tampering with breast tissue by inserting into it man-made materials, or otherwise “upgrading” it. The “enhancement” will eventually degrade, just as surely it does in nature, but with far fewer risks to the woman. Larger breasts may make someone feel better about herself, or help her attract a man of her choosing, but are they worth the potential risks? Doctors may tell you the risk is low, but how do you know for sure you won't be in the minority?

I thought it was so weird how, except for the first two posts, no one engaged the cultural element brought into the debate by the Professor, and how no one made any significant points about breastfeeding. Forget the “feminazis” I think I might have to send some La Leche Leaguers over here to clue you in!

http://www.center4research.org/implantso.html

I once had a great friend. He was sane, funny, compassionate, humane, very intelligent, and, alas, hugely flawed. One day, in response to a news report about the rape of a woman on a local college campus, he said: "I don't get it. If I walk up to a woman and reach out to touch her shoulder I'm pretty sure I won't get arrested, even if she doesn't like what I did. Why should it be any different when genitals are involved?" At first I thought he was making a very bad joke, but after some discussion it was apparent he wasn't. I gave him the only answer I could; I stopped being a friend to him. I wish I could have done better, I wish I could have somehow made him see things differently, but at the time I was too afraid of dredging up incidents of sexual abuse from my own past.

Years have passed, and I've often wondered how my old friend has done. I do know that he married and fathered two daughters, just as I did. Has he learned anything? Has his heart, if not his mind, changed? So many women I know have suffered rape at some point during their lives, culminating with that of my own twenty year old daughter. I wonder if one of his own daughters has suffered the same fate as mine, and if she has, if her father, my old friend, still doesn't get it.