?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Because its vice-chancellor thinks it is OK to publish an article like this one (scroll down to the 'LUST' section) about sexual relationships between (female) students and (male) staff at Universities, which includes such choice phrases as these:

"Equally, the universities are where the male scholars and the female acolytes are."

So, no female scholars, then? All the women at University are there purely to enable men, and possibly drink admiringly from the founts of male knowledge?

"The fault lies with the females"

Like everything, of course!

And, worst of all in my view:

"Normal girls - more interested in abs than in labs, more interested in pecs than specs, more interested in triceps than tripos - will abjure their lecturers for the company of their peers"

I think I would like to go and vomit now. What a wanker!

Click here to view this entry with minimal formatting.

Comments

( 29 comments — Leave a comment )
the_lady_lily
Sep. 23rd, 2009 12:35 pm (UTC)
...yeurgh.

I've been thinking that the Uni of Buckingham has been doing an awful lot of self-publicity via the THE over the last few months. Hopefully this will counteract some of that.
strange_complex
Sep. 23rd, 2009 12:38 pm (UTC)
Thankfully, there are a lot of people in the comments thread expressing their displeasure - though, as always, also a few saying that it is 'only a joke' (including the author). I'm personally hoping that the University see fit to revise his contract of employment in the light of this.
the_lady_lily
Sep. 23rd, 2009 12:41 pm (UTC)
...only a joke?

Only a joke?

I thought that excuse had gone out with the dinosaurs. It's not as if the topic didn't give plenty of scope for gender-equal lustful distraction within the academy.

Hmmm. One wonders if somebody's petard has been deliberately hoisted.
miss_next
Sep. 23rd, 2009 12:38 pm (UTC)
That is appalling. I hope someone calls them on it, very loudly.
my_mundane_life
Sep. 23rd, 2009 12:46 pm (UTC)
'Enjoy her! She's a perk. She doesn't yet know that you are only Casaubon to her Dorothea, Howard Kirk to her Felicity Phee, and she will flaunt you her curves. Which you should admire daily to spice up your sex, nightly, with the wife.'

Fucking hell!!! ARGH!!!

This piece just makes me sick. It is so wrong on so many levels!
biascut
Sep. 23rd, 2009 12:47 pm (UTC)
I would also like to know which editor at the THE thought that was a good idea.
the_lady_lily
Sep. 23rd, 2009 12:50 pm (UTC)
I am definitely considering the possibility that someone has deliberately put the esteemed VC in a position where he was bound to make a tit of himself in order to undercut the Uni of Buckingham's recent spate of good publicity. It is a small consolatory nugget to cling to.
biascut
Sep. 23rd, 2009 01:07 pm (UTC)
I think with all of these Controvershul Articles, whether they're Liz Jones in the Mail or this guy, there's a deliberate editorly calculation that the author will take the hit (people always write, "Who does this guy think he is!", never "Who is the editor who commissioned this?"), and that the paper will get the advantage. I think the newspaper policy of publishing hilariously sexist articles which spread very quickly through the blogosphere and get tons of page hits is a much, much bigger problem than one idiot wanker's inability to tell the difference between "sexism" and "joke".

If it is actually a deliberate attempt to keep Buckingham University in its place, then there are ways of doing that which aren't about promoting sexism! And why blame Buckingham - I'm sure this guy has colleagues who are doing some great work, why should they suffer for his tosserosity?
(Anonymous)
Sep. 23rd, 2009 07:49 pm (UTC)
Dear Biascut, Do you feel these editorial decisions are actionable ?
A. Leverkuhn
biascut
Sep. 23rd, 2009 08:02 pm (UTC)
Actionable in what sense?
(Anonymous)
Sep. 23rd, 2009 08:14 pm (UTC)
well ... worthy of a formal complaint, for starters. By that I mean more than just a letter to the
THE expressing your outrage --- maybe suggesting resignation and censure ?
A. Leverkuhn
strange_complex
Sep. 23rd, 2009 01:00 pm (UTC)
Indeed. It's certainly garnering them a lot of readers - the link to the article is taking ages to load up, presumably because the site is overloaded with hits due to reports in the wider media. But I hope it will turn out to be damaging publicity for both them and him.
davesangel
Sep. 23rd, 2009 01:00 pm (UTC)
The fault lies with the females

Oh does it?

