Steve Irwin dead (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

People, if you are going to denounce Greer, you would be best to try and adopt a constructive approach, because you only show your ignorance (and you help to reinforce one of her long-standing arguments) by belittling her contribution to the world of academic thought.

This is what exactly? That stupid book she wrote in the 70's and the few women stupid enough to take her writing seriously? Greer is truly a waste of space on this, mostly otherwise, fine earth. Only the lunatic far left sticks up for Greer, you're not on the lunatic far left are you Generator?

 

[Tom Ruprecht]

I think Clive Hamilton in that article said it best. There definitely is a real difference between what Steve Irwin did - a farcical circus act - and David Attenborough's documentaries. The latter shows respect for the natural world. It's very much like the difference between Big Brother and Michael Apted's 7-up series (I watched the recent 49-up, which is very very good). One exploits its subjects, and the other respects the dignity of its subjects.

As for the attacks on Germaine Greer, it is vicious and incredibly ignorant to engage in ad hominem attacks. Generator is right: Germaine Greer has made a significant contribution to academic thought. Feminism is about equality and empowerment, and it's about having the power and capacity to choose. There was a stigma attached to unmarried and childless women in the 19th century. But much has changed since then. Women now have a greater capacity for self-actualisation and to pursue what they wish in life. To criticise someone for being 'childless' as though it is indicative of a failure of a human being is not only archaic, but offensive. It ought to have no part in the 21st century.

As for those who dismiss feminism as something that is part of the radical far left, you could not be more wrong. Feminist theory is important. It's not merely restricted to women. It's a critical theory that can be applied to elucidate concerns related to all marginalised groups. I am concerned about the misogyny across this forum (and not only in this thread). It seems that this RnB cult of our times has taken its toll.

As for Steve Irwin, this worshipping and cult of celebrity is completely superficial. Most people weren't even the least bit interested in Steve Irwin until he died. And now these people are putting turtles into their MSN names. He shouldn't be mourned any more than the next dead human being. Such compassion is false, and it's misdirected.

The real issue is environmental conservation. And climate change. The tragedy is that fewer people are mourning about this.

 

[Ennaybur]

good points tom.

i also disagree with those who say that she has made no contribution. they obviously lack little knowledge of history and/or are mysogynist.

i dont think what she said was sensitive or the right way to go about it, but people are getting WAY too worked up abuot it

 

[Jiga]

I think Clive Hamilton in that article said it best. There definitely is a real difference between what Steve Irwin did - a farcical circus act - and David Attenborough's documentaries. The latter shows respect for the natural world.

Well apart from that being only one aspect of his life... it was a means to an end, by doing what he did in the most caring manner possible he aroused interest in the protection of wildlife and conservation. Meanwhile Attenborough generates boredom for the most part (Not to attack his work, but he really does attract a limited demographic).

As for the attacks on Germaine Greer, it is vicious and incredibly ignorant to engage in ad hominem attacks. Generator is right: Germaine Greer has made a significant contribution to academic thought.

Well personally I havent really attacked her for her contributions.... but it is well know fact that in recent history she has been nothing but a menace. Just look at wikipedia, there are countless quotes of people from many nations describing her in a negative light.... dont tell me this is for no reason!

As for Steve Irwin, this worshipping and cult of celebrity is completely superficial. Most people weren't even the least bit interested in Steve Irwin until he died. And now these people are putting turtles into their MSN names. He shouldn't be mourned any more than the next dead human being. Such compassion is false, and it's misdirected.

False... misdirected? Please explain? And anyhow, in one paragraph you praise this Germaine Greer... in this paragraph you ESSENTIALLY discerdit all that Irwin as done as he should not be "mourned any more than the next dead human being". I suppose it does explain why you spent 3/4 of your post defending Greer and feminism.

i dont think what she said was sensitive or the right way to go about it, but people are getting WAY too worked up abuot it

Yeah coming from the person who says I should stop calling Greer names because its direspectful to her (who cares its a forum, she will never see and shes still alive at least... Im not spitting on her grave) and now says people should just get over her creating an article that was published and seen across the world, that has tarnished the reputation of a great man who recently passed on. There is no bias in your posts at all towards Greer...

