Because if you read Proust at all, you can see why his writing is far from heterosexual, which is what Gilmour claims to love.

You're grasping at straws here. He says he teaches what he loves, he loves heterosexual men and he teaches Proust. After reading the feedback his students have left after taking his class (apparently he favours men), I can't really read his heterosexual-male-writers-are-the-best type comments as a joke.

“The books here, this tends to be what I teach. These are, of course, the treasured Proust, one of my great joys is not only having read Proust but having read him twice, and having listened to the audio CD twice…But I can only teach stuff I love. I can’t teach stuff that I don’t…What I teach is guys. Serious…

He is still a fraud. He claims to have read Proust but clearly hasn't.

When did Newsweek and Time jump the shark? I thought at some point in history they were ordinary current events magazines.

The first ever English class I took for my BA was taught by a Bloom-wannabe who flipped out at me for asking why there were no women on the syllabus. He started ranting about how "adding women to the canon of literature is political correctness gone mad." The class was required, so I couldn't just drop it.

Caption:

This guy is a fraud. He definitely has not read enough literature to be teaching. If he's actually read Proust (which I doubt), then he obviously didn't understand what he read. And if he thinks teaching literature is about talking at students the way you would a camera and telling them which writers to like (as…

I prefer "bold" or "cheeky."

I think there would be a hell of a lot more couples with roughly an equal amount of accomplishments if there weren't power differentials along gender lines. Also, we wouldn't hear so much condescending stuff about how "accomplished" this or that woman is.

I don't think it is. I can live with my husband's success without it knocking my self-esteem and I can also avoid treating him like a trophy husband, too.

Yes. And despite the talk of "irrefutable data" above showing that boys are left behind*, men still outearn women no matter what level of education you're dealing with.

I'm suspicious of those men, too, though. Like some men are really interested in accomplished women and then they talk about their wives/girlfriends like pets who can do a neat trick.

So are these Tunisian women like the WAG-wannabes in the UK? Are they there like, "Open season on religiously-sanctioned sex in Syria, girls. Let's go get some cock!"

Sorry, but no. There's a map of secular countries:

I agree! A lot of these people aren't criticising Miley for the racist appropriation part of the performance, so let's deal with their concerns about the second half of the performance. They're upset that Miley grinding against Thicke was "trashy"? Really? So if a woman looks vaguely bored and annoyed and is being…

Yeah, I agree it is more complicated than that. Because Asian men with PhDs out-earn white men, while Asian women with PhDs are the lowest earners in that category. I'm not a stastics person so I can barely wrap my mind around all the variables in play, but this kind of chart is helpful:

When you break down the wage gap by gender and race, it gets even more depressing.

I can't figure out how we made the leap from wondering if the study could have controled certain variables (such as the kind of porn watched) to blaming "inescapable cultural prudery" for the results of the study. I'm nearly certain that last paragraph contains more than one non sequitur.

I was waiting for the moment at the end of the trailer when she would drunkenly smash a bottle over someone's head and then roll someone else down the length of a bar, maybe set something on fire. But that moment never came and now I'm confused.