photo of Dr. Mehmet Oz is from here

photo of Dr. Phil McGraw is from here

These are two white het male doctors who owe their fame and great financial success to Oprah Winfrey: Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz. (We get to Dr. Laura shortly.)

The first man, who has a PhD in Clinical Psychology, supported her during a trial the commercial/atrocity-protecting meat industry put her through for simply stating her own point of view on the subject of burgers. The second is am M.D. who is a heart surgeon and is a proponent of complimentary medicine, to promote several less invasive methods of treating heart disease. He's also more infamously known for showing Oprah's audiences deceased humans' diseased organs and talking about healthy pooping. He's got some very good things to say--generally I like him and his style, and he's got a good bed-side manner, unless you're a battered woman in a hospital bed, that is. I also sometimes like Dr. Phil, when he isn't using his television series to exploit conditions and people and instead sincerely tries to alleviate human suffering, usually in the context of personal relationships. While I've seen Dr. Phil hold men accountable for the violence they do to women, I've never seen Dr. Oz do this.

I realise he didn't study sociology, social psychology, or the sexual politics of psychopathology, but Dr. Oz couldn't be more clueless about the reality and dynamics of men's war against women. He actually discusses inner brain structure to explain why it may be that some women kill their terrorist husbands or battering boyfriends. He doesn't seem to get that women who are terrorised and sadistically abused do not usually kill anyone, while the terrorists often kill a whole lot of people: most commonly the women in their lives, the women who leave them, and their children, in disgustingly horrid ways. But Dr. Oz's brain structure discussion isn't about THE TERRORISTS. He's concerned about the brain structures of the TERRORISED WOMEN who [usually don't] kill. What are the sexual politics of THAT?

In a case linked to below, he tries to explain to the audience why a woman guest may have killed the male terrorist in her life. He is wrong at every turn, and fortunately he has another "expert" guest on to set the audience clear on what is really going on. Unfortunately, it is yet another white man. (To be clear: Dr. Oz's family's background is Eastern European and Turkish. Dr. Phil is all white.) How it is that white and light-skinned het men have become the people women should turn to for expert advice on anything and everything, is a trick of the trades called WHM supremacist media and education. What undermines feminist knowledge and activists, scholars and doctors, is the owners and producers of mass media talk shows refusing to make women of any color the experts in matters that impact women--and men.

Well, there IS Dr. Laura, who has a PhD in physiology--which is not at all why she's on the air. At least Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil are discussing matters that usually fall within their own educational areas of study. She gives anti-woman, overtly racist, anti-gay relationship advice. She's way more WHM supremacist than Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz in her public advice. She should be removed from the airwaves. Immediately, as she should have been years ago for calling "homosexuals" deviant.

photo of Dr. Laura Schlessinger is from here

She is in the news this week for her arrogantly privileged racist-misogynist assault against a Black woman caller who wanted wise counsel on how to deal with a white husband who, along with his friends, makes racist remarks in front of her. He obviously enjoys trying to humiliate her. Would Dr. Laura pick up on that? Well...

Dr. Laura used the question--while berating and abusing the questioner--as an opportunity to pretend that THE ISSUE is African Americans who are the problem population who uses the n-word and COMPLAIN when whites do the same. Dr. Laura managed to work the word into her radio show eleven times in way fewer minutes than that. The caller, understandably, was totally taken aback and very respectfully attempted to call Dr. Laura's attention to the problem of turning this problem back on a Black woman, which only led Dr. Laura to intensify her own vitriolic volume, utterly silencing the woman seeking wise counsel. Dr. Laura understood the caller's predicament about as well as Dr. Oz understands why [very few] women kill terroristic men. NOT. AT. ALL.

While I think Dr. Phil makes mistakes many times with regard to appropriate forms of advocacy for women-in-patriarchy, too often presuming a kind of level playing field that patriarchal societies will never let exist, I'll say this: he's way ahead of where Dr. Oz and Dr. Laura will probably ever be on the matter of understanding that far too many men terrorise and grotesquely abuse women--and that men's use of physical violence is NEVER the women's fault! Proof of this difference between the two male doctors is in very intense (and potentially very triggering) programs each recently did about the subject of domestic violence leading to murder.

Dr. Oz's show wasn't about patriarchal abuse. It was about how the brain sometimes doesn't work right so some people cannot moderate their violent impulses. And he means women's violent impusles, not men's!

Dr. Phil's program was a VERY good program, if also deeply disturbing and triggering, about the FAILURE of FAMILY COURTS across the U.S. when it comes to adequately protecting children and women from adult male terrorists. His show centered around one case, in which a woman's baby was murdered by her ex- and the baby's father, after she repeatedly went to the court for orders of protection for herself and the baby--each time she was told by the white het male misogynistic judge that she was lying and had no evidence, even when she brought evidence. But there was another interview he did with a teenaged young woman who is a survivor of incest and witnessed a court give custody of her little sister to the incest perpetrator, after she testified about his abuse of her. Yes. It happened. The audience was also filled with women who had similar stories to tell, which appeared to have a VERY supportive effect on anyone who spoke out on this horrendous issue of VIRULENT PATRIARCHAL PREDATION PROTECTIONISM in family courts across the country.

What gets revealed is that the terrorists and their attorneys, along with generally misogynistic society, have effectively convinced the courts to not believe mothers if they raise "domestic violence" as a factor in why those mothers should get custody of their children, not the fathers. Even the women's attorneys are counseling women to not bring up the fact that the ex-husband is a batterer or incest perpetrator because too many judges hear that as a big ol' lie--an allegedly sure sign that the woman is trying to manipulate the court against the interests of the fathers' "right" to have more access to their children. When it comes to court manipulation, however, look no further than the battering, raping, incesting men and their attorneys, who convince the courts that the lack of evidence presented means they aren't sadistic brutes. In this case, the rule "presumed innocent until proven guilty" cannot apply, because no one's attorney will let the proof into the courtroom to begin with.

This is the case across the white het male supremacist globe, from the U.S., to the UK, to Australia. That there are WHM organising to undermine women's credibility in the courtroom even more is despicable and evil. There's nothing loving or just about such efforts by these misogynazis (fascistic, terrorising woman-haters) at all.

