If anything, this whole discussion makes feminists look unenlightened and overly anxious about the modern agenda to the detriment of complete understanding of the historical nature of the patriarchy we all fight against.

Well said.

I find it astonishing that anyone would attempt to write a review based solely on another review, without having actually read the book. And worse than that – to attack somebody’s character in such an extreme way as this: “I’ve met and seen men like Richard Bernstein. I’ve seen them walking down the street in places like Cambodia and Thailand, sometimes alone and scoping, sometimes negotiating with another man on the age and price of a woman or girl or boy, sometimes with an Asian woman trailing a few feet behind him.” It calls to mind the ‘there’s a paedophile on every street corner’ witchhunt mentality.

I also find it interesting that the reviewer and some of the commentators slam Bernstein for not being interested in or including women’s voices. In fact he interviewed dozens of women in his research for the book (of course, you are quite right that their stories will be mediated through his telling).

I note also that the reviewer herself has spent minimal time in ‘the East’ and has not spoken with any of these women either. I’m not convinced that a Western woman banging on about the lives of non-Western women is that much more credible than a man speaking for those women.

I find Ellid’s comment – “I think it ironic that Mr. Bernstein decries being characterized as having a fetish for Asian women in the same line in which he explicitly states that he has been married to a Chinese woman for over twenty years” – very strange, as he/she seems to assume that all relationships between Western men and Asian women must be fetishistic. The assumption that this is not a loving, respectful relationship could be interpreted as insulting to the intelligence and agency of Bernstein’s wife (of more than 20 years!).

I don’t like Bernstein’s comparison with American lesbians 50 years ago (!), but I think that his point that the lives of these women are far more complicated than you acknowledge is important.

And I agree with Syl’s comments entirely.

Interestingly, Toni Bentley in her New York Times review quotes this from the book, “wisdom, of course, ­teaches that the greatest sexual pleasure for a man comes in a healthy monogamous and loving relationship with one woman.”

I’m off to read the book, to find out for myself what it’s all about.

A couple of things. First, I cannot top La Lubu’s explanation of why your metaphor doesn’t hold, so I won’t try. Second, if your apocryphal lesbians existed, even in small numbers, my response would be to say, I am very sorry you feel unloved, but purchasing sex/affection from others because they are so poor that it is the lesser of n evils for them is intrinsically fucked. Where are the voices of the women providing the services? How can we take seriously a book with such gloating passages about male sexual pleasure and autonomy if the effects on the ability to have sexual pleasure and autonomy of the female half of those dyads aren’t even considered or discussed?

And if I am wrong, Mr. Bernstein, please quote some passage of your book that tells the story from the colonized people’s point of view. And no, my daughter got me a water buffalo that makes my life so much better is not what the fuck I am talking about.

But… Nah. Got better shit to do.

Poor, white, heterosexual men! Oppressed for wanting to be top dogs! OH THE HUMANITY!

Here’s a ticket to the clue train, cupcake: White, heterosexual men are not oppressed. Maybe they enjoy lording it over poor brown women, paying for sex and getting it on their terms, and going into a so-called “relationship” with an exploited woman while crowing about how he gets a submissive woman, but I assure you, wanting those things and not getting them is not oppression. Getting them at the expense of an exploited and vulnerable population IS oppression, but the men aren’t the ones who are oppressed.

To compare this to lesbianism is ridiculous. When White heterosexual men are denied housing, marriage rights, civil rights, and the rights to adopt because of their sexual orientation towards women, you can start trying to call yourself oppressed. When you’re stopped and searched for your race, when the majority of people who represent you in congress and the majority of CEO’s are women of color, you can call yourself oppressed. When you are called a prude for not having sex and a whore for having sex, when you are vulnerable to rape (and blamed for it when it happens), you can call yourself oppressed. Until then, I suggest you STFU about how oppressed the White Menz are.

Keep digging, dear. For all of your whining about Jill’s charecter assasination (oh, you poor histrionic fool), you’ve just done the most damage yourself in your ridiculous answer to her.

::arches eyebrows::

Have you been paying any real attention to what has been discussed?

What has been said here is not that the feminists on this board have a problem acknowledging why colonialism occurrs/ed. What has been said is that no one wants to read this entitled fuckwit’s bullshit misogynistic explanation for colonialism. Reading his one comment was nauseating enough me. No way in hell I’m wading through a book full of that nonsense.

If anything, this whole discussion makes feminists look unenlightened and overly anxious about the modern agenda to the detriment of complete understanding of the historical nature of the patriarchy we all fight against.

You’re vile, Richard Bernstein.’

Um. Obviously, in that passage you quoted, he was trying to elaborate on the metaphor by comparing the women to the Pasty, Flabby Western Men who are the subject of his book. Do you honestly think an otherwise intelligent person who’s trying to make (and I think does make) a good argument on due diligence in blogging, would also try to insult women in the same sentence? No. YOU made that knee-jerk assumption. Thanks for lowering the tone of the discussion.