Monday, October 8, 2007

Culturologist: Our Second Public Health "Ally"

Apparently, the Opine Idiots aren't homobigots. They are merely interested in preserving the health of our nation's gay men who practice anal sex.

Well, why didn't they just say so?

Note Culturologist's latest attempt to rationalize his anti-gay stance:

"There is a LARGE literature in the medical health field demonstrating the specific health hazards homosexual men run by their behaviors. If you don't know it, you would do well to start reading some of it. I would happily send you pdfs of articles documenting higher anal cancer rates in homosexual men and higher rates of other anorectal disease as well as general anorectal dysfunction. And what about the well-known Cophenhagen study that showed clear and significant differences regarding rates at which the homo- and heterosexual populations they looked at showed evidence of various health problems? To quote it: ”The total burden of infections expressed as the actual number of infections was largest among homosexuals, 40.4%, 22.4%, and 5.3% having one, two, and three infections respectively.”As I said, I have a good deal of stuff in pdf form, should you actually be interested in looking at it. It's a grave mistake to imagine that simply waving your credential and your opinion is enough to settle the question of what the medical literature does or does not show. I've certainly never claimed that the sociological argument is settled simply by me noting that I'm a sociologist and I happen to think X. The material still has to be INVESTIGATED."

Culturologist, ever the classic authoritarian, will go to nearly any length to prove that he is the moral authority for every human being in this country (because in his eyes, he is the "do-gooder" of all humankind). Thus, no interpretation of statistics other than HIS interpretation will ever be enough. Because, as the all-knowing purveyor of good and evil in society, he will flick like a fly from his squinty eyes anyone who tries to counter his arrogant, narrow-minded claims. He really does think that he is making society a better place. His offer to send me PDF files of certain studies only further document his authoritarian stance: that no evidence is evidence unless it is interpreted the way he interprets it. That he already, without any evidence at all, assumes I haven't already read any scholarly works on the subjects in question is evidence enough.

He disregards the APA, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, et. al. as falling victim to some kind of "homosexualist propaganda" that advocates for the rights and equal treatment of gay people. He ignores studies in nearly every discipline that point opposite his bigoted belief-system. Unless it supports his view that homosexuals are dangerous to children and/or unhealthy, he disregards it.

This is my take on "The Culturologist:" he is a Right-Wing Authoritarian(RWA) thinly-veiled in the sheep's clothing of a "liberal(?)" college professor...well, some of his comments have indicated he sees himself this way. I guess he's just not liberal in regards to the "morally wrong."

Do any of these traits look familiar in regards to his comments and blogs? I've bolded the most common characteristics of his internet comments thus far(taken from "The Authoritarian Specter"):

1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Hold
contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking.
Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.

Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:

Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
Be hostile toward homosexuals.
Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered. (several times I have seen Fannie and myself attempt to make-nice with the Opine Idiots, and "The Culturologist" never accepts)

3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:
Be dogmatic.
Be zealots.
Be hypocrites.
Be absolutists
Be bullies when they have power over others.
Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
*I can't speak for his character attributes since I don't know him in person.

4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:
Believe they have no personal failings. (It's apparent from his blogs that he sees himself as a "Really Good Dad." And people who don't fit that mold are evil destroyers of society).
learning about their personal failings.
Be highly self-righteous.
Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

I would LOVE to see his results on this test:
http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm.

Among the different variables tested are these:

Conventionalism: Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values.

Authoritarian Submission: Submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup.

Authoritarian Aggression: Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values.

Anti-intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded.

Superstition and Stereotypy: The belief in mystical determinants of the individual's fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories.

Power and "Toughness": Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness.

Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, vilification of the human.

Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses.

Sex: Exaggerated concern with sexual "goings-on."

So you tell me? Is Culturologist an Authoritarian?

*Oh yeah, and his interpretation of the stats and literature on anal sex basically amounts to this: "anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex."

That isn't exactly new knowledge. Nor is it a basis for denying gay couples the right to get married.

When men like Culturologist and Jose Solano get so wrapped up in their own disgust and anal sex obsessions and telling the world how dangerous it is, it further proves that this is their MAIN and only real motivation in denying gay couples the freedoms they have with their partners. THAT. THEY. ARE. OBSESSED. WITH. ANAL. SEX. I feel that people will go to extreme lengths to defend that which goes against their initial knee-jerk reactions.

If this is his basis for denying gay couples the right to get married, then one can only conclude that lesbian couples are, in fact, the ideal type of couple. As their rates of STDs, HIV infection, and intercourse-related cancers are the lowest.

But I would never advocate for that because it isn't fair to those couples who wish to get married who aren't lesbians like me.

See how easy that is?

Giving rights to other groups or people doesn't have to mean that you are giving up your own rights.

I wonder what they are really so scared of.

60 comments:

Fitz said...

Jane Know

Culturologist simply pointed out the evidence for a statement you seem to agree with HERE:


“*Oh yeah, and his interpretation of the stats and literature on anal sex basically amounts to this: "anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex."

That isn't exactly new knowledge. Nor is it a basis for denying gay couples the right to get married.”


Well…he never said it was a basis or his basis in denying gay couples anything.

He simply responded to the assertion that making such a claim is factually incorrect or impermissibly bigoted.



“When men like Culturologist and Jose Solano get so wrapped up in their own disgust and anal sex obsessions and telling the world how dangerous it is, it further proves that this is their MAIN and only real motivation in denying gay couples the freedoms they have with their partners. THAT. THEY. ARE. OBSESSED. WITH. ANAL. SEX. I feel that people will go to extreme lengths to defend that which goes against their initial knee-jerk reactions.”