To note how this impacts U.S. women, compare these two episodes of programs that, one would hope, are supporting both physical/emotional health and human rights:

Dr. Oz: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/tuesday-dr-oz

vs.

Dr. Phil: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1442/ 

But I cannot write about Dr. Phil without noting this CLEAR FORM OF MISOGYNY he regularly engages in. HE REFUSES TO STOP SAYING THE B WORD WHEN REFERRING TO WOMEN, and as an adjective (b-word with a y at the end). He a conservative guy, socially-politically, in many ways, and doesn't welcome cursing on his show, generally. I'm not sure you can get away with saying ASS on his show without it being bleeped! But he says the b word like it's going out of style, which of course it won't while he and other major media personalities keep legitimising it on TV. Please write to him and ask him why that's the only derogatory curse term he allows on his show.

And visit *here* for more on the Dr. Laura story of the week. TRIGGER WARNING for OVERTLY RACIST LANGUAGE AND GROSS MISTREATMENT OF A BLACK WOMAN BY A WHITE WOMAN.

What follows is from here at TPM. It is being reproduced here for non-profit, political discussion purposes only. This is the author of the article that follows. And after that is me taking him to task for his silliness and stupidity.

San Fernando Curt

Following:
Followers: 46

Posts
Comments & Recommends

• Location North Hollywood, CA
• Party Democratic
• Politics Neo-Realist

Porncone
July 30, 2010, 5:42PM

OK, folks, we can wrap up the vigil: Buttman walked.

I know some of you dreary wags out there are ignoring our government and media protests that there's nothing new in the WikiLeaks documents. That they're as interesting as plastic spoons, revelatory as barking spiders and profound as Snooki. Yeah... some of you have gone right ahead and dove in to discover silly stuff like Task Force 373, our super-secret targeted-assasination squad - and its nasty habit of shooting the shit out of anything that doesn't look Taliban, including innocent children and various barnyard animals in Afghanistan.

In many cases, the unit has set out to seize a target for internment, but in others it has simply killed them without attempting to capture. The logs reveal that TF 373 has also killed civilian men, women and children and even Afghan police officers who have strayed into its path.

But enough of this trivial nonsense. We know what the real story is: Obscenity charges against John A. "Buttman" Stagliano have been thrown out by a District Court Judge in Washington DC.

Stagliano, a married father nicknamed "Buttman," is known for pushing the edge of industry standards in his depiction of fetishes, and the video scenes selected by the government for prosecution involved urination, use of enemas and bondage.

In the first porn-related case tried in the nation's capital since the mid-'80s, the Van Nuys (where else?) producer faced a sentence of up to 32 years if things didn't break his way. But since the judge rebuked the Justice Department special anti-nookie squad for failng even to define the crimes Stagliano supposedly broke, this could be the swan song of Bush-era moves to put porn prosecutions back on the front burner. Also, it's probably a blow (so to speak) for that weird consortium of radical feminists and Christian fundamentalists who wanted dirty pictures stricken everywhere as indecent! Even... knavish!!!

Few of the rest of us give a damn.

There are ideas, once popular and prevalent, that are now obsolete, unfashionable "dead horses" we still pointlessly kick. Racial superiority is one of these. Any white person above the age of, say, eight knows white people are superior to nothing. The feeble-minded antics of too many friends, embarrassing relatives, and our own misshapen pasts convince us by adulthood that we honkies are but commonplace among the human species.

Then there are ideas - theories, if you will - that can only be called "zomboids". These are scholarly proposals and popular fairy tales that either are disproven or never validated yet return from the Dead Zone of dumb assumptions to totter about in tiresome replay.

And that brings us back to the case in point: That much-proffered, never-proven feminist theory that pornography is a threat as great as nuclear weapons and dengue fever to our healthy human commonweal. According to the corkscrew logic of this dim brainstorm, porn takes normal, happy, sexually repressed men and turns them into raving BONIACS! They hanker only for cootie! They lust for anything pink!

This somewhat insulting proposal, which galvanized that strange Right-Libber alliance decades ago, holds that any man is a potential rapist, that beneath the calm exterior of nerdy khakis and short-sheeve seersucker lurks highly stimulated lunatics on the hunt for sexual prey. All they need are the hot buttons of full-color, two-panel twat shots to set off monstrously horney fission.

In case you thought this crusade went the way of Kalso Earth Shoes and lava lamps, think again. A Boston professor and veteran of those long-ago windmill tilts, Gail Dines, has come up with a new book to pump some fresh blood back in an old nag.

"Pornography today is not your father's Playboy,'' says Dines, 51, a Wheelock College professor of sociology and women's studies. "It's hard-core, cruel, and brutal. So you're bringing up a generation of boys who are more cruel, bored, and desensitized.''

She's doing the motel/scrambled eggs tour for her new "Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality'', which makes the specious case that this new, ugly stuff risks nurturing millions of future predators. The thesis, simply put, is that any ambulatory, air-breathing male is a de facto attacker already; he's only waiting for an opportunity to drop his drawers and commit serious felony. Porn lurks ever-ready to push him to his erectile brink. It's a case of academia and the media taking itself a little too seriously, assuming perversion of their magical crafts can mesmerize the public to deviant action. Whew! Evidently there's wondrous alchemy in all that turgid prose and badly photographed asscracks.

If all this sounds familiar, it should. We've heard it all before - from Dines, in fact. Seems she was feverishly publishing anti-porn diatribe back in the '70s and '80s. As with this new book, her case always has rested on anecdotal evidence, urban legend and not a speck of scienfitic research or credible statistics. There is nothing to support her contention that many men are aroused by degrading porn. Or, get this, that they hate women. Nothing at all. In an earlier interview she said, "Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear." Ah... patriarchy. I knew that old chestnut would be lurking somewhere. Daddy did it. Daddy's a big penis-Nazi! Smash his capitalism and Western civilization! EVIL!

I suspect "their hatred..." means, for Dines, "men's hatred". All men. Everywhere.