 

[Ennaybur]

lol.. there's no bias in your posts at all towards Greer

 

[Ennaybur]

"False... misdirected? Please explain? And anyhow, in one paragraph you praise this Germaine Greer... in this paragraph you ESSENTIALLY discerdit all that Irwin as done as he should not be "mourned any more than the next dead human being". I suppose it does explain why you spent 3/4 of your post defending Greer and feminism"

And maybe this is because (not to discredit Irwin's contribution, all good works should be appreaciated) maybe being a pivotal player in what is arguably a revolution of our society in bringing about equality and a more civilised world IS in fact a very valuable contribution to society? maybe she should be praised, or at least appreciated for her contribution to society rather than calling her a 'fucking bitch' and 'old hag' etc

and wtf should feminism not be defended? would you prefer all your women to be voiceless, powerless and under complete oppression by men?

 

[Jiga]

there's no bias in your posts at all towards Greer

No there isnt.... I have said she has contributed to society, but in this case it is widely acknowledged that she is in the wrong. There is a difference between being biased and being correct

And maybe this is because (not to discredit Irwin's contribution, all good works should be appreaciated) maybe being a pivotal player in what is arguably a revolution of our society in bringing about equality and a more civilised world IS in fact a very valuable contribution to society? maybe she should be praised, or at least appreciated for her contribution to society rather than calling her a 'fucking bitch' and 'old hag' etc

Once again, its widely accepted that in recent history she has been nothing but a pest. She wants to highlight the floors of the recently departed, maybe she should have a very good look in the mirror because I can assure you she has done far worse things then that man she attacks for just being himself... labelling him an embaressment!

and wtf should feminism not be defended? would you prefer all your women to be voiceless, powerless and under complete oppression by men?

Ok yeah lets turn this into a feminist argument. I dont no why YOU are trying to make it go down that path, but its not going to. Women should have rights etc... but that isnt the issue here, the issue is Greers most recent article attacking a man just after his tragic death.

 

[Ennaybur]

lol way to sig me

 

[Ennaybur]

and no i dont think that I turned it down a feminist path. other people decided to start saying 'fucking feminists'

anyway i think that we virtually agree on most points, just the labelling of people. I don't like people just making out he is some sort of demi-god and her a blasphemous devil

 

[Ennaybur]

OH AND TAKE ME OUT OF CONTEXT ASWELL sick one

 

[Jiga]

lol way to sig me

OH AND TAKE ME OUT OF CONTEXT ASWELL sick one

Lol, its bordering on that... but it is how you've come across at times.

and no i dont think that I turned it down a feminist path. other people decided to start saying 'fucking feminists'

anyway i think that we virtually agree on most points, just the labelling of people. I don't like people just making out he is some sort of demi-god and her a blasphemous devil

Fair enough :uhhuh:

 

[bshoc]

And maybe this is because (not to discredit Irwin's contribution, all good works should be appreaciated) maybe being a pivotal player in what is arguably a revolution of our society in bringing about equality and a more civilised world IS in fact a very valuable contribution to society? maybe she should be praised, or at least appreciated for her contribution to society rather than calling her a 'fucking bitch' and 'old hag' etc

and wtf should feminism not be defended? would you prefer all your women to be voiceless, powerless and under complete oppression by men?

Lets take a look at what feminism has accomplished over the years, I'll try and cover the main ones:

1. Creation of economic inefficiency through affirmative action, especially hiring and social programs.

2. The creation of a false history - one that tries to focus on a history that doesent exist ie. women making contributions to science, politics, war etc. This has largely been done by men, and an extreme minority of women barely worth mentioning.

