It is more than likely that the appearance, then disappearance of Germain Greer from the Big Brother set was a staged set-up. The woman has become like a professional sensationalists, willing to do almost anything, or say anything to bring attention to herself.

She doesn’t turn me on.

However I am concerned with the statement by Catharine Lumbly that “The world needs feminists of all persuasions on public display - whether as prime ministers or reality TV contestants.”

Really. What type of feminists are we talking about here. Catharine seems to believe that any feminist will be a good role model for anyone, and we should accept and believe without question, anything that is told to us by a feminist.

Yes Timithy, according to feminist theory any feminist is a good feminist.

Let me refresh you. Women are disadvantaged. Treating women as disadvantaged, disadvantages women. Treating women as equals also disadvantages women. Disadvantaging women is sexual discrimination and emotional violence. Emotional violence is a form of rape. Rape is physical violence... or something like that. It's about cakes - having them and eating them. It is about sharing pictures of prepubescent boys. The doctrine is flexible enough to make up your own rules as it suits.

I that right girls? I was never admitted into the gender studies class.

I wouldn’t like to see just “any” feminist being on TV, or just “any” feminist being in government, or just “any” feminist being in the media, or just “any” feminist acting as a role model for young children. There has to be some type of standards.

Personally I have found the following list of methods or techniques often used by feminists as being relevant.

1. Portray feminism as being altruistic, and something that plays an important part in the democratic process. Then accentuate any injustice or hardships being endured by females, while ignoring any injustice or hardships being endured by males.

2. Highlight any advantages or successes of feminism, while hiding the many disadvantages and failures. State that feminism has given women more choice, while hiding the fact that so many women are now welfare dependant, and have very little choice.

3. Attempt to portray females positively, by portraying males negatively. This enables females to appear superior to males, without having to provide direct proof.

4. Accentuate or publicise any wrongdoing by a male, or attempt to portray this male as being representative of all males. Ignore any wrongdoings by a female, or state that it was caused by a male.

5. Portray women as being perpetually disadvantaged and victimised, as this helps prevent any unwanted criticism of women, and makes it easier for women to get more money. Ignore the fact that many women have now become highly dependant upon these sources of money.

6. Use highly biased studies and statistics to positively portray women. This normally involves “interviewing the cat and not the dog” type studies that result in biased conclusions, or it involves suppressing or ignoring any study that gives negative conclusions regards women.

7. Make continuous and repetitive use of the term “women and children”, but never the term “men and children”. This helps to create a belief that men cannot be proper parents, and men cannot be with children.

8. Blame males for as many problems as possible, as this transfers responsibility for those problems onto males, and hides the fact that females may be partly or fully responsible for those problems occurring. Transferring responsibility also relieves females from having to find workable solutions to those problems.

9. Exaggerate! Begin by saying that certain situations occur sometimes, and then increase this to often, then most of the time, then all the time (EG. “All Men are Liars”, “All Men are Rapists”, “All Men are Wife and Child Bashers” etc). Include boys as well (EG. “Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Boys”, “Boys are Smelly” etc).

10. Proclaim the necessity for equal opportunity at work, while being highly selective on where women should work. This helps ensure that women undertake the more desirable types of work.

11. State that women are highly maternalistic and greatly concerned about children. Then ignore the fact that many women have become very materialistic and highly preoccupied with self. Ignore the fact that children are being increasingly raised by the state, in state funded child minding centres, schools etc.

12. Portray women as being the “family makers” and greatly concerned about family life. Ignore the fact that many families are now being broken up by women in an endeavour to find greater self-fulfilment outside of family life. Ignore the fact that any self-fulfilment outside of family life, is usually much less than what can be found within family life, and the breaking up of families normally affects the lives of many other people, particularly those of children.

13. Attribute social problems to patriarchy, while ignoring the fact that that most societies have developed from patriarchy. Ignore the fact that very little is known about matriarchal societies, as most have disintegrated so rapidly.

