For anyone consumed by relationship and marriage myths, a recent episode of Oprah (yes, Oprah) knocks around - while not entirely dispelling - some of them.

I stopped commenting on people's bodies years ago. I have experienced first hand the comments about losing/gaining and then a very thin girl told me she goes through the same thing for being thin.

People have an idea that marriage and or a relationship is a cure all for themselves, when in fact it's nothing of the sort. No wonder the divorce rate is what it is.

I bet your detractors are really annoying that you are still talking and writing. They haven't shut you down.

I continue to be amazed by you, Diana. You've got it spot on!

Liz is right. Your detractors are trying to shut you down and shut you up--all the while complaining that you are trying to shut THEM up. (If that were true, would you leave their comments on your blog?) They are perfect exemplars of ideological voices of patriarchy! Great job bringing them out of the woodwork and making it plain just how indoctrinated into the patriarchy today's college students really are.

-Bling
blingfatih.blogspot.com

it is possible that people complimented you on your weightloss/worked out body because you looked healthier and im guessing you were happier with yourself. people should be encouraged to work out, (not to be thin but) so they aren't sitting on their asses all day. and buff brides may actually help people begin their new lives in a happier & healthier mindset.

I find statements like this disturbing: "Until I had read deeply in feminism, I could not make informed choices for myself because I did not have all of the insight and information necessary. I could only go on what my culture told me about the role of women and the best ways for us to be."

You are saying that you just didn't know what to think until feminists told you what to think. In the same way that many religious leaders draw lost sheep into the fold with the promise of a Good Book that has all the answers. That is the way you are talking about feminism in this paragraph. Is that what you mean?

I don't think it is fair, accurate or useful to suggest that a woman is incapable of making informed choices in life without the guidance of feminist scholars.

As I said before, I don't think it's a good idea to tell prospective students of your field of study that they have never thought for themselves.

You make gender studies sound like a cult, rather than a field of study. You make it sound almost like a religion.

And you seem to be aquiring a number of followers.

I know you're in a unique and probably rather awkward position--trying to take advantage of the spotlight to get a positive message out to many people.

You've become a sort of representative, though, of feminists and professors and women because of this, and I guess that's what makes me uneasy about some of the language that you use. It is a language that does not invite discussion, only acquiescense.

Love,
TS

ps. I know, of course, that this is your blog, and only by chance has it become a forum of any kind. I know, in other words, that I should probably mind my own business.

Kudos Diana.

* * * I find statements like this disturbing: "Until I had read deeply in economics I could not make informed choices for myself because I did not have all of the insight and information necessary. I could only go on what my culture told me about the role of money and the best ways for us to be."

You are saying that you just didn't know what to think until economists told you what to think. In the same way that many religious leaders draw lost sheep into the fold with the promise of a Good Book that has all the answers. That is the way you are talking about economics in this paragraph. Is that what you mean?

I don't think it is fair, accurate or useful to suggest that someone is incapable of making informed financial choices in life without the guidance of economic advisors.

As I said before, I don't think it's a good idea to tell prospective students of your field of study that they have never thought for themselves.

You make economics sound like a cult, rather than a field of study. You make it sound almost like a religion. * * *

blah, blah, blah

It's amazing how stupid some people can sound when you remove the polarizing language and see that there is no argument.

"We threaten the system and therefore are viewed as enemies rather than legitimate contributors to knowledge. Hence the attempts to silence us."

You have a good job--a very good job--at USC. You are a part of the system, not an enemy of the system. If you were genuinely a threat to the system, you would--believe me--find yourself out of work tomorrow. Your opponents--Cardinal whats-his-name--are also very much a part of the system.

For example, if a woman in corporate America--say someone who has run up against the glass ceiling--were to express the same views that you are expressing, she would find herself out of work very quickly--especially if she challenged her company for discriminating against women.

That's because America encourages a certain amount of dissent in its youth--both women and men. That's why radical feminism is tolerated in a professor--someone who teaches the young--when it would be dealt with absolutely ruthlessly if the same views were expressed in the corporate boardroom. The 'powers that be' WANT young women to be somewhat aggressive because it makes them, initially, more productive corporate citizens.

Later on, though, when they run up against the glass ceiling that affects most women in corporate America, feminism will definitely not be encouraged. And, at that point, most women are outside of the academic milieu and don't have the same feminist support structures they might have had in their college days.

