Yeah, you know those Iraqi insurgents who use power drills to torture their victims...I'll take responsibility for perverting their compassion. They're not "evil" they are just victims of the patriarchy. Do we have any takers for Stalin? He was such a victim of capitalist oppression - how can we blame him for the murder of millions? Apparently, in order to take the blame for atrocities, you have to be white, and it would be better if you were male. I'm brownish, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate, but I do have privilege of having a penis so maybe the virtue of being born brown balances the sin of being born male? Such nonsense.

With regard to the shooters, some people have natural or artificial neurochemical imbalances or damaged brains, some people are traumatized from crazy experiences, some people are caught up in flawed philosophies, and some people just choose to be assholes. In many cases, it is to our benefit to invest the time to address what we perceive to be flawed ideologies (hence the reason I spend the time to respond to your blog posts), to treat the mentally ill, or to council and comfort the emotionally distraught. In other cases, we just need to be prepared to defend ourselves from those who would do us harm, regardless of their motives.

In any case, I find it insulting that you use the actions of a few deranged lunatics to segue into pontificating about your perceived psychology of an entire gender. This is just another example of the sexism that typifies your brand of feminism. I don’t doubt that you’ve been the victim of sexism in your life, but wake up and realize that you have become what you despise.

You interpret my post as an anti-male, anti-penis rant, yet I identify myself as having been similarly homicidal until I learned to accept grief and powerlessness.

I'm not sure if your misreading is intentional or accidental. That's none of my business. I do however wish you peace as you are clearly in much pain.

Yes clearly anyone who speaks out against the potentially-influential misanderist rhetoric of a lecturer at a major university must be emotionally disturbed. Are you telling me that your post was directed at men and women equally? If so, why was it necessary for you to qualify it by saying "I love men and I know how capable they are of compassion". You speak about men as if they're a different species. It's sickening sexism and I refuse to be silent about it.

Thank you Diana for putting the insanity into perspective. I was stunned when I heard an Amish man say they had already forgiven the person who took the lives of these innocent girls. I can't imagine not even allowing myself the process of grief.

My mother is my best friend in the whole world and I can't imagine my life without her. I guess I will have to go on and find joy knowing that she would want that for me. It doesn't make the thoughts of her passing any less dreadful.

Some people here are so ready to take issue with you yet they never seem to acknowledge that time and time again women and children (including that teenage page) are on the receiving end of all this rage. Thank you again and keep up the great blog!

I always thought Blessed are those who mourn, or I at least always read that in a certain book, and yet whenever I went to church and people would pray about "lost loved ones," they would say things that wholly contradicted their demeanor: they'd be crying or trying not to while saying that it was all for the best.

At a recent religious meeting I went to, a woman was suddenly overcome with emotion because two of her friends had been murdered by some kind of poisoning. She plainly, though through tears, stated that it was very hard to believe that could happen in a religious world that was supposed to be filled with peace and love. To accept reality for what it is might be a way to a higher religion rather than clouding one's self with societally derived notions of God.

My only alternative to faith was to confuse myself with god, but every time I look at the moon, I remember that I didn't hang it. Clearly there's more on heaven and earth than is dreampt of in our philosophy, as the author of Hamlet reminds us.

And yes, acceptance of reality is key. That, and not feeling buggered by one's "higher power!" I find practicing gratitude, as well as acknowledging pain, permits me to walk with humility and peace. Well, most of the time anyway. And thanks to my higher power for sending me all of these people who would test my serenity! How else would I grow? They are my best teachers.

"And thanks to my higher power for sending me all of these people who would test my serenity! How else would I grow? They are my best teachers."

Ah, yes! That's why you selectively block posts and then lie about it. It's funny how you apparently read a little Carlos Castaneda and pawn it as your own insight. You are so mediocre.

How are the games this season? Will you still go to "Take Back the Night" and complain about all of the "rapists" that you cheered for? Or is "rapists" supposed to be an obvious hyperbole?

So you know, it is ok to block posts. It is your blog, after all. But why be a liar about it? To depend on lies means that in your heart you know you are wrong -- we both know that you are wrong, because we both know that you lie. Ultimately, though, lies are short-term and ineffective tools. Fitting, I guess.

ttfn,
John

Hey, there's one of those people who shows up just to get angry! Glad to provide you a place to dump some pain, brother.