I've seen enough of this in non-academic types who can't take no for an answer, and who believe that of course everything is the fault of the woman, because she's there and she's female so she should automatically reciprocate every man's feelings. But to read this from someone who hasn't just studied at university, but is a Vice Chancellor, is absolutely sickening. I hope he's severely reprimanded for this disgraceful attitude.
steer
Sep. 23rd, 2009 01:16 pm (UTC)
Jesus... that would have been unacceptably sexist in the 70s. I read it thinking "Surely some exaggeration" but nope.

Edited at 2009-09-23 01:16 pm (UTC)
sushidog
Sep. 23rd, 2009 01:22 pm (UTC)
Erm, it was absolutely standard and normal in the 70s, and would barely have raised an eyebrow in the 80s. Society as a whole is really not very enlightened, unfortunately.
(Deleted comment)
davesangel
Sep. 23rd, 2009 01:47 pm (UTC)
It's interesting to read the comments in response to that article: a lot of them seem to criticise those expressing justified outrage, claiming that it was just a sarcastic or humorous piece (or exaggerated, which is something I was hoping for too). It bothers me that such unacceptably sexist views are being dismissed as mere good humour when this is most definitely not the case.
damien_mocata
Sep. 23rd, 2009 01:19 pm (UTC)
And just when you hope that discrimination between genders is fading, you get classic examples of equality fail such as this.

I wonder if it'd be worth passing this to female students who'd think about studying there, as they may want to know they wouldnt be scholars, just enablers for the men.
owlfish
Sep. 23rd, 2009 02:06 pm (UTC)
I am vaguely fascinated to observe that the followup piece on the BBC notes the sexism vs. students, not the implicit absence of female scholars at any other level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8270475.stm

Edited at 2009-09-23 02:06 pm (UTC)
swisstone
Sep. 23rd, 2009 02:59 pm (UTC)
I knew he was a free-market arsehole, but I didn't realize he was a misogynist free market arsehole.
swisstone
Sep. 24th, 2009 09:39 am (UTC)
In scrupulous fairness, to someone who doesn't deserve it, I don't think he's discounting the existence of female scholars; rather, he's discounting the possibility that there might be any danger of anything sexual between female scholars and male students.

And after the next paragraph, it becomes completely indefensible.
swisstone
Sep. 24th, 2009 09:51 am (UTC)
Unless, of course, you want to defend it as satire. There might be something in this (I certainly don't want to dismiss Mary's opinions out of hand). But if it is satire, it's not terribly good. The thing with Juvenal and Till Death Do Us Part is that both texts include something that undermines and exposes the views of the protagonist. I'm not sure that Kealey's text does that.

Edited at 2009-09-24 09:51 am (UTC)
strange_complex
Sep. 24th, 2009 10:07 am (UTC)
Hmm, I'm a little disappointed with Mary there. Obviously the whole piece (not just Kealey's bit) was meant to be light-hearted and satirical. But, as you suggest, his part of it is seriously ham-fisted. The whole piece is shot through with misogyny, and there's nothing at all to signal that he, Terence Kealey, doesn't actually believe that 'normal' women are more interested in sex than studying. The subject could have been handled light-heartedly and satirically without such crass insensitivity.
(Deleted comment)
qatsi
Sep. 23rd, 2009 07:28 pm (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that "normal" girls (to use his word) would abjure anyone or anything. Who needs fancy words like that?

I do remember that when I was applying for university, the University of Buckingham was "special".
lilyv687
Sep. 24th, 2009 01:34 am (UTC)
HA!
What a bunch of rubbish! That's still pretty funny though! XD
hollyione
Sep. 24th, 2009 10:59 am (UTC)
buckingham uni
One of the right wing broadsheets, I can't remember whether the Times or Telegraph (or something else!), was advocating the University of Buckingham as the ideal business model for a university on their website the other day. I'll try and find the link if I can.
kissmeforlonger
Sep. 24th, 2009 09:39 pm (UTC)
Enjoy her! She's a perk.

What a tosser.

Just making sure that my criticism is pitched at the same level as the article, y'know...

What it is about Vice Chancellors anyway!
captainlucy
Sep. 24th, 2009 09:44 pm (UTC)
Satire? Satire? He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means. Alan Beresford B'stard, that was satire. Gene Hunt, that's satire. This? Ill-conceived at best, downright despicable at worst.
( 29 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars