Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism conspiracy theory grandiosity imaginary oppression male studies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam the c-word whores

Australian “Male Studies” initiative under fire because of its connections to raving misogynists; raving misogynists blame feminists

Antifeminist attorney, A Voice for Men contributor and and would-be Male Studies lecturer Roy Den Hollander bustin' a move on the Colbert Report.
Antifeminist attorney,  A Voice for Men contributor, and would-be Male Studies lecturer Roy Den Hollander bustin’ a move on the Colbert Report.

NOTE: See the end of the piece for an important clarification from the University.

So it seems the new “Male Studies” initiative at the University of South Australia is running into a few problems. Well, one big problem: members of the general public have discovered that some of the people involved with the initiative are raving misogynists, or have chosen to associate themselves with raving misogynists.

Yesterday, a story by journalist Tory Shepherd noted that two of the lecturers have written for a notoriously misogynistic website by the name of A Voice for Men. (You may have heard of it.) One of them, the crankish American attorney Roy Den Hollander, even suggested in a post on that site that men’s rights activists may have to take up arms against the evil Feminists who run the world.

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely.  But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms.

Huh. That doesn’t sound like a very academic analysis of the situtation to me.

Den Hollander also likes to refer to “women’s studies” as “witches’ studies.” And if you don’t believe her, here’s the AVFM post in which he does just that; it’s in the first sentence.

Apparently pointing out some of these basic facts about Den Hollander, and about another of the lecturers, Miles Groth, who has also written for AVFM, is causing some trouble for Dr. Misan and his little Male Studies initiative — at least according to a post on AVFM by the always furious Paul Elam, who informs us somberly that

[s]ources close to the story report that [Shepherd’s article] is likely a terminal setback for the new initiative.

Elam fights back against Shepherd’s alleged “lies” in a paragraph that is itself nothing but lies:

The article by Shepherd is saturated with the typical lies, e.g.: that the SPLC named AVFM as a hate group, which they did not, and that this website regularly calls women “bitches and whores,” which it does not. She also implied a connection between AVFM and those championing the initiative which does not exist.

Actually, Shepherd said that the SPLC described AVFM as a “hate site,” not a “hate group.” This is in fact true, as the SPLC included AVFM in a list of “woman-hating sites,” which would make it a hate site, as the hatred of women is in fact a kind of hate.

And AVFM does in fact refer to women regularly as whores and bitches and other slurs. Indeed, in one notorious post about Rebecca Watson, Elam managed to use the word “whore” more than 30 times; as for the word “bitch,” well, check out this compilation of AVFM posts featuring that word in the title. As you’ll see from that post, Elam also likes referring to women as “cunts,” and once referred to the feminist blogosphere as the “cunt-o-sphere.”

Do your own searches for “whore” or “bitch” on AVFM to find more recent examples.

Shepherd doesn’t, in fact, imply any “connection” between AVFM and “those championing the initiative” beyond the undeniable fact that two of the lecturers have written for AVFM, and that AVFM has heralded the Male Studies initiative. Interestingly, it’s Elam, with his talk about  “[s]ources close to the story,” who implies an even closer connection than Shepherd does.

The rest of Elam’s post is a remarkable mixture of self-contradicting lies and self-delusion. First, he declares “Male Studies” to be a pure-as-the-driven snow example of non-ideological scholarship.

In writing this article Shepherd actually served as a mouthpiece for academic feminists invested in blocking the attempt to study human males in a non-ideological, scholarly fashion.

How exactly is someone who describes himself explicitly as antifeminist, who describes women’s studies as “witches studies,” and who’s written for AVFM on several occasions an example of someone who is trying “to study human males in a non-ideological, scholarly fashion?”

Elam then launches into one of his typical chest-beating fuck-their-shit-up ideological rants:

The Men’s Human Rights Movement is not going to go away. Indeed, even as we regret the temporary setback of an important and valuable initiative, we do welcome another opportunity to shine a light on the ideologically twisted agenda of people who would undermine an academic program with the ambition to enhance our understanding of an egregiously underserved population.

Yes, that’s right. The world’s men have been “egregiously underserved.”

This type of bullying and public deception is precisely what has catapulted the Men’s Human Rights Movement into rapid growth and increasing popularity in such a short period of time.

The only bullying and deception I’m seeing here is coming from your side, dude. Women aren’t talking about taking up arms against men. You’re the one who’s lying about what Shepherd said.

