Directions to Conference Venue

Hi folks!

The Male Students in Peril conference is this Saturday! Are you excited?

Let’s make sure you get here okay.

Making it to Campus

Kennesaw State University is located at 1000 Chastain Rd, Kennesaw, GA 30144. Every building on campus has its own address, but if you plug that address above into your GPS, it will bring you directly to the Visitor Parking lot.

If you do not have a GPS, follow this guide. This is assuming you are approaching KSU when driving on I-75 N.

  1. Take exit 271 to Chastain Rd.
  2. Take a left at the light. (If you come down I-75 S, take a right)
  3. Take a right at the second light onto Kennesaw State University Rd. You will see KSU’s sign.
  4. Just go straight. You will see Visitor’s parking.

Parking

Visitor's parking lot (notice the building on the right for a landmark)
Visitor’s parking lot (remember the building on the right for a landmark)

Everyone can park in one of two lots: Visitor’s parking, or Lot B. Both lots are next to each other. If the visitor’s lot is full, just take a left immediately before the visitor’s lot and take a right into Lot B.

Don’t worry about fees or being in the wrong lot. Weekends are open parking at KSU, but you are encouraged to go to one of the two lots listed above for convenience of access.

Walking to the Venue

You are looking for the James Carmichael Student Center. This is easy to find, because you parked right near it. You will see this structure.

KSU-bookstore

That’s the bookstore, building 395. You can cut through there directly into the Student Center. On weekends, this door may be locked. If it is, just go around to an entrance on the side of the building.

Assuming you entered through the bookstore, keep walking straight until you see this wall on the right.

University-Rooms

Those are the University Rooms, which is the venue. The rooms are located on the lower level of the Student Center, near the end of the building opposite of the bookstore. Someone will be there to check your ticket.

Advertisements

Lindy West and the quest to kill social interaction forever

Lindy West of The Guardian took it upon herself to lecture men on how to spend their time talking to (a.k.a. “pestering”) women.

If mirrors could reflect thoughts, Lindy’s image would look like a Jackson Pollock seizure-fucked Michael J. Fox on a table saw.

I was writing in a quiet corner of a Starbucks on Monday when a young blonde woman with a book took a nearby seat. She hadn’t even been there five minutes when a man, probably 20 years her elder and clearly a stranger, grabbed the chair next to her and started talking. About absolutely nothing. Dude literally opened with, “Mondays. The worst, right!?” It somehow got less interesting from there.

Cliché, I’ll give you that. But strangers, being strangers, tend to resort to small talk until they learn more about their conversation partner.

It didn’t matter to him that this woman’s response was tepid at best, or that she was busy reading – an act that explicitly says: “I am choosing not to be in this universe right now.”

And what, Lindy, are the actions that consent to existence in this universe?

Strangers are always minding their business and doing something with their time. It is impossible not to interrupt a stranger.

If she was talking to a friend, you’d be upset that he interrupted their conversation. If she was scribbling a reminder note to herself on a napkin, you’d be upset that he derailed her train of thought.

But even if she was sitting stiller than a statue frozen in a glacier, staring straight ahead, and doing absolutely fucking nothing until someone talks to her, you’d get upset that he was interjecting his company into her clearly estranged or meditative daily experience.

What will it take, Lindy? Should women hold up a sign that reads, “I enthusiastically consent to conversation with a man”? Should women only approach men from now on?

Guide us, O Mother Goddess.

The guy was friendly, gregarious, poised (as if he’d been through these motions before) and even though he didn’t say a single sentence with any substance whatsoever, his delivery was studiously, unimpeachably innocent. He couldn’t be violating anyone’s boundaries – he was being “nice”! What’s next – are the feminazis going to outlaw smiles!?

Wouldn’t surprise me at this point.

The woman sat through it, subdued but polite. So he took and took and took, as much as he could get away with. Eventually, she left.

Wait, so you’re telling me that she sat there like a posed cadaver, defeated, with her book drooping away from her weakening thumbs in response to friendly small talk? Even the most boring people I know back off when they detect a total lack of engagement.

You basically said this guy wasn’t totally boring. How did the woman leave? Did she just shoot up and march out without a word? Did she say, “Oh, sorry. Gotta do something?” You give about as much context as a jammed Pez dispenser gives candy.

How do we know the woman was uncomfortable? All we have is your word on that.

