Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Feminist mouths off Steve Irwin.

12345679»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    more to do with a lack of backbone

    So, men are only allowed to be strong? They aren't allowed to be weak? They can't have doubts or be afraid sometimes? Hulk smash?
    NQA wrote:
    that some men want to join a culture of victimhood.

    Why not? Look at what it's done for feminisim.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    I feel as a white, middle-class male I generally have it pretty good, and to be honest people (OK women) saying nasty things about men is like water of a ducks back to me. If I was a Sikh who been a target of racist abuse or a Jew who'd had a swastika daubed on my door I'd probably have less reason to feel so sanguine.

    There may be a problem with men being disempowered, but that's got sod all to do with feminism and more to do with a lack of backbone and that some men want to join a culture of victimhood.

    It's nothing really to do with that. It's the principle that matters. Sure White males probably have it better than any other type of demographic but still shouldn't back down from someone who calls you a freak of nature because you have it well off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lifeless wrote:
    For FUCK sake! My point is that if she replaced males with muslims or jews or even women she would be labelled a racist and a nazi and she would be widely discredited! The fact that she's defended makes it clear that men are fair game for this kind of abuse.

    :rolleyes:

    It's a polemic academic thought-piece; I myself (as an admirer and sometime defender) of Greer took it with a pinch of salt, as a result of having read thousands upon thousands of words she's written I can now appreciate some points and disagree with others. That said, I am sure her words have a grain of truth in a scientific and statistical sense. Comparisons to racists and nazis are strong words.

    It has got to be a bitter pill to swallow, as proven by your words. But yes, as NQA said, some men do seem very keen to join this victimhood culture and you are the proof in the pudding. Those are the men who say things like "things are unequally weighted in favour of women, now" etc etc. Clueless, really. Oh, and feminism is not a product of this self-same victimhood culture that is becoming increasingly popular with men like yourself, fuck away off with that kind of bullshit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lifeless wrote:
    So, men are only allowed to be strong? They aren't allowed to be weak? They can't have doubts or be afraid sometimes? Hulk smash?

    Of course they can and do be weak, snivel and say all the world's against me. But its not something to be admired or thought worthy of praise.

    And the 'mens' movement has nothing to do with doubt or fear - unless its a fear that women get their own radio programme, ffs.
    Why not? Look at what it's done for feminisim

    But perhaps like a Sikh complaining of racism there victimhood actually had a point?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Of course they can and do be weak, snivel and say all the world's against me. But its not something to be admired or thought worthy of praise.

    I suppose men with depression deserve to be treated as second class citizens then?
    NQA wrote:
    And the 'mens' movement has nothing to do with doubt or fear - unless its a fear that women get their own radio programme, ffs.

    Doubt and fear about the future I think. Men are being left behind in a continually female centric world. There's no support or retraining available. To be honest, if I thought I'd make it past 25 I'd be pissing myself.
    NQA wrote:
    But perhaps like a Sikh complaining of racism there victimhood actually had a point?

    I'm complaining of sexism. Unless you think men are incabable of being descriminated against.
    briggi wrote:
    fuck away off with that kind of bullshit.

    Funny, I bet men said the same thing when feminism first got started. The fact that you can't see that men can be victims too just show's how serious the problem is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not going to read 17 pages dealing with feminism etc. But as someone who has held my share of cobras, rattlesnakes, vipers etc., I can say a lot of people in the venomous snake community strongly discourage some of the handling techniques displayed be Steve. In fact, it probably contributed to at least a couple snakebites to daring and drunken redneck's in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains who said "look, I can do that to." However and unfortunately, this is what had to be done to gain such a large global audience. You have to involve the danger and fear factor to get the audience. Simple National Geographic specials aren't doing it. Essentially, his education to the masses and global conservations efforts will hopefully be what he is remembered by, not what this shrew has gone and insensitively said at the worst of times. She seems to have a very biased viepoint from what I read.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lifeless wrote:
    I suppose men with depression deserve to be treated as second class citizens then?

    Where do I say that?
    Doubt and fear about the future I think. Men are being left behind in a continually female centric world. There's no support or retraining available. To be honest, if I thought I'd make it past 25 I'd be pissing myself.

