Your absolutely right! There won't be anything that happens to them, and all will be forgotten. I love your blog.

I read home magazines, for this very reason. Traditional Home, Metropolitan Home. The more traditional ones (BH&G) are pretty horrid, so make sure you're aiming for the snooty ones.

Also, wine magazines are nice. I wonder how many expensive-hobby magazines would pass/fail the feminism test. Photography magazines are a nice way to pass the time - purdy pictures - but I must admit I've never looked at them with an eye towards feminism.

One of my "dead woman" slides is from a photography magazine. According to John Berger's important book Ways of Seeing, culture works on a men-look-and-what-they-look-at-is-woman dynamic.

Whenever I have a long plane flight I always try and pick up some great magazines before I go... Adbusters and Bitch are my top two.

And by the way, I LOVE the phrase "depicting women as emaciated hangers for jewelry and clothing"--evocative of the "coathanger" look so popular with today's models. :)

DYB,

I'd like you to more clearly articulate why it isn't a big deal to falsely accuse college students of rape. Something about them being rich and white, so it's OK...? Would this translate to a "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy regarding all rape accusations, especially those against males presumed to be privileged?

Have fun at the football games next year. It's only your dignity, and that seems long gone.

John

wait... your analysis of the term "sucks" seems a little combative. you're claiming fellatio is a degrading experience for a woman or gay man? is cunnilingus a degrading experience for a man or gay woman? would it be more proper (or equally offensive) to say something "licks?" i posit that both are wonderful, and his ponderings are well justified!

I think that some of the current associations of “suck” probably include the implicit baggage that you suggest, but there may be some other factors in its origin, as well as some other implicit meanings. Babies, for example, also suck. This might seem to be in line with the “lower rank” analysis, but it doesn’t explain why men are not seen as unmanly when they “suck tit.” On the other hand, performing oral sex on women is sometimes considered unmanly (there was a storyline on the Sopranos to that effect), in a way that suckling breasts is not.

More importantly, from the standpoint of word origins, there is another fairly important class of things that sometimes suck, and that is wounds. A sucking wound is one that has breeched the lung, and is often fatal. During wartime (a time for the generation of massive amounts of slang) sucking wounds are both well-known and well-remarked upon.

A little research tells me that “sucks” was common in Britain long before the U.S., and that there is does not seem to have had a sexual connotation originally. It may have something to do with the phrase “suck it up” (which has a military origin, I believe) or even some connection to “sucker” which still avoids sexual connotations even in the U.S.

Non of which has anything to do with Christopher Hitchens, of course, who remains (to use a word of my college youth) a douche-bag.

Hey Doc, even as a fan I have to disagree: "suck" as a pejorative has nothing to do with women.

It was originally (and is really now) a homophobic insult between men. Period. It existed as a projection of fears of being seen as a male homosexual, and could not properly be said of a female, although could be said by a female.

Until the mid-1970's the idea of being "out" was not an option, and could be life-threatening on a casual basis that does not exist in many communities today. To say a man "sucked" was a very serious thing, until over-use made it a casual negative.

The origins of the insult are similar to the more obviously homophobic and sexually violent taunt "eat me" and its more graphic variations -- again originally and only properly a male-to-male insult, here with the connotations of low status ascribed to homosexuals, but without any connotations for women.

I think I am just enough older than you to remember the dark-ages before feminism, and before the relaxing of attitudes in some places toward sexual orientation.

As for accusations v. actual rape -- I must say, you are right that the two do not compare. But I think you have conflated the long lasting damage a *FALSE* accusation of sexual violence can do to one versus the ability to beat the rap through connections and money. I think the rhetorical point is well taken, that a *FALSE* accusation is and would be a pretty terrible thing to have bandied about the press, even as a rape -- press coverage or no -- is a tragedy, albeit of a different order. I think the complaint was over the press fury, and public hatred directed at both the accused and accuser, really.

What does surprise and trouble me is the degree to which this sexual reference ("sucks")is used in even children's programing without apparent awareness of its underlying meaning. To portray a homophobic insult in a kid's show just doesn't scan for me.

