I saw Germaine’s ‘Boy’ on SBS last night. I would like to see a transcript of that program pass the fundamental test of feminism for sexual discrimination, ie Sexual-Transposition (the substitution of male with female terms and vice versa).

I wonder if it would turn up any double standards? My guess would be that the travesties would count in the hundreds.

I agree, and have been saying that for 3 years since I saw her book, but by [double] coincidence I just shared this at a photo forum http://jalbum.net/forum/index.jspa?categoryID=1 - didn't realise SBS has finally said "something" [what DID they say?]

By coincidece I was just sharing emails with a chap [in USA] who calls himself a street photographer - and I thing we all do a little bit of that

Then on the News was this:

"Victorian charged over indecent Schoolies photos
Queensland police on the Gold Coast have charged a 56-year-old Victorian man with allegedly taking indecent photographs of Schoolies revellers.

The man was allegedly using a camera phone to take the images in the Surfers Paradise Mall yesterday.

Police say more than a dozen photographs were located on the man's phone.

The man, from Mooroopna in Victoria, will face the Southport Magistrates Court today on one charge of making observations or recordings in breach of privacy."

One would have to first ask why the schoolies [final year students who kick their heels up after exams] were DOING "indecent" things in a public Mall, and why THEY were not arrested

Maybe this is final proof that Oz does win the Award as the most Politically [Feminist] Correct country in the world

Consider this against the fact our famous exported feminist Germaine Greer has named herself as a pedophile, collected nude photos from the web of young boys and published them in her book "the Beautiful Boy" [called The Boy in USA] and made a fortune, and not one policeman has ever tried to arrest her

So if you come to Oz to do street photos, eg swimmers on Bondi Beach, make sure you are female

Divorce Doctor, I've not seen the details on that so may be way off the mark but it's likely that the photo's were "upskirt" or similar.

The person being photographed does not have to be doing anything obscene to end up with an inappropriate photo being taken.

R0bert

thanks RObert,

Totally proved my theory re PC in Oz

Your Freudian Slip is showing mate [if you are "male"] as you did the exactly correct SNAG thing and take the feminist side, making normal Adel Horin assumptions re men are all evil wifebashers, deadbeat dads etc so bloke MUST be up skirt, but hey the schoolies wear jeans and a mobile phone camera can not zoom to the "what nots"

On other side you totally disregarded any suggestion that Greer or women in general could possibly be pedophiles. You see Greer's statement "I don't care if they call me a pedophile" was NOT I dont care if locked up for life but rather I dont HAVE to care re prosecution as I am female and I am protected by my own buddies but ALSO by the fact SNAG men will NEVER say boo.

Nice job "mate"

Hear,hear,DD.

Erm DD... the report I read specifically identifies the 'schoolies' photographer's offence as taking 'upskirt' photos. See this: http://townsvillebulletin.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,20795064%255E421,00.html

I don't think you have to be any kind of SNAG or PC-obsessive in order to regard such behaviour as invasive and offensive. Anybody who goes around in public trying to take pictures up unsuspecting girls' skirts is quite despicable, unless they are mentally ill - in which case they should be required to seek treatment.

Having said that, I think Rob's initial point about an apparent double standard with respect to erotic images is quite valid.

Divorce Doctor, maybe you should take some time and have a look at my posts on issues such as the misrepresentation of DV and child abuse then have a review if your observations about me.

Greer appears to be a biggoted creep, I've not seen her book so can't comment directly but what I've see from her on other issues recently leaves me thinking that she has become some what of a sad joke.

I do think it significantly hurts the cause of men seeking equal treatment when others fire off half baked in a manner would do the most extreme of feminists proud if the terms were reversed.

There are plenty of women who support feminism who don't want double standards, one of the things I try and achieve here is the kind of balance that lets me be taken seriously by those wanting equality.

There are areas where men are getting a raw deal, and others where women still do it hard. Assuming that members of your own gender are always the innocent party does not fix that, it just entrenches the conflict.

The fellow involved in the photo's may be innocent, that will be for the courts to decide but to assume that the only way he could have taken obscene photo's is for someone else to be behaving obscenely shows either a determination to believe the worst of women or an extreme narrowness of thinking.

R0bert

well Morgan, I think your slip [no pun intended] is is showing too

Firstly you take me to a "news" web site and I find right in front of my eyes that I am looking "down the slip" of a very scantilly clad woman in an advertisement, and meanwhile the "spin headline" mentions "up the skirt" as the "verdict" for man in CBD [no longer in Mall]

but then we find that is simply third hand hearsay from "the police" and that no such pleading is being made at all to the court, but rather the very valid "privacy" concern. This gets back to my original comment re "street photographers" and quite apart from any "obscenity" question, does such a person have to ASK before he takes your photo?