    Are they fuck... This female centric world only exists in your imagination.
    I'm complaining of sexism. Unless you think men are incabable of being descriminated against.

    You're not complaining of sexism... you're complaining that sometimes, just sometimes that the world shouldn't revole around men. If you're complaining about sexism you might want to look at the make-up of Parliament, senior Govt officials, the judiciary and FTSE 100 chief execs.

    I'm sure the odd man hasn't got a job because the boss fancied a woman around the place, but its minor in comparison to the number of women who haven't got jobs because the boss felt they couldn't hack it with the men, who would look after the children etc

    ETA - changed after I've seen a further post
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lifeless wrote:
    Funny, I bet men said the same thing when feminism first got started. The fact that you can't see that men can be victims too just show's how serious the problem is.

    Victims of what? Of course I believe men can be cast in the victim role, as women can, do you think I just sailed in on the last fucking banana boat? I don't think they are victims of feminism; not at all. I think that's a dreadful thing to say.

    I'm sorry, I'm not going to get into this with you as I know full well you don't have a rational view on these matters and your self-confessed (I think?) depression is obviously colouring your opinion of women (sfa to do with the feminist movement, to be honest) very strongly. I find your staunch viewpoints very misguided and a little chilling.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lifeless wrote:
    For FUCK sake! My point is that if she replaced males with muslims or jews or even women she would be labelled a racist and a nazi and she would be widely discredited! The fact that she's defended makes it clear that men are fair game for this kind of abuse.

    Plus the last paragraph, which seeker claims is a celebration of men, is not-so cleverly wrapped up with even more misandry. "Men dream of a world without women"? Errr...right!

    Out of interest Sophia, what mainstream feminist writers do you recommend reading?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    :rolleyes:

    It's a polemic academic thought-piece; I myself (as an admirer and sometime defender) of Greer took it with a pinch of salt, as a result of having read thousands upon thousands of words she's written I can now appreciate some points and disagree with others. That said, I am sure her words have a grain of truth in a scientific and statistical sense. Comparisons to racists and nazis are strong words.

    I think this paragraph nicely sums up one side of this argument. You've certainly interpreted Greer's piece one-way, others have interpreted it quite another.

    I'd imagine the opposing view is more:

    It's a pseudo-acedmeic cod-piece. I didn't choose to ignore the more ridiculous comments, as i'm not a fan of hers. Factually she could be correct, in between her rabid man-hating.

    Either way, R.I.P. Steve.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    briggi wrote:
    I - for one - continue to think there were implications behind his use of "feminist" in the title, whether he'll admit to that or not [and it seems to be "not"]. He should've said academic... or used her name. But in the grand scheme of things, who cares? This debate on here is a bit like a dog chasing its own tail.

    Who cares? Well a lot of people apparently.

    Feminist is a completely logical way of describing Greer, for that's what she is and what she's most famous for. I wou'd have thought that if he was trying to imply something he'd have gone on to say other negative things about her being a feminist, but he didn't.

    I have the belief that women and men should be treated equally but I could have just have easilly titled this thread as HIT did. I think a lot of people don't believe him becaue they're too busy looking for an argument.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Plus the last paragraph, which seeker claims is a celebration of men

    I don`t recall using the verb "to be" :chin:

    Lets see :
    I see parts of it as a kind of celebration of men,in general, from the female perspective.

    Nope, I didn`t.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lifeless wrote:
    Originally Posted by Greer
    The truth is out. Men are much more trouble than they're worth. Sisters are doing it for themselves. Discarded males of all ages loiter in the streets, looking for trouble to get into and finding no lack of it. Male security guards shoot male football fans in Bratislava, male fans howl racist abuse and hurl chairs at each other, males train as suicide bombers, male heads of state stroll about discussing whether they could get away with another shooting war on the women and children of Iraq, and their male flunkies zoom around the world trying to talk other males into joining in. The Beltway Sniper turned out to be a man. And those "children" ejected from school for threatening to kill their teachers are actually boys. It doesn't do to say so. A kind of mad squeamishness prevents us from quantifying the nuisance value of maleness, possibly because if you actually tell men that they are damned nuisances, they are likely to behave even worse.