Self-described on her website as "scholar, activist and social critic", Dines has worked with and has been annointed successor to the late Andrea Dworkin, the great, chronically angry, overstuffed couch of a woman who was a pioneer of the anti-porn movement.

That tells me juuust about what I need to know. And it's time from some, uh, deconstruction of this particular oeuvre.

Andrea Dworkin was an unhappy, mentally unstable, thoroughly untrustworthy fanatic who hated men. Dines, obviously, is more than suited to step into Dworkin's self-assigned role as the "world's leading anti-pornography campaigner." Their's is the kind of thinking that cooked up, out of thin air, the ugly fabrication that men commit sexual abuse of women and children as commonly as we wear shoes. That never-walked-back lie has destroyed families and ruined lives. It lives today, since unquestioned infamy has the veneer of truth. And, God knows, our media and academia never has doubted this crap. It's absolutely convincing simply because it's trash spouted by the RIGHT people.

Obviously, as a heterosexual male, it's not in my best interest to support a revival of this tripe. Dines is a product of a world long ago, when dogmatic bullies hustled their way into academia and bit off press attention by combining loud overstatement, pure obnoxiousness and fake "scholarship".

Even with the milk enemas, I prefer Buttman, any day.



Julian's reply:

Does internet media need to be accurate, or just play up the same old politically correct tropes over and over and over again?

I'm not seeing much above that hasn't been filtered through a truly astoundingly inane mass media lens; that concerns me only because if news, including political and cultural commentary and analysis, isn't anything but what conservative-liberal (no meaningful difference any more) corporate media sells us, what do we really know about anything? I'll cite a few examples of this problem from your post here.

I know some of you dreary wags out there are ignoring our government and media protests that there's nothing new in the WikiLeaks documents.

Except that is does back up our arguments that the U.S. government is in the war business, and not in the business of promoting democracy anywhere, including in the U.S. That our government sees it as a right to go abroad, illegally invading countries, raping women and bombing children, and mass murdering non-combatants, out to be a source of outrage, not apathy.

The logs reveal that TF 373 has also killed civilian men, women and children and even Afghan police officers who have strayed into its path.

One might even be tempted to actually listen to what Malalai Joya has to say about the U.S. "protecting women in Afghanistan" as she is, well, a woman who has been living in Afghanistan. And she wants the U.S. out, and CNN won't let you that, unless you catch the British feed of CNN, that is.

that weird consortium of radical feminists and Christian fundamentalists who wanted dirty pictures stricken everywhere as indecent!

So where did you get that assessment of alleged alliance? From what faulty, very intellectually and factually flawed academic book? Because it's one of those lies that just flies around and around without anyone really caring to know the truth about it.

There are ideas, once popular and prevalent, that are now obsolete, unfashionable "dead horses" we still pointlessly kick. Racial superiority is one of these. Any white person above the age of, say, eight knows white people are superior to nothing. The feeble-minded antics of too many friends, embarrassing relatives, and our own misshapen pasts convince us by adulthood that we honkies are but commonplace among the human species.

And yet, the laws in Arizona, which may or may not remain in tact, do reinforce white supremacy in the U.S., so for you discussing racial superiority may be passe, but for people of color in the U.S. it's, how to put it, a "hot topic".

Then there are ideas - theories, if you will - that can only be called "zomboids". These are scholarly proposals and popular fairy tales that either are disproven or never validated yet return from the Dead Zone of dumb assumptions to totter about in tiresome replay.

Such as radical feminists were, in any meaningful, effective, or systematic way, working with the Christian Right-wing? Or that radical feminists are "crazy"? Those kind of "zomboidal" observations that are never proven or validated? Is that the Dead Zone of dumb assumptions you are speaking about?

That much-proffered, never-proven feminist theory that pornography is a threat as great as nuclear weapons and dengue fever to our healthy human commonweal.

That's not been the theory, ever. So you're just making this up, aren't you? How zomboidal of you. The theory, which you obviously didn't fact-check before writing this Dead Zone material, was that males are not born misogynists, just like so-called whites are not born racists. Misogyny and racism are learned, and culture is a teacher. That's pretty basic stuff. Is that really too controversial for you to identify as coming from years of feminist theory and sociological analysis?

This somewhat insulting proposal, which galvanized that strange Right-Libber alliance decades ago, holds that any man is a potential rapist, that beneath the calm exterior of nerdy khakis and short-sheeve seersucker lurks highly stimulated lunatics on the hunt for sexual prey. All they need are the hot buttons of full-color, two-panel twat shots to set off monstrously horney fission.

You enjoy your writing, don't you? Well, at least it's sort of witty. Never mind if it reflects anything non-zomboidal, eh?

A Boston professor and veteran of those long-ago windmill tilts, Gail Dines, has come up with a new book to pump some fresh blood back in an old nag.

Old nags like pretending the Religious Right and radical feminists were shacking up? You've got that one on an IV drip, don't you? Have you found a pulse yet?

"Pornography today is not your father's Playboy,'' says Dines, 51, a Wheelock College professor of sociology and women's studies. "It's hard-core, cruel, and brutal. So you're bringing up a generation of boys who are more cruel, bored, and desensitized.''

She's doing the motel/scrambled eggs tour for her new "Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality'', which makes the specious case that this new, ugly stuff risks nurturing millions of future predators. The thesis, simply put, is that any ambulatory, air-breathing male is a de facto attacker already; he's only waiting for an opportunity to drop his drawers and commit serious felony. Porn lurks ever-ready to push him to his erectile brink.

Uhhh, no. Can't you even accurately interpret quotes you put in your own post? Seriously. THAT'S sad, man. Damn sad.

What she's saying is that culture is part of what socialises us. You know, that same theory from before that has been shown to be accurate--like, say, that my cousin's son watched Top Gun and from that moment on decide--with no military folks in our family--that he'd go into the Navy to gleefully kill those foreign people of color? And that his dad's affection for strip clubs has infused in him a sense that "going to strip clubs" is cool, and he and his dad go, together. And that his dad, before he was born, was a Hustler magazine subscriber, and his wife (my cousin) had to ask him to please stop subscribing because they had three growing sons. And so my cousin's son is into calling women wh*res and using women as if they actually were wh*res. You don't see any analysis there that my cousin's son was "born that way" do you?

It's a case of academia and the media taking itself a little too seriously, assuming perversion of their magical crafts can mesmerize the public to deviant action.

Deviant action like not being able to analyse a quote that's pretty straight-forward in its meaning, because you've got some tired old nag of a theory you can't let go of, that's wrong?

If all this sounds familiar, it should. We've heard it all before - from Dines, in fact. Seems she was feverishly publishing anti-porn diatribe back in the '70s and '80s.

Nothing you've read, apparently. Or, well, comprehended without the Misogynist Mass Media and McAdemic Cliff Notes.

As with this new book, her case always has rested on anecdotal evidence, urban legend and not a speck of scienfitic research or credible statistics.

Like, say, what millions of people experience. Because those millions weren't in a lab, right?

There is nothing to support her contention that many men are aroused by degrading porn.

Are you kidding? You're actually stating--seriously--that men don't masturbate to men ejaculating on women's faces? Really? You're actually saying gonzo porn isn't selling well? Really? And that men go limp watching it? Really?

Or, get this, that they hate women.

No, because, pssst: there's no such thing as misogyny! That's something those feminists made up so they'd have stuff to write about. Yeah, about that. About the women who leave men and then are murdered--3000 a year in the U.S.: as many as the number of people killed by the Taliban on 9/11/2001. Yet there's no "terrorism" when men do it to women, is there? Nope. None at all. (Never mind that the women were terrified when the guy shows up with the gun. Never mind that a medical assistant I knew is dead because she rejected and walked out on a man, who, apparently, according to your theory, was what? Not misogynistic?) What do you call what Mel Gibson spews? Woman-loving cooing?

In an earlier interview she said, "Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear." Ah... patriarchy. I knew that old chestnut would be lurking somewhere.

Because you live in a matriarchy? Since when? Either men (and white men at that) rule every significant social, religious, economic, and political institution in U.S. society or they don't. Hold on... I'm going outside to check... Yup--men still rule them. Sorry to put a crack in your chestnut. (Well, yes, Black women do have a significant role in the Black church. I'll give you that. Funny, though, how men won't let those women be the preachers, isn't it?)

Daddy did it. Daddy's a big penis-Nazi! Smash his capitalism and Western civilization! EVIL!

Calm down. Take a breath--you're getting a little too worked up here. When we speak of "patriarchy" we're speaking of "a male-dominated society", yes? You grasp that, right? We're not talking about "daddy", so climb down off your Freudian dead horse please.

I suspect "their hatred..." means, for Dines, "men's hatred". All men. Everywhere.

You know what it does when you "Assume" right: it makes an ASS out of you and me. Or, in this case, out of you and you. Where does Dines say or write that? Hold on... lemme check... Oh, nowhere! So you like pulling stuff out of your *ss, don't you? Which brings this full circle, in a jerky sort of way.

Self-described on her website as "scholar, activist and social critic",

As opposed to, say, actually being a scholar, activist, and social critic? What parts of those descriptors seem especially "off" to you? Do you get, yet, how silly you're being here? And, well, kind of sexist, to be honest. I mean why do you need to question her credentials, white straight man? You appear to be taking advantage of those social entitlements to put down women and make them seem like idiots. What's that called??? Ah, yes: sexism. What are your credentials for dismissing her? Is it that you know your audience has also been well-trained by mass media, and hasn't read anything carefully that feminists have written?

Dines has worked with and has been annointed successor to the late Andrea Dworkin, the great, chronically angry, overstuffed couch of a woman who was a pioneer of the anti-porn movement.

Wow. You're respect for dead human rights activists--hmmm, again, a woman you're disrespecting because of her weight--isn't that, um, well, your sexism showing? Chronically angry? As opposed to you, who are not chronically angry? I mean, seriously: who isn't chronically angry? Only the brain-dead. And, Andrea Dworkin was far more of a scholar than you'd ever hope to be. Have you checked the books she read, which she listed in the backs of most of her books? I'm guessing now, but I'll wait for your reply. Have you seen the scholarship in her book Scapegoat? Have you studied the Nazi Holocaust, in which she lost family, as much as she did? I'm guessing not. Or the history of Israel? Have you traveled the world to listen to what women around the world have to say, honestly, about their experiences of their particular "patriarchies" (which doesn't mean "daddies" remember)? I'm guessing not. But you tell me.

That tells me juuust about what I need to know.

You parroting mass media BS tells you just about what you need to know. Don't you see: that's the problem.

And it's time from some, uh, deconstruction of this particular oeuvre.

Okay, so now that you're hauling out the fifty-cent words, I'm assuming you might have something accurate and non-sexist to say. But we know what happens when someone "assumes"...

Andrea Dworkin was an unhappy,

Not especially. She enjoyed laughing a lot, actually, and anyone who knew her says that about her. She had a great sense of humor, which you'd know if you knew her or, well, didn't parrot what antifeminists have said about her.

mentally unstable,
Nope. Wrong again. You're not demonstrating a high aptitude at "personality assessment" skills. But your sexist Dead Zone tropes are stunning. (You're welcome.)

thoroughly untrustworthy fanatic who hated men.

You mean the woman who has written about loving her father, a father who supported her intellectually? Or do you mean the woman who loved her brother and nephew? (Photographic and written evidence exists.) Or, do you mean the man she loved and lived with for thirty years? You mean she hated those men? Or are you saying that if she demonstrated that she loved men, that means she hated all men? Please clarify, because, once again, all you're doing is parroting antifeminist/anti-Dworkin tropes, that you know nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of a thousand you'll get away with, with people actually think you're being intelligent and not at all sexist, or, misogynistic.

and Dines, obviously, is more than suited to step into Dworkin's self-assigned role as the "world's leading anti-pornography campaigner."

