Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion

I’m still stuck on food, so here is a post on Elizabethan honey cakes as opposed to modern ones.

I never signed up for Facebook for the same reasons as this blogger. Especially, this: “My mental health is largely premised on not thinking about past eras of my life all the time.”

University of Missouri has decided that publishing scholarly books and having a university press is not crucial to its mission. I’m sure, however, that maintaining a bloated staff of worthless idiot administrators is is even more crucial to the school’s mission than ever. Shame on you, University of Missouri!

Homebirth Bingo. It isn’t new but it’s still hilarious, especially if you’ve had an opportunity to spend time with the homebirth freaks.

A great, healthy and inspiring alternative to that freakish photo of a crazed idiot breastfeeding a huge kid on the cover of Times.

Autism has the power to liberate you from a good portion of silly, arbitrary social ideas of normality, and it is not a good idea to enforce them as a means of helping autistic youth integrate with their peers- attitude wise, they’re already lightyears ahead of others when it comes to accepting the message that who you are matters more than how others see you. If you’re an autistic youth or adult with a childish side or an “age inappropriate” interest, embrace it. The world would be dull if we lived in a culture of enforced hegemony of interests based on age, gender, ability, background, or other factors, you’re helping keep things interesting.”

An interesting contribution to the discussion on the importance of libraries to research activities.

The most disgusting sentence in an academic paper.

An interesting post on Barcelona’s squatting movement. It’s tangentially relevant to my research which is why I like it. But it’s of general interest, as well.

The BBC releases a lying and offensive documentary about Ukraine and Poland. Shame on you, stupid and vile BBC!

For all of my fellow quinoa lovers, here is a great recipe of quinoa vegetable bowls.

From a scientist: “These days it seems utterly impossible to achieve any status at all in the Republican party without completely rejecting the whole of modern science. Rejecting science is tantamount to rejecting any deeper understanding of the real world; such people should absolutely not be trusted with policy making.” How about Romney? Has he been making anti-science statements?

Honoring Dr. Tiller: A Collective Remembrance.

Ah, you see, you see? It isn’t just me who gets endless comments from the students as to how everything I do in class is against their religion.

Yet again, the logic of some pseudo-feminists baffles me. If it’s OK to label a man who has had many sex partners “a misogynistic pig“, then, I guess, the denigration of sexually active women is just as acceptable, right?

The casserole marches in Montreal.

The best poster featuring Rush Limbaugh ever.

High-school-age girls who date boys a year or two younger are predatory and suspect. It’s more normal for them to date college-age men, because of course there is nothing at all sketchy about an adult man in college who wants to date a 15-year-old.” I’m speechless at this hypocrisy, too.

Before reading this post, I didn’t even know that something called “parent-guided courtship” existed. There are so many freaks out there, it’s scary.

What has the #Occupy movement achieved?


29 thoughts on “Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion”

  1. Melissa McEwan didn’t call men with many partners “misogynistic pigs“. She said that sleeping with many women doesn’t prevent a man from being horribly sexist, which it, of course, doesn’t. And Adam Levine comment was kind of creepy – “I really love women and think they’re the most amazing people in the world” – as if women are a monolith. It’s all in the context of:

    He also declared he is as far from a “misogynist” – an accusation that has been tossed around a bit concerning how he handled his dust-up with fellow “Voice” judge Christina Aguilera – as a man can get.

    Iow, he said “I am not a misogynist because I grew up with only women in the house & out of love slept with many” (if you read the context from the article Melissa linked to). May be he is a m-word and may be he isn’t, but the “explanation” is kind of ridiculous.


    1. She chose to dedicate a post to this inane interview. She also exhibited extreme anger about it. I think this is an attempt to present people with rich sex lives as if there were something wrong with us. I’m sick and tired of these frigid prides spouting garbage at sexually successful people and calling that political activism.


      1. As a regular Shakesville reader, I’m going to agree with el. There had recently been a big to-do about some really misogynistic things Adam Levine did on “The Voice.” This post wasn’t saying that sleeping with lots of women makes Levine a “misogynist pig,” just that it doesn’t exculpate him, either. And I think it’s safe to say that McEwan’s anger wasn’t about the fact that Levine slept with lots of women. It was about what happened with him on “The Voice” a few weeks ago, and about the fact that he was acting like his sexual history exonerated him from any charges of misogyny. (Which, if you ask me, is no more convincing than “I have lots of black friends, therefore I can’t be racist.”) She’s a big defender of the fact that it’s everyone’s right to have as much consensual sex as they want, of whatever kind they want, with whatever partners they want, and it’s no one else’s business.


      2. OK, here is what the OP said: “LOL FOREVER! I love the idea that there men who are misogynist pigs, and men who love women, and, according to Adam Levine, the men who sexually objectify women and fuck tons of ’em are in the latter category. Sure.”

        Do I really need to explain what bothers me in this statement? Who told this pseudo-feminist that this Levine guy was the one who “fucked tons of ’em”? Where is the evidence that these women were not free agents who enjoyed the situation and fucked him instead of being passively “fucked”? How come having sex with people equals “sexually objectifying them”?

        I think the suggestion that sexually active women are fucked objects who are indistinguishable from one another is the suggestion made exclusively by the author of the OP.