I was sitting there thinking about how women’s time is treated like a public commodity (yes, I am available for wedding toasts and bar mitzvahs) …

As opposed to a private commodity, when a man’s girlfriend walks in and tells him about all the stupid family gatherings she put on his calendar that he WILL go to if he loves her.

Excuse the tangent. I forgot that there are more horrible things going on, like men talking to women.

But am I the only one wondering why Lindy is not talking about why men did not approach her? Seriously. Lindy is the kind of person who would open right up with a story of a man rudely interrupting her “men suck” acid trip, but that story is nowhere in the article.

Did a strange man approach you, Lindy? If not, is it possible that men didn’t want to interrupt your writing? Is it possible that you’re being a presumptuous clown ass?

… when, coincidentally, another young blonde woman came and sat down in the same chair. And then a completely different annoying old dude plunked himself down and launched into – I am not joking – a 30-minute, condescending lecture about the history of sampling in popular music. It happened all over again. He wanted her attention, so he took it. Because there’s no law against talking to a pretty woman. And, again, she sat through it.

Anyone willing to sit listening for 30 minutes is either interested in the topic or so socially weak that they cannot assert themselves. I’ll assume that you and the other women are assertive, but I hope you are not then going to give me bullshit about women’s time being stolen.

Why is it that interrupting someone in a quiet moment, wilfully oblivious to their verbal and physical cues, is considered friendly, but rebuffing such an interruption is considered rude? Interrupting is objectively worse than not wanting to be interrupted. We only get one life.

Stop. You basically rendered impossible all communication between strangers, and therefore potential friends and lovers.

Rewind. Have you actually asked these women if they were uncomfortable? Have you considered that friendships start with strangers? Have you noticed that your article contains no mention of you being interrupted, even though you conveyed in your article that you were writing?

Pause. You’re entering a realm of pure speculation where reason doesn’t exist.

Eject! Turn back now!

Wasting someone’s time is the subtlest form of murder.

… Or keep playing, but I gotta tell you, this show sucks.

[The] New York Post ran a pathetically slobbering profile of one Brian Robinson, a self-proclaimed (and self-published) “railway Romeo.” […] Attention, Brian; Starbucks blowhards numbers one and two; men in general. Here is a thing you need to internalise: just because you can get away with something doesn’t mean you should do it.

Big talk from a woman wasting hard-drive space with speculation.

“Whatever I can get away with” is an inherently antisocial standard of behaviour.

Lindy has done every thing she complained about. She’s writes many words that say nothing at the expense of my time and is discouraging social behavior (which is obviously anti-social) because she can.

Please reflect on the profound irony before contemplating the dumber things to come.

It strips your partner of agency and precludes any possibility of genuine intimacy.

It’s statements like that that make me realize that I am a college student working 65+ hours a week for less than $15,000 a year while some fuck-knuckle gets paid to hallucinate at Starbucks.

Why would you want to have sex with someone who is just “letting you” instead of eagerly reciprocating?

God, she just keeps going, but apparently The Guardian never stopped to ask, “Lindy, have you interviewed the people in Starbucks?” Based on Lindy’s article, not everyone left.

I previously bitched about KSU feminist students attacking KSU Men even though they were within walking distance, but Lindy is in the same fucking room, and she still won’t engage people to learn more.

Are feminists and social justice warriors really this lazy, or are they so socially stunted that they have to compensate for their severe mental defects with a never-ending hero fantasy?

Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired? Who’s OK with having sex that’s only distinguishable from rape on a technicality? (Ooh, I know that one. It’s rapists.)

How the hell did we get to rape?! Slow down! Your petulance is reaching critical mass!

That’s why California’s new “yes means yes” law is so exciting – not because of its legal ramifications so much as its ideological ones. Shifting the way we conceptualise our interactions from “I should fulfil as many of my own desires as I possibly can without getting in trouble” to “I should go out of my way to make sure the people around me feel comfortable and respected” has repercussions far beyond the romantic realm.

We need a term for when a writer frames the discussion in a way where all the implied assumptions form an unspoken Gish Gallop. Boogeyman blitzkrieg? Poltergeist premises?

While you mull that over, sit back and appreciate what Lindy has done here: she flew off into a neverland of subtle forms of murder, the appropriation of women’s time, rape, and intrusive legislation all from looking at two guys talking to women in Starbucks.