As to the blocked posts, I saw those two you tried to send to Hank. They were automatically prohibited because they "contained over the maximum number of links." I didn't even know there was a maximum. I also saw you tried to repost under a different name. Same thing happened. Poor baby! It was such a lovely bunch of hate, I am so sorry you didn't get to spew it.

-The Mediocre One (Who has never read Carlos Castaneda btw, but guesses she ought to!)

Diana,
I had to comment on your response to John. I was one of those people who showed up just to get angry (the abortion post-
I did apologize though!) I have to tell you that I got a kick out of your post to him. I probably disagree with %100 percent of the things you say but as a woman I say - You go girl! when you defend yourself against personal attacks - at least I'm assuming it was personal by your response. I love it when your sense of humor comes through. I was worried that you took things a bit too seriously. I may be a republican, but I'm a woman first :-)

Carlos Castaneda is fun, but i think the story was a hoax. but anyway... what you should read is Chogyam Trungpa's Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Maybe it will help you with that thing called ego.

I suppose it's for the best that my post to Hank was blocked. Hank would continue to delude himself with deep thoughts from the hookah bar relating to his assessment of 1/4-read Mother Jones articles irrespective of anything I might write. (Hank -- do you know what "semantics" means?) That doesn't address the one you intentionally deleted, but I'm not arguing about it. I know it was pretty rude. About as rude as your objectification of Jonbenet, whom you might be interested to know was a real person and not some hypothetical exercise. Reality is a recurring problem for you. When you do breach reality's surface you spout off about being enlightened. You're not enlightened, just awake.

You are incorrect to confuse my anger with hate: your lying about rape at USC makes me angry. Real rape makes me angry too. Is your point that I am somehow wrong to be angered by either of these things? I thought your whole point was that people weren't angry enough? That's why you lied, isn't it? A sort of noble lie? Of course, you've refused to explain your presence at football games because your moral superiority and burning-man-induced enlightenment puts you above blatantly contradicting yourself. Your enlightenment is the only justification you need. Hank claims obvious hyperbole.

Mary -- interesting for you to unabashedly admit that your sexism dictates your opinion above all else, even getting to the bottom of DYB's rape claims. I posit that my gender is irrelevant to questioning the validity of DYB's rape claims and/or her complicity in a supposed USC rape culture. But as sexism is par for the course with this crowd of poseurs, you're sure to fit nicely into this chasm of prejudice.

John

pain is inevitable, yes. but all we have is our own centered point of view: one mind from which to view it all, which gets exceptionally narrowed in times of mourning, reeling, healing.

"I have learned to do the hardest thing in the whole world for me to do, which is to reach out for help and then take it. Every single one of the men in the news this week failed to do this. We failed them in not giving them permission to do so."

i dont know if you can really take the responsibility from their hands in this one, or any one. that man (at the amish school) had twenty+ years to come to grips with something he did as a CHILD. his ultimate fear was that he would molest children again, and he manifested that because he failed to release it. his sexual misconduct speaks of an underlying current of betrayal of power. such conflicts play themselves out in innumerable ways everyday, regardless of your gender identification or sexual orientation.

i found it interesting that the Amish put out an old fashioned newspaper by snail-mail to other amish across the country, who wish to read news of their families. they did not accentuate the tragedy at the amish school any more than they did the harvesting of apples, or the birth of a child to a family. this episode, however violently or potently we feel it, is not a distinct disturbance in the ebb/flow of life occurances. they accept grief and powerlessness as do you.

John, my post to Diana was because I assumed you were attacking her personally and her sense of humor came through. That's all. I don't agree with anything Diana says about politics or social issues. I agree with you - I think she's needs to explain why she still goes to football games to cheer on all the men she believes are rapists. I'm the mother of three boys - one attends USC- so I guess I need to say that I'm a mother first.I'm really tired of the way men are slammed by people like Diana. I obviously assumed too much from her post to you. I was wrong and I apologize.