This is ridiculous. Opine has literally dozens (even hundreds) of posts and comments from both authors. No were can you make a case for an “obsession with anal sex”..

Merely to bring up the point in context is hardly evidence for an “obsession.”

“So you tell me? Is Culturologist an Authoritarian?”

No, but he speaks with a certain authority when it comes to sociological issues. (like marriage) and when it comes to compiling and analyzing data (since his field requires this skill).

You don’t have to accept his authority????

Oh- wait (I see) …

The better Question (is)

Question: IS Jane Know a Neo-Marxist??

Answer: Yes, How can you tell? Why she seriously quotes roundly discredited works like the 1950’s The Authoritarian Personality Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik & other infamous Marxists of the Frankfort School.

This all makes perfect since off coarse – this would explain the hostility to traditional families (also a prime source of the “Authoritarian Personality”) and the “obsession” with feminism and queer theory- fields replete with Marxists and locked into Hegelian master slave dialectics.


I have never seen a soviet show trial of a dissident academic held on a blog before….

Nice Job!!!

Fannie said...

Fitz,

I'll try to speak slowly.

1. "Well…he never said it was a basis or his basis in denying gay couples anything."

That is the implication that one can draw. Or else why even bring it up? You're right in seeming to think anal sex is not a basis for denying gay couples benefits, but Opine is supposedly a blog dedicated to defending marriage. It is logical to infer that "marriage defender's" commentary on such a blog surrounding the harms of anal sex is meant to serve as a basis to deny gay couples the benefits of marriage.

In fact, to infer otherwise would be tantamount to saying "The" Culturologist's comment is irrelevant to your blog and in violation of your comment policy.


2. "No were[sic] can you make a case for an “obsession with anal sex”."

Sorry, I have to agree with Jane on this. One can make such an argument from the "literally dozens" of posts and comments written by Jose.

For literally one example see this detailed comment:

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/10/yet-another-common-everyday-elision.html#comment-9220955771346742512


3. Nice bait and switch to take the focus off of Culturologist's Authoritarianism and claim that Jane is a Neo-Marxist.

Do you even know the big words you are throwing around there at the end?

Joe McCarthy called and he wants his Red Scare tactics back.

Jane Know said...

Fitz--"This all makes perfect since off (sic) coarse (sic) – this would explain the hostility to traditional families "

HAHAHAHA!!! good one fitz. as soon as i stop laughing, i'll respond.

(15 minutes later)

where have i ever implicitly or explicitly been *against* traditional families?

i feel you just blindly agree with whomever is on your side (which you too often accuse pro-SSMers as doing). no matter what their idiotic, bigoted arguments are.

the basis of ALL of my arguments against culturologist and op-ed and the rest of the Opine people is that they shouldn't be in the business of telling people how to live their lives (when they aren't hurting anyone else). they blatantly attack the lives of innocent people where it's not needed and, more importantly, not WANTED. their internet comments, quite frankly, show no respect for human dignity or diversity or tolerance in a world that will NEVER fit their cookie-cutter image. what is more fascist than that?

Jane Know said...

Further, Culturologist and Jose Solano both attempt to use blind statistics taken out of context to enforce their own bigoted worldviews on other people. That is obvious, and that is my criticism of them.

If their arguments warrant it, I will use arguments from the 1950s, or "queer-theory" (which I have never studied or claimed to) or "feminism" to get my points across.

If by obsessed with "Queer Theory" you mean that I support gay rights, then I guess I am a proud Queer Theorist. If by "Feminist," you mean I support the idea that women are equal to men, then I am a proud Feminist.

And like Fannie said, your idiotic McCarthyist lingo does nothing except make me laugh.

Those aren't quite the insults you wish them to be.

Fitz said...

You keep calling them bigoted- as if the mere mention of the health risks associated with anal sex in gay men is proof of hostility.

Jose brought it up in the thread and culturoligist simply validated the extensive findings.

You guys get all excited because you find this to be “proof” of ant- homosexual bigotry, when in fact its simply medical fact.

Then Jane Know writes an several posts in response to a few off topic (generally speaking) posts in a comment thread 140+ comments long.

And what does she try to tar Cultulogist with?

Being an “authoritarian personality”..

She brought that up in this very post (extensively)
Unless your totaly ignorant of the origins of your own thought.

I say my red baiting stands on its own.


Thanks

Fannie said...

"You keep calling them bigoted- as if the mere mention of the health risks associated with anal sex in gay men is proof of hostility"

That is a very poor analysis of Jane's argument. If this argument is going to go anywhere you are going to have to do better than that.

If you don't understand, ask questions. Jane can help clarify her position since you clearly are not getting it.


ps- "Unless your [sic] totaly [sic] ignorant of the origins of your own thought. "

Before you accuse others of ignorance can you please please please for once proofread your comments. I realize that the occasional malapropism and misspelling is inevitable, but many (most?) of your comments and articles are littered with them. I'm not trying to be a grammar snob but it looks ridiculous when you try to appear scholarly and you don't even use the proper forms of "your/you're," "they're/their/there," etc. You misspell words so much that it damages your credibility as an educated person and makes one question if you are really a lawyer or if you just play one on TV. I don't habitually question one's credentials on the internet, but you do make me wonder....

Jane Know said...

Fitz,
I'm having trouble understanding what you write as of late. Could you please re-read your posts before sending them?

In response to what I think you said, that Culturologist and Jose were simply and innocently touting facts: They changed the entire argument over at Opine by even bringing up the "evils" of anal sex in the context of a gay marriage debate.