    Generalisation much? And that's her first paragraph which according to her...
    Originally Posted by Greer
    Whereas the facts adduced in my first paragraph are clearly true.



    What is clearly true is she knows nothing about the real world.

    The article was written in November 2002. If you can be bothered to check the news pages around that time, I suspect you will find many of the examples given in that first paragraph.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    I don`t recall using the verb "to be" :chin:

    Lets see :



    Nope, I didn`t.

    Wow. Give yourself a pat on the back for that seeker, you deserve it. :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The article does remind me of some that are around at the moment about Muslims. You know the whole "Who commits all acts of terrorism in the world at the moment? Muslims" along with a disclaimer to state that not all Muslims are like that. The insinuation is clearly there. A lot of the biological facts used are similar to the sort of thing that people use to justify women not being allowed in the front line of the army. Whilst her argument isn't as defined as that (what do you expect from someone who's contracted to write a column every week) but I do feel that the sentiment seems to be there. If we can criticise HIT for the insinuation of the word 'feminist' in his title, then we can criticise this article tenfold for the way she uses the word 'men'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Feminist is a completely logical way of describing Greer, for that's what she is and what she's most famous for. I wou'd have thought that if he was trying to imply something he'd have gone on to say other negative things about her being a feminist, but he didn't.

    Sure, you may think it logical, but she actually has a name which makes her more instantly recognised as the villain in the piece (as it were) than the title of grand high "feminist" that has been appointed to her. I notice it doesn't say "Feminist mouths off animal antagonist/saviour/protector".

    The obvious qualifying title for Greer would be "Australian", as that is what links them and more than likely the reason she felt the need - or was invited - to voice her opinion. But obviously HIT didn't anticipate any objection, and it's fair enough - what's done is done. I don't think it's unreasonable to take issue with it, though.

    But since that's been talked to death, and to move away from the feminist label issue, now that the furore has settled after Irwin's death, the more I'm starting to think Germaine makes very valid points. I am actually loathe to heap praise upon him as a conservationist as other people have, but just to even up the score a little I wonder how many people are aware that Germaine Greer has reforested her home in Queensland with indigenous plant life and fauna in an effort to sustain the wildlife native to the area. A cause she is passionate about [but there's no sensationalism in wrestling a shrub to submission]. So no, no one would ever shout about any such thing that she did or continues to do, because in terms of being an entertaining Aussie hero Irwin had it bang on and Greer is the sour, dried up "old bitch". But then they do come from a country that is renowned for making heroes from these "larrikins" as Greer puts it, and sneering at and disassociating itself from its scholars. I'm not surprised John Howard is crying himself to sleep over Irwin's death, it's got to hurt to lose such a high-profile, unquestioning ally in being a true blue Aussie.

    I don't think we can rightly debate the all-round merits of Greer's works and opinions until we have the same depth of knowledge of it. At least moreso than two overhyped articles that are online. We wouldn't attempt to discuss Dostoevsky without having read at least one of his books, would we? That said, if anyone wishes to start a [relevant] thread where we can discuss Greer's more wide-ranging views then that would be wonderful, and I'd be happy to participate ;)

    The last thing I have to say on the matter is that I personally abide by the phrase: de mortuis aut bene aut nihil. Badly timed and insensitive, indeed, and it's telling that she didn't comment while his crocodile hunting was actually underway. But I don't think for one second Steve Irwin would be crying buckets over her comments, not at all.

    Oh, and CptCoatHanger, I would expect people to interpret it differently as I do have a couple of braincells rattling around in my head, but thanks for letting me know your take on it.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    briggi wrote:
    I wonder how many people are aware that Germaine Greer has reforested her home in Queensland with indigenous plant life and fauna in an effort to sustain the wildlife native to the area.

    Not many, and that's the point.
    Irwins methods may not have been subtle but they were precisely why he was such a good conservationist. He brought it to people around the world by makign conservation entertaining.