Mary -- fair enough. I am sorry for dropping the judgment hammer so hard. My last sentence was melodramatic, and it makes me gag a bit that I wrote it. It sounds too much like DYB :-(

All of this stuff: her ridiculous "feminism", her minions' blind devotion, and my assholeness are all distractions from the only real reason to be here in the first place: following up on who and where the rapists at USC are. DYB claims to know. She also claims to want action. So, what's the correct course here. Assume that she made it up to support a political/social agenda and move on, or refuse to be waited out and continue to demand satisfaction?

Juan

John, BTW - you say my sexism dictates my opinion - I'm sure your opinion is based on the fact that you're a man. When you have been called a cunt and a bitch for no apparent reason we can talk. You have no idea what it's like to be a woman - I've seen what my boys and husband deal with, but it still doesn't compare with the treatment I have experienced just becust I have breasts and a vagina.

I'm confused. Are you John or Juan :-)

Consider the distinction between gender being one of many factors that complexly interact in your overall identity versus sexism. Would you have derived pleasure from DYB's witty rebuttal to me had you not presumed I have a penis? If the answer is yes, then I’m off the mark. That’s not, however, what I interpret from your comment. Am I wrong?

I find it interesting that you somehow know that I have no idea what it’s like to be a woman, yet you are somehow able to discern through your sons and husband what it’s like to be a man. Hmmmm. Actually, Mary, it seems to me that you don’t really know enough about me to make any such claim, except, again, that you presume I have a penis. Is it really that simple? DYB would say so. I say she’s a sexist simpleton, but that’s just arguing semantics again, hey Hank? ;-)

If the criterion for us talking is simply being called a nasty name by one or more bullies for no apparent reason, then we can talk. Though I suspect that for some reason my experiences, though you have no idea what they are, probably won't count b/c you presume I have a penis. Only yours and those of people with vaginas and fatty breasts count. I guess it’s nice that no matter how diverse a planetary population is, we are able to identify those qualified to have an opinion on various subjects so easily. Can we thus justify extending that same valid formula into other realms of judgment, like, say, who can vote or drive cars or not have their face covered in public? This feminism might be on to something….

Anyway, this is all bullshit that helps DYB for yet another day not explain the contradiction of going to USC football games to cheer for alleged rapists and enable the supposed rape culture. Do you suppose that she just doesn’t cheer for that play when a rapist does well? Does she subtract points scored by rapists to determine who really won the game? Is there some sort of feminist bookie in Vegas with whom you can place a bet against a special non-rapist spread?

Joan

Joan, lol - ok so you don't have a penis. I never said I knew what it's like to be a man. I said that my husbands and sons have not experienced the nastiness I have. I think we're on the same side here so please don't get upset with me because of one or two comments I made that you disagree with. I could go on and on about how unfairly I think my boys have been treated because they are white males. I have been treated like shit by idiots on the street - society in general treats my boys as if they aren't as good as minorities and/or women even though their IQ's are all above 160, they've kicked ass on all standardized tests, they're athletic, kind and compassionate - no I'm not biased :-)- yet, in some instances they have been overlooked for people less qualified. We are experiencing a dumbing down of society and that really scares me. You're obviously extremely articulate Joan - I don't want to argue with you :-)Email me privately if you want to discuss issues. I don't want to get my ass kicked by you in front of all of these readers. :-)

I came to this discussion a little late, and I don't know the history that led to the allegation that Dr. Diana is a hypocrite because calls football players rapists, but still attends USC football games. So I won't comment on that.

There are other good reasons to question attendance at USC football games. I don't know any USC students, and Dr. Diana may know and genuinely like some of the student-athletes at USC -- maybe that's why she attends football games. Or maybe her hubby's a big fan and she goes along because he likes the games, even though he has to explain what's going on to her. :) (Sorry -- couldn't resist that.)

But generally speaking, division I sports (especially money sports like football and basketball) are an incredibly perverted and unhealthy phenomenon. The athletes are not really students -- they live in separate housing and get special tutoring and other academic help through their athletic departments to make up for the fact that (1) they don't have time to study because their first priority is their sport and (2) they weren't academically qualified to be admitted in the first place. I don't know what the graduation rate for USC football players is -- maybe Dr. D can tell us -- but it's shamefully low for division I as a whole.