For one, they are ignoring that ANY unprotected sexual activity in a non-monogamous manner is dangerous (in that it facilitates transmission of STDs) and are instead ONLY focusing on gay men who practice anal sex, thus arbitrarily nit-picking and choosing those behaviors they deem most immoral and "dangerous."

Heterosexual women who participate in anal sex or vaginal sex with men are JUST as likely to get STDs as gay men are. And they get them just as much.

For example: "Women, especially young women, are hit hardest by chlamydia. Studies have found that chlamydia is more common among young women than young men, and the long-term consequences of untreated disease are much more severe for women. The chlamydia case rate per 100,000 population for females in 2005 was more than three times higher than for males (496.5 vs. 161.1). However, much of this difference reflects the fact that women are far more likely to be screened than men. Females aged 15 to 19 had the highest chlamydia rate (2,796.6), followed by females aged 20 to 24 (2,691.1)." (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/trends2005.htm)

See? From that one could deduce that male-female sex is wrong, and thus shouldn't be practiced anymore. That is just my honest, innocent reading of the stats.

Or how about this: "African Americans remain the group most heavily affected by gonorrhea, with a rate in 2005 that was 18 times greater than the rate for whites (626.4 per 100,000 population compared to 35.2 per 100,000, respectively). American Indians/ Alaska Natives had the second-highest gonorrhea rate in 2005 (131.7), followed by Hispanics (74.8), whites (35.2), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (25.9).

Ethnic minorities in the United States have traditionally had higher rates of reported gonorrhea and other STDs, which likely reflects limited access to quality health care, poverty, and higher prevalence of disease in these populations."

So, I guess it could be said that black people and other racial/ethnic minorities shouldn't have sex anymore, since they get STDs in higher rates per 100,000 people.

Again, just my innocent reading of the stats.

Yet, when you add mutual monogamy to the equation, those PUBLIC HEALTH risks for everyone go down to almost zero.

There are, and will always be, gay men interested in forming mutual monogamous relationships, contrary to what Culturologist claims.

Therefore, I fail to see the threat to public health that anal sex alone plays to society.

Not when millions upon millions of heterosexuals engage in unprotected promiscuous sex every day and spread their herpes, chlamydia, ghonorrhea, HIV, and syphilis around, and don't have to answer to your moral brigades. OR at the very least, they aren't told that because of this, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Your (the Opine Idiots) arbirary power hierarchy is atrocious.

This comment of MINE in retaliation to unfair use of statistics was unjustly deleted by Op-Ed.

I feel that anytime he feels he encounters true opposition he rushes to the "delete" button before anyone else can read what they write. And then he accuses them of "profanity."

I don't have to play by his sick and twisted rules anymore.

Further my calling Culturologist an Authoritarian is based on MUCH more than one little comment. It was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

He is an internet fuckwad/authoritarian, regardless of the kind of man he may (or may not) be in the real world. He still uses the internet to espouse hate towards homosexuals.

Fitz said...

fannie..

Well, Jane was having the conversation she knows better than I do why & how disease got brought up.

Nevertheless: I don’t consider simply bringing it up to be bigotry. It takes over sensitive types to cry fowl. Perhaps if the dangers were overblown or inaccurate -but they are not.

As far as the origins of "authoritarian personality" – it is such a well known and discredited way of attacking ones foe's that it’s almost a self parody that leftists still use it.

As for the spell-check, Thanks.. I need to be more careful. I’m sure it does discredit my comments. (although my posts are better proof read)

Jane Know said...

"As far as the origins of "authoritarian personality" – it is such a well known and discredited way of attacking ones foe's that it’s almost a self parody that leftists still use it."


"Well-known" and "discredited" among you and your peers. So I don't care very much if you discredit the argument.

Auhoritarians will discredit that argument.

Many, many others will see it as an accurate depiction of you guys.

Fitz said...

“Many, many others will see it as an accurate depiction of you guys.”

An “accurate depiction” originated and propagated by Frankfurt school Marxists.

Jane Know said...

Yes, Fitz. That's right.

Just like your homobigot language that is propogated by the likes of Hitler.

Again, your little scare tactics don't scare me. But thanks for playing.

Fitz said...

What language do I use that’s also used by Nazi’s & Hitler?

I’m not talking about inferences here.

You used open & notorious Marxist language to attempt to smear culturologist.

All I’m saying is that my worldview is philosophically under girded by Christianity and western civilization norms.

While you and your movement owes much more to Marxist radicalism & subversion.

Jane Know said...

Sure, Fitz. If that's what you have to tell yourself you're doing to keep The Homosexualist at bay.

The Culturologist said...

"He is an internet fuckwad/authoritarian"

And you're an uneducated internet know nothing. A dime for three dozen. Like your friends here, you are an intellectual nobody. Hence, what you think I am or am not really doesn't matter very much.

Fannie said...

Fitz,

Your appeal to tradition doesn't hold the same authority for others as it does for you and your cohort.

You assume that being called a "radical" or a "Marxist" is offensive. I'm sure it is to you. And so you are using these terms to try to discredit Jane and it still stinks of McCarthyism.

I can't speak for Jane and whether she is offended by your labels.

Radicalism in itself is not a bad thing, and society would fail to thrive without it.

Note this quote from Adam Clayton Powell:

“Let's trace the birth of an idea. It's born as rampant radicalism, then it becomes progressivism, then liberalism, then it becomes moderated conservative, outmoded, and gone.”


As for the Marxist bit, it's hard for me to respect the intellect of those who unquestioningly pledge allegiance to capitalism because someone once told them it's the patriotic thing to do and that commies are evil. Or something.

