Remind me never to apply for a job at Buckingham University (as if I would)

[strange_complex]

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

[steer.livejournal.com]

Jesus... that would have been unacceptably sexist in the 70s. I read it thinking "Surely some exaggeration" but nope.

[sushidog.livejournal.com]

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.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

Society as a whole is really not very enlightened, unfortunately.

I know what you're mean. A lot of equality legislation has had the effect of preventing this stuff being said, but sadly it's still widely thought.

[davesangel.livejournal.com]

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.