Dworkin wasn't just an anti-pornography activist. She was also against fascism and white supremacy, quite explicitly in those things she wrote--what do you call them, again: ah, yes: each and every one of her dozen or so books (which you obviously haven't read--like her analysis of Right-wing women, in which she makes it explicitly clear she isn't Right-wing, as if her past, protesting the Vietnam war, prison abuse, and fascism, and being pro-abortion and pro-lesbianism wasn't evidence enough). You must hate it when your didactic diatribes get interrupted with things like verifiable facts and truth.

Their's is the kind of thinking that cooked up, out of thin air, the ugly fabrication

Wait. Are you speaking here of your sexist mischaracterisation of the dead feminist? Or your micharacterisation of feminist theories on pornography's relationship to racism and misogyny? (Have you been online lately, looking at pornography? What of it do you see that isn't misogynistic and racist? Just curious.)

that men commit sexual abuse of women and children as commonly as we wear shoes.

And that would be something no one but you and other zomboids has written and passed off as "verifiable". I challenge you to cite one sentence where the living feminist Gail Dines says that. She hasn't written nearly as much as Andrea Dworkin did, so this won't be difficult for you. You do read books, don't you? Dines is the person you're going out of your way to demean, disrespect, and dismiss, isn't she?

That never-walked-back lie has destroyed families and ruined lives.
You mean the one that men promote that there's no such thing as patriarchy? That never-walked-back lie that destroys families, friendships, ruins lives, and is part and parcel of wars the U.S. engages in?

It lives today, since unquestioned infamy has the veneer of truth. And, God knows, our media and academia never has doubted this crap.

This crap you're writing?

It's absolutely convincing simply because it's trash spouted by the RIGHT people.

Yes. That's so true of what you write. And so very sad.

Dines is a product of a world long ago, when dogmatic bullies hustled

Um, what do you consider Larry Flynt to be, who would demean feminists in his magazine routinely, in the name of "free speech" and all? Who would promote violence against women and child molestation in his magazine's cartoons, by one Dwaine Tinsley, who was found guilty of incesting his daughter, btw. See here for more on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_the_Molester

So you're more concerned about "hustling bullies" like Dines than, say, corporate pimps and child molesters? That's some system of ethical triage you have going there, sir.

their way into academia and bit off press attention by combining loud overstatement, pure obnoxiousness and fake "scholarship".

You mean Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, and Mr. Flynt? Or are you speaking here of Max Hardcore, known for filming his rapes of women and selling them. How obnoxious is that, to you?

So you haven't read Dines' work then. Because even on CNN, the white heterosexual male interviewer brought the stats to her about how pornography addiction is negatively impacting a HUGE number of heterosexual relationships. The rather decidedly liberal interviewer, John Roberts, gets it that some men prefer to have sex "alone" with pornography than with their actual sexual partners in the other room, wondering why they aren't joining them in bed. You call that knowledge "right wing" or even "feminist"? Hardly.

Would you call John Roberts any of the negative terms you've hurled here at Dworkin and Dines?

Posted by JulianReal
July 31, 2010 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink

That Mel Gibson has made, to date, four "Lethal Weapon" films seems fitting, except that they aren't about him being a lethal weapon to women. It is fitting, as well, that he's been in productions called "The Punishment", "Ransom", "Conspiracy Theory", "Payback", "Signs", and "Complete Savages". That he ever made a film titled "What Women Want" is increasingly frightening.

From IMDb:

Nick Marshall, Playboy and Hot Shot in advertising, thinks he's God's gift to women. After a little accident, he discovers that he is suddenly able to hear what women really think. First, Nick is pretty disappointed when he discovers that his beloved macho behaviour does not exactly contribute to being desired. Then, his upcoming dream position in the company is being given to a new team member: Darcy, not only a woman, but a man-eating one, also is a very talented ad expert. So, Nick decides to sabotage his new boss by reading her thoughts and selling her ideas as his own. Unfortunately, love gets in his way. Written by Julian Reischl

To Mel Gibson, the Homo Palien Predator who I wish would go to another planet:  

You are clearly a nut that hasn't fallen far from the tree. 

If you ever contemplate, threaten, or plan to kill any woman including Oksana Grigorieva, and your and Oksana's almost nine month old baby Lucia, and your ex-partner's adolescent child Sascha (Alexander), and then to kill yourself, please do so in reverse order in such a way that only you are injured or die. 

Thank you: you'll be doing one woman, two children, and the rest of the world a huge favor. 

You're one vicious white het man, Mr. Gibson, and one cruel, sadistic, Satanic "Christian" coward. Go fuck yourself, and recognize who YOU are: a gold digger, a f*cking pig in heat (no offence to hogs, sows, and piglets or any living being that has an estrous cycle is intended), a n*gger, a w*tback, a f*cking b*tch, a c*nt, a f*ggot, and last, but surely not least: one mean and maniacal P.R.I.C.K. 

If your Jesus does come back to Earth, I hope he swiftly kicks you and your dad in the nuts. That, surely, would demonstrate a level of compassion and love for humanity that you and your father have been lacking for many decades. Pray to your Jesus to knock some sense into you through the gonadal parts of your body you appear to be using simultaneously as your brains and your heart. And ask yourself this: How's THAT approach to life working for you?

To learn what that the acronym means, please check out these two posts: P.R.I.C.K.s and PRICKs, Sexxxism, and other CRAP.

For more posts on A Radical Profeminist about Mel Gibson, please see here, here, here, and, for portions of one of those posts in French, see here. Calling Mel a nut, a maniac, or maniacal is not meant to imply he is in any way insane, or drunk. It is meant to imply he is behaving the way far too many patriarchally entitled men behave--in such a manner as to be guilty of the crime of murdering the women they willfully, rationally, choose to be with who they later claim is driving them crazy. Men, too typically, do not take responsibility for their feelings or their actions, when directed negatively at women. They blame women instead, and in this way remain ignorant, arrogant, self-absorbed, overly privileged, and atrociously entitled and terribly normal men.

All that follows is linked to below, and is from RadarOnline.com.