America is largely run by corporations, and corporations like to keep feminism on college campuses. As I've said, feminism actually serves an important purpose to corporations, as long as it stays on the campus, because it makes women stronger, hence better corporate citizens once they graduate. But once they enter the corporate world, most will become second class citizens.

I'm sure you know all this--my only point is that you are very much a part of the system you claim to be opposing. If you were TRULY a threat to the system you would lose your job tomorrow.

Today's post hits a nerve. I have a grandson living with a nubile young thing. (21 yrs of age) She is planning her "great day" when she surrenders her identity to happen over a year from now. White gown has been purchased, reception place scheduled a year in advance. This seems like such a "sham" event to me. Incredibly her parents are supporting the whole thing, dipping into the college fund to finance inducting their daughter into servitude! They are all (parents and young couple) nice people, I just wish they could take your class before tying the knot.

Ray

Woman hear me combust, are you criticizing MY post?

I really am not sure, but I'm guessing the person you THINK is sounding stupid is me, which is odd because the removal of polarizing language from discussions of gender issues is what my posts are all about.

Needless to say, I approve of your technique--replacing a highly charged word with one not so charged is a good way to move on with a logical debate and productive discussion when everything has broken down into a sports-fanatics style shouting match. A contest between self-righteous, self-serving individuals instead of a collective attempt to arrive at a Truth or even several conflicting Truths.

I approve of any attempt to return to more productive, less combative discourse. I don't think your approach works in this situation, though.

You changed feminism to economics in the quoted passage from Dr. Diana's post. To better understand my actual point, however, you might try replacing the word feminism with the word Dyanetics, or The Book of Mormon, or the Holy Bible.

Does it seem more at home in that sentence than Economics does? I think it fits better than feminism too. I suggest that the word "feminism" should not BE a polarizing word. And that is the point I was trying to make in my post.

Please do not call me stupid. Even if I am stupid, it still makes you look like a jerk. And then no one will listen to either of us. Everyone is too busy expressing their own righteous indignation to listen to any of ours.

Thanks,
TS

toasted suzy makes excellent points. as did woman hear me roar. interesting that such a plethra of women can find dyb so offensive.

& btw, you dont necessarily need to take economics classes to make informed financial decisions. I don't need to take a class in feminist theory to decide whether to shave my pubes or get a boob job or answer any other trivial questions she and britney spears find intriguing.

dyb considers herself such a warrior to help us look at our boobies with pride. as if what your breasts look like should matter. some men might not find your breasts attractive, just like the men who find your breasts attractive might not like mine. there's nothing wrong with that; try not to take it so personally.

You're concerned about "unpaid labor in the home"? Who, pray tell, should pay housewives a salary? The government? You're not thinking things through here.

I have lurked over the past couple of weeks, finally feeling the moment to comment.

Dr. D. you have a strong and powerful voice, self-assured and resonant. While I might parse a point or two here and there, I applaud you as you endure the onslaught of ignorance and pointless anger—really, what are some of these people so upset about anyway?

I am married to a strong-willed woman, self-assured, smart and sassy. Nothing is as sexy as intelligent independence. Kudos to you.

"the bizarre notion that the day we cease to be an individual is the "happiest day of our lives" needs not only contesting but eliminating altogether. What, pray tell, does this suggest about the many thousands of days to follow the nuptial ritual? That women are expected to grow steadily less happy?"

The first part of this strikes me as a rather pessimistic way to view marriage. F...orget what Society tells you. I certainly didn't cease to be an individual when I got married; it was an act of love by two strong-willed people who want to be *with* each other, not subsumed by the marriage. So far, it has worked out pretty well.

I'm with you on the happiest-day bullshit, though. Life's been getting better, not worse, since my wedding day(s).

TS has a good point. Although I haven't read all the classics of feminism, I'm reasonably well-rounded and capable of making decisions for myself. Including what I choose to read, especially given that I read slowly (an academic's scourge).

I don't think dumdumdum is right, though. We may disagree on a few things, but finding you (DYB) offensive would be a different thing. Toasted Suzy also didn't seem to be particularly offended. There're probably plenty of women offended by you, but these comments aren't an indicator of that.