14. Teach feminism to the young, as this helps to perpetuate feminism. The young are more gullible and easier to indoctrinate, and by the time they are old enough to realise the deceptions, another generation would have been indoctrinated in the interim.

15. Dismiss or ignore any criticism of feminism, but if a reply to criticism does become necessary, then make liberal use of one-line put downs (EG. “Grow up”, “Get a life”, “You have to be kidding”, “Get real” etc), or include the term “domestic violence legislation” to try and silence any further criticism. Label any correspondence that is critical of feminism as being “hate mail”, so there is minimal obligation to reply.

16. State that women have a right to speak their minds, then oppose any male who speaks his mind regards feminism or the modern woman. Label this male as being sexist, chauvinistic, or belonging to a radical men’s group.

17. Oppose any stereotyping or vilification of the female gender, then attempt to stereotype and vilify the male gender as much as possible. If a male questions this hypocrisy, then state that any stereotyping or vilification was only a joke, and feminism is actually altruistic, and plays an important part in the democratic process.

Whoahh!
And I was worried about breaching PC ... not even Greer herself will be game to resond to this!
(after all, she is a little ol' lady of retirement age, without any family)

End of topic, I guess.

When you watch or read various interviews with Ms Greer over the years you realise what an intelligent, witty and charming person she was. You can see that alot of the things she said were said with an express intent to provoke reaction. She would have been a terrific dinner guest, but impossible to live with.

This is probably her problem now. She has proved impossible to live with. Growing old on your own must be pretty scary, no matter who you are or how much you deny it.

Just quietly I think Germaine may have been more than capable of making some pretty creepy bedroom demands herself over the years!

Cranky :- It is debateable whether or not Greer has made an overall positive difference to women. For example in The Female Eunuch she encouraged women not to marry:-
"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry”

She has also encouraged more divorce, but we now see single parent female families with the highest rates of poverty, welfare, child abuse, depression etc of any family type. She is known as a principle feminist, but these are some quotes from other important feminists in the feminist movement

“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" Dr. Mary Jo Bane

Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarchy -- Gloria Steinem

"Feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men." -- Catharine MacKinnon

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

This type of attitude is also current in recent articles by various Australian female journalists:-
“The key to enjoying a woman's twilight years is simple: ditch your bloke.” Louise Crossen
“But why break his spirit now. There’s plenty of time for that after he’s married” Susan Maushart

Declared feminists such as Catharine Lumbly do not seem to make any objection to what these women have said, (in the past or recently), and they make no objection to the techniques various feminists do use, so one can only assume that she agrees with them.

Seeker, Timithy and Cranky - I have read your responses to several other articles in OLO but I find your comments here rather surprising. The article concerns an on-going dialogue regarding second and third wave feminism and was clearly framed to be of interest to those who are interested/concerned with that particular discourse. Judging by your responses you weren't impelled to comment regarding this article at all but rather by your dislike of an existing societal construct. Unfortunately, to judge also by your comments, you are unfamiliar with this particular societal construct as well. Simply from reading your responses your ideas seem to have been formed at second hand i.e. not from reading books and literature written by people from within this particular construct - feminism - but from reading other peoples views of such persons views. Perhaps if you could read up a little, or even talk to those from within the movement you might be able to set your minds at rest a little concerning its aims and also cease to argue from a point which seems to translate as ignorance of this particular subject. Timithy, I should also appreciate it if you would give me the provenance of the quotes you provide (the particular publication and page number from which you gleaned them). I do not remember Ms. French having made the rapist comment but perhaps it - like the Steinam quote - was taken out of context? ANKH

Ankh, you are right to some extent that my opinions have been formed by second-hand discourse, but that is the case with most people. I am more interested in personally observing the impacts on society and its various “constructs” now, than reading some old first-hand thesis that continues to be debunked by each subsequent wave of feminism.

It is interesting to think of these waves in the current context of the tsunami devastation.