From assaultive, criminal demonstrators in Toronto blocking doors to a lecture on male suicide, to this – an obviously orchestrated attack on honorable academicians — the reality of what feminism has become, and the depths to which it has lowered, is again in full public view.

Uh, Roy Den Hollander isn’t an “honorable academician.” And, frankly, neither is anyone who chooses to associate themselves with your site. I’m not sure how Shepherd’s one article counts as an “obviously orchestrated attack,” but all she did was point out what Hollander said, and point out the sort of misogynistic shit you publish on your shitty website.

In other words, Mr. Elam, you guys have dug your own hole here — with you, personally, bringing one of the bigger shovels.

Just think: A Voice for Men may be in large part responsible for the collapse of this Male Studies initiative, because you and the others writing on your site can’t hide your raging misogyny, and can’t resist the temptation to call women “bitches” and “whores.”

This is the lesson of all the publicity you guys have gotten in the last year: when members of the general public learn what you guys actually believe, they are repulsed by it. The more attention you get, the more people oppose you.

After some more ranting that he might as well have cut and pasted from any of  a dozen previous posts of his, Elam ends with one of his trademark vague threats:

We will force their hand, again and again. And each time they demonstrate their moral bankruptcy; their limitless capacity for tyranny, the more they will generate the contempt and indignation they deserve. And the more people will realize that the only way forward is straight through them.

You’re just digging that hole deeper.

EDITED TO ADD: The Universityof Southern Australia has clarified a few things about the Male Studies initiatives. According to a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, the school only approved one of the four proposed courses, and officially rejected (back in 2012) the one that would have included Den Hollander and Groth as lecturers. Here’s what the newspaper says:

The university has approved one of four proposed graduate courses, a certificate in male health and health promotion, which will begin online next month.

But an original proposal by one of the university’s academics outlined three further certificates, including a course called ”males and sexism”, which named lecturers who have been published on radical men’s rights websites. …

The university emphasised it did not endorse views of the suggested lecturers. It said the courses, which were criticised in the media on Monday, were rejected in 2012.

So that’s reassuring to hear.

I removed a portion of my post referring to Gary Misan, in charge of the course, because in light of this information it’s not clear if he was referring to all four courses, including those involving Den Hollander and Groth, or just to the male health course.

Oddly, though, Dr. Misan seems to think that the University has signed up for more than one course. On his official University of South Australia web site he describes himself as “program co-ordinator for a new suite of courses in Male Studies at UniSA, the first of which will be offered in 2014.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

292 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Auggz — the answer to the gun question, in the theoretical, not MRA sense, is shooting targets. Closest thing to an animal I’ve ever shot were these little metal knickknack things my mother had (hitting a 1/2″ chicken with a handgun at 25′ is sorta fun…getting hit in the foot with a ricochet less so…different days, and other than screaming, no harm done, it had a good bounce before bouncing into the foot I should’ve had a shoe on)

But, yeah, seeing how I have no interest in shooting things that aren’t set up specifically for that purpose and not living, I have no problem with gun control, and think they cannot possibly be talking about the mere existence of the ability to shoot things.

Hi Viscaria, I’ll get back to you soon, sorry yesterday got all busy and I got eaten by a cat. Twice. She’s apparently not pleased that I went away for the weekend.

Ivy Shoots
7 years ago

Did anybody notice?

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

The MRA’s believe and say things that are so outlandish and foreign to most people that we don’t want to believe that these people are what we would call…normal, there has to be something wrong with them, so in our own haste to define them we call them crazy or insane, but they are not.

Robert,

This is what I was trying to say but you said it more effectively in less words.

When you are confronted with evilness the kind that makes your body have a physical reaction just upon hearing words ….your mind will try and rationalize “they must be crazy /they are not “normal.” When the truth is they are “normal” just filled with hate. Hate is an emotional If we are truthful most of us have felt however passing. Some people feed off of hate .That is there ‘normal” .

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Ok, caught up. Pre-coffee me can only coherently attend to one of the many good points raised, but this one I can do basically on rote…not guilty by reason of insanity isn’t just a question whether he person is mentally ill and whether the criminal act is a result of the illness, nor is merely thinking what you are doing is not wrong enough — if you think, say, drowning your kids will save them from the devil, but know it’s illegal…well, took a second trial for Yates to get an insanity plea.