3. A skewed legal system where women win 7/10 of all custody cases etc. And the population of thereof by activist judges who do not represent mainstream Australia.

4. The handing to the women of Australia unearned rights (rights that are not earned are worthless - ie. womens rights) by a minority of women ("feminists") who represent only themselves rather than women in totality.

5. 80000 dead babies a year in Aus. alone. through lagalized pre birth murder laws. (funny how when the woman chooses its called a medical procedure, whilst when done by another person its called murder).

6. The internal weakening of the country, directed against the only people that can protect the country against external threats (ie. men).

7. A country where the majority of taxpayers (men) fund a disproportionate amount of programs aimed solely at the minority of taxpayers (women).

8. The relegation of men to something that should be loathed and feared, and a general dismissal of reality.

9. The destruction and corruption of one of Australias greatest parties (the ALP) by the gay and feminist agenda.

10. The depletion of birth rates caused by abortion and feminist culture, increase of crime rates caused by single mother families, and the brainwashing of a large proportion of the population with unrealistic idealism and an ignorance of natural reality.

This is from the perspective of somebody who comes from a country where women stood up for themselves and earned their place in society, a country where women fought on mass alongside men in WWII and suffered the same hardships and victories. All done without a hint of feminism, which is in its totality, nothing more than a snobby expectation by women to have disproportionate rights and monetary laws handed to them on a silver platter. Sad.

 

[bshoc]

hahahaha, it's pretty scary that people like bshoc actually exist.

I know eh, "Oh crap somebody who can think for themselves!"

I shall report to my nearest ALP/Greens/Democrats HQ for immediate re-indocrination! Forgive me.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You don't think I 'think for myself' bshoc? I try to be as critical as I can.

 

[55078]

Germaine Greer is a very, very, very clever woman. Whether or not it was her plan all along, the way in which we have seen the Australian public react to her article criticising Steve Irwin has certainly highlighted just how misogynistic this nation still is. Because, you know, how dare a woman (and a childless one at that!) attack this pure representation of the primal and physically strong male; the "quinessential Australian male"; the hunter, if you will.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/09/08/1157222325364.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

So what's wrong with Greer's comments?

I can't help thinking that if Clive James, a fellow traveller with Germaine Greer in the great exodus of Australian intellectuals to London in the 1950s and 60s, had made the same observations as Greer did this week about the outpouring of Australian grief over Steve Irwin's death it would have been viewed very differently.


To me, Greer's assertion - that Irwin was a cross between an old-time lion tamer, modern Peter Pan and dinky-di Aussie larrikin who had no place being canonised in life or in death - was right on the money. He'd lived as he'd died: a daredevil entrepreneur who had deftly ridden on the back of Paul Hogan's Dundee coat-tails all the way to the bank and good on him.


I've got no problem with how he made his money, his political persuasions or his fondness for shouting "crikey" loudly into the eardrums of unsuspecting creatures. His circus-like act entertained millions all over the world and there are surely worse things to do with a life's work. And I don't doubt for a moment that his motivation for buying huge tracts of land as habitat protection was in the best interests of the animals he shared a stage with.


The problem I have is the way this country has turned Irwin into some kind of wildlife saint in death when most of us seemed to have had scant regard for his antics in life and simultaneously turned with such vengeance on Greer for expressing a view that has been deemed to be out of step with those of ordinary Australians.


If Steve Irwin's story was a celebration of the boy who wouldn't grow up, then Greer's is a modern equivalent to the witch-hunts of Salem.


The outpouring of grief at Irwin's death has been matched only by the outpouring of vitriol poured on Greer. It has been astounding. Men, mostly, have lined her up and taken aim with the kind of venom you would associate with the kind of snake Irwin was most fond of handling.


And the message has been heard loud and clear; if you're a woman of a certain age in this country - and a childless one at that - don't you dare step out of the shadows and shout out that the emperor might not be wearing any clothes. You will be shouted down and marginalised and your situation will be thrown back at you as a weapon.