I read BITCH and Venus these days. Both are linked at my blog.

I agree it's terrible what Nifong did to those innocent boys falsely accused of raping that black stripper with the long criminal record.

Ever since every sexist and racist group descended onto Duke to publicly condemn these boys, I went into over drive trying to make people consider that these boys wouldn't have submitted to DNA testing if they were guilty, but since the 1st DNA evidence came back, I became more persistent and met equally persistent feminist (i.e. feministing, Rachael’s Tavern, Alas a blog, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Justice4Sisters, Hazel8500 etc...) who adamantly insist these boys are guilty for no other reason than because a "woman" (i.e. the stripper) claims it so.

I've noticed since then that most of feminist blogs have fallen silent as new evidence suggests that the stripper's claim to be false.

However, just when you think this case hit rock bottom, there’s about 50 feet of crap, then you find a sub-basement where in the corner Mike Nifong is hunched over clutching this dead case like “Gulum” (movie: Lord of the Rings) clutches the “ring of power”.

“If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys. In Nifong's case - stupid rich white guys with transparent political agendas.”

I thought the stripper had serious integrity issues, but seems to Nifong have serious integrity issues of his own. Publicly trying to convict and condemn these boys in the media is unethical to say the least, but fabricating a case to convict these boys in court is criminal

"I can bet you those rich white Lacrosse players will have lives ultimately unscathed by this "hideous tragedy," no matter what really occurred that night."

I don't think so, especially when their faces are on cable news channels daily and people like you verbally castrate them despite evidence that leans towards the fact that the girl fabricated a story. I thought we lived in a country that believed people where innocent until proven guilty...but I guess not with you around!

Posted by: Jonathan | July 1, 2006 02:04 AM "I can bet you those rich white Lacrosse players will have lives ultimately unscathed by this "hideous tragedy,"
************************

It's ashame shallow and superficial people lacking empathy and integrity exist.

Imagine yourself 18 years old, first time away from home, playing on the Duke lacrosse team. A stripper/hooker, who is on probation for grand larceny and attempted murder of a police officer, creates a “fantastic lie” to avoid being arrested and violating her parole. The District DA Mike Nifong sees this as an election opportunity, so he grants over 70 interviews (more than 50 hours of airtime) where he proclaims in the national media that “These boys as hooligans”, “That he has no doubt they raped her” , “That the DNA will prove guilty from the innocent”, “the boys are stone walling”, “That the stripper/hooker had medical evidence consistent with rape,” That the a rape drug was used”, “That the stripper was clawing at fighting and was severely beaten, punched, and kicked by the three boys.”

Thus: daily protests were held against you as every racist and sexist political wishing to take advantage of the media circus descended onto Duke to attack you. Your picture, name, and home address posted on wanted posters all over their school and community. You’re reputation destroyed as the DA, political groups, and 88 professors from your own school humiliate and insist that you raped the stripper/hooker and should just admit it.

To take apart Nifongs lies:

These boys as hooligans,
These boys aren’t hooligans, the cooperated and trusted the DA to conduct a professional investigation. They didn’t have to consent to the DNA testing, but they did so because they knew that no rape took place and DNA testing would be the fastest way to prove it, but they didn’t count on unscrupulous behavior from a DA wanting to use the false accusations against them as a political springboard.

That he has no doubt they raped her,
An investigator should not assume guilt or innocence at the beginning or during an investigation. He should have waited for all the evidence, and for the investigation to be concluded. We live in a society unforgiving of sex offenders, and women who make false claims are often protected by feminist “victims advocate” groups, so before destroying a young boy’s reputation, the officials involved should make sure the claim is credible.

It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen... especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?

That the DNA will prove guilty from the innocent,
Although there is no doubt that if the DNA results came back positive, the DA would be singing a different tune praisng DNA, since the DNA came back negative, the DA immediately went to “spin” this information and tried to “muddy” its significance. He downplayed the significance of no DNA link to the lacrosse boys. He stated 70% of rape convictions is done without DNA testing, but what he failed to mention that the possibility of no DNA in a gang rape is highly unlikely, and that in the past decades 30% to 35% of innocent men convicted of rape have been exonerated once DNA testing was conducted and found that they were the wrong men identified.