Mel Gibson Punched Oksana Twice, Choked Her & Then Threatened To Murder Her & Family, She Tells AuthoritiesWORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mel Gibson Punched Oksana Twice, Choked Her & Then Threatened To Murder Her & Family, She Tells Authorities

Mel Gibson threatened to kill his own baby daughter, Oksana Grigorieva, her son -- and even himself -- during the brutal brawl that is being investigated by police, according to statements Oksana has given authorities.

In a stunning world exclusive, RadarOnline.com has obtained all the details of what authorities have been told took place on January 6, the crucial date in the domestic violence investigation against Mel, as well as the custody battle between Mel and Oksana.

And the details are far worse than what has been known up to now. Mel punched Oksana TWICE in the head, and choked her with his forearm pressing into her throat after she fell onto the bed – while holding the baby, she told authorites.

Mel is facing a criminal investigation on domestic battery charges by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and is part of a Department of Children and Family Services investigation.

Here are the complete details about what authorities are investigating:

On January 6, Oksana says she attended a basketball game for her 12-year-old son Alexander, who goes by the nickname Sascha. Gibson was furious that she left their infant daughter Lucia home with a nanny and was also jealous that she was around other men.

The nanny witnessed Mel storming around the house, slamming doors and growing furious. The nanny was so frightened that she took Lucia and hid in a bedroom, according to Oksana’s statements.

“When Oksana came home Mel began cursing her,” a source with knowledge of the investigation told RadarOnline.com exclusively. The Oscar-winning actor/director screamed profanities, consistent with what is on the audio tapes obtained and released exclusively by RadarOnline.com.

Then things took a near deadly turn.

Oksana asked Mel to calm down when she returned to his Malibu house in the early evening.

“Mel punched her in the mouth and then again in the side of the head,” the source told RadarOnline.com.

She was holding Lucia and the force of the punches caused her to fall backwards onto the bed.

Mel placed one of his forearms into Oksana’s neck and began choking her. He took his free hand and pushed it over her mouth and she struggled to breathe. She struggled and begged him to stop.

“Oksana has told authorities it was horrific and she thought she was going to die,” the source said.

The punches broke Oksana’s front teeth, as can be seen by the exclusive photo of her injuries obtained by RadarOnline.com

As she begged Mel to stop while he was choking her, Mel kept screaming for Oksana to apologize.

Oksana’s son Sascha, whose father is former James Bond star Timothy Dalton, was in the bedroom the entire time this took place, and he was scared to death and will be a crucial witness.

He was interviewed by child protective services agents last Friday.

Oksana finally was freed from Mel’s grip and jumped up to leave but she says Mel then pulled a gun from the pocket of his short, pointed it at her head and threatened to kill her, Lucia and Sascha, as well as himself, in an apparent murder-suicide plot.

He reportedly yelled “F*ck you” and called Oksana a “F**king c*nt.”

Somehow, however, Oksana was able to run out of the house, wearing her pajamas and barefoot, with Lucia and Sascha.

After Oksana fled, Mel called her repeatedly and threatened her. Investigators will be looking at those phone records.

RELATED STORIES:

MEL AUDIO TAPE #1: Mel’s Racist Rant

MEL AUDIO TAPE #2: Mel Gibson Admits Hitting Oksana, Threatens To Kill Her

MEL AUDIO TAPE #3: Another Mel Gibson Slur Caught On Tape In Crazed Rage

MEL AUDIO TAPE #4: Out Of Control Mel Gibson Says He'll Burn Down House After Demanding Sex

MEL AUDIO TAPE #5: Mel Gibson Completely Loses It: 'B*tch, C*nt, Wh*re, Gold Digger!'

EXCLUSIVE PHOTO of Oksana After She Says Mel Punched Her

Paul Nathanson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Nathanson is a Canadian religious studies academic and professional expert witness. He has a BA in art history (1968); an MLS (library service, 1971); a BTh (Christianity, 1978); an MA in religious studies (Judaism and Islam); and a PhD (1989). He began his academic career by writing Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America, "about the convergence of sacred and profane patterns in popular culture." Nathanson is currently working as a senior researcher in the McGill University department of Religious Studies, while testifying as a paid expert on behalf of social conservatives opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In Varnum v. Brien Nathanson's testimony concerning purported social effects of recognizing same-sex marriages was stricken by the trial court, which explained that the opinions Nathanson expressed were "not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense." Since then, Nathanson has been proferred as an expert in Perry v. Schwarzenegger by litigants who intervened in the case to defend a California constitutional amendment stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry. Just before the trial, the defendant intervenors against gay marriage removed him as a witness, but the trial court judge allowed his prior videotaped deposition to be entered into evidence by the marriage-equality plaintiffs. At trial, plaintiff's expert witness Professor Gary Segura testified that some of Nathanson's claims were "misleading", "bizarre in the extreme", and "almost nonsensical to respond to".

Series

• with Katherine K. Young. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, 2001.
• with Katherine K. Young. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men, 2006.

<sup>Here is a site with a list of his co-conspirators. 

Warren Farrell used to be profeminist, until he realised he could sell more books putting down feminism than promoting it. He has been writing anti-feminist books and books distorting what feminism has been, is, and seeks to achieve. For more on him, see *here*.


For more on Glenn Sacks, please see this, from here @ CounterPunch:</sup>

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

Why Are You So Afraid of Us?

By AK PRESS COLLECTIVE

Dear readers: We here at AK Press were both shocked and (we’ll admit it) thrilled when right-wing media mogul Glenn Beck held up our new book on the Greek Insurrection of December 2008 on his FOX News program a couple of weeks ago, and compared it to The Coming Insurrection, saying that this book was the next “playbook” that radicals in this country would be taking a page from. (We wish.) But we were also kind of confused, because Beck seemed eager to interpret the book as a yet another installment in the “communist” conspiracy … only, well, we’re anarchists, we’re damn proud of that fact, and we’re frankly a little hard pressed to understand why Beck went out of his way to say explicitly that this wasn’t an anarchist book. And then we watched hours and hours of Beck blabbing on YouTube, and we started to notice a more general pattern: Beck tends to avoid directly confronting “anarchism” as a system of political actions and ideals. So we started thinking about why that might be, and the result of our deep deliberations follows in an open letter to Mr. Beck. -- Kate Khatib, AK Press

Hi Glenn.