Here’s an example of fresh new third wave discourse for you. Are men supposed to be any more comfortable with this more recent feminist thought? In your view, how much study is necessary to obtain the right to object?

http://smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Men-in-trouble-now-that-even-their-sperm-isnt-necessary/2005/01/18/1105810914296.html

Ankh
I am fully aware that there are a number of waves of feminism, and also different versions of feminism within any one wave. I am also fully aware that Germaine Greer is an attention seeker who has taken so many U-turns in her thinking and general philosophies, that there is now very little in her thinking and general philosophies that can be relied upon. I am also fully aware that not all of feminism is benign by any means, and within any book that objectively analyses feminism, you will likely find the most alarming quotes from prominent feminists, many of whom, (including Germaine Greer), have called themselves Marxist. Other people have identified significant similarities between feminism and Nazism.

I could have sourced my quotes from innumerable sources, but for ease of copying and pasting into the comments section I copied quotes them from a web-site at http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=list_pages_categories&cid=2

You may also find feminist quotes from http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/top/

However Cathrine Lumby has stated that feminists of “all persuasions” should become such things as Prime Ministers, as if any feminist is a good feminist. There may be some good or decent feminists within our present society, but there are a lot that aren’t, and the longer I live the more I learn that a person’s overall worth cannot be related to their gender.

As one example only, within the list of my quotes there is a very recent quote by a Louise Crossen being “The key to enjoying a woman's twilight years is simple: ditch your bloke.”

The history behind this quote says a lot about how gender issues are being handled within this country, by Social Science and by the press. I have also noted no objections by any person such as Cathy Lumby who has in the past declared herself as being a feminist.

There was a study carried out by 4 social science researchers from 2 QLD universities into the health and well being of elderly people. The study tried to relate their general health and well being to their martial status. Why not try to also relate it to income, previous work experience etc. Who knows, but the study did not sample elderly people living in aged care homes, many of whom would not be be healthy enough to care or provide for themselves.

The study was called “Marriage dissolution and health amongst the elderly: the role of social and economic resources“ but it should have been more accurately called "Marriage dissolution and health amongst the elderly who do not live in aged care homes : the role of social and economic resources”

The results of this study were reported in two newspapers to my knowledge, being the Courier Mail at ( C:\temp\New Folder\The Courier-Mail Enjoy life Get rid of your man [11jan05].mht ) and the Sydney Morning Herald at ( http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Women-live-longer-if-they-throw-away-the-ring/2005/01/09/1105205981068.html )

The way this study was reported in the press is highly objectionable. In her recent article about the study, the journalist Louise Crossen wrote “The key to enjoying a woman's twilight years is simple: ditch your bloke.” The journalist Adele Horin wrote “If women are looking for the key to long-lasting health, they should consider getting rid of their man.”

The comments by these journalists are highly objectional. They identify husbands as being some type of health risk and they also contain connatations of encourageing women to either divorce or murder their husbands. Their comments are all the more objectional because they are based on biased social science research, and overlook other factors such as the average age of women is now 83.27 years, while the average age for a male is 77.4. From memory the average age of retirement for a woman has been estimated at 47 while the average age of retirement for a male is 58.

Having read the study and having read the articles in the two newspapers, then from the list of technique mentioned earlier in a comment, I would at least identify list item numbers 1, 3, 5, 6 , 8 and 17 as being used.

This is why I have become highly scepticle of most, (but not all), of social science research and highly scepticle of feminism.

I do not see the necessity for any special previladges to be awarded to someone simply becasuse they decide to call themselves a “feminist”, and I would not like to see just “any” feminist being on TV, being a prime minister, or being in the media

Ankh, maybe the words I type on my keyboard transmogrify on their way through cyber-space. Nothing I said in my initial comment would suggest any dislike of a particular "societal construct". I didn't even say anything bad about Germaine!

