If I saw Clive Owen or Daniel Craig at a film premiere or such like however…

I’d like to be able to say that I’m shocked such shoddy, seemingly self gratifying research gets funding money, but sadly I’m not.

A married university professor is suffering from Depression. He takes on a young woman as his graduate research assistant. This young woman has the type of socially engaging personality that helps to alleviate the symptoms of the professor’s Depression via a socially close relationship between the professor and the student. The root causes of the professor’s Depression are not, of course, addressed. The student ultimately finishes up her graduate work and is awarded her Doctorate degree. She moves on to post-Doc work at another University, and another graduate assistant is assigned to work with this Professor. But this new graduate assistant is an older male, and hence cannot “bond” to the professor the way that the young woman could. As a result, symptoms of the professor’s depression return, with significant deleterious consequences to the student’s professional prospects. In fact, the male student is forced to terminate his graduate studies not because of a contentious relationship with this particular professor or with the University, but because of an inability to compensate for this professor’s loss of social companionship (and consequent re-emergence of his epression) due to the departure of the young woman to whom he had grown so attached.

I would urge students considering signing on as graduate research assistants to professors whom they are aware to have developed strong ties to a young woman who will shortly leave (graduate) to perform their own “risk assessment” to determine whether tethering their own career aspirations to such a faculty member is really a wise move to make.

Well, I just tried to leave a comment that was not anti-feminist, it merely pointed out my opinion that real feminism has nothing to do with the simplistic, man-bashing stereotypes Catie was promoting. And Hugo censored it. Read into that what you will. Maybe that Hugo gives a big thumbs-up to simplistic man-bashing?

I can’t believe the reviewers let this slide.

I can. Studies that tend to prove the prejudices of reviewers have little difficulty getting published.

The pseudo-biological arguments are especially laughable when you consider that they, essentially, regard women as brainless things: college students have no preferences, certainly aren’t attracted to hot men they’re own age; they’re merely receptacles for professors on the prowl.

“Yeah. When I was chasing around campus, so to speak, my primary concern was impressing my friends with the girls I could attract.
Not.”

This may not have been your experience and you may not have consciously acted this way towards girls with the intent to hurt them. Because you may not have behaved this way doesn’t mean that other men don’t and DO. Why discount someone else’s experience through sarcasm? I agree with B’s observation about people and their sense of self-worth being lifted by association–it’s pretty common knowledge in psychology.

The only censorship going on is Hugo limiting anti-feminist comments, and that’s perfectly fine since a private blog owner has every right to decide what sort of topics are discussed.

I was just suggesting that your approach might not help spread your ideas. The first thing I saw was a lecture-style blame game going on (”Most likely the reason that these women feel this way is becaue we live in a society that allows men to objectify women. Men do this so that they can stay in power.“) Right off the bat you’ve used academic language and charged every single man with a conscious behavior that puts women down. Of course you’re going to get some negative comments from men now - you’re not inviting disagreement but flat out denial. It doesn’t invite anyone to want to discuss this with you.

In your next post, you insult them (”Oh look men who fail to understand feminist theory shocking!“) and then tell them you can’t possibly explan it to them and that you really shouldn’t have to, as if you’re far too good for that (”Especially because my own explanation was very brief and to really explain the theory correctly I would have to write a great deal more—both something that I don’t have time for and should not have to do.“).

You seem like you’re very enthusiastic about feminism, and your tone suggests to me that you’re a new student to the subject and you’ve found something in it that’s really important to you. That’s great, and it’s a message everyone should hear. Lecturing, insulting, and acting like everyone who doesn’t know about these academic theories are just uneducated and not worth your time isn’t the way to do it. People can’t identify with theories, and it should be every feminist’s goal to help men and women personally identify with the cause.

Actually it is Hugo who is doing the censoring, which is his perfect right as the blog owner. The principle is that once someone employs “feminist theory” as the the correct and objective view of a matter, any further discussion is limited to those who agree, since feminist theory is not to be questioned here.