I don't know what you believe, but your Red Scare tactics hint that you think "commies are bad" without really having given it much thought. And, you assume that everyone agrees with your position.

I don't write this to debate the merits/demerits of capitalism/marxism/communism, either, my point is that calling someone out as a Red and assuming that's a bad thing looks intellectually lazy.

Fannie said...

Culturologist's latest Opine comment:

"Any of you who believe Jane Know has somehow "changed" should take a look at her blog, where she is personally attacking people here in the vilest terms. Indeed, other people there are even attacking my WIFE."

His attempt to rally the troops?

Perhaps. But I find his characterization interesting as Jane has offered her interpretation of Culturologist using HIS ACTUAL WORDS.

Indeed after a couple early internet exchanges, Culturologist, using his interpretation of comments, dismissed others as delusional, shrill women who dared to "presume to be [his] equal" in a discussion. He characterizes opponents as "intellectual nobodies" because they use a swear word once in awhile, while ignoring everything of substance that they write.

Frankly, he's one of the most unpleasant people on the internet that I have ever interacted with. He's worse than anonymous trolls because he's not ashamed of his bigoted opinions, he thinks he's always right, he thinks he's automatically smarter than you while not knowing your qualifications or background, and he's unnecessarily aggressive.

Much of his internet persona is dedicated to attacking gay people or chiming in on Opine when they gangbang some opponent. I find his use of the victim card now to be amusing.

And, if he feels victimized I hope it at least gives him a glimpse into the everyday world of gay people who live in a hateful world- a world that he helps create.

The bit about his wife (that he read in one of the comments) is an attempt to further demonize Jane and evoke pity from his allies.

So go ahead, big men. Beat your chests. It's not fun when the tables are turned, is it?

Jane Know said...

Culturologist, and I should care you think I'm an "intellectual nobody" whyyyyyy?

I have yet to see an internet argument coming from you that doesn't first, or at its core, attempt to turn your opponent into a clueless, "shrill," radical, immoral, delusional, intellectual-less being. That is your trusty ole' M.O., but it doesn't work here, on my terms.

Awww, did you feel that your family was "victimized?" If only for a brief moment?

Good.

That's how many gay families feel every day, thanks to self-righteous assholes like you.

The Culturologist said...

"Victimized"?! Oh, please. Don't imagine you have any power over me, Fannie, because you don't. In the world I live and work in, loud ignorant people don't have much influence.

I did mention, didn't I, that you don't matter either, right, Fannie?

Jane Know said...

Apparently now Culturologist is now under the assumption that he is the arbiter of all that "matters."

Dear sweet baby Jesus.

Fannie said...

Culturologist,

This is really getting silly. You thinking that your words have any effect on me. Or that it matters that you say I don't matter (to you).

Again, I'm not some silly little feminist undergrad trembling before you.

What's next, more urgings for us to commit suicide?

Unfortunately, in the real world, loud/ignorant people such as yourself and Opine are given a voice. It says quite a lot about you that you go to Opine to contribute. And by contribute, I mean go there, unzip those khaki shorts, and let the Opine bloggers masturbate your "keen" intelligence.


Now, are you really going away this time?

The Culturologist said...

Why on earth would I urge you to commit suicide? You're so much fun to observe, Fannie. A walking talking stereotype of the loud shrill feminist know nothing.

I think I'll have some of my students read this blog for a lesson in the basis in reality of at least some categories of stereotype.

Fannie said...

Culturologist,

Your delusions of grandeur are so cute.

I simply must read your comments to my feminist knitting circle at the local independent coffee shop. They will get a kick out of the stereotypical male dismissal of a woman and attempts at silencing the opinions of a feminist.

I double-dog dare you to direct your students to your exchanges on the internet.

But here's the catch, you have to let them decide what's going on for themselves. And you can't take the discussions out of context.

No playing God.

Jane Know said...

Culturologist's latest comment about little ole me:

"Yeah, I had a look at the festivities in Harpyville--I feel no desire to try to speak rationally to them anymore, so I just lobbed a few insults in response. I won't go back (every time I do and look at Jane Know's profile, I double the number of views she's had!).

The authoritarian personality stuff is truly a blast from the past--you're of course precisely right that it's as discredited as a theory can be in the social sciences these days. Jane is almost completely illiterate regarding every topic she talks about, and yet it's YOUR problem when you fail to give her the 'respect' she thinks she merits. Truly, that lot 'argue' like my two year old does (narcissistic wailing when she doesn't get her way)--with the exception that my daughter has the excuse of being two years old.

I find it hard to believe any of them actually got out of college with a degree. Standards have been slipping, I realize, but how far have we fallen?

Thanks for your efforts over there in the land of the psychos.

Yes, I've read some of the 'Lincoln was gay' stuff--laughably weak. They just claim whatever they want, and most people are afraid to challenge them because they don't want to be accused of what they KNOW they'll immediately be accused of by those lunatics.

I simply don't care. I'm tenured and they can't really do anything to shut me up."

My main question is why "Harpyville?" Is this a new kind lesbian insult?

And now I am among the people who have claimed Lincoln is gay?

Excuse me, a-wha? What does that have to do with the price of rice?

Culturologist, have a nice life.

Your institution should be (and probably will be, in the long run) embarrassed to have you among its professors. Your blogs, and your internet comments are immensely and scarily unempathetic towards anyone "different" from you.

You keep saying you won't come back to my blog... yet 'ya keep on comin' back. Go then. You've never been welcome here.

Take your hate, take your lack of empathy, take your judgmental attitude, and pack it up in your little bike and don't let the door hit your back tire on the way out.