The boys are stone walling
These boys didn’t stonewall, these boys cooperated from the beginning. The boys who lived in the house allowed the house to be searched, went willingly to the police department to be questions for over 6 hours in separate rooms, and their stories matched each others and the evidence found. Evans identified all the players at the party, all boys submitted to DNA testing and photos which we now know were not used to find the truth, but used against them. All six line ups only used Lacrosse players to guarantee only lacrosse players would be chosen, thus to avoid “accidentally” finding out that the stripper was lying.

That the stripper/hooker had medical evidence consistent with rape
When investigators questioned the stripper after DNA tests on the semen found inside her vagina and rectum didn’t match any of the Duke players, the stripper admitted to having had sex with at least three men around the time of the alleged rape. The stripper named her boyfriend and two men who drove her to Duke. She also confessed to using a vibrating sex toy vaginally during a performance, prior to the Duke party, for a man and woman.

The rape exam revealed that the stripper had vaginal swelling and a scrape on her knee and scratches on her ankle, but no signs of a violent or assault of any kind.

The boys who submitted to having their bodies photographed had no signs of being scratched. The fake fingernails had no DNA from the boys found under the nails, but DNA from several other people were found.

That the a rape drug was used
No toxicity test was done, the DA created the rumor of a date rape drug being used to further slander these boys.

I'm sure I seem ignorant by my fascination with this side of feminism, but for me it's all new. I've tried to explain (with different words)to my girl friend about the problem of "Dad Women" and Painted beauties. I tell her that it seems to dehumanize her and make her less real. Is there anything that you reccomend to make her realize her natural beauty (or convince her that I actually like her curves)?

By the way, does USC have a large population of Dr. Diane-minded women. If so, it could be a great place for grad. school.

To say that "sucks" is not sexism but homophobia misses the point that homophobia is based on the "horror" of a man being "like" a woman, which is what our current stereotype of male homosexuality implies.

To accuse a man of being "unmanly," in other words, defines him as man's opposite: woman. Can't be anything worse in a misogynist patriarchy! So gay bashing is in its own way a form of sexism.

A few other brief ruminations on perjoratives.

There are a number of terms of "oral hostility" and they don't all fit the same pattern. "This blows," for example, seems like it might be the same as "This sucks," but it's sometimes expanded to "This blows chunks" which connects it to regurgitation. "This bites" also has connections to oral sex, but it's not an act of oral passivity, being much more hostile. Also, the expansion, "Bites the big one," seems sexual, but it's also used as a euphemism for death.

In short, I'd suggest that oral hostility includes sex, but isn't limited to it. However, it would appear that there has been a sudden drooling of messages of oral hostility here, hasn't there?

First, I don't have the gay stereotype you do; give me a macho top every time, thank you very much.

Second, it appears that *you* equate m/f and m/m oral sex with the giver being in some sort of inferior position. Not I (and I have been on both ends of the male organ in the enterprise). I got one, power-bestowing word for you: Teeth. Whether a poor practitioner or a malicious one, an aggressive tease or just careless, the recipient is ALWAYS aware of the teeth, and the power they bestow.

Finally -- that a man is more like a woman obviously holds up for only half of a m/m oral duo. So setting elements of role-play and physical types aside, the recipient is hardly more female like.

Way too much analysis looking for way too much victimhood, when there are plenty of legitimate hurts toward women to address.

Comparing LAX case to that of Scottsboro Nine


I am a college instructor who teaches criminal justice and a criminal defense attorney. In my entire career I have never seen such a bizarre and unfair case as the one against three Duke lacrosse players.

I teach a class about a similar case in American history, the Scottsboro Nine. In March 1931, a group of nine black teen-agers was charged with rape on incredibly flimsy evidence in Scottsboro, Ala. The nine were originally charged with the rape of two white women. Even after one woman testified that she lied about the rape, the nine teens continued to face rape charges and the threat of death by execution.

