Might I suggest that one possible reason that you draw so much vitriol is that the sweeping generalizations you use in many of your posts are regarded as confrontational, accusatory, and prejudiced by some of your readers? Blaming a group (especially one whose membership is involuntary), for the actions of individuals, is at the root of much suffering and hatred in this world – and yet that is what you do when you accuse all men of being complicit in rape, all Caucasians as responsible for racism, or all American as contributing to this absurd media obsession with Jon Benet. You fight prejudice and hate with your own form of prejudice and hate. Women are alarmingly-common victims of a tribal mentality, but don’t expect everyone to cheer for you when you launch an equally tribal counterattack. The result of fighting hate with hate, and prejudice with prejudice, will be more hatred, more misunderstanding, more suffering, and more lies.
What’s the alternative? Replace generalizations and accusation with the reporting of data and then draw your conclusions from that. There are plenty of studies out there that quantify victimization of women and various other topics related to gender inequality. If you can’t find a study, conduct one yourself. For example, instead of spouting off about one newscast you saw, go get the transcripts of hundreds of newscasts from a cross-section of news stations and collect some rigorous data on how many times newscasters actually refer to women’s vs. men’s body fat. Numbers can communicate the size of a problem in a more or less objective manner, whereas terms like “all men” “we” “they” “all whites” “all rich people” “all Americans” etc. are tribal, lazy, accusatory and invite hostility. Ask yourself honestly: do I want to communicate and make people think, or do I want to make inflammatory accusations?

There's a huge difference between commenting on structural inequities in our culture and attacking individuals with whom one disagrees.

My "sweeping generalizations" are in fact based upon reading thousands of pages of scholarship over the last 20 years. Sexism benefits men in ways that it does not benefit women. Racism benefits whites in ways it does not benefit people of color. I didn't make any of this up, nor am I using it as an excuse to find the website of someone with whom I disagree and dump juvenile insults upon him.

I too was upset at first by hearing that I was actually culpable for racism in part simply by being in a system that functions on white privilege. I too sought to deny this obvious fact. But today I ask instead how I might be a part of the solution, happy to be given an opportunity to eradicate suffering in any small way I can, including by routing out my own internalized prejudices.

I thank the brave teachers who came before me and gave me the chance to think for myself. I won’t be cowed into stopping my own work, nor do I accept your argument that I am responsible for the choices of others. And I continue to invite my critics to behave more appropriately towards me and my readers.

You are one of my heroines. I am struck by the eloquence with which you expressed your observations. I appreciate what you put out into the world, regardless of whether or not I agree.

Thank you for being a heroine.

I'll firstly say that this comment is in no way meant to be insulting - I think you have an excellent way with words, Diana, and you allow me to see things differently to how I normally would, and I thank you for that oppertunity.

It ocurred to me that your point of view on hateful words directed towards you is similar to the idea behind terrorism - though obviously in a much more positive way. The norm, as you've said, is to argue with oponants in a progressively deteriorating fashion as insults are thrown back and forth and misconceptions dominate.

In warefare, shots are fired, people get hurt/killed. Terrorists seem to slide under that by setting out to be killed - the "normal" threats don't phase them, since that is their purpose.

By renouncing the tactics used by your oponants, and finding an alternative which they are't used to dealing with, you seem to have managed to sidestep the petty grumblings which poison useful debate.

I realise this could sound like I'm being hateful or nasty towards you, but that's not how I intend it to come across. Your outlook on those who would be antagonistic towards you is a powerful tool, one that most aren't used to seeing.

“Nor do I accept your argument that I am responsible for the choices of others.”
Just as an individual is not responsible for the choices of rapists simply because he is male? Just as a baby should not inherit the crimes of his or her parents? Just as an individual in not responsible for the choices of Saddam Hussein just because he or she was born in Iraq? Just as an individual is not responsible for the choices of George W. Bush because he or she was born in the United States? I guess this is why Ward Churchill claimed that the 9/11 victims deserved to be murdered. This idea of culpability for the actions of others, solely because one is “part of the system” or a certain skin color, sex etc. is the postmodernist’ version of original sin. It’s a notion as absurd, baseless, and dangerous as the Christian version.