Fannie said...

I love how he sneaks in the ad hom about your profile hits, as if that's relevant to anything.

He forgot to mention how your blog/profile has only existed for 3 months.

Jane Know said...

I welcome your students here, so long as you don't take anything out of context. (But I won't give you that much credit).

However, is it also fair to ask of them what they *really think,* as you are the one giving them their grades?

You may turn the ones who disagree with you into "shrill, crying girls" like the way you bragged to your Opine Friends about what you did at the Vagina Monologues.

You know, where you said this:
"The Culturologist said...
Precisely.

This reminded me of another piece of my Vagina Monologues experience here where I work. There was a forum on the play after it was performed here--I was invited to be on the panel and to discuss my reading of it. I spent the vast bulk of the time I had discussing the lesbian 'good rape' scene--simply recounting what is in the play, going over the facts of the illegality of the act described in numerous states, the social scientific literature that demonstrates the harm done to children who are sexually active early, etc.

WHen I finished, a young woman in the audience (a Womens' Studies major, I learned later) raised her hand to ask a question/respond. Within about 30 seconds of her response, and without having said the slightest coherent thing, she was in tears, crying that people like me were ruining everything, blah blah blah.

As others in the audience went over to comfort her, evil looks by the dozens shot in my direction. How DARE I make critical remarks about something that had been defined by the PC orthodoxy as unassailable? How dare I assume that a university was about such dispute and discussion and disagreement, and that our job is to prepare students for that activity, not simply to convince them that they should break into tears every time they come into contact with people who do not accept the dogmas they accept?

It was a sad moment. Because this young woman was clearly so intellectually incapable of dealing with debate, and because so many of my colleagues had done so much to reinforce her wholly emotional reaction as intellectually legitimate.

I invite you to look at my blog where I have stats on grading distribution in the various departments in my school. Note that, while the problem of grade inflation is high everywhere (and should concern us greatly), it is substantially higher in some places than others. In Womens' Studies
81% of all students in all courses receive an A. EVERYONE knows what that is about, whether they will admit it or not--ideological correctness is the grade requirement there, not any actual argumentative or rational prowess. Line up on the 'right' side, learn to hate the 'wrong' side, and fall into hysterical tears as a 'response' to it whenever you come into contact with it, and you get your A." (from: http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/09/of-race-racism-and-republicans.html#comment-4640330375133158825)

Fannie said...

Class,

Note the professor's use of gendered adjectives when attacking women.

Does he attack the maleness of his male opponents, or does he treat them as human beings?

Does he take the schoarly approach of telling his male opponents that they don't count?

Basically, is he a sexist prick or an equal opportunity prick?

Jane Know said...

"And by contribute, I mean go there, unzip those khaki shorts, and let the Opine bloggers masturbate your "keen" intelligence."

ha ha ha *snort* So true.

Jane Know said...

And be sure you show your students this, ESPECIALLY your lesbian and gay students:

"Jane Know: Gay couples are very similar to straight couples in nearly every aspect."

Culturologist: Dead people are very similar to living people in nearly every aspect too. But there's one really important way in which they differ.I'll hasten to add that I'm not comparing homosexuals to dead people. The logical weakness of the construction is what I'm getting at, not any parallel there."

and

"As for medical evidence, there's a good deal of that showing that homosexual men suffer risks for STDs and other health hazards well above and beyond those that non-heterosexual men face. This topic has been discussed here before. People who engage in anal intercourse open themselves to all sorts of additional health hazards--this has something to do with the actual primary function of the anus, which doesn't involve shoving objects up it over and over again.Those mundane facts of the human body don't go away just because some people decide they want to express their romantic attractions to others by doing such things."

and

"There's also a good deal of evidence challenging the image you are trying to construct of the 'monogamous homosexual man.' All the data suggest that the average homosexual man has at least several times as many sexual partners as the average heterosexual man. Even people like Jonathan Rauch realize they can't deny this fact--although they work themselves into a sweat trying to shrink the margin as much as they can. It seems pretty clear that this subculture has a strongly entrenched element of promiscuity and there's little reason to believe that allowing them to 'marry' will change that."

(from:http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/10/yet-another-common-everyday-elision.html#comment-9196516256108083430)

Jane Know said...

Class,

Note the Professor's use of statistics to support his arbitrary power hiearchy (that gay men shouldn't be allowed to get married because they practice "unhealthy" anal sex).

Is this a beneficial or harmful type of hierarchy to have in society?

What purpose do you think the incorporation of these statistics served to the Professor's argument?

Please support your answers in complete sentences. We don't want anymore illiterates graduating from cawledge.

Jane Know said...

"Why on earth would I urge you to commit suicide? You're so much fun to observe, Fannie. A walking talking stereotype of the loud shrill feminist know nothing."

Ohhh, so he has seen you walking and talking?!? I thought he teaches at Bucknell. And you are in Chicago, right? How weird. Has he been spying on you?!

So funny that he calls you "loud and shrill" when I actually have met you in person, and find you nothing of the sort. You actually prefer the bulk of your feminist thought to be typed out in articles, not spoken... and definitely not screamed "loudly or shrilly."

I find that a rather brazen assumption from the average-looking-big-nosed-balding-white- male-bigoted-prick-who-probably over-dominates-his-wife-and- children-because-he-is-a-white-heterosexual-male-with-a-small-dick-afraid-of-giving-up-one-iota-of-his-power.

Maybe he should instead show this to his class to give a lesson on why stereotypes are dangerous and usually FALSE.

Jane Know said...