In the Scottsboro case, the two women were part-time prostitutes, but that didn't matter, nor did it matter that at least one of the boys was known to be physically unable to have sex, and two of the boys were only 13. Like Durham, the real issue was race.

In Scottsboro, nine young men were wrongly charged and condemned because they were black, and today the Duke lacrosse players have, in my opinion, been wrongly charged and condemned because they are white and the alleged victim is black.

The one constant with respect to the two cases is racism. I often ask my students if it possible for blacks to discriminate against whites in the same type of mindless ignorance as the KKK or the way the mob went after the Scottsboro Nine. The answer I receive is yes, and my students point to Durham as proof.

JOSEPH R. GUTHEINZ JR
Houston
May 20, 2006

Many prominent folks in Durham supported the candidacy of Mike Nifong for district attorney, none more distinguished than law professor Robinson Everett. His column of May 12, "Try a lie detector test for alleged victim" is sage advice. Given the accuser's troubled history of crying "rape," according to law enforcement officials, one might reasonably ask why Nifong did not administer such a test when she first made these allegations some two months ago. The job of prosecutor is not just to seek indictments; it is to seek justice. The suggestion that the accuser be given a lie detector test is not just good advice, it is an exit strategy for a prosecutor whose case now appears to be hopelessly lost.

GRAHAM MARLETTE
Durham
May 20, 2006

No-case Nifong


Once again District Attorney Mike Nifong has been shown to be an arrogant individual who apparently cares more about publicity and getting votes than he does about seeing that justice is served. If we the public are getting the right information from the press and the defense attorneys, Nifong does not have a case.

It appears to me that Nifong erroneously opened his mouth in an irresponsible manner initially in order to obtain votes and is now too arrogant and egotistical to admit his mistake. So he has chosen to continue with a case that as it stands now would render a not guilty verdict by any impartial jury. I only hope that if this case goes to trial that the jury is not made up of people who are out to get the "well-to-do white boys from the north."

Nifong's conduct does not say much for our justice system here in Durham and/or for his qualifications for the DA position. Too bad that all Durham registered voters did not have the option of voting on the DA position. No, I have not predetermined that these boys are not guilty but, if Nifong has no more than has been evident so far, I also could not beyond any reasonable doubt say they are guilty. I will say that many things concerning this matter stink and I pray that the real truth comes out at some point.

R. DEWEESE
Durham
May 20, 2006

Bigoted support


Alas, I graduated from college a few years ahead of the Myspace and Facebook crazes. But recently I decided to see what all the fuss was about. Being a Durham resident, I searched on Myspace for message boards about the Duke lacrosse case, curious to read how my peers had weighed in. Of five groups, four backed the lacrosse players. Supporting them in principle does not concern me -- they are indeed innocent until proven guilty. But the content of the messages I read were shocking: "I think some poor, black girl was pissed at the rich, white kids and decided she would try and take them down. … I'm not racist, but these are the kind of things that make people that way." "…Colin Finnerty wudnt [sic] do such a thing especially coming from such a good family." "Once this case gets tossed out like it should, they should throw [the accuser] in jail for being a waste [of] humanity." Such comments were unfortunately not exceptions to the rule. According to these folks, people can be "driven" to racism; kids from "good" (aka wealthy) families don't do "such things," and the accuser is a "waste of humanity." What happened at that party I do not know. But I am sure of this: no woman deserves such a verbal gauntlet of ignorance as I read today. To my generation: resorting to bigotry, classism and hatred is not the way to go. Get real and grow up.

KRISTINE DEKU

No Duke players wore bands saying 'innocent'


"Reprehensible," "astonishing" and "shame" are just some of the words Earl Holt used in his guest column [Forum, June 1] to describe the audacity of Duke women's lacrosse team members wearing sweatbands saying "innocent" in the recent NCAA national semifinal game. In fact, as your editorial pointed out on May 30, no Duke player wore such a sweatband. Some of the women did wear bands with the uniform numbers of the three indicted male Duke players.