How’s it going? Since Forbes magazine says your annual earnings are in the ballpark of $32 million, we’re guessing that it’s going pretty well. You can’t put a price on defending the little guy, right?

We are the AK Press collective. In case the word “collective” throws you, it means people who work together toward a shared goal in a democratic manner, without bosses or leaders, and with everyone having an equal say in each decision. For us, that shared goal is publishing and distributing books. If you want, you can learn more about us here.

We’re thrilled that you featured our book We Are an Image of the Future: The Greek Revolts of 2008 on your May 3rd show. We were, however, a little confused by your description of the book, and the way that it fit into the overall argument you made.

Okay, to be honest, we weren’t sure what your argument was. We watched the clip on YouTube a dozen times, but it was beyond us. Of course, you’re the guy with television, radio, publishing, and Internet empires. We probably spend too much time thinking about rent, food, and health insurance to fully understand the big picture you’re painting.

We do, however, know a few things. We’re anarchists and we publish books about anarchism. We Are an Image from the Future is one of them. Now, we assume that you actually read the books you talk about on your show. Yet you somehow managed to claim that a book written by and about anarchists was “written by communist revolutionaries.” “They are not anarchists,” you claimed, “but they will use anarchy to their favor.”

As you made clear earlier in your show, you know the difference between Communism and Anarchism. We don’t want to split hairs by bringing up the complex history of communism (with a small “c”), which includes both democratic and nasty authoritarian versions. So we’ll stay on your page here and say, yes, when Communists take state power it’s always ugly. But, as you must know, anarchism has always opposed state Communism. State Communism is the ultimate “big government.” You won’t find an anarchist on this planet in favor of that. Not to mention that, historically, when Communists get in the driver’s seat, anarchists are usually the first to face the firing squad. The capitalists usually get cushy managerial positions.

So we asked ourselves: What could account for this guy waving around a book written and published by anarchists, while never quoting a single word from it, and then going on to associate the book with political groups—like the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party—that no one in the book, or associated with the book, would endorse? How could he miss something so obvious?

Then it dawned on us: you’re afraid of anarchists. You’re not afraid of the fake media portrayal of anarchists as bomb-throwing maniacs: that’s your bread and butter. You’re afraid of real anarchists, the actual ideas they espouse, the real work they do.

We don’t blame you, Glenn. When we sift through your rants, we realize that there’s a lot of overlap between you and anarchists. The difference is that anarchists are more honest, aren’t part of the same elites they criticize, and they make a lot more sense. They see you, and raise you one.

Like you, we believe that people’s lives would be much better off without government intervention. Centralized power suppresses individual and community initiative and keeps people from achieving their full potential. Like you, we don’t think the solution to our current economic crisis lies in socialized industry or new layers of well-paid government bureaucrats. And, like you and many of your tea party pals, we agree that bankers and fat-cat corporate elites aren’t exactly concerned with our best interests. As you put it, it’s time to take down the folks who “line their pockets with wealth gained from enslaving a whole group of people.” And, although you seemed a bit confused on this point, that means putting “people before profits,” which is pretty much the central concern of the protesters in Greece right now. And we mean all people, regardless of income, race, gender, sexuality, or immigration status.

You’re right: we’re revolutionaries. But aren’t you? Remember the part of the Declaration of Independence that says that when a government starts screwing with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”? As anarchists, we’re dedicated to the idea of abolishing the state and capitalism altogether. We believe that without the coercive relations and competition imposed by governments and markets, people would be free to create a more just society in which resources are controlled collectively and decisions are made by the people who are affected by them. We don’t want a government (revolutionary or otherwise); we want a society based on cooperation and common sense instead of arbitrary power and exploitation.

From what sense we can make of your show, you seem happy with “altering” rather than “abolishing” a screwed-up system. For you, replacing the old boss with a new one (Sarah Palin?) is good enough. We understand that you’re confused–these are confusing times. But, deep down, you and the tea partiers know that you can’t trust any politician, or banker, or corporate hack, or union bureaucrat…or anyone who makes their living sucking power and profit from ordinary people. Which, unfortunately, probably includes multi-millionaires like you.

So, Glenn, we’re guessing that’s why you’re so afraid of us. We don’t fit neatly into your black-and-white formula. You simply borrow some of the best ideas from our 150-year-old anti-authoritarian tradition. We take those same ideas and not only run with them, but improve on them. We follow the logic to its ethical conclusion. And we include corporate media moguls like you in our Hall of Infamy.

But we’re reasonable folk. We understand that you find it scary to think about what will happen when ordinary people realize that they actually have the power to make their own decisions and take control of their own lives. So, here’s what we suggest:

Just admit you’re afraid of us. Admit that your passionate and convoluted rants are a nervous dance around your inability to support real freedom (anarchism) over unbridled power (Communism and capitalism). And then use your massive wealth and power for the forces of good.

Yours,

The AK Press Collective

There's a whole lot of ridiculousness going on in the U.S.A. currently. This is nothing new, as this country is founded on some pretty ridiculous ideas:

--That Black people weren't people--they were slaves, or, when not slaves one Black man was a percentage of a white man. Huh?

--That white women were the chattel property of white men and therefore couldn't legally own things, because they were the things that were owned by their fathers or husbands.

--That something called "Manifest Destiny" and some warped idea of a white male sky-god endorsed the savagely barbaric slaughter of scores of millions of Indigenous North Americans.

--That heterosexuality and the nuclear family, each in its current very culturally specific form, are both universal and entirely natural.

More recently, we're being sold the idea that "good sex" is what corporate pimps tell us it is and that if you're a CEO of a financial institution that means you're smart about things like, say, good business practices. "Good" here meaning "ethical", "responsible, "sustainable", and "honest". One has to laugh. What would a civilisation look like that was MORE corrupt, callous, and calculatingly despicable than the Western one, short of being overtly fascistic and despotic? Another way to ask the question is this: for countries that pride themselves endlessly on being upholders of human rights and high standards of responsible behavior, how wrong do those who say such things have to be before we call their bluff?

