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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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?
Why not? Look at what it's done for feminisim.
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.
: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.
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.
But perhaps like a Sikh complaining of racism there victimhood actually had a point?
I suppose men with depression deserve to be treated as second class citizens then?
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.
I'm complaining of sexism. Unless you think men are incabable of being descriminated against.
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.
Where do I say that?
Are they fuck... This female centric world only exists in your imagination.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
I don`t recall using the verb "to be" :chin:
Lets see :
Nope, I didn`t.
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.
Wow. Give yourself a pat on the back for that seeker, you deserve it.
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.
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.
I didn't say that they were. I said they can be victims of society.
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.
Hang on ... equal to what? If women have equal rights with men, that automatically means that men have equal rights with women
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.