Next question is if photo is for private [as we assume in this case] use or as we see below for Greer, for her own financial gain

"Police said the man from Mooroopna in Victoria had been spotted using a mobile phone to film up women's skirts in the Surfers Paradise CBD yesterday.

He will appear at Southport Magistrates Court today charged with observations or recordings in breach of privacy."

But still not one peep from you on subject of Greer who not only takes full frontal shots of boys [so no need for up or down shots] but publically admits her love of masturbating these boys [but you will notice the ABC deleted one of her references on LNL "I like boys because boys ejaculate far more often then men"]. Or her answer to a reporter of what she thinks about boys - "buckets of semen, buckets of semen, that's what I think"

As I say any man that did that would be locked up for life

and oh yeah, the boy [now a man] on front cover of her book did NOT give his permission to use his [upskirt, if you will, going forward] image - so "shove that up your skirt", going forward

what is so perrrrfect here is the new PC Flavour of the Month word "upskirt" and its derivative "going upskirt"

I had never heard it because I am not PC, but in remaining silent on Greer, our friend lept in with upskirt, and next we see Mr Plod uses it too but ONLY for his media spin side of face [to confirm all men are wifebashers so he can retain his easy job roaming the Mall for upskirts rather than chasing dangerous criminals]. But on other side of face [before magistrate] he too remains silent

This is what Don Watson in Death Sentence calls a Weasel Word, ie "the man was 'going upskirt', going forward, at the end of the day, towards closure, going forward"

Understand? - as I said earlier, just the same as Mal Brough [pronounced Bruff] the new Minister for Family Degeneration has grabbed the American expression "deadbeat dads" and run a media campaign of "hounding deadbeat dads to their graves" - just as good for vote catching as Howard chuckin a few kiddies overboard, in our Rich Australian Tapestry of Politically Correct Mania, going forward, going downblouse.

Divorce Doctor, nothing PC about "upskirt" that I know of. It's a term used by some porn site promoters to refer to photo's taken by holding a camera under a womans skirt and taking a photo of her undies - generally without consent. I guess it could also be used for close up shots of the undies of women sitting in a way that leaves their undies visible. Photo's for a cheap sexual thrill of women who have generally not chosen to expose themselves their undies to public view.

If that is what has been done we are not talking about innocent holiday snaps by a tourist trying to capture the mood in schoolies week, we are talking about an old man getting sexual thrills from young girls.

It will be up to the courts to determine if the accused is guilty.

I've had a look at a number of reviews and discussions of Germains book. I've not seen any discussion which rejects the general claim which is that the book is designed to encourage women to look at underage boys in a sexual manner. It would appear that most of the images are already in the public domain - art works etc. The book would appear to be an encouragement to paedophelia and using images not generally considered pornographic in a pornographic manner.
Germain appears to have played on the boundary line between pornography and art, the photo's are reported to be art the use is child pornography.

If what I've read is a fair representation of what the book is about (and I've not seen any serious contradiction of that) Germain, her editor, her publisher and her distributers should be treated as child pornographers.

I don't know how well existing laws deal with a collection of otherwise legal images used to promote paedophelia.

R0bert

As far as poor old Germs is concerned, I agree that she appears to have lost it. However, assuming that her sexual partners are of legal age, I fail to see the problem in her getting it on with young studs per se. Writing about it and talking about it on TV is in my opinion rather tacky, but I would think much the same about a male middle-aged has-been regaling us in his exploits with much younger women. In her case, it's put her back in the news, and even I wouldn't be gobsmacked if that was her intention ;)

DD: "Understand?"

Frankly, no. In fact, I'd be seeking counselling of some sort if I did.

CJ Morgan, I don't know if any actual contact is involved. Likewise the stuff I've seen does not spell out the age of the "boys" but tone of the pieces suggests that Germain is encouraging women to have sexual interest in boys who are not men.

In seaching for excerts from the book I found references to other books on boys ( an picture book and some short stories) by male authors which seemed to be gay fiction. I also found some interesting comentary at http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1059174,00.html including the following

"Her statement that recently "the age-old collaboration between mature women and boys in search of sexual enlightenment was at an end, officially at least", sits oddly with the current resurgence of interest in such matches. Right now, Mrs Robinson seems as alive as ever. It is telling that two out of the six books on this year's Booker shortlist deal with the love of the older woman for the boy. Monica Ali's Brick Lane gives the heroine a smooth-skinned, naive boy for her illicit affair; Zoë Heller's Notes on a Scandal deals with a 40-year-old teacher destroyed by her love of a 15-year-old. In popular films, from Titanic to Thelma and Louise , love is directed towards the figure of the boy rather than the man, in contradiction of the traditionally sanctioned direction." by Natasha Walter, author of The New Feminism (Virago).