There's a total difference between 1) being in a system and either working to change it or keeping it intact and 2) behaving with personal integrity towards your fellow man whether or not you agree with her position. This difference is not hard to understand at all. Not at all. Why you don't want to see it is none of my business, but it does seem driven by ideology.

Am I responsible for the choices of those who attacked on September 11? Of course not. Am I responsible for the role the United States has played in creating the conditions in which we are seen as an enemy to Islam? Of course. Unless we are willing to take reponsbility for our part, there will be no end to much of the needless suffering at home and abroad.

But just because I oppose the pollcies of the current administration, I cannot see spewing ad hominem attacks at Bush as a solution, nor could I blame him for the damage that behavior would do to my character.

I'm sorry...you felt the need to take down my comment and not answer why you still go to football games. I bring it up because It is a quite fair point, further validated every time you ignore it or, now, cover it up.

John

I've not intentionally removed anyone's comment. I go through and weed out the spam. Perhaps one of yours got thrown out accidentally, don't know. Don't care either.

Your claim that I said I would never watch another football game is false. I said I was so fed up I didn't care if I never saw another game again, or something like that.

Granted there are all kinds of interesting ethical issues to explore regarding what choices one makes in terms of supporting teams, etc. But honestly I don't engage with you anymore because you are so rude to me. Your behavior is inappropriate, and therefore undermines your credibility and makes me sorry that you are so unhappy.

You're welcome to apologize for the way you have spoken to me. Then if you want to trade ideas, fine. But it's been sheer hostility from the start with you and if you refuse to own that, that's your deal. I'll continue to ignore you. Don't expect to be taken seriously when you come off like some crank. As I tell my students, voice matters. Yours has not been one I respect. Maybe if you examined yourself with the rigor you seem to be examining me, your life would change for the better.

DYB,

I suggest you reread what you've written, as you did renounce football (specifically, USC football), e.g.,

"But right now I am so fed up with the victimization of women that occurs on this campus at every level that I never care if I ever see another football game again as long as I live."

One reason is b/c you claim to know of many rapists on the football team, including actual details of assaults, e.g.,

"And besides, that's only two members of the team accused of rape in the last year. I hear it could be worse. I suppose that's true. After all, every female student who has been violated by a member of the team could come forward. Can you imagine what a public relations nightmare that would be? Fortunately, they are so humiliated and brutalized they satisfy themselves with telling their friends, with telling me, with telling therapists and counselors. He threatened to kill me, they say. He locked me in a closet, they say. He stripped naked in front of me, they say, and tried to stop me from running away."

Above you have actually managed, for the first time ever, to cough up some sort of an answer as to why it's ok for you to go to USC football games. Your answer, however, is garbage. There's no way anyone of strong character, knowing what you claim to know, would ever go to another USC football game regardless of whether she implied it or expressly said it, BECAUSE THEY HAVE RAPED PEOPLE YOU KNOW AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT!!! Contrary to your claim, it's not my credibility that is the problem.

Maybe you didn't want to be taken seriously when you wrote these things? I, however, take them seriously, and I apologize for nothing. Rape is not some intellectual exercise, Dr. Blaine. It's a real goddamn thing. Get it!?!? I'll not give respect where it's not due, and I don't care if you respond. You've clarified what I wanted to know.

John

I've wondered a bit about the net vipers that strike so readily at some people, and (of course you are aware of this), you're hardly alone in being a target. The why of it is a hard question, though the fact that it is predominately directed at women must be part of the answer.

I suspect that the answer has something to do with the idea (with a lot of truth in it) that women are the ones who transmit the conscience of a culture. One learns how to behave first "at mother's knee." Only after the basics of shame and guilt are established do fathers traditionally begin their own tutorship.

What does it mean when a woman publicly espouses some moral or ethical statement that does not support the ethical standard in which someone else believes? Men who transgress are simply ignored or criminalized (or celebrated, if the transgression fits into the proper dogma). But it is accepted that women's behavior casts a greater shadow.

