You can verify this by looking in any credible dictionary. Obviously you neglected not to use one when you wrote that editoral. Nor did you use one prior to posting it here on GSC. I'm sorry, but you throw your credibility into question right in the first sentence. I find it hard to believe an actual professor would make such an obvious error, but stranger things have happened. It wasn't a "professor" from TWI was it?
********************************
ANY credible dictionary, huh? No, the professor was not a "twi professor", whatever that is. His name is Robert Beloof. He taught English at U CA Berkeley. I was, in the fall of 1973, a student at the Music and Arts Institute of San Francisco, 2622 Jackson St. San Fran Cal. I heard that 8th grade students in CA used the same textbook that I used in 12th grade government class in MI, so the standards were different, so I had to take "bonehead English" from Prof. Beloof if I was to continue as a student at Music and Arts Inst.
It was in that class that I was treated to that statement. This guy was a prehistoric metrosexual stooge as far as I could tell. After he made the above posted statement, he said that the simple fact that there was no word meaning one who hates men, that this constituted discrimination against women. What a butthead! I think it's the other way around. If someone hates men, so what? Men are pigs, men are scum. It's perfectly natural to hate men. We don't need to invent a word to identify this. But if someone hates WOMEN????? Wait just a minute. This is SICK!!!! We'd better tag and label this sick person who hates women, hadn't we? Yeah! MISOGYNIST! That's what HE is! Yep! We got him. Uh huh!
As for the "credible dictionary" issue, I have 2 dictionaries in my house: 1979 Webster's unabridged 2nd edition, and 1998 illustrated Oxford dictionary. Neither one contains the word 'misandrist'. The closest they come is 'misanthrope', a hater of mankind.
Wow, a lot of anger in your post. The word is "misandry". From there you should find the derivations. Look it up again in your Webster's and Oxford, do a word search on the Internet, look it up in "Dictionary.com", look it up in Wikipedia. It's not a made up word.
The apostle Paul beseeched people to be followers of him, as he was of Christ. To imitate his lifestyle. But with a view to looking at Christ, not at Paul.
For those who consider VPW a good man, is he your role model? Do you copy his behavior?
If you're male, do you touch women not your wife? Do you go around privately on motor vehicles with women not your wife? Do you engage in sexual contact with them? Do you think it's okay to share other men's wives? Is it okay to share your own wife with other men?
If you're female, do you touch men not your husband? Do you go around privately on motor vehicles with men not your husband? Do you engage in sexual contact with them? Do you think it's okay to share other women's husbands? Is it okay to share your own husband with other women?
Do you do things that you forbid others to do...you enjoy an alcoholic drink but condemn others for drinking less than you? Do you smoke, but castigate others who do?
Maybe a killer question: If VPW (at any age) had asked you to give him private time alone with your teenage daughter, or to make a private visit with your wife from which you were specifically excluded?
What if he'd ordered you to give him private time with your wife? Or kept coming round when he knew you were out? - Would you be happy with that?
Truly? No shadow of doubt? Or, having heard what you had heard, would you want to "risk it"?
There's a female poster here who ran far far away when a VPW-lookalike looked upon her daughter...she knew what that meant.
If VPW is not your role model - WHY NOT? If he is such a good man 'n all.
You might want to let your "professor" know that the corresponding English word meaning one who hates men is the word, "misandry". See below:
World English Dictionary
misandry (ˈmɪsəndrɪ)
n
hatred of men
Word Origin & History
misandry
1946, from miso- "hatred" + andros "of man, male human being" (see anthropo-). Related: Misandrist
You can verify this by looking in any credible dictionary. Obviously you neglected not to use one when you wrote that editoral. Nor did you use one prior to posting it here on GSC. I'm sorry, but you throw your credibility into question right in the first sentence. I find it hard to believe an actual professor would make such an obvious error, but stranger things have happened. It wasn't a "professor" from TWI was it?
You know professors, revisionist all. Its much easier to say there is no word for hatred of men to prove your misogyny narrative than to crack a dictionary and see if there is one.
Johniam, a bit of friendly advice. Don't buy everything the professor says, they're trying to move an agenda. Memorize it in case it shows up on a test, but search for the facts yourself.
