|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They'll be having torch light parades next. Oh, I forgot they have "Take back the night" already
The more I see of Germaine Greer the more I think she is just a band wagon jumper. She captured the feminist mood in "The Female Eunuch". I do not think she created it. She just expressed it. "The Whole Woman" seemed to me to be a money grabbing exercise. This lecture tour likewise. She goes around saying what the women wan to hear, much like Hitler at a Nuremberg rally.
For example "A woman's refusal to remain in an unloving relationship". Whose says it is unloving? Many men have tried to reconcile with women. More often than not it's the woman who wants to leave, but Germaine Greer portrays it as always the man's fault (not loving her) to please the crowd.
The title "Shakespeare and sexual difference" seems to have little to do with the current divorce rate but I bet, if it's like her books, that she take pot-shots all over the place to please the crowd rather than stick to the subject.
Also note that there are 5 lectures for about 1000 people each at 40 AUS a time means the whole tour is worth about 100,000 US or 60,000 UKL and I bet she's in for at least half of that. Nice work if you can get it.
It wouldn't surprise me if they ended the lecture with some feminist equivalent of "Seig Heil".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...compassion, love, and understanding are all but absent from the Feminist doctrine. At least, when it comes to men. Divorce first, talk later.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greer is one of the greatest exponents of 1960s feminism, which is based largely on Marxism. The feminist view of marriage and the family is lifted directly from Friedrich Engels' book 'Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State' (1884). Engels was Marx's friend, sponsor and collaborator. This is what he had to say about relations between men and women:
When monogamous marriage first makes its appearance history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: "The first division of labour is that between man and woman for the propagation of children." And today I can add: "The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.
In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. In the industrial world, the specific character of the economic oppression burdening the proletariat is visible in all its sharpness only when all special legal privileges of the capitalist class have been abolished and complete legal equality of both classes established. The democratic republic does not do away with the opposition of the two classes; on the contrary, it provides the clear field on which the fight can be fought out. And in the same way, the peculiar character of the supremacy of the husband over the wife in the modern family, the necessity of creating real social equality between them, and the way to do it, will only be seen in the clear light of day when both possess legally complete equality of rights. Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUengels.htm
Engels argues that under Capitalism, male workers exist to service capitalism, and females exist to service the need sof the male workers, and to produce more workers. Thus, although all workers are in servitude, working class women are in a special kind of servitude, and marriage is one of the institutions which serve to define and maintain this setup. He argued that women needed to be liberated from this situation, and that this would never happen until they achieved economic independence.
1960s feminists bought this theory wholesale, and so they have always been against marriage - 'Marriage is captive breeding' and so on. They have actively pursued the Marx/Engels model - women should achieve economic independence from men - through career, alimony, state handouts, whatever doesn't matter - and then dump their husbands. In the 1970s feminists also added heterosexuality to the list of evil capitalist/partriarchal institutions (see 'Heterophobia', by Daphne Patai). That is what contemporary feminism is about - nothing less than the complete destruction of heterosexuality, marriage and the family. Someone needs to tell them that Marxism has now been discredited.
Greer has built her whole career on these ideas, so she will never admit the possibility that they might be wrong.
Feminism really is a deeply misguided, deeply destructive ideology. Warren Farrell points out that as far as sexual politics is concerned, we are living in a totalitarian one-party state. Feminism is above criticism, and we are simply not allowed to argue. Anyone who says otherwise is mad. This is the situation we are up against. A multi-million dollar international men-hating industry. Thanks Friedrich.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:19 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
That is what contemporary feminism is about - nothing less than the complete destruction of heterosexuality, marriage and the family. Someone needs to tell them that Marxism has now been discredited.
...we are living in a totalitarian one-party state. Feminism is above criticism, and we are simply not allowed to argue. Anyone who says otherwise is mad. This is the situation we are up against. A multi-million dollar international men-hating industry.
Very well said! Word is starting to spread via the Internet that feminism is nothing more than a failed Marxist-Feminist ideology. The feminists will of course claim this information is misleading, subversive, and little more than lies. It doesn't matter to them that we quote from their own source documents. When we use their own information to expose the truth they call us liars.
Notice that not a single public institution teaches about Engles attack on the family, nor does a single public institution teach the differences between the Communist Manefesto and American freedom in the constitution.