Just a thought. Maybe it will fit into whatever your thinking tells you.

OK James -- you have a hypothesis. Now, how do you go about testing it? Just having a hypothesis is not good enough to qualify as a powerful or insightful argument. First off, how have you determined that net vipers predominantly attack women instead of men? And, what is the definition of a net viper? Could a net viper be someone who preys on intellectually inexperienced undergraduates to feed his or her own malignant narcissism? How about someone who publicly espouses some moral or ethical statement that includes harsh judgment of others based solely on their sex, and then openly and shamelessly violates that moral or ethical statement within six months?

Hey John, It seems to me that you think Diana has no validity. You seem to be saying that she has no strength of character. You attack her for attending a football game after she made a statement in a news article saying (with obvious hyperbole driven by her anger) that she didn't care if she ever saw another football game.

So, really, what's your point? If she has no credibility and can't make an argument backed up with the kind of hands-on research that you seem to be trained in, why do you bother to read anything that she writes? Why take time away from your own valuable research into.. whatever, to lambast a "personal" blog by someone who happens to work at a college?

And finally, debate is usually framed with counter argument and not just "Prove IT!". So, what has your research shown concerning any cultural biases against women, or men for that matter? Please be sure to hold yourself to the same rigorous standard to which you hold others.

I think you do a great job of dealing with your trolls, Diana. It sounds as if you lead a happy life, as do I. The day you describe sounds so much like my life: good work, good friends, bodily pleasures. But also the life of the mind.
How I wish we could have interesting debates on some of the subjects you raise. Debates among feminists, I mean. We have to spend too much time defining ourselves against aggressors, when we would rather be making new paths for ourselves.
In any case, the opponents of equality for women need to understand that we're not going to back off. We would just prefer to go about our business without having them blocking the way all the time.

hattie,
you take the comments too personally, and you clearly have no interest in a rational discussion. most comments that you find so rude and insulting are genuine attempts to clarify the hypocrisy behind your feminist ideology, to debate feminist principles, in a sense.

hank,
it seems to me that john's problem is less with dyb's lack of scholarship and more the blatant hypocricy with which she preaches to young women (at an emotionally vulnerable age) who are probably in search of role models.

"And finally, debate is usually framed with counter argument and not just "Prove IT!".

Hank, since when? The person making the positive assertion always has the onus of supporting their statement. That’s why skeptics don’t have to waste an infinite amount of time searching the universe for the absence of gods, ghosts, fairies, "net vipers" etc.

bigWoman, What is it exactly that she is preaching and what role model would you rather have for these young women?

Sorry Juno, if you'd rather debate semantics than feminism, I don't see why you bother posting in the first place.

Hi Diana,
I'm curious about the continuing reaction to an article you wrote a long time ago. I read the article in question. It was clear you were upset and writing from that place, but you still managed to be articulate and, I thought, reasonable. The points you made there (as you've pointed out) that seem to cause perennial upset have been made about racism in the past, without (so far as I know) a similar reaction.

What I'm curious about (and would be interested in your opinion on) is why there are a group of people who seem interested only in rehashing that issue. Why is it that folks read that article (written, what, six months ago?), and come to your site to bring it up over and over, despite any context that has changed? What is it about that article that angers folks past the point of intelligent discourse, past the point of moving on? Why do they continually want to go back to that article and force you into a debate about it? What do they hope to get?

Ah John, I hypothesize that women are specifically held as conveyors of ethics and morals and you immediately begin to talk about "intellectually inexperienced undergraduates" in a (not very) veiled attack on Dr. Blaine's presumed influence upon them.

So, in answer to your question about how my hypothesis might be tested, I'll observe that apparently all I have to do is advance it and someone immediately exemplifies it. I will observe that the term "net viper" is pretty extreme, and doesn't necessarily apply to everyone having, or even following such impulses, just to the most eggregious actors. So, whatever the basic impulses, there are still reasons for trying to stay polite.

Cunt