His name is Robert Beloof. He taught English at U CA Berkeley. I was, in the fall of 1973, a student at the Music and Arts Institute of San Francisco, 2622 Jackson St. San Fran Cal.
I rest my case.
I"ll give you an example of what some of the loons are teaching: when I went to college in the 90s there was a professor in Washington state teaching all sex is rape--including consentual sex in marriage. Are you going to take that as a fact?
Long ago a professor taught me that a misogynist is one who hates women. He further stated that there was no corresponding English word meaning one who hates men.
"Typical behavior of today's college educated religion bigots; anything to belittle God's word."
In post 93, you made this statement:
"Long ago a professor taught me that a misogynist is one who hates women. He further stated that there was no corresponding English word meaning one who hates men."
Do you see a discrepancy here, John?
In post 43, you display an obvious disdain for higher education. Yet, in post 93, you extol the importance of this man's opinion.
By all accounts, Professor Beloof seems to have been a fine fellow. In fact, here is a quote from his obituary: "Robert Beloof was a dramatic, forthright person; in department faculty meetings, most valuably, he often spoke openly of difficulties and problems that others were content to gloss over."... He spoke openly of difficulties and problems that others were willing to gloss over. Perhaps, John, that was the true lesson to be gleaned from his example.
"Typical behavior of today's college educated religion bigots; anything to belittle God's word."
In post 93, you made this statement:
"Long ago a professor taught me that a misogynist is one who hates women. He further stated that there was no corresponding English word meaning one who hates men."
Do you see a discrepancy here, John?
In post 43, you display an obvious disdain for higher education. Yet, in post 93, you extol the importance of this man's opinion.
By all accounts, Professor Beloof seems to have been a fine fellow. In fact, here is a quote from his obituary: "Robert Beloof was a dramatic, forthright person; in department faculty meetings, most valuably, he often spoke openly of difficulties and problems that others were content to gloss over."... He spoke openly of difficulties and problems that others were willing to gloss over. Perhaps, John, that was the true lesson to be gleaned from his example.
Wow. I didn't know all that about him. Cool. Yeah, I remember he had written a poetry book and we could buy it if we wanted. He seemed like he had a sensitive side. Once he gave us the assignment of giving a short speech about a political event. So on Saturday before it was due I walked all the way to the SF public library downtown to read up on something and give the speech. About a block away from the library I saw a crowd gathered. It was a political demonstration. But I started to walk away because I had this assignment to do and I shouldn't be wasting time with...(JOHN, THAT IS A POLITICAL EVENT). All I remember about it was it was anti Nixon. This guy had a Nixon head and torso mask with its hands giving the V sign. Then this other guy says, "Wait a minute! He's OK". Then he hits him in the face with a whiffle ball bat. That's all I remember, but, hey, I had my speech.
What does this have to do with the topic? This topic has life of its own. First it was VP as a good man, VP as evil man, VP as sexual predator, VP as bad bible teacher...these asides can spawn from anything, seems like.
Prof. Beloof WAS a professor, and he DID say what I said he said. That was 1973. My dictionaries post date that year. Interesting that the wikipedia link has a guy who says that bigotry against women is sexism, but bigotry against men is called humor. Even today, while the word misandry technically exists, and has before 1973, you never hear it used in public speech or in the media. Not so misogynist.
BTW, did anybody read the REST of my email? I made my point well enough to get it printed. The point being that we live in a male bashing culture, that there are double standards that penalize men and favor women, and that Martha Burke was operating under a double standard.
quote: Do you see a discrepancy here, John?
In post 43, you display an obvious disdain for higher education. Yet, in post 93, you extol the importance of this man's opinion.
Hardly. You can't bash higher education on one hand and then turn around and use it as evidence of credibility.
Wierwille did the same thing. He bashed the fields of science, philosophy, psychology and higher education in general. Then, he turned around and tried to lend credibility to his so-called ministry by name-dropping associations that he'd had with people of higher learning. Hell, he even represented himself as having received a doctorate when, in reality, his "degree" had been granted by what we now refer to as degree mills. You do realize he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
homosexual tendancies.. led to intellectual conquests..
yeah. The Victoid was as queer as a "three dollar bill.."