Also, they’re a bad idea. The only time I could think to recommend someone try it would be to avoid the death penalty, because you will almost certainly end up in an institution longer than you’d have been in prison. Friend of mine interned with a lawyer handling NGRI cases, one of the clients was 25 years into what would’ve been a 5 year max sentence if he’d plead guilty — simple assault got him over two decades in a CT hospital when a guilty plea would’ve had him out in probably 3 years.

Why? Well, he assaulted someone because of his mental illness. He’s still mentally ill, so he’s still dangerous. Not that the psychs weren’t saying the relevant symptoms weren’t controlled or anything. Last I heard the board making that call wasn’t hearing it, mentally ill and dangerous once = mentally ill and dangerous forever. So you’re actually better off to plead guilty, go to prison, not get treated, get released and THEN go to the psych ward, than to plead insanity.

And this is why I get all cranky pants about going mentally ill = dangerous. Even if it did once, doesn’t mean it always will, for that person, for everyone with that condition, for all people with mental illnesses, nor for all people with those pesky personality disorders that apparently aren’t mental illnesses.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

It is a lot easier to believe that some people are “crazy” rather than to acknowledge that some people are just monsters and evil.

People like Paul Elam are well aware that what they are doing is evil, they just don’t care and some of them even enjoy being evil, they are not mentally ill, they are just evil.

“Delighting in evil.”

katz
7 years ago

Did anybody notice?

Notice what? The Vanelope gravatar?

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Lana — idk that I’d call it normal, as it feeding off hate isn’t exactly normal, but it isn’t a mental illness. No more so than, idk, wearing corsets in the 21st century is normal but not a mental illness. Plenty of things aren’t normal, nor mental illness (nor those pesky personality disorders that are apparently not mental illnesses)

A cuter example — I read about a guy in a reasonably warm climate who built a shed type structure, tiled the interior with a large basin, plumbed the basin to the house, and set it up as a stringray tank. Certainly not normal, but awesomely awesome. (Aquarists, we’re the obsessive sort! And on that note, I need to see what puff was begging my mother for, probably just trying to coax some snails out of her because she was there, but I should check)

Lol, that example is perfect actually — I have sundry diagnoses, but “obsessive aquarist” isn’t one of them. And now my aquatic puppy puffer calls!

(Viscaria, coffee, then an account for you! 🙂 )

leftwingfox
7 years ago

From the original post: “non-ideological” is one of those words that instantly sends off alarm bells for me. It’s a warning that the speaker cannot identify their own bias, and believe they are speaking “The Truth”.

Which dovetails into the ablism discussion.

The guys don’t see themselves as evil or bad guys. They’re living a narrative that’s been fed and reinforced by others and guided by cognitive biases which are near-universal. They’ve been fed a narrative of “manliness” and a promise of dominance by family, media and companions. That promise of dominance hasn’t been fulfilled to their satisfaction, and rather than challenge their beliefs or blame themselves, they’ve decided they’re being denied what is rightfully theirs.

In that way, they believe that feminists control society and that they are being personally harmed. The perspective they lack is little more than confirmation bias selectively filtering the facts of the world. It’s not “crazy”; it’s just logic based on faulty premises.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

And this is why I get all cranky pants about going mentally ill = dangerous. Even if it did once, doesn’t mean it always will, for that person, for everyone with that condition, for all people with mental illnesses, nor for all people with those pesky personality disorders that apparently aren’t mental illnesses.

I wouldn’t say personality disorders are not a ‘mental” illness.

I just wouldn’t say everyone with a repugnant personality by most peoples accounts of them is a “disorder” or a mental illness.

The same as I wouldn’t say someone with an “extreme” positive personality who seems to be overwhelmingly optimistic and kind has a “personality disorder” or mental illness.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

Sorry the monster got me ..LOL!! Kitteh I think I’m about 1/2 dozen now .(and don’t argue with me I say 1/2 dozen then so it is !)

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

And this is why I get all cranky pants about going mentally ill = dangerous. Even if it did once, doesn’t mean it always will, for that person, for everyone with that condition, for all people with mental illnesses, nor for all people with those pesky personality disorders that apparently aren’t mental illnesses.

I wouldn’t say personality disorders are not a ‘mental” illness.

I just wouldn’t say everyone with a repugnant personality by most peoples accounts of them is a “disorder” or a mental illness.