The division I schools should follow the division III model and significantly deemphasize sports -- no athletic scholarships, just need-based financial aid -- no special housing or tutoring for athletes -- no excessive expenditures on coaching staffs, stadiums, travel, etc. Athletes should be real students, and sports should be just another extracurricular activity. Students can enjoy the positive aspects of college sports without all the division I nonsense.

I think that the better schools like USC and Michigan have a very high graduation rate for athletes. I wouldn't swear to it, but I think the football players that attend these schools are acedemically qualified to do so. Now, if we're talking Ohio State or Notre Dame, I'll agree that most aren't qualified to attend a junior college, let alone a four year university. (Sorry - I couldn't resist!) Go USC! Go Michigan! :-)

Sorry, Mary, but the numbers are going to disappoint you.

According to the NCAA's latest numbers, only 65% of Division I football players graduate within six years. (I thought you were supposed to graduate in four -- maybe going up to five is OK, but six seems like pushing it.)

Ohio State and USC did even worse -- 55%. (That's slightly better than Florida State and Oklahoma, but worse than West Virginia.) Michigan was at 71% and Notre Dame at 95%.

Basketball players do even worse overall than football players -- only 59% graduate in six years. (The government's calculations say 45%, but the NCAA "adjusted" that number and came out with 59%.) The USC basketballers had a 44% graduation rate, according to the NCAA (38% using the government's numbers).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/09/27/grad.rates.ap/index.html

Yikes! That is disappointing. I have heard many Michigan fans argue that the Wolverines don't let their players skate by with ceramics and basket weaving, unlike Notre Dame. I would like to think that USC is as tough as U-M. I've always laughed at the six-year statistic. I thought most graduated in four years too :-)

Hello, Dr. Diana Blaine. I 'm inspired by your erudite analysis.

So as a young guy, I'm going to share my thoughts and feelings here in spite of the societal barriers you so lavishly explain:

"These incidents all share common threads relating to the mandates of heterosexual white masculinity and how it precludes men from living fully in their bodies. Our current brand of capitalist patriarchy creates a really untenable situation for men as they are discouraged from having feelings, from being vulnerable, from feeling grief. The guy who killed the Amish schoolgirls and then himself left letters relating his anguish over the death of an infant daughter many years ago. He finally expressed previously unexpressed rage at god, at life, at everyone, rage which had grown beyond the point of manageability and had perverted into a need for violent action."

Hmm.

"rage which had grown beyond the point of manageability"

Are you proposing that rage can unmanageable for a sane individual?

If so, have you considered how that concept discredits the enlightenment notion of rationality and consequently reinforces a communitarian view?

Perhaps you have,

"We continue to fail each other if we pretend that we are merely embodied rational minds"

Are you proposing that we do not have the critical faculties of judgment or that we cannot see right from wrong?

"and let the element of feeling be associated with woman, whom we are then taught to loathe, and gay men, whose association with the loathed “emotional” female casts them into a subordinate class as well."

By denying the notion of rationality and the notion of choice, even in the face of powerful emotions, you might be applying the age-old view of the exceptionalist; that the subordinates within a given social hierarchy are creatures below rationality; creatures not fully human but children in need of supervision.

In my view, denying the people's individual responsibility for their actions denies them of humanity as to set the stage for quasi-utopian authoritarianism within a caste-like framework.

Thoughts?

Gary, how do those graduation rate data compare with those for students that are not athletes? Maybe you could summarize those data for us to compare with your athlete numbers?

Also, you (and any other interested readers) can get up to speed on Dr. Blaine's letter about her football "boycott" at: http://www.dailytrojan.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=e3731f23-8648-4473-bf95-cb654800568b

Hi Diane!

Yes, something very wrong is going on in this country on a cultural level, although I'm not sure if I agree with your reasons why. As far as men not communicating and being in touch with their feelings, I don't think they were so in touch with there feelings 50 years when school shootings were hardly the rage.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say the reason these explosive incidents of violence are occuring in the U.S. (and some other countries) by what may appear to be very ordinary people, is because of the incredible amount of social isolation and loneliness in contemporary societies. Americans are very lonely people! It's all capitalism and SUVs and it seems any real, and I mean REAL social structure (close and deep friendships with neighbors, family connections beyond the nuclear family and actually living nearby the people one is close to) have all but broken down.