Ham
You may have stumbled onto something here. Perhaps he was so hell bent on conquering women because he was trying to prove to himself that his homosexual tendencies weren't real. It's not so far fetched. I've personally known people who have married and had children in an effort to prove to themselves that their tendencies weren't real. I could be wrong. It's certainly something that merits some consideration, though, in my opinion
There are elements of bisexuality in every individual. In the course of a normal development, the homosexual instincts are weakened and the heterosexual come to the fore, paralleling the development of the anatomical signs of bisexuality. The nipples of the male, for example, remain in an “embryonic” state.
If the homosexual instinct does not disappear, however, but continues its development, the result will be either open homosexuality, if the individual is conscious of his tendency, or latent homosexuality, if he is unaware of it and it is hidden in the unconscious by the authority of the moral censor.
However, the thinking, the aspirations and the actions of such a person will reflect his internal conflict.
In some cases, the homosexual elements are not manifested till advanced age, appearing like a mysterious flame glowing through the ash.
It seems to us that no other perversion (or to use a better term, paraphilia), in its latent occult state, makes such liberal use of various masks and distortions as the homosexual inclination.
Don Juan, this picture of a man in the eternal quest of women, is likewise a masked form of homosexuality. He cannot find the object of his quest and is untiring in his efforts. Nothing can satisfy him since he seeks satisfaction where he cannot find it. He cannot abandon the search because an incessant voice from the unconscious drives him on, and he does not know whence will come the call and where it will lead him.
This unceasing flight from one woman to another is sadistic, and an even stronger sadism must develop when a latent homosexual is bound by marriage to one woman. Unconscious but aggressive homosexual tendencies and sadism are inseparable phenomena. When one of the partners to a marriage is a homosexual, the marriage becomes a form of torture, especially when the homosexuality assumes an aggressive shape.
yeah.. he screwed da "men" as much as, if not more than the women..
yeah. He "screwed" the mens minds, the women's bodies..
same thing..
I agree that VP screwed men mentally and emotionally but I don't think it was worse than what he did with women. In fact, I'm concerned you might be marginalizing the trauma that women went through when sexually assaulted by by him. I also wouldn't list "screwing men's minds and screwing women's bodies" as "the same thing". Just my opinion.
Waysider, you bring up some interesting points. Womanizing isn't necessarily an attempt to hide homosexual tendencies. More often than not, men who womanize are insecure in their own masculinity. They falsely think that a sexual conquest will prove their manliness, mostly to themselves. It's a false belief and in reality doesn't work. So a man goes from woman to woman hoping to find what's missing and never being satisfied. It is also a hatred of the feminine because he is not really making love to a person, but to a false hope, a false fantasy. In reality he is making love to himself.
Men who use pornography suffer the same neurosis except with porn a person can act out in the privacy of his own imagination without any risk of being rejected. Their are porn users who do not womanize with a real person, but I've never met a womanizer who doesn't have a strong bond with pornography.
As far as Wierwille masking homosexual urges, who knows what rests in the thoughts and fantasies of an individual? Nevertheless, I don't think we have any evidence to support that he ever physically acted out homosexually with anyone. We have more than enough evidence to support him sexually molesting several women, many of them adolescents.
LCM, on the other hand railed too much against homosexuality. As Shakespeare wrote, "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much." (o.k., it's a little hokey but it gets my point across) I've often thought that maybe he was trying to mask, or suppress such urges. Again, I don't think we have any evidence to suggest he partook in homosexual sex. To me, however, his public expressions of homophobia leave some questions.
What does this have to do with the topic? This topic has life of its own. First it was VP as a good man, VP as evil man, VP as sexual predator, VP as bad bible teacher...these asides can spawn from anything, seems like.
...
BTW, did anybody read the REST of my email? I made my point well enough to get it printed. The point being that we live in a male bashing culture, that there are double standards that penalize men and favor women, and that Martha Burke was operating under a double standard.
"What does this have to do with the topic?"
Yes, John, what does it have to do with the topic?
"This topic has life of its own."
You have deflected it so that you hope no-one is looking at your idol, VPW.
"BTW, did anybody read the REST of my email? I made my point well enough to get it printed."
Your point really was to evade addressing the point.
"The point being that we live in a male bashing culture..."
Good points WW--earlier on in this thread I was trying to stay away from any good/bad judgements and point out that whatever he was, he certainly was a one very insecure man.
You tangentially pointed it out much better than I could have....the incredible need for attention, the sexual exploitation, the bizarre practices and doctrines (stand when he enters the room etc.)....even mainstream way doctrine seems to me was directly linked to satiate his hunger for importance.
on another note (well maybe its really the same)...
The point being that we live in a male bashing culture
Huh??
I know that us poor oppressed males have lived as second, third and eighth class citizens for centuries now. We are nearly outcasts from society and have never been given any opportunity beyond ruling the world, running the corporations and being at or near the top of every field of human endeavour. Its been tough, really tough, being a male with all this disrespect floating around.
I agree that VP screwed men mentally and emotionally but I don't think it was worse than what he did with women. In fact, I'm concerned you might be marginalizing the trauma that women went through when sexually assaulted by by him. I also wouldn't list "screwing men's minds and screwing women's bodies" as "the same thing". Just my opinion.
No, I wouldn't marginalize what he did to the women. Just from what I've seen, some men *seem* to be intellectually and emotionally damaged for life..
when some stand in front of a group, and give praise and worship to da father in da word, for whom we are supposed to be so thankful for.. with full knowledge of his proclivities..
or open up a raw copy of da old man's "work"..
the last big wig I saw here, literally looked like his eyes were glazed over..
look what he did to John Lynn..
maybe he was arrogant before, who knows.. but give an arrogant buffoon the microphone and (practically) the power of Gawd..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
49
45
19
Popular Days
Jan 26
31
Jan 21
29
Jan 30
25
Jan 20
25
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 27 posts
Ham 49 posts
waysider 45 posts
Broken Arrow 19 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2011
31 posts
Jan 21 2011
29 posts
Jan 30 2011
25 posts
Jan 20 2011
25 posts
Popular Posts
Grace Valerie Claire
Well, the last time I checked, I was a woman who joined the Navy!! I love this poster!! Anyhow, to add my few pennies, I think VBW was a sick man!! A few years ago, a woman posted here at the Cafe
waysider
I think the realization they were able to keep so much hidden speaks volumes about just how corrupt and deceptive the whole operation was.
chockfull
"Was vpw a good man?" for God to decide - I don't own the scales of Justice. but you only need to insert one little adjective into that statement to make it one that resounds with a universa
Posted Images
waysider
It would seem that your "professor" was not very well read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Wow, a lot of anger in your post. The word is "misandry". From there you should find the derivations. Look it up again in your Webster's and Oxford, do a word search on the Internet, look it up in "Dictionary.com", look it up in Wikipedia. It's not a made up word.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Why are there so many references of "sexual" attributes in your posts?
Just seems like this is a re-occurring observation in this thread entitled Was vpw a good man? Is there a parallel theme running in all of your posts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Was VPW a good man?
This still needs to be debated????
The apostle Paul beseeched people to be followers of him, as he was of Christ. To imitate his lifestyle. But with a view to looking at Christ, not at Paul.
For those who consider VPW a good man, is he your role model? Do you copy his behavior?
If you're male, do you touch women not your wife? Do you go around privately on motor vehicles with women not your wife? Do you engage in sexual contact with them? Do you think it's okay to share other men's wives? Is it okay to share your own wife with other men?
If you're female, do you touch men not your husband? Do you go around privately on motor vehicles with men not your husband? Do you engage in sexual contact with them? Do you think it's okay to share other women's husbands? Is it okay to share your own husband with other women?
Do you do things that you forbid others to do...you enjoy an alcoholic drink but condemn others for drinking less than you? Do you smoke, but castigate others who do?
Maybe a killer question: If VPW (at any age) had asked you to give him private time alone with your teenage daughter, or to make a private visit with your wife from which you were specifically excluded?
What if he'd ordered you to give him private time with your wife? Or kept coming round when he knew you were out? - Would you be happy with that?
Truly? No shadow of doubt? Or, having heard what you had heard, would you want to "risk it"?
There's a female poster here who ran far far away when a VPW-lookalike looked upon her daughter...she knew what that meant.
If VPW is not your role model - WHY NOT? If he is such a good man 'n all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You know professors, revisionist all. Its much easier to say there is no word for hatred of men to prove your misogyny narrative than to crack a dictionary and see if there is one.
Johniam, a bit of friendly advice. Don't buy everything the professor says, they're trying to move an agenda. Memorize it in case it shows up on a test, but search for the facts yourself.
I rest my case.
I"ll give you an example of what some of the loons are teaching: when I went to college in the 90s there was a professor in Washington state teaching all sex is rape--including consentual sex in marriage. Are you going to take that as a fact?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Ha ha!
The rest of your post was good, too. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misandrist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandrist?show=0&t=1295717552
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misandrist
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/misandry
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=misandrist
As soon as I read this post, I said to myself "of course there is- misogyny is hatred of females,
misandry is hatred of males, just like "polygny" means marrying multiple wifes and "polyandry" means
marrying multiple husbands." ("Polygamy" means marrying multiple spouses but doesn't distinguish
between husbands or wives, and is usually TAKEN to mean the same as "polygny".)
Hey, in high school, I ran into an English teacher with defects in her vocabulary, also. The class had
to come up with a synonym and an antonym for every vocabulary word. The word was "dilettante".
I came up with the antonym "pundit" (a learned man). The teacher said no, that a pundit is a person
who's good with making up puns- which is a common misconception. I looked it up soon after- but I
didn't ask to leave the room to reference it immediately, which would have shown that a nearby
collegiate dictionary had the correct definition of "pundit."
Don't underestimate the value of a good collegiate dictionary. If you take care of it, it will last
you a lifetime. Or at least 30 years for a paper copy and possibly longer for a digital copy, depending
on whether the format is still readable.
On another subject, what did this have to do with the thread's topic?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In post 43, you made this observation:
"Typical behavior of today's college educated religion bigots; anything to belittle God's word."
In post 93, you made this statement:
"Long ago a professor taught me that a misogynist is one who hates women. He further stated that there was no corresponding English word meaning one who hates men."
Do you see a discrepancy here, John?
In post 43, you display an obvious disdain for higher education. Yet, in post 93, you extol the importance of this man's opinion.
By all accounts, Professor Beloof seems to have been a fine fellow. In fact, here is a quote from his obituary: "Robert Beloof was a dramatic, forthright person; in department faculty meetings, most valuably, he often spoke openly of difficulties and problems that others were content to gloss over."... He spoke openly of difficulties and problems that others were willing to gloss over. Perhaps, John, that was the true lesson to be gleaned from his example.
(Quote is from this link:Robert L. Beloof)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Quote from Wordwolf: On another subject, what did this have to do with the thread's topic?
See post #93.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
that's what the "men" can't figure out.. for the most part..
yeah.. he screwed da "men" as much as, if not more than the women..
yeah. He "screwed" the mens minds, the women's bodies..
same thing..
I hope one subject to this would have the fortitude to say "yuck.."
was he a "good man"?
he screwed EVERYBODY..
homosexual tendancies.. led to intellectual conquests..
yeah. The Victoid was as queer as a "three dollar bill.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sorry. I was just sent to observe..
Joke or not, I believe that..
anytime I've gotten "involved".. it hasn't meant a hill of beans..
well, maybe there have been one or two exceptions..
far, far from Way land..
da Vicster.. was a Nazi.. with homosexual inclinations..
no joke here..
I see what I sees..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Wow. I didn't know all that about him. Cool. Yeah, I remember he had written a poetry book and we could buy it if we wanted. He seemed like he had a sensitive side. Once he gave us the assignment of giving a short speech about a political event. So on Saturday before it was due I walked all the way to the SF public library downtown to read up on something and give the speech. About a block away from the library I saw a crowd gathered. It was a political demonstration. But I started to walk away because I had this assignment to do and I shouldn't be wasting time with...(JOHN, THAT IS A POLITICAL EVENT). All I remember about it was it was anti Nixon. This guy had a Nixon head and torso mask with its hands giving the V sign. Then this other guy says, "Wait a minute! He's OK". Then he hits him in the face with a whiffle ball bat. That's all I remember, but, hey, I had my speech.
What does this have to do with the topic? This topic has life of its own. First it was VP as a good man, VP as evil man, VP as sexual predator, VP as bad bible teacher...these asides can spawn from anything, seems like.