      3. Ah. I think we’re just using different definitions of the “f-word.” As far as I’m concerned, “fucking” is a mutual activity. Like, Adam Levine “fucked” these women, but the women also “fucked” him. It can’t go just one way, or it would obviously be rape, not “fucking.” And I don’t think I’ve ever used that word this much in succession. Lol.


      4. “Which, if you ask me, is no more convincing than “I have lots of black friends, therefore I can’t be racist.””

        Sounds like pretty convincing to me.


      5. //Sounds like pretty convincing to me.

        AYY, people and politicians use it all the time. F.e. “I have a lot of gay friends, but am aganst gay marriage” (forgot which US politician/s said that)

        Ok, in the former case you could say “Those gay friends don’t exist”. Get another example: in my Jewish mother’s university days in FSU her friend, who had a Jewish lover, told my mother she would never marry a Jew. In atheistic Soviet Union it wasn’t a matter of culture or religion, so…

        Even better true story, though it didn’t happen in my family: a man in FSU married a Jewish woman, had a daughter with her, then the wife died and he married a Russian woman. Then he said something ~ “at last we got rid of Jews”. You can *marry* a Jew and still be horribly antisemitic, let alone have friends or “friends”.


      6. el 3:33

        Yes people and politicians use it all the time and it’s mocked all the time, but just because it’s mocked doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I’m talking about probabilities, not whether something is impossible. If someone says he has many Black friends then if it’s true, it means he likes a lot of Black people and is willing to judge them as individuals, which is a pretty good indication that he’s not racist. It’s possible that he could be but it’s unlikely.


  2. I was really excited to read the 1st link about the cakes, but it leads to “7 states banning atheists” pic. 😦

    I too never signed up for Facebook because of not wanting keep in touch with people I am not interested in. Besides, I am afraid of potential unpleasantness of one’s boss or co-worker asking to Friend you. To refuse would lead to drama, to agree – to mixing of private and public life too much for my taste.


  3. Did you mean this to be the the link to cakes? It’s a site dedicated to recipes based on foods talked about in Game of Thrones, which we talked about in a previous post. And now I want to bake me some cakes.


  4. Thanks for the link!
    I do have a facebook, but I am beginning to regret that I do; the old phrase “You can’t un-ring a bell” comes to mind when I think about how much of my data is stored on there. I am going to be starting an experiment soon where I’m going to try to write one blog post for every one thing I post on facebook, to break me of the habit of posting something on there when I get much more intellectual satisfaction out of blogging.


  5. “How about Romney? Has he been making anti-science statements?”

    Based on what I’ve read, Mitt Romney appears to be the ‘least bad’ on scientific issues. That said, the very fact that he has felt the need to shift his opinion on anthropogenic global warming (from acceptance to ‘skepticism’) during the present electoral cycle in order to appeal to Republican voters should be most informative.
    A track of his position on this issue can be found here:

    I can’t seem to find his views on evolution (the other scientific “hot button” in US politics): my guess would be that he has wisely opted to keep his mouth shut.


  6. Against someones religion?? It is a responsibility of higher education to challenge people’s religion. Maybe this was an advantage that I had not realized of church connected colleges. When your history professor is an ordained minister, it is necessary to take it seriously when he says that all the aspects of early Xtianity were present in other contemporaneous religions, e.g., Mithraism, etc. And many other such “zingers.”


  7. Rejecting science…gee, the people I know who believe in astrology, magical crystals, homeopathy, etc are with few exceptions politically on the Left.


    1. Can you name any senators, governors, or members of the house of representatives who do?? Or has the discussion shifted towards a bunch of inoffensive wackadoos with zero political influence?

      I’d also like to see the names of schools where courses on magical crystals have been enforced.


    2. I actually address this point in the original post; indeed, the very sentence before the one that Clarissa quoted.
      Also, as for alternative medicine, I think that you will find that Michele Bachman and Ron Paul are both enormous proponents of woo.


  8. “The most disgusting sentence in an academic paper.”

    It is interesting to see that casual sex is known within the field as “exploitative sex” with the implication that it is the male doing the exploitation. In other words a one night stand cannot possibly happen at the behest of the woman.


    1. Exactly! I find that absolutely insulting to me as a woman. The idea behind this is obviously that women are incapable of wanting sex. All we want are relationships that will validate our existence in the eyes of society. How offensive!


  9. Just found a new cool science blog:

    Also “The Religious Right’s Assault on Palliative Care” –

    A recent study showed onlookers and watchful colleagues already threaten palliative care physicians with accusations of murder and euthanasia. Over half of palliative physicians report they have endured such accusations at least once, some as often as 6 times, over the past 5 years. And in the bills they promote, anti-choice advocates enable these watchdogs.


  10. Wanted to share, in case you like it too. This approach to life isn’t limited to (some) witers, of course. I especially love the 2nd stanza.

    A Writer
    ~ Philip Larkin

    ‘Interesting, but futile,’ said his diary,
    Where day by day his movements were recorded
    And nothing but his loves received inquiry;
    He knew, of course, no actions were rewarded,
    There were no prizes: though the eye could see
    Wide beauty in a motion or a pause,
    It need expect no lasting salary
    Beyond the bounds’ momentary applause.

    He lived for years and never was surprised:
    A member of his foolish, lying race
    Explained away their vices: realised
    It was a gift that he possessed alone:
    To look the world directly in the face;
    The face he did not see to be his own.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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