You're right about one thing though. My interest in the ins & outs of second and third wave feminism is pretty tiny. I appreciate feminism to the extent that my daughters have many more options open to them now then ever before. Feminism debates have never included men and I've found that the only men who try to get involved are pathetically sycophantic - standing up on stages and proudly declaring themselves "feminists"! How embarrassing!

Ankh, my comment was on Germaine Greer, not feminism. But it's probably a good thing that ignoramuses put in their 2 cents worth, if every comment was along the same lines as Ankh's everyone's head would explode.

Cranky,
I think that you should take a long hard look at "feminism", its history, its principle players, its claims, and the often hidden negative side.

I think that you should also ask yourself how many of these so called "choices" have actually been brought about by feminism, or by things such as gradgual increases in national wealth, and breakthroughs in technology and medical science.

I also think that you can decide how many of these so called "choices" are also available to males, or will males in the future be regarded as second class citizens, because of a process of indoctrination that often uses biased social science research and generalisations. (EG "Women live longer if they throw away the ring"
By Adele Horin, SMH, January 10, 2005)

People’s heads are already exploding even without the benefit of Ankhs scholarly arguments.

Those unfortunate enough to have lost children to this tsunami, no longer wish to live by the beach, want to know all about the dangers of such phenomena, and cannot help but warn the tourists.

Cranky, fortunately for you, you don’t have to consider your sons’ options under such circumstances.

Here is a radical opinion :)

"Women will never get any further than their power relationships with strategically placed men allow them"

I think I can prove that from natural observation and common sense.
and.. is it neccessarily a bad thing ?

Boaz
There is a very simple method that can be used to test the validity of many statements that are made regarding gender, which is to reverse the statement or add both genders to the statement.

So the original statement is :-

1/ “Women will never get any further than their power relationships with strategically placed men allow them”

This can be changed to :-
2/ “Men will never get any further than their power relationships with strategically placed women allow them”

Or:-
3/ “Women and men will never get any further than their power relationships with other strategically placed men and women allow them”

Now once the full range of statements are written down, then techniques can be used to determine which one is the most accurate. “Certain” people in “certain” organisations will immediately go for no.1, and will use a narrow magnifying glass to look at history so as to support their claims, and then they will try and indoctrinate the young and other people with their now biased claims. Standard practice.

But if you were to look at history fully, then the statement most likely to be true is no.3, as there have been many women in positions of power or control, and they have been just as good/bad as any male. (EG “Bloody Mary” or Mary 1 of England, to recent events at Abu Ghraib prison involving female guards )

So no 3 is the most probable.

But back to the article in OLO. The author of this article seems to regard Greer with the highest esteem. Eg. “ There’s a wonderful 1971 cover of Life magazine which shows Germaine Greer laughing and flaunting those famous lanky legs. What a woman she was - and privately probably still is. Intelligent, liberated, sexy, funny. The kind of woman men and women want to be around.”

Really?

This is how another woman describes Greer in a speech given at the World Congress of Families III, Mexico City, March 29, 2004 (http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5435&department=BLI&categoryid=commentary)

“Germaine Greer –– Known as the diva of feminism, Germaine Greer is, like Gloria Steinem, now in her 60s. Greer has two books: The Female Eunuch kick-started her fame and The Whole Woman, published recently, basically repudiates everything Greer had said previously. Known for her bawdy diatribes, Greer preached that sexual liberation is the path to fulfillment. Greer has had "several" abortions –– which left her unable to have children. She has stooped in recent months to getting attention by being an apologist for female genital mutilation. She was married –– briefly –– for three weeks, during which time, she brags, she cheated on her husband seven times. But at age 60, she mused: "The finest time in your life was when you fell asleep in someone's arms and woke up in the same position eight hours later. Sleeping in someone's arms is the prize." Inevitably, she sleeps alone.”

So you have two quite conflicting views there on Greer. One by a person who admires Greer and wants her to be a role model for young girls, and another by a person who regards Greer as the opposite. You can make your own mind up regards this, but personally I don’t believe Catharine Lumby.