Prof. Beloof WAS a professor, and he DID say what I said he said. That was 1973. My dictionaries post date that year. Interesting that the wikipedia link has a guy who says that bigotry against women is sexism, but bigotry against men is called humor. Even today, while the word misandry technically exists, and has before 1973, you never hear it used in public speech or in the media. Not so misogynist.
BTW, did anybody read the REST of my email? I made my point well enough to get it printed. The point being that we live in a male bashing culture, that there are double standards that penalize men and favor women, and that Martha Burke was operating under a double standard.
quote: Do you see a discrepancy here, John?
In post 43, you display an obvious disdain for higher education. Yet, in post 93, you extol the importance of this man's opinion.
**************************
Apples and oranges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
might I humbly say..
he never had my mind..
I wish the ball that hit me in youthful days was that soft..
It left a black eye.. for a long time..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wish my brother would weigh in here..
yeah.. he threw the ball..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I rely under the decisions of the randomizer..
I hope it can do what it thinks it can do..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hardly. You can't bash higher education on one hand and then turn around and use it as evidence of credibility.
Wierwille did the same thing. He bashed the fields of science, philosophy, psychology and higher education in general. Then, he turned around and tried to lend credibility to his so-called ministry by name-dropping associations that he'd had with people of higher learning. Hell, he even represented himself as having received a doctorate when, in reality, his "degree" had been granted by what we now refer to as degree mills. You do realize he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
-------------------------------------------------------
"he screwed EVERYBODY..
homosexual tendancies.. led to intellectual conquests..
yeah. The Victoid was as queer as a "three dollar bill.."
Ham
You may have stumbled onto something here. Perhaps he was so hell bent on conquering women because he was trying to prove to himself that his homosexual tendencies weren't real. It's not so far fetched. I've personally known people who have married and had children in an effort to prove to themselves that their tendencies weren't real. I could be wrong. It's certainly something that merits some consideration, though, in my opinion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Another take on the homosexual aspect HERE
There are elements of bisexuality in every individual. In the course of a normal development, the homosexual instincts are weakened and the heterosexual come to the fore, paralleling the development of the anatomical signs of bisexuality. The nipples of the male, for example, remain in an “embryonic” state.
If the homosexual instinct does not disappear, however, but continues its development, the result will be either open homosexuality, if the individual is conscious of his tendency, or latent homosexuality, if he is unaware of it and it is hidden in the unconscious by the authority of the moral censor.
However, the thinking, the aspirations and the actions of such a person will reflect his internal conflict.
In some cases, the homosexual elements are not manifested till advanced age, appearing like a mysterious flame glowing through the ash.
It seems to us that no other perversion (or to use a better term, paraphilia), in its latent occult state, makes such liberal use of various masks and distortions as the homosexual inclination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Juan, this picture of a man in the eternal quest of women, is likewise a masked form of homosexuality. He cannot find the object of his quest and is untiring in his efforts. Nothing can satisfy him since he seeks satisfaction where he cannot find it. He cannot abandon the search because an incessant voice from the unconscious drives him on, and he does not know whence will come the call and where it will lead him.
This unceasing flight from one woman to another is sadistic, and an even stronger sadism must develop when a latent homosexual is bound by marriage to one woman. Unconscious but aggressive homosexual tendencies and sadism are inseparable phenomena. When one of the partners to a marriage is a homosexual, the marriage becomes a form of torture, especially when the homosexuality assumes an aggressive shape.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I agree that VP screwed men mentally and emotionally but I don't think it was worse than what he did with women. In fact, I'm concerned you might be marginalizing the trauma that women went through when sexually assaulted by by him. I also wouldn't list "screwing men's minds and screwing women's bodies" as "the same thing". Just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Waysider, you bring up some interesting points. Womanizing isn't necessarily an attempt to hide homosexual tendencies. More often than not, men who womanize are insecure in their own masculinity. They falsely think that a sexual conquest will prove their manliness, mostly to themselves. It's a false belief and in reality doesn't work. So a man goes from woman to woman hoping to find what's missing and never being satisfied. It is also a hatred of the feminine because he is not really making love to a person, but to a false hope, a false fantasy. In reality he is making love to himself.
Men who use pornography suffer the same neurosis except with porn a person can act out in the privacy of his own imagination without any risk of being rejected. Their are porn users who do not womanize with a real person, but I've never met a womanizer who doesn't have a strong bond with pornography.