Note this report on BP's lies. Or this one on the lack of aid that ever made it to Haiti. Or this one on the UK's Labour government's involvement in the illegal abduction and torture of its own citizens. Or this one on two Republican congressmen are urging other countries -- including, potentially, some where homosexuality is a crime punishable by death -- to vote against an American-led effort in the U.N. to recognize a respected international gay rights group. (Need I go on?)

One more, on Utah's violations of people of color's rights and privacy.

More to the point: how and when are corporate heads and political leaders fully to account? When and how will the dominant media be held accountable for promoting, rather than reporting accurately on, the U.S. wars in and against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq? And for being utterly silent on men's war against women, named as such. For news media making white supremacy appear more "complicated" (or invisible) than it ever really is?

When will the G8 leaders own up to the fact that they are willfully destroying the Earth and Indigenous people, and that, honestly, they don't give a shit? I'd find them no more or less honorable for stating it outright, but at least we'd know we're not crazy for noting this IS what is going on. Genocide and ecocide IS their plan, not an unfortunate consequence of something going wrong. Nothing's going wrong, folks. The plan, for the last many decades especially, has been to destroy the world we live in, while pretending we're doing something progressive, advanced, and noble. We're murdering everything. That's the sorry truth of it, and those already murdered--the wives of terroristic husbands, the prostitutes at the hands of procurers and pimps, the poor people by careless systems of lack-of-support and the exploits of the rich who don't pay all their taxes because they have ways of making their earned income disappear, who also don't usually go to jail because they are rich and white and can afford the lawyers who make deals in rooms with closed doors; the people of color--all ages--murdered by white supremacist police forces. The anti-girl and anti-gay bigotry and harassment that is allowed to go unchecked in small and large school and social systems.

Look anywhere at all, and white, heterosexual, and male domination reigns supreme. Invasion, pillaging, and gross exploitation of the Global South by the Global North, of the Indigenous by whites, and the pollution of land and water by those who still can get access to clean water and live on non-lethally toxic land, is endemic. Why isn't the media reporting on this? Why don't any of those several hundred channels on cable television or satellite services report on THAT 24/7? Is it unimportant? Is it not worthy of coverage? Is it really more important that I know on what reality show Kate plus her eight children will next be appearing? Is it really more important that I know which celebrities and politicians are breaking up, cheating on their spouses, or still not coming out of the closet? Sure, I want to know if some Right-wing pundit or preacher is a big ol' hypocrite, but I'm no longer assuming any of them aren't hypocrites. I want to know the latest evidence that the Democrats are no better or worse than the Republicans. But I already know both parties are beholden to (read: owned by) big oil, big pharmacology, big medical insurance, and the bluntly bludgeoning military industrial complex. Many of us know this.

But it would still be refreshing and less maddening if they'd just come out and say it. "We plan to continue to screw over poor people for the foreseeable future. We plan to do nothing at all to end rape or men terrorising women intimately. We have no method or means by which to stop killing our planet. We are and will keep on killing Indigenous people globally, probably until they're all gone and stop that complaining (read: determined political resistance).

Arizona's new breed of politicians, along with the older crop, have been recently outed as corrupt and bigoted as hell in this report.

Some ridiculous idea called "misandry" is making the rounds on the internet and in legal circles to further victimise mothers, wives, and girlfriends, who have already been made to endure men's violations and degradations. Let's face it: Mel Gibson is the current perfect posterboy for "anti-misandrists". When women claim being victimised, these woman-haters come up with tales of woe that ought to make anyone say "Whoa! You guys are, truly, full of male supremacist shit." If you don't know what irrational claims of victimisation look like, listen to the tall tales of these Western white, class-privileged, heterosexual men who have been, allegedly, "wronged" by court systems and social service agencies. I swear that a bigger bunch of ego-defensive, neurosis-projecting whiners with a terminal case of "victim mentality" never walked the Earth.

Every oppressor class claims to be the "victims" of the oppressed: men to women, whites to people of color, the rich to the poor, Christians to Muslims, heterosexuals to the rest of us, the able bodied to the disabled. Non-immigrants are victims of immigrants. Corporate welfare beneficiaries are being victimised by impoverished people who may or may not be on the form of welfare that doesn't allow one to have a yacht, a few homes, and a Swiss bank account.

If it weren't so damned harmful it'd just be hilarious. But it's far from funny. It's horrible and it causes levels of human and non-human animal suffering that is completely unnecessary and preventable.

Given this state of affairs, I'm expecting a whole lot more of  this White Nationalist CRAP to be appearing in this Land of The He and the Home of the Slave.

[image of a patriarchal white sky-god is from here] This blog post consists of three articles. The first and last are by a brave and strong woman named Portia. Her strength has been determined, misogynistically, to be a negative trait by patriarchal men. The middle article is by Justine McCarthy who I have not yet had the pleasure to meet. Each article has a link back to their source publication

 [image is from here] This was written for a newsletter put forth by an organisation working to make custody decisions in Australia centered on what is in the best interests for children,  based on principles of justice and compassion, not in service to abusive husbands and fathers.  Here is the link to that organisation: www.safety4parentsandkids.org.au   The Heart of Justiceby Julian Real,

 [image/cartoon is from here] First, about the cartoon. I did a Google image search on "misandry" and this came up, and, well, even though I'm not entirely what it has to do with misandry, it did seem appropriate to post on Father's Day in the U.S. My actual Father's Day post is here. The web source for all that follows (I swear I didn't write this!) I'd like to credit whoever did write it. http

 [photo of a family in Australia is from here] And if you are a father and don't do either, and don't abuse your sons, or abuse your daughters in any way, or abuse or control your spouse (of whatever gender) in any way, please organise other dads in order to stop the fathers who are sexually, emotionally, and physically abusive to their children and spouses. And if you're white and class

 [image is from here] [10 June 2010ECD NOTE: This post has been revised and clarified since reading Andrea's comment after the post. Thanks Andrea!] The following CRAP-loaded statement du jour is quoted in an Irish Times article below is this: “Systematic suppression of the facts about injustices against men in family courts has been effected by a generation of feminist-conditioned