Others wore bands saying "No regrets, No excuses," the motto of the men's 2005-2006 season. In both cases, women players made a personal choice to show support for their friends, and they chose language decidedly different from what Holt rails against. Writing (and publishing) a column based on such a fundamental inaccuracy, is … well, I'll just leave it at "astonishing."

The writer is senior vice president for public affairs and government relations at Duke University.

JOHN BURNESS
Durham

It's all about race

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mentality of those who have railroaded the three Duke lacrosse players can be illustrated no better than with the gross analogy put forth by Kim Brummell in her July 16 letter. Like her hero Mike Nifong, she operates without facts. The film "A Time To Kill" told a story of KKK hoodlums who raped and beat a pre-adolescent black child and left her for dead. Her father was found not guilty for killing them because his reaction was so understandable in such a circumstance. Let's do a 180-degree turn and get back to reality in Durham. The strippers in the lacrosse case are not innocent children and have extensive criminal histories of their own. Mike Nifong is certainly no actor. If he had that craft at his disposal perhaps most of the public would not have been so repulsed when he told a crowd on his campaign trail that he wasn't going to let it be said that a black woman can be raped by privileged white men at Duke University and get away with it in Durham, N.C. The heck this case isn't about race. That's all it's about. It sure isn't about facts and evidence. Using the film "A Time To Kill" and suggesting that it has any relationship to the Duke lacrosse case is inciteful idiocy and tailor-made for the race-baiters living in "Nifong Land." There's an Al Pacino film called "And Justice For All." I and many others will need to employ no dramatic license to say that its script will be played out in this case. All "cosmic justice" seekers look elsewhere.

DEBRAH CORRELL
Chapel Hill
July 24, 2006

It's all about race

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mentality of those who have railroaded the three Duke lacrosse players can be illustrated no better than with the gross analogy put forth by Kim Brummell in her July 16 letter. Like her hero Mike Nifong, she operates without facts. The film "A Time To Kill" told a story of KKK hoodlums who raped and beat a pre-adolescent black child and left her for dead. Her father was found not guilty for killing them because his reaction was so understandable in such a circumstance. Let's do a 180-degree turn and get back to reality in Durham. The strippers in the lacrosse case are not innocent children and have extensive criminal histories of their own. Mike Nifong is certainly no actor. If he had that craft at his disposal perhaps most of the public would not have been so repulsed when he told a crowd on his campaign trail that he wasn't going to let it be said that a black woman can be raped by privileged white men at Duke University and get away with it in Durham, N.C. The heck this case isn't about race. That's all it's about. It sure isn't about facts and evidence. Using the film "A Time To Kill" and suggesting that it has any relationship to the Duke lacrosse case is inciteful idiocy and tailor-made for the race-baiters living in "Nifong Land." There's an Al Pacino film called "And Justice For All." I and many others will need to employ no dramatic license to say that its script will be played out in this case. All "cosmic justice" seekers look elsewhere.

DEBRAH CORRELL
Chapel Hill
July 24, 2006

Referencing the astute observation that District Attorney Mike Nifong made during his press conference today about political appointments, he affirmed: "I am struck by the irony that this group of citizens wants to use this procedure to make an end run around the electorate now," Nifong said. "I believe that Durham's district attorney should be selected by the voters of Durham, not by the governor."

I hope Nifong was listening to himself when he said those words, because Nifong ironically embodies the truth of that very mistake. Look at the mess we have been saddled with when the governor appointed the current DA.

ROBERT MICHAEL PANOFF
Durham
August 4, 2006

Don't you worry?? The voters will put Mike Nifong back in office. The DA's office is not for sale. Sooooooo.. bring on your Steve Monks and Lewis Cheek.The voters are waiting!!

Dr. Diana,

Your blog rocks! And I agree with about 80% of what you write. As I presently live in a highly sexist suburban "paradise" your blog is a sanctuary.

However... I am a bit disturbed with what you wrote here:

"I can bet you those rich white Lacrosse players will have lives ultimately unscathed by this "hideous tragedy," no matter what really occurred that night."

Seems like you haven't spent enough time with those who have endured the hell of being falsely accused. Divorce, suicide, depression, broken families, bankruptcy. It's not pretty.