I'm with Piss Poor Prof on this one. I'm so taken with your situation that I've expended more time than I should in engaging the blokes at Cardinal Martini and their readers, at their blog and on my own. Oh, how they flail as I knock down their pathetic arguments! Should I feel guilty for enjoying the sparring so much?

After much conversation with them, it's become painfully clear that they have no case against you. (Not that I ever thought they did--but I'm an open minded person, so who knows?) As I said on my blog:

While Diana is offering emotional support to traumatized students and juggling the demands of a spouse and a tenure-track career, the folks at Cardinal Martini are cobbling together a mountain of evidence that proves... what? As far as I can tell, all they've proven is that they really, really don't like her and wish she'd get fired already.

And that's the sum of it all.

Bravo, Diana. You are amazing. Please keep the faith. I'll see you on WMST-L! ;-)

out of the blue i know. But let me just say that the sag makes them look natural and hence more beautiful in my eyes. My 2 cents professor

Again, I would like to know exactly who you think should be paying housewives a salary.

Diana,

Is it your view that society does not reward men for looking good and being in shape? Certainly, most studies that I've seen indicates that men who are athletic, attractive, and--totally outside out control--tall advance much further and faster in our careers.

What a refreshing perspective you have on our culture. I sometimes find myself lost in what it professes vs. what I feel in myself as a woman. I find the focus on your choices so odd. I find myself asking over and over, Why does anyone care? You exposed your mammary glands. What was the problem?

Please keep up your efforts as a professor and educator. I will feel less lost in this world, or at least not as alone.

A not so humble La Leche League Leader stuck in the middle of the 'Stepford Wives'.

An idea upthread sticks in my mind: the notion that feminism and women's studies make young women aggressive and thus more useful to the business world though still second class citizens. What a pantload!
For all kinds of reasons that I'm feeling too lazy to enumerate today.

I can't help but wonder whether the problem was that you exposed your breasts, it really is all a patriarchal conspiracy, or that you're actually a bitch.

I really don't know.

Don't link to Scott's site. It's disgusting.

Dammit Hattie! I might have skipped it all together if you hadn't told me not to look at it. Now I feel dirty.

It is disgusting! It's fine example of everything that is wrong with America, isn't it!?

Oh, I just can't take it anymore. I have to go vomit. My site made me that sick.

Come off it, Hattie. It's a website about the porn industry. You probably didn't read a single fuckin' article did ya?

Of course not. I don't read crap. Quiz me and you'll see that I fail.

Funny. Mainstream press doesn't think it's crap.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39268870,00.htm

(Via Martini & Muffy) no problem with the photos, they're nice in a spontaneous way. You don't seem all bad, amenable to reason, some devil in you, pursuit of a laugh, have drunk before.
Blaming all the World's problems on men . . . now that's a laugh too. I don't think you're that loon though. Don't be too harsh on your critics, as you're likable in your own right.

Weddings are huge money-making enterprises that benefit many. "Happiest and most-expensive day of my life" should be the tag line.

Oh, and there should be a line added to the vows: Man says: "I promise not to care how saggy your boobs get." Woman says: I promise not to care how saggy your ass gets" --an equal heads up.

For me, the inequities of marriage are at times clearly systemic to the institution as defined "between a man and a woman." Luckily, they're often more an individual's assimilation of dominant culture -patriarchal at its core. It is then simply a question of re-education. The systemic problems, however, require significantly more radical modifications.

Personally, I'm ready for a male "First Lady." Four to eight years of that should give us all ample time to discuss and debate.

http://billforfirstlady.com/billsvideo

I'd point out that you're a moron but that would only encourage you.

Your boobs are gross and you're a narcissist.

In case my post was too long (or Diane is too afraid to let other's see it), I put it here:

http://freehate.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6657#6657

But the main thing really I wanted to say, is this: Feminists have been silenced so much, that leaders like "Hillary Clinton" get to say stuff like "women always suffer the worst in war". Yes, our deaths has no meaning in itself except how we inconvience you!!

From patriarchal oppressor:

"Your boobs are gross and you're a narcissist."

From Rob:
At least they're real
unlike that second pair of socks you're wearing.

Oops, sorry
patriarchal oppressor,
I meant to reference
mick.

Hey mick, Get Stuffed!
(oops again, you already are!)