Apparently we aren't the only ones who have caught on to culturologist/Alexander T. Riley:

From: http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2007/09/reasoned-discourse-strikes-again.html

"What I got from thirdpowers comments: (as a ley-person or non-NLA if you will) from the "winky-wink" was how pathetically trite and downright boorish of ATR or anyone to have his/her adorable daughter be an unwilling poster child for their polital causes. She is beautiful(thank god for her she looks like mom!) I hope he loves her more than something anyone could purchase at Walmart. PIN A ROSE ON HIM!"

classic.

The Culturologist said...

"I find that a rather brazen assumption from the average-looking-big-nosed-balding-white- male-bigoted-prick-who-probably over-dominates-his-wife-and- children-because-he-is-a-white-heterosexual-male-with-a-small-dick-afraid-of-giving-up-one-iota-of-his-power.
"

Thanks for that one, Jane. The mask comes completely off and we get to see the monstrous Gorgon underneath. Just right for Halloween.

I'm sorry, I'm not speaking your language. GRUNT! GRUNT! UGH! UGH!

Jane Know said...

Oh, and just when I thought WE were funny, I find these guys. Taken from http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_09_03_patriotboy_archive.html)

Here are my favorites:

(Culturologist is Alexander T. Riley)

"Examining" Professor Bérubé at Rate My Professors we learn that he has a hotness of 3! It must be those (suspiciously french) erect diacritics!

Professor Riley at Rate My Professors scores a 0 for "Hotness."

But, that's okay. We all know: good conservative Christian professors don't have hotness.

And good conservative Christian professors never envy other professor's diacritics, universities, hotness ratings, overall ratings, academic awards, etc.

The only thing I find odd, Sir, is that, according to Professor Riley's academic web site, he is currently working on something called Mystic Durkheimianism, Post-Structuralism, and the Intellectual Pursuit of the Sacred in 20th Century France."

and

"I've seen some envious, bitter, spiteful little cum-bubbles in my day, but Riley takes the petty-peckerhead cake.

Might I make a few suggestions as to what we could fill a hot-water bottle with, and then administer same to Riley?

Okay, first off, I was thinking boiling water and lye... Then, maybe, for the second round, how about fresh hot tar and ground glass? Think that the rubber will hold up?"

and

"General Sir,

I think you may have underestimated Mr. Riley's affection for both your manly self and Bérubéian diacritics. Note that he has turned off comments. He claims to have done this because he is smart smarter smartest of all and others should listen to HIM, but really he is afraid that you will come over there and point out the obvious:

Your little soldier is way bigger than his ivory tower."

and

"We all need to ask Professor Riley why he hates Our Freedom.
Get it straight or leave the premises. Riley does not hate our freedom. He hates our freedoms! Totally different thing.

Mystic Durkheimianism, Post-Structuralism, and the Intellectual Pursuit of the Sacred in 20th Century France.
God that sounds exciting. I'm getting all tingly down there."

and

"Perhaps just a coincidence vis a vis Riley and that elvish-kerning troublemaker Bérubé, but someone guest logged in my toilet this morning. A tad unnerving, yet I am not averse to beginning a relationship with said logger. Drawn to the idea, actually.

I don't think Riley was involved with the toilet contribution du ploppe in my home this a.m.--the guest log was firm and Mr. Hanky-esque. What Riley was showcasing on his site had the grainy texture of explosive diahrrea"


hmmm... it sounds to me like he used to have a blog called the Ivory Tower or something that is gone now.

whatevs. it's nice to see that lots of people have had similar encounters with him, though.

Rachel M. said...

Just to be clear; you’re implying that Jane is unintelligent, right?

Jane Know said...

Yes, I do believe that mask is off.

You sho' is ugly.

Jane Know said...

Looks like he's had some run-ins with folks here, too: http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1034/

Among Professor Riley's (also Cortegiano) comments:

"Not the sharpest pupils I ever schooled, this crowd.

But being a devoted teacher, I will take you through this now in steps."

and

"Did some motivational counsellor at a Napa weekend give you that definition of “sprezzatura”?"

and

"Well precisely, as I just wrote repeatedly, once in boldface. When the pretence and affectation shows, you can only expect to be poco estimato by your potential patrons and competitors for favour.

So. When did decide you wanted to grow up to be a courtier? Was it a childhood ambition, or a choice later in life?

Posted by Cortegiano on 09/04 at 10:35 AM
It was when I read The Courtier in 1979, my good man, and became, as Stanislaus Joyce said of his brother James after James had read the book, more polite and less sincere. When the occasion demands, of course.

Posted by Michael on 09/04 at 10:42 AM
The occasion certainly demands it now, because my Italian is far superior to yours, professore vizioso.

Posted by Cortegiano on 09/04 at 10:52 AM"

Jane Know said...

Apparently he isn't new to scene of offending mass amounts of people with his extreme authoritarianism.

but fer now me have to go 2 bed.

me tiredd. zzzzzz

shark said...

i'm not here to object gay or lesbian, i just agree that the anal sex is risker than virgin sex, because it's more easier for the virus of HIV to transmit, a friend on positivesingles.com who used her practical experiences to prove it, he is a gay and have sex with his partner by anal, and no long after, he was tested HIV postive, but he said he had no choice,maybe it was, but i think we maybe we can do something to prevent it,and that would be better.

Jane Know said...

Well, abstinence-only education (which Culturologist and Jose seem to think would work, at least in the context of gay men/anal sex) is proven time and again not to work.

The fact of the matter is that there always going to be gay people. And gay men will always be having sex with each other.

It's not something that kids learn in school (to be homosexual), and people who aren't really gay aren't suddenly going to start turning gay just because they learn that gay people are okay.