I just moved to burbia 2 years ago and it's totally picturesque - but so isolating and so lonely! I've never been such a crying and lonely mess since moving here, and this isolation is very indicative of American society. No wonder everyone is going bonkers!

Juno, here's a good article on this issue with lots of numbers (probably too many for most people).

http://stanford.scout.com/2/520523.html

55% of USC's football players graduated in 6 years or less, compared to 61% of all USC athletes and 78% of all USC students. The 17% gap between athletes and other students was tied for 4th-greatest among major Division I schools. Interestingly, UCLA was first (i.e., worst) on that measure and Cal was tied with USC -- I wonder why this is such a big problem at the California schools?

I would argue that D-1 athletes should actually have HIGHER graduation rates. After all, they are usually there on scholarships -- so they don't have to drop out due to family money issues. Plus, they have access to special tutoring and other academic help that other students don't get. (Athletes in the "minor" sports often do have very high graduation rates.)

Some schools do much better. Army, Navy, Rice (my alma mater), Notre Dame, Duke, and Stanford are in the top ten overall (with over 90% scores). I believe Rice and Stanford are the only schools in the top ten for football, men's basketball, and baseball.

To go back to Dr. Diana's original post . . . assuming for the sake of argument that we do live in a patriarchy, how does the fact that it is a capitalist patriarchy change things? Are men in communist/socialist/fascist countries more able to share feelings, feel grief, etc.?

Also, why is this about only "heterosexual white masculinity"? The congressman you refer to was sending IMs to a boy, not a girl -- do we blame both opposite-sex and same-sex inappropriateness on male heterosexuality?

Even odder is bringing up race in this context -- are black males less misogynistic than whites? Less likely to rape, etc.?

Either sex/gender is the transcendant factor in all this, or it isn't. Which is a more significant cause of incidents like this? Gender, race, sexual orientation, or economics?

She's not saying all men are evil. She's not saying all white men are evil. She's not saying all straight white men are evil. She's not saying all men are rapists. Etc.

She's saying we live in a society that has a lot of punishment for men who act sensitive. I remember a billboard for Jack Daniels a few years ago that said "Jack Daniels: Better than a hug." It was being advertised as a good gift from one man to another.

How is it wrong to think it is unhealthy to tell a man that he has more right to get drunk than hug his son or father?

Come on, if a guy deserves to maybe get liver cancer for loving someone (anyone) in a non-sexual way, then don't we have a scary society? I'm scared.

And if a guy is not allowed to love someone who is still alive, then does he have any more right to grieve for the loss of a dead loved one? I don't see that. I see that if he has a feeling, he is taught from the age of 3 that he should make it look like that feeling is the desire to punch something.

Perhaps one way to take responsibility for the cavemanning of our children is to teach them that feelings of sadness are not going to make them objects of ridicule.

Or we could give them Jack Daniels. It's smooth and flavorful.

Andro,
I agree with you that our culture has a tendency to teach men not to express their feelings. However, I disagree that a JD billboard can be held responsible. I haven't seen it, but i do find your description of it amusing. There are many people who i would rather receive gifts of booze from than hugs. There is no message about how men should parent or feel. That sentiment already exists. "Better than a hug" does not mean you arent allowed to hug. A huMAN can do as he chooses and shouldnt look to advertising as some sort of guide to living.
anonymost

Anonymostly,
thank you for responding. I don't blame JD, nor billboards ALONE. But we see these messages all the time. HuMEN are supposed to listen to ads only to the extent that they choose the product advertised when hungry? Or thirsty? Or actually in need of car insurance? Well, according to Budweiser or Miller, men should be men, and beer should be beer. Everyday huMEN see messages telling them they need to be hard and unloving in order to be good, powerful, desirable, successful, whatever. I really do see a message about parenting and feeling. Although it may be getting better with modern advertisers hopefully catching up with modern people. We SHOULDN'T look to advertising as some sort of guide to living but we are told everyday by advertisers that we NEED their products in order to be the way we want to be. We can know intellectually that they are trying to sell us stuff, but we can't all control that image or eradicate it once it's in our heads. I can't always do it and I make a real effort.
Caveat: I am currently reading Jean Kilbourne's book Can't Buy My Love, How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel.