Biggus Titus of Oxford University

[Forecastsayssnowbutthereisnosnow]

Sadly, not a Monty Python sketch.

Matt Rattley, a large bearded bloke who wears giant fake breasts, appears to be happily working at Oxford Uni.

I was really hoping this wasn't true but there is even a youtube video with him talking while wearing the giant breasts and red lipstick, applied to a degree any circus clown would be accused of overdoing it. The video includes a slide stating he works as a lecturer and tutor in the Biochemistry Dept at Oxford. He's also on LinkedIn.

I mean, how obvious can it be that this is a sexual fetish which he is involving unconsenting students and staff in???

Dr P on X has been (correctly) very robust on this case:

""This is Matt Rattley saying, "I can do whatever I please and nobody can stop me".

This is highly antisocial, abnormal, boundary-violating, paraphilic behaviour.

And we should not be afraid to say so."

A year ago, Matt bemoaned the lack of engagement and interactivity from students on his Linked In. I wonder if he's ever reflected on why that might be? Supportive comments from his associates don't point out the obvious reason - that his students are intimidated and keeping their heads down.

His seminars might be different - he is criticising the lecture format rather than blaming Gen Z students. But I wonder if he's picking up on the wariness and psychological distancing of his students and copes with it by framing it as a problem with the medium.

I still remember, word for word, observations by some of my lecturers decades later. That's the impact a great lecturer can have, Matt.

----

"Today was my last "lecture" of the academic year - not actually a lecture according to the title, but a "surgery" - more like a Q&A... with slides... to the whole cohort... with me at the front doing all the talking while students sit there and "absorb" it... "if it walks like a duck," etc etc 🤔 I try and make the best of it and impart as much wisdom as I can in an hour, but the distinct lack of interactivity (even with questions being submitted by students for me to answer) means it feels like a lot of that just won't stick. The recording will be handy for them to re-watch perhaps and they do get some notes out of it - I had a good turnout too, so they must see some value in showing up for it live. But to be honest, I almost wanted to apologise to them - in their shoes I'd feel a bit hard done by, being dragged into the department for this! The romantic notion of the "wise sage regaling eager students" still hangs around - and I do get why. That's the uni experience right, and especially somewhere like Oxford, that's how we've done things for literally a thousand years, so that's how we shall continue. But it's well-established that lectures are less effective at building knowledge & skills than more active learning approaches. I worry that I'm burning my students' time, and in particular their brainpower, at the sharp end of the year when they're busy revising for exams coming up. They don't have the capacity at the moment for things that aren't helping them effectively, and it's at best indulgent of me to spend that limited capacity on a session like this. The real question then is, what to do about it 🤔 I might need to see what leeway I have to try some other things out! Any wisdom from anyone on here about how to make lectures as useful as possible, or, should we just bin them already?"

I agree @FlirtsWithRhinos The Special People of Gender (and their allies, yes, including women) don't even think of hating us, at first, because they see female humans as a sort of domestic appliance or background set-dressing.

Female humans being partially-sentient support bipeds for the real proper actual people - we're allowed to have partial sentience because you can't get proper validation from an automaton, plus you need to be able to scold and frighten and guilt the malfunctioning ones.

It's when the partially-sentient appliances persist in malfunctioning and displaying unapproved emotions/thoughts/behaviours, then they "do us the honour" of feeling hate.

The mental gymnastics some people go through to defend the likes of Rubber Tits Man. Of all the genuine and many causes on this site, someone decided to spend their Sunday defending him, and berating those who post on this board.

Plus, there's always a reference to how clever or smart they are as they berate us, so that we are all impressed. ( My arse.) Along with a declaration that they are A Woman, with children for bonus points, recite some sad story, including a mention of sexual assault as some kind of gotcha. They think we don't see through the bullshit.

It's never Sue the local lollipop woman landing here. In all the years I've been here under various names, there has never been a Sue. Because the Sue's of this world are up to their eyes dealing with the daily shit that many women quietly get on with. And they know a perv from someone genuinely struggling with their identity.

I mean Grayson Perry is a case in point

At the end of his post, he asks for tips on how to improve things. Here’s mine- take the big rubber tits off! I mean… if you are going out of your way to make yourself look ridiculous, you can hardly be surprised when students don’t take you seriously enough to want to engage properly with you.

How predictably faux "clueless and innocent " and yet, at the same time, "me me me me me"!

It's only when we say No that they start to hate us

Flirts, it actually reminds me of a three year old who wants to do something (probably dangerous) and is ASOLUTELY FLUMMOXED when you say "You know what, we're not going to do that right now because you might hurt yourself."

Cue the pause. Blessed silence for a whole 30 seconds while you see the cogs whirring inside your child's head...

Then the slow screwing up of the face, the mouth grimacing, and, as you frantically cover your ears, then the almighty SCREECH issuing forth from the gaping hole that had been a sweet smile two minutes ago!

You see, I don't think some of these men even ever consider that we might say no, and mean it, because their entitlement is that strongly ingrained.

A caricature is a deliberate exaggeration.

This lecturer "reflects womanhood" by presenting as an OTT version of what a woman looks like e.g. overly big boobs, low-cut top and badly applied lipstick are obvious exaggerations. The motivation for reflecting womanhood in such a way is open to interpretation.

Here's a video of another male going OTT, this time with the idea of breastmilk:

https://x.com/RuPaulsDragRace/status/1680642200969834496?t=5Pwu1AtxwsToJoCwpxWlkQ&s=19

That video was on prime time TV at a time when families typically watch together. Again, the motivation is open to interpretation.

The obvious question in both examples is whether this is someone being their authentic self, someone taking the piss to degrade women or someone acting out their fetish in plain sight. These points aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

If none of that bothers you, fair enough. It never used to bother me either TBH, so I totally get why it wouldn't. As you say, it's so obviously not a female that in many ways it doesn't matter.

Where I've realised that I do draw the line is that I don't want to be a bit-part in someone's fetish when it's obvious (to me) that the person in question is getting a sexual thrill from the whole experience. Especially when that experience involves hiding in plain sight and getting adulation and fawning responses, for being so brave etc etc. In many ways, it doesn't matter if I'm wrong in assuming that someone has a fetish, simply based on the way they are conducting themselves. The fact that I get that vibe is enough for me to find it grim.

I don't think these men waste any more time considering the realities of being a woman than they spend time considering the realities of being a squirrel.

Good grief. You need a trigger warning for that link BL!
Glad to see the comments are universally critical.

The imbalance of power is worth noting. Adults in a powerful positions - able to punish via negative grades etc - abusing that power by indulging their fetish in public and inflicting it on unconsenting students and women, all unable to speak out without sanction.

Unbelievable that the Uni has never taken any action .

He's going out of his way to make himself look ridiculous but also going out of his way to make students, particularly female ones, feel uncomfortable. Female students will feel something ranging from disgust and anger to fear and anxiety all solid safeguarding reactions. Male students also will find this problematic, I'd imagine.

There's no way they're going to want to engage with massive fake breasts is there? Fucks sake.

Fetish and sexual harassment aside (though the Uni should definitely be looking into this and why their training doesn't cover it), how can the Uni employ someone so utterly dim about the chilling effect of such attire on student engagement?

Yes he’s definitely dim - he literally cannot “read the room”. The students don’t engage with his lectures because they’re keeping their heads down, no doubt cringing in horror or burning with rage or crying with laughter at this horrible freak show turning up at lectures.

UK students will be paying £9k a year to be exposed to this man’s fetish; international students many thousands more. The man is an absolute disgrace to be so disrespectful of these students’ hopes, aspirations and hard work.

Completely agree.

The vaguest concept of womanhood is all they need. The actual reality is anathema to them.

Women should start wearing MASSIVE erect fake penises to work, the outline clearly visible through their trousers.

That would be something to behold!
But, you know that all those women would be disciplined or even sacked, don't you?

And the only recourse would be legal action, which most women cannot afford.

It's the perfect Catch-22 for misogynists. And they definitely know who the real women are!

Anyone who wears this sort of thing to work should probably be checked regarding whether they're using Uni resources for watching porn too.

I wonder if they even check for this? It would do a lot more for women than sexual harassment training which only those who wouldn't do it in the first place will pay attention to.

Reminds me of this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/white-house-bans-trans-activist-topless-photo-pride-event-rcna89116

I have a real problem with Grayson Perry because I know he's a raging AGP fetishist. He knows he's a raging AGP fetishist but I find him an engaging TV presenter and interesting artist ( although I wouldn't watch anything where he's wearing a dress). I just wish he'd accept he's an interesting enough bloke without the problematic dildos and little girl dresses. I study art and there are so many deeply problematic artists, it's very hard to know when the artist's behaviour should factor into your appreciation of their work.

Wouldn't it be great if all the students, and staff too, just laughed at him - every time. It would take away the craving this twat obviously has to shock people. I'd say the same applies to Grayson Perry.

You can bet he knows that if the other staff and students openly laugh at him then that's wokplace bullying and harrassment. And they know it too.

I'd rather go down the eye roll route. Being laughed at might be part of their kink.

Well, this is where the sparkly knitted willies could be a win. They represent sex organs but they're just funny, not realistic enough to be overtly sexual, they're not harrassment, they're not directed at any individual or group, there's nothing really to discipline or sack anyone over. If anyone complains then it's all part of a discourse and then complainers will have to justify why it's OK for fake-tit-bloke to wear his and not for knitted-willy-women to wear theirs, otherwise no disciplinary. Or if it's not OK then everyone takes off their pretend sex organs and all is sweetness and light once again. After all, we wont mind removing ours because we don't get off on wearing them.

(50% joking here, for the avoidance of doubt! I'd better not be talking anyone into this.)

Well, yes, me as well, but you know women have been disciplined for eye rolls, too. It's bullying and harassment apparently.

Spotted on X, sums it up nicely I reckon

In that White House story above, I was quite surprised to see that it was the Biden White House that banned the TIM (and the others in the shot with him). Shows that the Dems actually did have some limits, which you wouldn't have known from the Presidential campaign. It will be interesting to see what their messaging on trans inclusion is, both for the midterms and in two years' time, because the Reps were horrifically successful in using it against them last time round.