    As you say Greer could have easilly criticized the bloke whislt he was alive, yet chose to wait until the most insensitive and controversial time to actually say something. I'll admit I don't know much about her, but from what I've seen recently I can't say she's somebody I'd want to champion the cause of equality for men and women.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    I don't think they are victims of feminism; not at all. I think that's a dreadful thing to say.

    I didn't say that they were. I said they can be victims of society.
    briggi wrote:
    I find your staunch viewpoints very misguided and a little chilling.

    I have no idea why. I didn't say anything against feminism. All, I said was men deserve equal rights too and that I think Greer is a bigot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lifeless wrote:
    All, I said was men deserve equal rights too and that I think Greer is a bigot.

    Hang on ... equal to what? If women have equal rights with men, that automatically means that men have equal rights with women :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wouldn't this thread be so much less hassle if all the women were in the kitchen where they belong. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My internet still works in the kitchen :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hang on ... equal to what? If women have equal rights with men, that automatically means that men have equal rights with women :p

    There are a few areas where men have been left behind mostly in child rearing and criminal/civil law. But I'm thinking about any future inequalities more than anything. And I guess most of the inequalities against men are social rather than political.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd say it's probably worth bearing in mind the difference between individual exploitation or oppression, which can of course apply to anyone - and systematic oppression directed towards entire groups. Men in positions of power and wealth are still in control; though that doesn't mean that men in poverty aren't exploited.

    To my mind, the difference is that women, in exactly the same position as men, have less of a chance of promotion (numbe of women in high profile jobs), less of a chance of the courts treating them fairly (rape cases), less of a chance of a fair wage (women still earn less). There remains a level of inequality directed towards women simply because they are women.

    When men are exploting or face inequalitites it isn't because they are men, in my opinion, but because they are stigmatised in another way (they are poor, they have health problems, they belong to minorities, they come from the 'wrong' social class, etc).

    In my view women do not have the required power base to exploit anyone else. If men in certain situations are being exploited then it's by the same people who are exploiting women, not by feminists.

    Much of the early second-wave feminism grew out of the percieved sexism inheirent in the civil rights movement, student anti-vietnam groups, and supposed liberal protest movements - which were often as sexist as the groups they protested against. Though even the suffrage movement had many internal conflicts between those who wanted the end of all prejudice and those that didn't beleieve poor women like poor men should be allowed to be involved in politics.

    But since then there has been an increasingly strong movement within feminism, and other civil rights movements, to point out that the attempts to stop oppression of any group is an attempt to stop oppression of everyone - something that seems as revelant here as it was 40 or 140 years ago.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim, with all due respect, is the crux of that post that you don't believe men are ever discrimiated against because they are men?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no, just that it's men who are responsible for the discrimination
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    no, just that it's men who are responsible for the discrimination

    OK, so more specifically you're saying that you don't believe women discriminate against men? If that's what you're saying then frankly i think it's absurd and i can cite two cases of professional discrimination, from my own personal experience, which disprove your theory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No that's why I pointed out difference between individual moments of discrimination and systematic exploitation and discrimination. I'm not talking about indivduals events but riffing off the wider roots of systematic and institutionalised exploitation and discrimination.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All this talk of men as victims does seriously concern me, to be quite honest, because a lot of it seems to be a concerted agenda to negate and minimalise the attacks on women.

    Take domestic violence, for instance. Yes, men are the victims of DV, but the point still stands that about 80% of all DV victims are women, and about 90% of all DV attackers are men. But whenever this topic is mentioned you always get the "but think about the men!" angle from the usual suspects.

    As a general rule men discriminate against women, and as Jim V says, the men who are discriminated against are not usually discriminated against simply because they are men. It is usually because they are poor or black. Women are still discriminated against simply because they are women. Even the one area where women are statistically favoured- the family court- shows a sexist attitude that the woman is always the best carer and the man is always the best bread-winner.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Take domestic violence, for instance. Yes, men are the victims of DV, but the point still stands that about 80% of all DV victims are women, and about 90% of all DV attackers are men. But whenever this topic is mentioned you always get the "but think about the men!" angle from the usual suspects.

    I have no statistics to throw your way but my guess is that children are the biggest victims of domestic violence (from both male and female).

    If so,no doubt due to the "power" disparity being even greater.
Sign In or Register to comment.