R0bert

Once again, exactly as I say

Like did Mr Plod or the magistrate even ALLOW the poor old ragarse victim in the Mall to make a case based upon an artistic view of older men [American Beauty facsimile] having fantasy with young girls, to make up for them never having got their wild oats when they were kids [the case with just about any Catholic "brought up" lad]

Both of you are ACCEPTING the SNAG persona upon yourselves, but worse still visiting it upon others because of your softcock

and Greer "losing it" - like man IF you want to understand feminism in its various forms then read from a TRUE feminist, not Greer

Helen Garner book "the First Stone" will explain how it all works, especially those "innocent" little gals in the Mall who want the law to say that no evidence of the clothing worn [if ANY] by the gal alleging the attack is to be deposed to the court, once she makes her false accusation

DD: "Like did Mr Plod or the magistrate even ALLOW the poor old ragarse victim in the Mall to make a case based upon an artistic view of older men [American Beauty facsimile] having fantasy with young girls, to make up for them never having got their wild oats when they were kids [the case with just about any Catholic "brought up" lad]"

So that would be a defence for some old perv lurking around a bunch of vulnerable kids, trying to snap some illicit shots of inadvertently flashed panties? Am I alone in finding such a notion just a bit worrisome?

I have daughters, and the thought that there are men around who find this kind of behaviour defensible appalls me.

My point was not whether or not Greer has 'lost it' or whether she is a real feminist or not - my point was that a woman, any woman, can talk like this not only with impunity but with someone actually producing a doco about their views whereas if a man carried on like this they certainly wouldnt find a producer and would most certainly find themselves in court - that is the double standard.

SNAG: I have daughters, and the thought that there are men around who find this kind of behaviour defensible appalls me.

DD: Have any sons mate?

Rob, if your stomach can cope follow the links to the other books. I did not go far but one other appears to be a book of photo's by a male photographer of boys and seemingly celebrating the same stuff Greer celebrates. Others appear to be books about boys and again with what appears from the reviews to be an adult interest in their sexuality - a male auther. You may be right that if the author was a famous straight male the outcry could be much bigger.

DD, I've got a son and if Greer or somebody else was hanging around snapping covert shots photo's of his undies (while he was wearing them) I'd want them arrested.

It's not a gender issue, it's an issue that some people choose not to control their behaviour or interests.

R0bert

Good point, Robert.

DD, yes - I have a 16 y.o. son who is happy, well-adjusted and respects people regardless of their gender. He has a lovely girlfriend with whom he is quite besotted. I'm quite sure he would have absolutely no respect for some old creep who tried to furtively snap some illicit photos up her skirt.

If you think that such behaviour is acceptable, then I suggest that you need professional help.

So unfortunately you have simply confirmed my statement [agreeing with Mark Latham] that most Oz men [especially those in control] are just a congo line of PC suckarses

you have been sucked in by the ragarse in the Mall red herring and have chosen to be oblivious to the HUGE pedophile industry out there who prove that "pedophilia is a rich man's sport"

Greer is simply amusement value in this but is also a red herring, much the same as the ragarse "going upskirt", going forward, at the end of the day, towards closure

Understand?? - if not ask Peter Holier-than-though the protector of the Anglican pedophiles [who don't hold a candle to them Carflicks] who went bottoms up [no pun intented] as GG

Just a little history for you guys.

Some Forty years, or so ago a naive young girl graduated from an Australian Catholic convent to enter university. This kids name was Germaine Greer .

In those days catholic convents, teaching girls senior years, existed for only three reasons.
The first was Archbishop Mannix’s finishing school. A factory to turn out suitable wives for pollies, diplomats, and industry captains.

The second reason was to keep any girls, who were already too keen on boys, well away from them .

The final reason was as a breeding ground for the next generation of nuns.

At a sexual level these schools were not just non sexual. They were anti sexual.

This was the world that this child, by the name of Germaine Greer left to enter university.

This was the seed of the womens lib movement which re started at the time.

This movement was something that Greer, often unintentionally, milked, getting credit for advances that she had little or nothing to do with.

The sexual repression however was something that Greer vigorously rebelled against.

But there was still no way that she could go through her convent upbringing without being influenced by it. On the campus she was shocked to hear young men discussing their sex lives as casually as they discussed the footy scores.

This led Greer to come barging blindly out with one of the worst pieces of misinformation that has ever dogged, and destroyed relationships for the past half century.

“Men are a bunch of slaves to their penises and are after nothing from a relationship but a semen spittoon.”

Now any teenage kid, who is young, stupid, and thinks they know the ways of the world , will regularly drop these clangers.

But for some inexplicable reason, several generations of women, with a thousand times the sexual savvy as the young Greer, have blindly swallowed this particular “penis slaves” blunder, hook line and sinker.

The voice that declared men a bunch of penis slaves wasn’t the voice of a feminist at all. It was the voice of a nun.

Hey, Channel 7 is doing "downshirting" on the gals at Oz Open

anyone see Our Alicia throw a hairy eyball at cameraperson