I’m envisioning Lindy sitting in a corner booth, far from the sunlight, wearing a black beret and a scarf. She glares, nostrils flared, over the thick rims of her glasses and the top edge of her Mac toward a conversation. Having no experience with men herself, Lindy takes a sip from her white chocolate mocha (with pecans in it, for some reason) to calm her nerves. She then concocts a story about what the men and women must be feeling and what they intend to do.

But does she verify these claims by standing up, walking 10 paces, and asking questions?

Of course not. Lindy’s the polite one who would never take up someone’s time like that!

Now that Lindy is isolated from talking to strangers and therefore meeting new people ever again, she turns to a soulless editorial process that looks the other way while she accuses men of being anti-social and then takes an Olympic leap of reasoning to murder and rape that would make the Mad Hatter do a spit-take.

Michael Mark Cohen has a cleverly articulated essay on Gawker this week in which he declares “douchebag” the only effective signifier for a particular brand of toxic, entitled white male. […] Douchebag supremacy is built on a long history of getting away with as much as possible. […]

What the hell is douchebag supremacy, and why are you pretending that if it existed, humanity would tolerate it? And why are you citing Gawker? If you care about job security, this is a really bad time to do that.

[…] a woman once threatened him with mace to get him to stop talking to her. That’s how much it takes to stymie a douchebag’s entitlement. He seemed to find it amusing. Typical female overreaction. But the truth is, he almost got a face full of poison. He almost didn’t get away with it. And, some day, he won’t.

Lindy, stop your retaliation fantasies for just a second and listen to a man’s honest opinion for once in your miserable life.

Your paranoid, impish shrieks about clandestine malice are so shoddy and misdirected that you inadvertently wrote the screenplay for the next seven Paranormal Activity films. When you type words, the keyboard contracts Ebola and Jesus resurrects just to stick his head in a car compactor. Your article is a journalistic abortion. You are the anti-brain, sucking hope and reason out of the room and leaving interesting people to choke and die in the vacuum of utopian social justice memes.

Don’t take my dislike for everything you stand for to be bullying or harassment because it’s neither. I simply reject your bigoted worldview, and I think you should be ashamed for willfully ignoring common sense in the name of your dumb ideology.

If I happen to see you in a Starbucks, relax, I won’t talk to you. I’ll talk to a woman reading a book instead. Reading indicates to me that she takes in information instead of spewing bile into her laptop in a dark corner, which is a good first impression for a potential new friend.

Have a wonderful day. Try not to mace the next guy asking you for directions to the nearest gas station.

Male Students in Peril – Invite Only Social

Before the Male Students in Peril conference, from noon to 2 PM, speakers Janice Fiamengo, Paul Elam, Karen Straughen and Jonathan Taylor will meet KSUM members in University Room C for questions from the media and to mingle with special guests. This social is invite only.

This post is to announce that members of the press are welcome to attend. This is common sense, but I will state for completeness if they want to interview speakers, the speakers must consent to be interviewed. If you are from a media source, please contact us and let us know who you are and what publication you represent so we know to expect you.

EDIT: I neglected to mention something so important that I should be slapped. All silver level or above donors to the Male Students in Peril conference on FundAnything are also invited to join us!

Sage Gerard versus Brian Clyne – Did Feminism Get it Wrong?

Brian Clyne of KSU Atheists United challenged me to a debate on the topic “Did Feminism Get it Wrong?” Brian initially stipulated that I was responsible for preparations. My response was simply that I, the challenged party, am not liable for debate preparations just because I accepted the invitation. We’ve agreed on terms, some of which are documented on OwlLife (link is to a PDF snapshot of a public page). However, the terms that were published differ from terms agreed upon in emails conversations, which is a problem.

The debate was advertised as Socratic, although it did not seem to follow any national standards. There was not meant to be a winner or loser in the debate, just competing ideas thrown out into the fray.

Here is the complete, unedited footage that came directly off the SD card of the AU camera.

To Brian’s credit, he defended the choice of Dean of Student Success Dr. Michael Sansivero as a moderator when a feminist pressured him to hire someone else. In addition, the footage shown above was recorded by an AU member, and it was provided to me by Brian for publication. My thanks go out for the efforts put forth by AU in preparing this event.

However, there are neutrality concerns and factual errors. Everything I mention below can be observed in the above video, and checked against the terms to which I have linked.

