You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.

In all these situations, there was not enough violence against them to take it beyond the category of sex; they were not coerced enough.

In my opinion, no feminism worthy of the name is not methodologically post-marxist.

Men, permitted to put words (and other things) in women's mouths, create scenes in which women desperately want to be bound, battered, tortured, humiliated, and killed.

What postmodernism gives us instead is a multicultural defense for male violence - a defense for it wherever it is, which in effect is a pretty universal defense.

Marxism teaches that exploitation and degradation somehow produce resistance and revolution. It's been hard to say why. What I've learned from women's experience with sexuality is that exploitation and degradation produce grateful complicity in exchange for survival. They produce self-loathing to the point of extinction of self, and it is respect for self that makes resistance conceivable.

Can postmodernism hold the perpetrators of genocide accountable?