In our increasingly family-focused Australia, the perspective of the lone childless woman is not only the least credible, but it seems it is also the least defensible of circumstances. It has become the most potent of dismissals and the most loaded and discriminatory of accusations that carries with it implicit allegations of heartlessness, selfishness and elite myopia.


And it is fascinating that men seem to find this particular description so necessary when their intention to demean women is at its most ferocious. John Birmingham did it this week. I had thought better of him.


Somehow because Greer has not had the blessed revelations of the mothering kind, she is by natural extension some kind of shrieking harridan whose views should be roundly discredited, her character undermined and her unsightly behaviour removed from public view.


Suspicion, disdain and pity have coloured most of the commentary on Greer's thesi. It has been revealing not only for what it has brought out in our men but the complicity of so many women in the process.


As a childless product of The Female Eunuch generation, Germaine Greer's influence on my life has been profound. The book predated me but its influence loomed large in the decisions women of my generation embraced. The women Helen Reddy told to roar. And we are, to a large extent, a terrifying entity.


It is for this reason I have empathised and identified so strongly with the prevailing sentiment of what underscored Greer's perspective as it shone like a beacon of reassurance and likemindedness in an Australia - and a world - still dominated by an overwhelmingly male sensibility.


Very little of the anti-intellectual hot air blown about this week has been about what Germaine Greer may or may not have thought about Steve Irwin. It had everything to do with a dominant male power-base telling women to be seen and not heard. Of marginalising a particular kind of woman and reducing us to condition and circumstance. Of reminding those of us who like to speak our mind to watch our step, to remember our place and to shut up and agree with the menfolk. We are all a lot poorer for the unsightly fallout.

 

[Ennaybur]

err i don't think I agree with this turning into a huge men Vs women thing. it's not about that at all. Sure, some people make comments like that, but i don't think that the reaction is simply about her being a childless woman. It was insensitive and despite her intellegence she certainly seemed to be using the idiot's guide to PR

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I know eh, "Oh crap somebody who can think for themselves!"

I shall report to my nearest ALP/Greens/Democrats HQ for immediate re-indocrination! Forgive me.

Why must people who disagree with you be ALP/Greens voters?

Not only is it a poor attempt to, again, attack the person, but it is very simplistic. Most people look at the policies on the table and vote for whoever they think will do a good job, notwithstanding the fact they belong to a particular party.

I don't vote for a party per se. Only fools cling to parties absolutely, endorsing every single one of their policies as if they are a favourite football team. I look at both parties at the time of the election and choose the one which I think will best govern the country. To imply that there are swaths of dedicated party supporters here blindly barracking for a team - I think that is inaccurate. I've only voted once (in 2004) and I voted Liberal. But of course, I must be a Greens voter because I disagree with you

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't think the reaction would have been much different if a man made it, perhaps just if they were made in a different way, with more wit and flare.

 

[55078]

err i don't think I agree with this turning into a huge men Vs women thing. it's not about that at all. Sure, some people make comments like that, but i don't think that the reaction is simply about her being a childless woman. It was insensitive and despite her intellegence she certainly seemed to be using the idiot's guide to PR

No, i think you misunderstand. It's not that people are generally angry just because she's woman, but the fact that she is a woman who represents feminist ideals and academia has resulted in a very obviously misogynistic sentiment throughout the comments of those who have lashed out at her.

The difference between a man coming out and saying the things Germaine has come out and said, although he may have gotten a slight caning, is that a man would never be on the receiving end of insults ranging from 'barking maddie', sexually "creepy", "childless" (the worst in my opinion), and being a man it would be an impossibility for him to be called an 'unwashed and wretched bag lady', a 'feral hag' and 'a harridan' given that they're so gender specific. And it's debatable whether a man's opinion would be referred to as 'a poisonous discharge of bile'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Personally I think her worst decision was appearing on ACA, she should have refused to do so.