The same as I wouldn’t say someone with an “extreme” positive personality who seems to be overwhelmingly optimistic and kind has a “personality disorder” or mental illness.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

The guys don’t see themselves as evil or bad guys. They’re living a narrative that’s been fed and reinforced by others and guided by cognitive biases which are near-universal. They’ve been fed a narrative of “manliness” and a promise of dominance by family, media and companions. That promise of dominance hasn’t been fulfilled to their satisfaction, and rather than challenge their beliefs or blame themselves, they’ve decided they’re being denied what is rightfully theirs.

In that way, they believe that feminists control society and that they are being personally harmed. The perspective they lack is little more than confirmation bias selectively filtering the facts of the world. It’s not “crazy”; it’s just logic based on faulty premises.

You mean they are entitled spoiled brats who aren’t getting everything someone said they are entitled to so they are enraged ?

Viscaria
Viscaria
7 years ago

Hi Viscaria, I’ll get back to you soon, sorry yesterday got all busy and I got eaten by a cat. Twice. She’s apparently not pleased that I went away for the weekend.

I haven’t even written a word yet XD. Plus I’m such an Internet n00b that I probably won’t have any clue what to do when you grant me access. Absolutely no rush! Try not to get eaten anymore though.

Robert Ramirez
7 years ago

I think a lot of these guys do see themselves as evil or bad guys, the narrative that they like to tell is just a way they con people people into their bullshit. They enjoy the power and outrage that being evil gives them.

Evil is addicting, it is like a drug to tell the truth. And god damn it, evil is fun.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

The guys don’t see themselves as evil or bad guys. They’re living a narrative that’s been fed and reinforced by others and guided by cognitive biases which are near-universal. They’ve been fed a narrative of “manliness” and a promise of dominance by family, media and companions. That promise of dominance hasn’t been fulfilled to their satisfaction, and rather than challenge their beliefs or blame themselves, they’ve decided they’re being denied what is rightfully theirs.

I have a great analogy . Santa Clause is coming to town .(to bring you presents)

Robert Ramirez
7 years ago

Another way I like to describe MRA’s is that they are STUPID rather than “crazy” and “insane”, and by stupid I mean: INTENTIONALLY IGNORANT. They rather play the I lose/You lose game rather than play the I win/You win game. They just do not care about changing or learning or making themselves better people, they are set in their ways and there is no changing them.

They are stupid.

leftwingfox
7 years ago

You mean they are entitled spoiled brats who aren’t getting everything someone said they are entitled to so they are enraged ?

Sure, if you want to be all succinct and accurate and shit. 😉

kleptonetic
kleptonetic
7 years ago

RE: “Ableism”

I’ve always felt that if nothing else, using ableist slurs and/or assumptions to try to paint an abhorrent viewpoint as somehow less legitimate is a shitty thing to do because it plays into the assumption people have that abhorrently vile racists/sexists/homophobes/etc are incredibly rare and their hate somehow isn’t as real. This plays right into a culture that tries to minimize shitty shit shitted from privileged groups onto marginalized groups – see also: rape culture.

Calling the hateful MRAs “crazy” is like when gun toters try to say mass shootings are only a result of a few “whackos”. They’re trying to make people focus on the already marginalized “other” instead of acknowledging that in the US there’s a much bigger problem with our gun culture. Calling MRAs a “few crazies” makes them look like rare outliers, instead of simply a small fringe off a much larger problem of institutionalized misogyny in our culture. The way I see it, their opinions honestly aren’t much different than those of the slightly more palatable religious right. The MRAs are just a bit more honest and brazen about their hatred.

TL;DR: assigning an armchair diagnosis to every abhorrent MRA David writes about changes the focus to whether or not said MRA has x armchair diagnosis, when the focus should be on how and why what said MRA wrote was wrong. It’s entirely possible some of the MRAs do have x personality disorder or y mental health issue, but that is not the reason why they are such hateful assholes.

Robert
Robert
7 years ago

I’m reminded of a character in Julian May’s sprawling SF series “Saga of Pliocene Exile”. During much of the story, she is mentally ill, evil and extremely dangerous. Eventually, a metapsychic healer repairs her psychological damage. Everyone is surprised that, although now mentally healthy, she is still evil – and even more dangerous, being in full command of her faculties.

Also, both my sons are diagnosed with mental illnesses, and neither of them exhibit misogynist attitudes or behaviors. I think that most, if not all, of the badmindedness displayed by MRAs is the product of minds that would, by clinical standards, be considered neurotypical. They’re aware of what they’re doing, and are doing it on purpose. They’re not sick, they’re evil.

