I think it's really interesting that raising questions about this film evokes such rude responses. No one is implying that the film shouldn't exist, that it should be banned, or whipped with a wet noodle, or whatever. No one is trying to be thought police here, as far as I can tell. We're just raising issues about things in what we have seen and heard about the film that bother us. Isn't it part of being a thoughtful audience to be honest about images that make us feel uncomfortable, and to pay attention to doubts we have when we go into a film? I don't know if I am going to see the film or not, and I don't know, when I do, if I will like it or not. If and when I do, my viewing experience will be much enhanced by having thought about these issues. For goodnes sakes, how can we not think about them? How can we not have some type of gut reaction to that image? I see no reason why those of us who are expressing our concerns need to be flatly and rudely dismissed.

What is it about this subject particularly that makes people feel so irritated by questions? Is this just feminist bashing, or have I committed a wrong that I am not aware of? I've said far more controversial things about far more important topics in the past and been treated with respect on this board. What is so threatening about being frank about negative reactions to seeing a woman chained to a radiator? Seriously.

This article makes me wonder, though, what options there are for people who grow up in mostly white neighborhoods and wind in workplaces with mostly white colleagues. How do we seek out legitimate experiences with people of color, without being "racial tourists"? My lack of experience with people of color is something that I very much regret about my upbringing, and yet I do not know how one gains such experience in the real world without coming off as disingenuous and intrusive. I'm asking this question earnestly, and with no intention of causing offence.

Also, anyone interested in the lives of biracial children might enjoy Zadi Smith's /On Beauty/, which features three biracial children (well, actually, young adults) who all come up with very different ways of developing racial identities.

Thank you for your kind feedback to my earnest liberal question. I will now stop worrying about the fact that I live in a very race-segregated society, discontinue caring that my lack of experience with people of color makes me less effective when I work with them, not to mention a less well-rounded person. I now vow to put no effort into confronting my own ignorance, and simply twiddle my thumbs waiting for "life" to do the work for me. How silly of me to ask an open ended question about how we might, as white people, find ways of de-segregating our own lives that do not smack of tacky voyuerism.

And Ms Dickerson, I suppose, should do no thinking whatsoever about how her children will deal with their racial identities because thinking about racism is what makes racism happen, right? Cause if we all stopped thinking about it, there would be no huge economic disparity between black and white in this country and no recent history of slavery and institutionalized segregation, and certainly no pervasive harmful racial stereotypes. And certainly, if we all just miraculously stopped noticing race we'd all just live in a happy smappy rainbow colored world in which no one would suffer injustices of any sort.

Sheesh. Crock of shit indeed.

For what it's worth, this is one feminist who agrees that the unequal military burden placed on men in our society is unacceptable and should change. If the active draft (god forbid) was ever reinstated, it would be a travesty for women not to be equally vulnerable. Men's lives are not more expendible than women's. That only men are required to sign up for selective service is a problem. I wonder if having compulsory service for both men and women, or at least equal vulnerability to draft, would do something to change the treatment of female soldiers in the military by giving more institutional support to the notion that female soldiers belong and should be respected as comrads-in-arms.

And I don't think, if it is indeed the case that rape and sexual harrassment are epidemic in the military, that this says anything about behaviors inherent to men. I think it says more about the social context. I know that when social situations give women advantages over men, there are a proportion of women who will use those advantages to do harm. When the system gives men advantages over women (which at least in public arenas is more often the case), it works the same way. Most behave honorably, some act out, and some (of both genders, and generally those with the most to lose, hence often those in positions of power) turn aside and do nothing to intervene. I really think it's important to keep in mind that institutionalized gender discrimination and sexism a) can work both ways, harming both men and women, and b) is always supported to some extent by the actions and inactions of /both/ men /and/ women.

That being said, it would also be unacceptable for women to be expected to be equally vulnerable to selective service in the military while still having a drastically reduced role in he government that decides when to put our servicepeople in harm's way.