It is, sadly, our Puritan-based country that is so damned conservative with sexual issues that often represses people and harms them even more, than a more open, liberal society does.

Further, heterosexuals practice anal sex, too. Personally, I believe most men will stick their penises in any orifice of their partner that feels good, if the partner would let them.

THAT, is my point. The arbitrary nature of their anti-gay rants. Why some stats are worse than others, just because they are "gay" stats. Why everything is automatically worse if a gay person does it. And why arguments are automatically "evil," "immoral," "immature," "unintellectual," or "shrill," or "too liberal" or "too feminist," if a female or a gay person or a feminist says them.

Anonymous said...

For the sake of discussion, let's say that SSM argumentation is pro-marriage.

Now, is it normative, or is the hope that it would become normative, for all gay and lesbian people, but especially those 18 years and younger, to not engage in "premarital" sexual behavior?

Or is premarital, and thus extramarital, sexual behavior irrelevant to SSM argumentation?

That is to say, sexual behavior within or outside of a government registered union is not central to arguments made by those who promote SSM's merger with marriage recognition, right?

--Chairm

Jane Know said...

"Now, is it normative, or is the hope that it would become normative, for all gay and lesbian people, but especially those 18 years and younger, to not engage in "premarital" sexual behavior?

Or is premarital, and thus extramarital, sexual behavior irrelevant to SSM argumentation?"

Gays and lesbian relationships should be held to the same standards as heterosexual relationships. In today's society it is rather commonplace for people to have sex before marriage these days. (regardless of your own religious or moral beliefs)

However, some people choose to remain sex-free until marriage. This includes gays and lesbians, as well as heterosexuals.

It's not central to SSM argumentation because abstinence until marriage is seen as rather old-fashioned by a large majority of the population these days.

Anonymous said...

Given that gay and lesbian sex cannot lead to conception and childbearing, I take it you meant that only the same sort of sexual behavior should be held to the same standards.

I may have misread but you seem to have answered in terms of sexual relationship, not just marital but also premarital and extramarital.

Or did I misunderstand your intended meaning?

I also asked about people aged 18 and younger. Could you respond to that specifically. And, no, I am not asking about age of consent laws and such. Just how you'd educate young people who are held to the same standards regardless of sexual orientation.

--Chairm

PS: I'm on my way out the door. Back later.

Jane Know said...

And now culturologist is saying this, over at his blog: "I would never dream of saying the nasty things you and your friends have imputed me saying about you personally. I don't know you. And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about CULTURE and INSTITUTIONS."

Ummmm. Sorry, I think I just hallucinated. What did he say?

John said...

Jane. feel free to delete my comment if you feel it adds nothing to your conversation, but I would like to address Chaim's question.

I feel that teenage sexuality may in some cases be unwise or unhealthy, and kids should be taught how to express their sexuality safely.

But, in my humble opinion, teenage sex is not wrong.

Fannie said...

Jane,

Now he's playing the innocent card? Or the selective memory card? Did he forget that he has called us idiots, lunatics, psychos, hysterical women, delustional, shrill, loud, underserving of college degrees, and has said that we are not his equals?

Not that he would DARE resort to personal attacks or anything.

I guess we can add dishonesty to the list of (un)admirable traits of the professor.

Jane Know said...

Fannie,
Don't forget "illiterate" and "unevolved" to the list of personal attacks the Prof. has used.

John, at the risk of bringing in more of the moral brigades, I personally agree with you about teenage sex when it is encouraged to be done safely. Telling kids "not to have sex" just makes them want to do it more. And then when they do have sex, they don't know how to go about it safely.

John said...

I hate to see these important issues discussed in terms of morality, because all it does is muddy the waters.

I can only speak for myself, but teaching young people how to be safe with each other is a very easy thing to do, if parent's take their responsibilities seriously.

To move forward toward equality, we need to talk about the effect inequality has on relationships, not sex.

It is relationships that matter.

Jane Know said...

John said, "To move forward toward equality, we need to talk about the effect inequality has on relationships, not sex."

True.

I hate it when the discussion, as it almost always does, focuses on sex, instead of the many more aspects of romantic relationships.

It is counter-productive to turn it around to a "yeah, well anal sex is just [insert implied or explicit moral judgment here], and thus gay relationships shouldn't be equal."

Always the last resort of someone who has run out of any better arguments.

Jane Know said...

Chairm said: "Given that gay and lesbian sex cannot lead to conception and childbearing, I take it you meant that only the same sort of sexual behavior should be held to the same standards.

I may have misread but you seem to have answered in terms of sexual relationship, not just marital but also premarital and extramarital.

Or did I misunderstand your intended meaning?

I also asked about people aged 18 and younger. Could you respond to that specifically. And, no, I am not asking about age of consent laws and such. Just how you'd educate young people who are held to the same standards regardless of sexual orientation."


Chairm,
I honestly just don't know what you're getting at here. Your moral standards are very different from the majority of Americans' today. That is why I think gay marriage will eventually be legalized.

Traditions become outdated, and people have started to realize that they don't have to feel guilty about something as natural as sex.

Also, while the no-sex-before-marriage mantra used to be the norm, it is FAR from it now. Thus, the issue never really comes up in the SSM debate: because most heterosexuals do not even hold themselves to that standard anymore.

To answer your question about those under the age of 18 (which frankly just sounds like a bait and trap tactic to me):

I think everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should be given safer sex education in high school because that is when most people start to become sexually active. High-schoolers aren't mindless, consent-less beings just because they are under the "magical age of 18." They are all about asserting their own identities and independence, especially if someone tells them that something is wrong (they will then go do it).