Bina
Bina
7 years ago

There are some great doodles in royalty’s books – I think George III left some stuff along the lines of “what a load of crap” in his schoolbooks as a boy.

And just think, nowadays women can peruse all that, and feel absolutely no nostalgia for the old world order whatsoever. MISANDRY!!!

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

The way I see it, their opinions honestly aren’t much different than those of the slightly more palatable religious right. The MRAs are just a bit more honest and brazen about their hatred.

Much different ? They are one in the same .Every single religious “right” man I know IS an MRA. If he isn’t trolling the MRA groups he’s trolling the Christian internet sites.

They BRAZENLY put forward the same ideals except they “back it up with scripture” including “woman was made for man not man was made for woman” women are to be “submissive to her husband .(quote 5 passages) he is her HEAD and leader.. God designed women and men for COMPLETELY different purposes. ADAM was created FIRST…They don’t call women bitches and sluts. They call them “contentious ” and “jezabels ” and “immodest” .The man is to glorify God the woman is to glorify the man .They don’t believe a married man can commit adultery unless the other woman is married or engaged(because that would be the crime /stealing another mans property ) if she is single its cool with God and his wife needs to understand that. (men are by Gods design of course polygamous women are naturally monogamous)

In fact FEMINISM has DESTROYED the church !

OH they also believe slavery is not “unbiblical” and they think they are “nice” because they wouldn’t enforce the old law of executing gays just its O.K to drive them to suicide calling them and abomination and in the meantime block their civil rights to be included in the constitution of the United states.

Trust me the religious “right’ is insidious . NEVER think you are safer among them .

Ivy Shoots
7 years ago

katz, no, what I said I noticed in the Colbert video.

Bina
Bina
7 years ago

Another way I like to describe MRA’s is that they are STUPID rather than “crazy” and “insane”, and by stupid I mean: INTENTIONALLY IGNORANT. They rather play the I lose/You lose game rather than play the I win/You win game. They just do not care about changing or learning or making themselves better people, they are set in their ways and there is no changing them.

They are stupid.

Also childish, and willfully immature. I get the distinct feeling that as toddlers they were always pooping their pants, not because they didn’t know how to use a potty, but because no bitch was gonna tell THEM to put on their big boy pants and use the toilet like a grown-up!

kittehserf
7 years ago

@Nepenthe:

We sure as hell spend a lot more time bickering about bad words, so they stick in one’s mind as being used more often.

Bickering? How about “our tolerance for this shit has decreased and we find ourselves having to explain over and over again why it’s not okay”.

@Robert Ramirez:

There is something wrong with these people but it is not mental illness…it is simply the insipid banality of evil that we are looking at.

Yuppers. And you don’t get much more banal than these keyboard warriors.

@lana:

When you are confronted with evilness the kind that makes your body have a physical reaction just upon hearing words ….your mind will try and rationalize “they must be crazy /they are not “normal.” When the truth is they are “normal” just filled with hate. Hate is an emotional If we are truthful most of us have felt however passing. Some people feed off of hate .That is there ‘normal” .

Also yuppers!

And half dozen it is, I’m not arguing. 😀

@Argenti – I think lana was saying feeding off hate is their normal.

@Bina – I can get nostalgic about some of the clothes, but that’s about it! 😀

On the whole “bad/strange ideas = oh they’re mentally ill!” – I’ve been called mentally ill and deluded and whatnot because of my relationship with Louis. (Argenti, remember the troll who tried to make out it was necrophilia? So much laughage!) If I’m mentally ill because of that, then fine, I’d rather be this way than “normal” or “rational” or whatever dry, lifeless existence the ableists would find acceptable. It isn’t hurtful or harmful to me, because it’s never affected anything in my life, the way real mental illness and the prejudice it brings harms people; it’s just random internet comments from losers with imagination deficits and bigotry overloads. I have NT privilege in spades.

But it’s a small contributor to a big “fuck you” to those who assume that mental illness or being non-NT or anything else is the cause of being a dirtbagging bigot who hates half the human species and resents us for existing without being their sex slaves. The two are. not. related. How hard is this to understand?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

I really think that “spoiled selfish assholes” is the best description of most MRAs. Some of them may have something more serious going on, which there’s no way to tell for sure over the internet, but really, some people are just assholes, and lots of people choose to believe things that are hateful and/or make no sense (see also – neo Nazis, the Illuminati, the world being run by alien lizards).