The terms emailed between parties stated that we could have a 1-on-1 or 2-on-2 debate. If in the case of a 2-on-2 debate one team member does not show, the remaining team member can opt to debate one person on the other team, or both of them at the same time.

Mod request
Excerpt from email

(Side note: AU calls me “the President of Men’s Rights” in several places and I have no idea why.)

Notice that the terms documented online do not include the what is shown in the email, nor was I informed that such information would be omitted. The debate terms have been modified due to our negotiations, which is fine, but note that I asked for 1-on-1 when my desired partner would not show, and Brian agreed and made that known to our moderator.

Acknowledgement of 1v1

But when I arrived at the venue, Brian’s partner sat on stage. Brian cast her as an audience member that was allowed to ask questions during the Q&A, but she still sat on the stage and not among the audience. Every question she had was directed at me, and Brian claimed that she should be the first to ask questions before any other audience member.

I did not object, because what difference would it make? If I questioned her role as an audience member with a conflict of interest because of her pre-existing knowledge of Brian’s position, then Brian could just point to the other AU members in the audience and say that since they were entitled to ask questions, she could too.

Brian said he would do a 1-on-1, but then set up a 2-on-1 that he could call a 1-on-1 when questioned. This could also open an opportunity to paint me as if I have trouble with having a woman on stage. I saw how that would play out, so letting the unfair situation stand seemed to be the prudent option.

There was also equivocation on terms regarding opening statements. When Brian made his opening statement, notice that it is not just an opening statement. The 15 minute maximum speech included several attempted rebuttals. In debate term negotiations, Brian repeatedly made mention of “opening statements” in emails, as if to say that he and I would make opening statements about our positions. However, the terms call Brian’s opener a “Response.” Without making this explicit to me, Brian allowed himself up to 25 minutes of rebuttals while I had to live with 10 based on an ambiguity. The terms make mention of rebuttals as if to suggest there is equal time, and that all rebuttals would be made during the rebuttal period. But that is not how it played out.

I objected when, during rebuttals, Brian asked leading questions suggesting that I meant to intimidate women on campus and record them without permission. The questions were so loaded that I called “red herring,” and Brian then insinuated that I was dodging questions.

How is interrogating me on stage about alleged personal misconduct with loaded questions relevant to the topic?

I asked Brain why he felt a need to reframe the issue.

He (not the timekeeper) told me that I went over my time and that he was not obliged to answer my question.

Brian’s partner was allowed to participate with priority questioning with pre-existing knowledge of Brian’s position. The time allocation was slanted. Brian attempted to use loaded questions and a time discrepancy together to facilitate an off-topic character attack.

The moderator, Dr. Sansivero, never intervened. From what I know of Sansivero, it did not appear to be because of bias so much as it was not picking up on the manipulation (Sansivero is actually a really cool guy).

The deck was stacked to make me look like a monster. AU may have done some things right, but that does not excuse manipulative tactics.

KSU Student Media will be covering the debate next week, but I suspect that what I mention here will not make the papers.

The last day to RSVP for Male Students in Peril is Sunday, October 26th. If you want to place your feet on campus and speak out against the forces that be, it’s now or never. This is your chance to provide a much deserved “fuck you” to those who prevent honest discourse, and to secure your place in history as one of the people freed from feminist tyranny.

People are talking, and KSU is dividing. Men’s Rights Activists are starting to emerge on campus, but they need one last push to be open and proud. That push is meeting more people like you to know that they aren’t alone. RSVP, and be there in the name of free speech, liberty, equity, justice and honor.

Upcoming debate with Atheists United

Conversation erupting around KSUM information table
Conversation around KSUM information table

On Friday, October 24th 1:00 PM EST in the auditorium of the Social Science building, KSU Men and Atheists United will engage in a Socratic debate on the topic “Did Feminism Get it Wrong?” This controversial topic is bound to attract the attention of hundreds, and any students passionate about gender issues owe it to themselves to pursue the truth about how feminism has harmed men, boys, women and girls.

KSU Men is a marginalized voice on campus, but not for long. This debate will occur 8 days before the historic KSUM conference, which will open the dialogue for men’s issues on campus. This is a chance for all to speak, learn and grow, but only if we are willing to face hard truths.

KSU Social Science Building (Source: Wikipedia)
KSU Social Science Building (Source: Wikipedia)

When you enter the Social Science building from either of the sides shown in the picture above, go past the elevators and the venue will be on your left.

See you there.