The same safe-sex guidelines and practices apply to everyone, regardless of orientation (condoms/dental dams/etc). The teaching always centers around prevention of STDs first and foremost (rather than preventing pregnancy), because most bacterium and viruses are much smaller than sperm. So if you are protecting against STDs, you are protecting against pregnancy by default.

So orientation actually doesn't matter in teaching anyone about safe sex.

hammerpants said...

(This doesn't seem to be on topic any longer, but I couldn't check this at work today)...

Without revealing a whole lot about Jane know, I can say that she is quite well versed in the field of medicine, specifically when it comes to STDs... which really made some of your comments sound amusing...

I wouldn't have felt compelled to comment about her credentials, but the way you blast her knowledge on this topic is baffling to me, since I do know her...

I'm not quite sure where your claim of her ignorance on this matter is grounded, but as far as I can tell, it has no footing, other than maybe that her point of view does not support yours.

Pure dismissal, based solely on disagreement, sure does sound ignorant to me.

Anonymous said...

Jane, if you think the discussion of marriage must exclude morality, then, you are at odds with most of society.

Even most of your fellow SSMers will try to claim the moral high ground.

* * *

So, no, I had asked about premarital sex, but then I noted that you you seemed to rephrase in much broaders terms -- outside of marriage (i.e. premarital and extramarital and nonmarital).

Perhaps you did not mean to switch from talk of what is normative for the conjugal relationship to talk of the sexual relationship and treating as normal sexual relations that takes place outside of marriage.

Did you basically mean that there is no significant difference if sex takes place within or outside of marriage?

I don't think this is true for both-sexed sexual behavior, but it might be true for same-sexed sexual behavior, I dunno.

* * *

In a more recent comment Jane said, "I hate it when the discussion, as it almost always does, focuses on sex, instead of the many more aspects of romantic relationships."

There is nothing intrinsically sexual about the same-sex category.

But the both-sexed category is intrinsically sexual as per the both-sexed nature of human generativity. That's why the influence of the marriage idea is of such importance to society.

Whatever the importance of same-sex sexual behavior, it is not about integration of the sexes and responsible procreation, combined.

This is a very significant difference that, at Opine, I thought you had acknowledged and had implied that you and other SSMers valued.

However, as you now emphasize, the romantic relationship is your focus, it seems. This is different from the conjugal relationship, of course.

You mentioned romance before, in other discussions we had, but you haven't described the aspects you think should be discussed.

Presumably, these are the aspects that for you merit a special status, on part with marital status (if not merged with marital status).

Maybe to address that would be inappropriate in a comment section. It might be interesting to see what you have to say about the romantic relationship extensively described in a blogpost.

--Chairm

John said...

I have been waiting for two days for Chairm to respond, and now that he has, I really have no idea what he is talking about.

It sounds very much like he saying sex is one thing romance, another. (Brilliant deduction).

Sex within marriage is different than sex without. (Brilliant deduction)

Gay sex can't result in procreation. (Brilliant deduction)

Beyond a few obvious facts, it sounds like a steaming pile of horsehit

Jane Know said...

Yeah, I don't even know where to start. I just don't understand most of his lingo.

He keeps saying things like "there is nothing intrinsically sexual about the same-sex category." But what does that mean, exactly? "Category?" Is that what gay relationships are to him, "categories?" Or is "category" something else? Is he saying that gays and lesbians can't intrinsically have any type of sexual relations with each other? Maybe he just hasn't met the right guy yet.

More importantly, this has been bugging me: Does one pronounce "Chairm" like "charm (as in lucky charm)" or like "Chair M" or "Chair-m?"

Anonymous said...

John, given that your comment shows that you have understood, and have agreed, what is your objection, precisely?

Jane, were you asking me how to pronounce my name? If so, please ask directly and let me know what you think is the relevance of its pronounciation in this written discussion.

--Chairm

Anonymous said...

Jane, you could start with the following, as it seems to be your own starting point as per your own words here and in other discussions at Opine:

You mentioned romance before, in other discussions we had, but you haven't described the aspects you think should be discussed.

Presumably, these are the aspects that for you merit a special status, on part with marital status (if not merged with marital status).

Maybe to address that would be inappropriate in a comment section. It might be interesting to see what you have to say about the romantic relationship extensively described in a blogpost.


Romance. That's what marriage is all about, right? The many aspects of which you would make the core of marriage recognition today.

--Chairm

Anonymous said...

Typo correction: these are the aspects that for you merit a special status, on par with marital status

Rachel M. said...

Still don't see the point. And skip the calling me stupid part. I'm actually very smart. I just fail to see the relevance of you posts. Bored.

Jane Know said...

"Jane, were you asking me how to pronounce my name? If so, please ask directly and let me know what you think is the relevance of its pronounciation in this written discussion."

No thanks. This is my blog, and I definitely don't have to meet your demands here. That was my way of saying I'm done taking you seriously.

So feel free to march back to your Opine Idiotorials and continue to TRY to espouse your hatred of gay people. And I'll keep pushing on in this fight for equal rights.

We'll see who comes out ahead.

Anonymous said...

Rachel, you were not called stupid.

Jane, no demands were made of you.

You raised the subject, and a sub-topic, and were asked for clarifications.

Your silence on those matters speaks louder than your petty insults.

May your blog continue to bring you much satisfaction.

--Chairm

Jane Know said...

Oh, Chairm, it will and does bring me satisfaction to get my message out there for people like you.

I hope your hateful blog does as much for you.

Somehow I doubt it.