Madonna King launched a tyrade against Leading feminist Germaine Greer last week which can be found at:
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10756473%255E27197,00.html
In reply I say:
Once, just once, it would be nice to read an article about Germaine Greer that actually bothers to refute her arguments. Instead we get the same old line about loony, unhinged crazy old bat and a few quotes out of context. I realise it must be upsetting for Madonna King that people will only pay $1 for their opinions while they’ll pay $88 for Germaine’s (which seems to be a sticking point for Madge King) but I expect a little argumentation from people paid to have opinions.
Greer’s contention that people become boring when they get married, though a little exaggerated, has some merit. Not only do many newlyweds prattle on endlessly about nothing but their new spouse, but long-married families often change their priorities. The daily duties of raising a family usually takes up more of their time than philosophising and writing analytic, academic essays. I’m not surprised that to an intellectual elitist such as Greer that discussing nappies isn’t her idea of a stimulating discussion.
Her contention about men hating women is nothing new. It was a little bit Freud, a little bit Lennon.
“Woman is the nigger of the world,
if you don’t belive me, take a look at the one you’re with”
Men have traditionally tried to put women down and keep them in their place, across many societies. This is hardly earth shattering. The point she seems to be making is that many men are obsessed with power. She has simply pondered whether some men might hold a subconscious resentment for the fact that men cannot exist without women, without being housed by a woman’s womb and being looked after by a woman. In essence, women hold some power over men. Boy, what a crazy old bat!
Maddy then debunked Greer’s 20,000 word essay with one sentence that simply stated that Greer’s conclusion was crazy. Why? I got the impression that King read only the last page of Greer’s essay.
As to the controversial young boys stuff, I don’t think it warrants the attention it has yielded. I don’t interpret her “love” of boys as anything sexual or romantic. One can be attracted to things in other ways than sexually or romantically. It has been interpreted by many as being no different to the love that a mother feels for her son. The special pride and attraction that a mother feels for seeing her son achieve. One does not necessarily have to be a parent to feel something of this nature.
I interpret her point as simply being that before men become extremely blokey and brutish, (like Russell Crowe, as she says), they have a gentler, kinder nature. She finds this soothing and comforting. I agree that it is nicer to be around people who aren’t aggressive and macho. I wouldn’t use the word ‘attraction’ myself, but I think Greer is simply interpreting the word differently. It is the rest of us who can’t get our minds out of the bedroom that is the problem.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Greer says, and actually I find adolescent boys irritating. But I’m sick of the inane, repetitious, slanderous, simplistic twaddle that comes around every time Aussies get another bout of tall poppy sundrome. Greer is a very intelligent person. She says a lot of stuff that looks crazy when you just read the conclusion. You have to read how she came to her conclusions. Some people may come to the same conclusion and simply be crazy. These are the people who can’t really back up their point with robust argumentation. These are the people who can sum up their position during a 5 minute Rove Live plug fest (or on a blog). Greer however is one of the most intellectual people this country has produced and her different perspective on life should be listened to, and critically analysed to find out what benefit it could have to us.