With the misogynistic stuff, there’s a direct benefit to the men who believe it in the sense that it means nothing is their fault and they’re not responsible for the fact that their relationships with women never work out. People choose to believe in stuff that on some level they know can’t really be true because it makes them feel good and means they have an excuse for everything that’s wrong in their lives all the time, which is part of why bigotry tends to cluster.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

And yeah, the misogyny that you see in the MRM is just stuff that’s present in lower doses in most societies turned up to 11. The main reason for their rage is that they see some of those attitudes gradually becoming less socially acceptable, and they think it’s not too late to make that process stop, hence “activism” in the form of trying to scare feminists into shutting up.

kittehserf
7 years ago

lots of people choose to believe things that are hateful and/or make no sense (see also – neo Nazis, the Illuminati, the world being run by alien lizards).

Whereas we know the TRUTH, it’s run by the Furrinati.

kleptonetic
kleptonetic
7 years ago

@dallasapple, don’t worry, I know they really aren’t any safer. A better way to phrase that I guess would be to say I think the religious right talking heads have had more experience with what will go over a bit better PR-wise than the MRAs have. Calling women “jezebels” and “immodest” basically are stand-ins for sluts and bitches, just they know from experience that words like “slut” and “bitch” don’t go down as well as “immodest” and “jezebel”. Then whenever one of them slips up and does call someone a slut, they can play it off as “well, we all know what zie REALLY meant and jeeze, stop being the PC police already will you? We already censor ourselves enough to begin with because damnit, we really want to call women sluts and bitches”.

Speaking of dangerous religious righters and MRAs, any of you heard this story? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/13/pastor-accused-of-paying-homeless-to-fire-bomb-ex-professes-innocence-i-never-did-pay-them/

If that guy isn’t an MRA already, he’s well on his way to becoming one their heroes, I’d wager. Yeeesh.

Robert Ramirez
7 years ago

@cassandra Calling them stupid, evil, childish and immature spoiled selfish assholes works fine for me.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Lana — I think we agree then, the bit about personality disorders was me snarking Emma’s view, and the part about normality was about society’s normal — plenty of things diverge from that!

Kitteh — ah, yeah, makes sense, and it certainly is their normal. And not mental illness despite being not normal in society at large.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

I’ve been called mentally ill and deluded and whatnot because of my relationship with Louis. (Argenti, remember the troll who tried to make out it was necrophilia? So much laughage!) If I’m mentally ill because of that, then fine, I’d rather be this way than “normal” or “rational” or whatever dry, lifeless existence the ableists would find acceptable.

O.K now you have my curiosity . Why would your relationship with Louis be made out to be necrophilia? Isn’t that having sexual relations with a dead body ?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

That was just a troll trying to make kittehs upset. Didn’t work, but it did give everyone else an opportunity to point (at him) and laugh.

kittehserf
7 years ago

lana, yes, it is! Louis passed over in 1643; our contact is via Spirit (and that’s a physical world anyway, hence *cough* cuddling *cough* being possible). It’d be a trifle difficult for anyone to have contact with his earthly remains, given 1) they’re in a vault at the basilica of St Denis and 2) since the royal tombs were desecrated during the Revolution, nobody can now identify the bodies anyway.

If you click on my nym you’ll see my blog, which has prolly far more stuff about us than you ever wanted to read. 😛

kittehserf
7 years ago

Cassandra – it gave me a great point and laugh opportunity, too! 😀

closetpuritan
7 years ago

Roscoe:
This is his line of attack, that an idea lacks legitimacy if it disagrees with feminism, and should be perceived as marginal, and rejected as such.
I don’t think this is what he’s saying. IMO, it’s that their ideas (which are centered around disagreeing with feminism) are not legitimate, (not because they disagree with feminism) and that they are trying to gain legitimacy for them by creating a special academic department for themselves. I also think that there’s a big difference between antifeminist and nonfeminist perspectives (if by non-feminist you simply mean, hasn’t given much thought to feminism or does not think of oneself as feminist), so it’s unhelpful to conflate the two when Flood was talking about antifeminist perspectives.

What is so bad about letting people discuss gender from a non-feminist (or anti-feminist) perspective?