As far as Wierwille masking homosexual urges, who knows what rests in the thoughts and fantasies of an individual? Nevertheless, I don't think we have any evidence to support that he ever physically acted out homosexually with anyone. We have more than enough evidence to support him sexually molesting several women, many of them adolescents.
LCM, on the other hand railed too much against homosexuality. As Shakespeare wrote, "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much." (o.k., it's a little hokey but it gets my point across) I've often thought that maybe he was trying to mask, or suppress such urges. Again, I don't think we have any evidence to suggest he partook in homosexual sex. To me, however, his public expressions of homophobia leave some questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
"What does this have to do with the topic?"
Yes, John, what does it have to do with the topic?
"This topic has life of its own."
You have deflected it so that you hope no-one is looking at your idol, VPW.
"BTW, did anybody read the REST of my email? I made my point well enough to get it printed."
Your point really was to evade addressing the point.
"The point being that we live in a male bashing culture..."
The point being, Was VPW a good man?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I reject that paper's obsession with trying to shoehorn ALL male dysfunctional behavior into
some variation of latent or overt homosexuality. I think that's like saying EVERY repair job
needs to use a hammer as the tool to repair it.
The other point- that people can get frozen in an incomplete state of development and remain
immature in behavior as a result- now, that's been demonstrated and is pretty reliable
Psychology. (Notice how this paper is decades old? Some of it was worth keeping, some was not.)
We saw young Vic dealing with a harsh father who was swift to punish, but slow to praise or
even to relate to his kids. Did that have any affect on Vic? As a teenager, he seemed obsessed
with all the ways to draw attention to himself- he was a bully, a braggart, and a show-off.
Armchair Psychologists generally would say he was still trying to get the attention and validation
he never got as a child. Old Man Wierwille never taught his kids healthy boundaries, and Vic
never learned them on his own. So, he went around trying to get attention and validation, and that
became INGRAINED BEHAVIOR over time. So now he was trying to get attention and validation because
he was trying to get attention and validation, because that's what he did, that's how he saw his
own behavior.
So, Vic went into ministry as a career choice. He didn't believe the Bible was the word of God.
His motivation was to have a roomful of people hang on his every word. (In Vic's upbringing,
that was the ultimate way to get respect and attention.) It was never about God, it was always
about Vic and feeding his ego.
It's been said rape is not primarily a crime of sex- it's a crime of POWER. The rapist commits the
crime more for the sense of power he gets than for anything else.
I don't think there's any evidence that vpw loved or liked men. I think he may have respected a few,
but the REAL object of vpw's love was HIMSELF. That's why he was more interested in his vices than
in setting a good example, and in seeking attention rather than giving the credit that was his moral
and legal responsibility, and giving the healthy leadership a supposed minister is supposed to give.
Then again, vpw could not give what he himself did not have. He could repeat back what others had
taught him, but he could not teach healthy spiritual living by example, since he didn't have it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Good points WW--earlier on in this thread I was trying to stay away from any good/bad judgements and point out that whatever he was, he certainly was a one very insecure man.
You tangentially pointed it out much better than I could have....the incredible need for attention, the sexual exploitation, the bizarre practices and doctrines (stand when he enters the room etc.)....even mainstream way doctrine seems to me was directly linked to satiate his hunger for importance.
on another note (well maybe its really the same)...
Huh??
I know that us poor oppressed males have lived as second, third and eighth class citizens for centuries now. We are nearly outcasts from society and have never been given any opportunity beyond ruling the world, running the corporations and being at or near the top of every field of human endeavour. Its been tough, really tough, being a male with all this disrespect floating around.
Just when does the worship start?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You are probably right, WW.
I guess I feel compelled, sometimes, to try to make sense of things that defy logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
No, I wouldn't marginalize what he did to the women. Just from what I've seen, some men *seem* to be intellectually and emotionally damaged for life..
when some stand in front of a group, and give praise and worship to da father in da word, for whom we are supposed to be so thankful for.. with full knowledge of his proclivities..
or open up a raw copy of da old man's "work"..
the last big wig I saw here, literally looked like his eyes were glazed over..
look what he did to John Lynn..
maybe he was arrogant before, who knows.. but give an arrogant buffoon the microphone and (practically) the power of Gawd..
he's damaged for life, in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.