People do that (non-feminist) all the damn time. Outside of Gender Studies, that’s what they do a lot even in academic settings. WRT anti-feminism, well, apparently most universities don’t see much merit in such perspectives, so while there’s nothing stopping a student from bringing up antifeminist ideas in a discussion, the universities have mostly chosen not to hire antifeminists for the purpose of talking about their antifeminist ideas. This is not a problem to me, any more than choosing not to renew someone’s TV series because of stuff they’ve said is a problem to me.

I think the fact that they’re trying to set up their own rival departments is telling. Normally, if you have conflicting theories with the rest of your department you don’t get to set up a rival department. I mean, if you think that root pressure is more important than transpirational pull in the movement of xylem, you don’t set up a rival plant science department with a new name. These Male Studies types are the ones who can’t tolerate disagreement, if they can’t work within existing gender studies departments.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

I’m picturing the conversation going like this.

Angry MRA : I’d like to teach a new unit next year about how women can’t think rationally because they have periods and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Department Chair : That’s not actually true, you know. Perhaps you should read article blah blah in the Journal of Neuroscience which showed that women can make rational decisions just fine.

Angry MRA : Stop censoring me! I have a right to my opinions!

Department Chair : Yes, but not your own facts. The university cannot allow you to teach students things that we know to be complete nonsense. Also, who do you think is going to take a class like that?

Angry MRA : PC bullshit! Fuck you, I’m starting my own department.

Department Chair : What are you going to call it, the Department of Bad Science?

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

Angry MRA : Stop censoring me! I have a right to my opinions!

Department Chair : Yes, but not your own facts. The university cannot allow you to teach students things that we know to be complete nonsense. Also, who do you think is going to take a class like that?

“You don’t have a right to your own facts.” Zing!

Robert Ramirez
7 years ago

“You don’t have a right to your own facts.”

Misandry! If I say that the sky is polka-dooted then by golly it is polka-dotted….that is my right as a man and an American!

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

We sure as hell spend a lot more time bickering about bad words, so they stick in one’s mind as being used more often.

>.>

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

lana, yes, it is! Louis passed over in 1643; our contact is via Spirit (and that’s a physical world anyway, hence *cough* cuddling *cough* being possible). It’d be a trifle difficult for anyone to have contact with his earthly remains, given 1) they’re in a vault at the basilica of St Denis and 2) since the royal tombs were desecrated during the Revolution, nobody can now identify the bodies anyway.

If you click on my nym you’ll see my blog, which has prolly far more stuff about us than you ever wanted to read. 😛

So do you have an “alive” Louis like he’s reincarnated ? Is he a person in the living physical world flesh and bone with ya know ..blood pumping and all that ?

I am a Christian which many would say I’m not because I think reincarnation can happen .I haven’t seen anyone prove it cant I know that much.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

When asked if he paid these three homeless people in his charge to terrorize his ex-girlfriend, he only said that “[t]hat’s a sad statement, because I never did pay them.”

OOPPS. you slipped up buddy .

kittehserf
7 years ago

lana – no, I’m not a believer in reincarnation at all, but anyways, no, Louis isn’t an earthly being. He’s himself, very much alive, but Spirit (or heaven or paradise or the afterlife whatever you want to call it) is a physical world of its own. I cross over there – my soul, I mean – while I’m asleep, and that’s where we are with all the kitties and dawgs and BETTER FECKIN’ WEATHER THAN HERE and so on. Here, I’m aware of him, like I might catch a mental glimpse, or hear him make a comment (like when he was laughing his head off at Roosh’s “three times” nonsense) or just be aware of his presence. The most physical contact I’m aware of is if he squeezes my hand, or sometimes I can feel it if he kisses me.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

lana – no, I’m not a believer in reincarnation at all, but anyways, no, Louis isn’t an earthly being. He’s himself, very much alive, but Spirit (or heaven or paradise or the afterlife whatever you want to call it) is a physical world of its own. I cross over there – my soul, I mean – while I’m asleep, and that’s where we are with all the kitties and dawgs and BETTER FECKIN’ WEATHER THAN HERE and so on. Here, I’m aware of him, like I might catch a mental glimpse, or hear him make a comment (like when he was laughing his head off at Roosh’s “three times” nonsense) or just be aware of his presence. The most physical contact I’m aware of is if he squeezes my hand, or sometimes I can feel it if he kisses me.

O.K I get that . He’s a spirit that you can feel and communicate with here (on earth) and you visit him too . (and I don’t blame you if they have better fecking WEATHER!!!!!!)

My mother has told me all my life that my passed away father is with her.She was only 28 when he died they had been married 10 year .(he was 28 too and died in a plane crash) .She can “feel him” like you describe. Touching her shoulder .Her hand .etc.. I don’t know if she visits him but I know she wishes she could . You mentioned in your sleep ?She says the first thing she thinks of in the morning is him and the last thing before she goes to sleep .He died 42 years ago .My mother has also been remarried to my wonderful “step” father for 40 years in August. I think maybe she does visit my first father at night but doesn’t tell us.

(((HUGS)))))

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
7 years ago

kitteh, happy anniversary to you and Louis. Ignore the trolls; they’re stunted.

I was flipping through a Sylvia Browne book once and found a passage that struck me as interesting. The gist of it was that it’s actually very rare for true soulmates to incarnate together on the same physical plane, in the same lifetime. It’s just too risky, due to all the obstacles and pain and potential for psychic damage. Usually, one soulmate takes physical form while the other remains as spirit. After they’re reunited, the other soulmate helps the first to heal from all the suffering and scars that were inflicted during their earthly stint. Then they switch and the other one ventures into the physical plane. She compared it to a soldier leaving a precious diamond behind for safekeeping before going off to do battle.

You’re one of the few lucky ones who can maintain radio contact while you’re here. 😀

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

MONSTER GOT ME!!!!!

7 times now!!!!

kittehserf
7 years ago

lana, you’re trying to get the record! 😀

That’s so sad about your father being killed, and so young, and I’ll bet that he does visit your mother. I’d guess he’s happy she has another loving husband, too.

Funny instance: a few years back a friend and I went to a group reading by some allegedly world-famous psychics. It was pure chance; I’d wandered into my friend’s shop and she mentioned this thing being on, and that she’d wanted to go to it with someone else but they’d cancelled. I said I’d come, ‘cos curiosity. Well, we weren’t much impressed with these readers. Some of what they were doing was too obviously vague, cold-reading stuff, and the meeting seemed dominated by one big family group, which I didn’t like much.

But there was one thing … one of the readers pointed at me and said, “There’s a man with long dark hair standing next to you, and he’s playing with your hair.”

Kinda specific for a random shot from a stranger, I thought! 🙂

Buttercup – bonsai trolls, oh my!

I’m very glad to be with Louis as he is now he’s had all that time to heal. I fell for the man he was, but I’m not under any illusions that we’d have had a successful relationship then. For one thing he was more attracted to men, and for another, the two times he did fall for women other than his wife (they’d been in love years before but it had gone horribly sour) he didn’t have affairs with them, because adultery. Even apart from that, he had capital-I Issues, as anyone with his upbringing would. One of the huge pleasures of being together as we are is seeing him happy, purely and simply happy.

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

I was flipping through a Sylvia Browne book once and found a passage that struck me as interesting.

I have read all her books. I have mixed emotions about her . I don’t like how she has told parents their missing children are dead only later to be found alive or vice versa.

I do love her biography . Her grandmother had the “gift” as well. And showed her the ropes.I think Sylvia may have misused her gift or something .

One thing she said that got my skin crawling. Was that she (Slyvia) was a better mother BECAUSE of the severe abuse she suffered at the hands of her mother ….NO NO NO NO!

She didn’t say a better mother than her mother .A better mother period. That is a BAD bad MESSAGE…Say I’m an awesome mother DESPITE a horrible example ..a better mother than my own mother .But not a better mother BECAUSE my mother put me through horrible abuse.(I mean like tying her up and burning the bottom of her feet )

BLAH!

dallasapple
dallasapple
7 years ago

lana, you’re trying to get the record! 😀

Escuse moi???

7 “SEVEN” is the record???????????????????????

Allright ..I ‘ll take it …blockquote monster queen…thanks…. do I get at least a pretty sparkly crown or something ?

kittehserf
7 years ago

Well, no, I don’t reckon seven’s the record (I’d be ahead of that, lol) but you’re building up the numbers here!

You definitely get a

pretty sparkly crown

in your choice of plastic gemstones. 😉

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
7 years ago

If you prune your trolls carefully, they can assume beautiful forms suggestive of ancient, windswept simplicity.

Or more likely, they’ll assume shapes suggestive of freshly formed noxious scat.

I definitely agree there’s a lot of day to day baggage and clutter that can obscure higher forms of love. Sometimes two people who are destined for each other just can’t make it work out in the here and now. Better to take the long view and be patient.

Glad Louis has found a place of peace, and that you’re able to share it with him.