That is because women have traditionally controlled the PTA's, and they bought into the Marxist mandate that the state take over all responsibility for determining what is taught. That realization was a key achievement to the Marxist-Feminists getting control of the minds of the children in America.
Minor point. The Marxist-Feminist have over 5.0 billion in funding in America alone. World-wide the figure is much higher. We are literally up against every Socialist country in the world because they all funnel enormous sums to the Marxist-Feminist.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:52 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
What does Germaine Greer know about loveless or loving marriages? She was never marrried. She sounds bitter that she never got married and never had children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually she was.
I was Mr Germaine Greer
"On the third Sunday after we were married, she got up earlier than me, so I suggested she made tea. She shouted: 'I'm not getting any f.....g tea.' She created such a fuss that I said: 'Well, if that's the way you feel, f... off.' And so she did."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:55 AM September 14th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, what a great CATCH! How could ANY man resist such a fine and gracious lady? Wow, "Mr. Greer" must be kicking himself for letting this one get away...! (Sarcasam)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:50 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Recent feminists also contend that traditional families must be broken up because they are "patriarchal", and the mother has little say.
However work by Dr Sotirios Sarantakos a couple of years ago showed patriarchy in Australian families is in the minority. He studied over 600 couples in families in Australia and found 25% of those families were patriarchal, 25% were matriarchal, and the other 50% were democratic. Therefore in 75% of families, the mother had equal say or more say than the father.
This study also left out single parent families, 85% of whom are run by the mother and are 100% matriarchal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:34 PM September 14th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
It's the DEMOCRATIC family that most of us are shooting for, isn't it?
It is the feminists that want it to be a tyranycal form of family. i.e. a matriarchy, where the husband has little say.
Aw, who am I kidding? they want it where the husband has NO say at all.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:34 PM September 14th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
It's the DEMOCRATIC family that most of us are shooting for, isn't it?
It is the feminists that want it to be a tyranycal form of family. i.e. a matriarchy, where the husband has little say.
I had some psycho crackpot suggest that the family should be "DEMOCRATIC." The real translation was just as you suggest. Mom tells the children how to vote and they follow suit, or the children will vote for priviledges like staying up all night playing music, watching T.V., or visiting with friends.
In such a structure the male's needs are ignored....you know....basic needs like going to bed at night to sleep so he can work the next day. Instead, the man, because he is a man is supposed to somehow suck-it-up and sleep anyway. No matter that the kids are having sex in their rooms, crawling out the windows, or doing drugs.
"DEMOCRATIC" families are little more than a tyrannical structure where children terrorize the father without consequence with the Marxist-Feminists blessings.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:18 AM September 15th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
This is where the system breaks down. In Australia 70% of divorces are initiated by women and the most common reason cited by women for divorce in studies is "communication problems".
"Communication problems" can mean anything, and it can mean that if the mother does not get her own way often enough then she divorces the father and takes the children, which then makes the father the non-custodial parent who has to pay child support.
As a consequence of this, over 1/3 of children with a non-custodial father no longer see that father or have face to face contact with that father. I expect this is similar in the US.
However this means nothing to people like Germaine Greer who are only concerned with "female empowerment"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:09 AM September 13th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Every family that breaks up, I would certainly bet children are involved. If this doesn't show they don't give a damn about family's what more can they say theat is totally outrageous. The destruction of a family is not a good thing. These women are sick, selfish, arrogant, and lyars!
apetr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:46 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing Germaine SNEER ever says suprises me, any more.
She's a piece of human flotsum, who cares what her twisted mind thinks?
Okay I'm sorry I called her "human flotsum".
I in no way should have implied that she's human...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to laugh at Greer's pronouncement about 'the corporate world', by which I take it she means private industry.
"women misunderstand the corporate world. They think you are meant to work in the corporate world, when you are in fact meant to take credit for other people's work."
(1) Men of course do understand it, as this kind of moral and professional corruption - taking credit for others' work - comes naturally to us. It's another statement about the natural moral superiority of women, even though gender is socially constructed.
(2) Even if what she says is true, how is this any different from the academic world, where taking credit for others' work is routine? Very often, professors get to be listed as first author on any paper written by their graduate students, and the student who actually wrote the paper is listed as second author. I wonder if Greer has ever done this.
(3) What the hell does she know about the corporate world anyway? It's just another cheap shot at the evils of 'capitalism'. No doubt she flew there on a plane, stayed in a hotel, and organised the tour by fax and email, all products of 'the corporate world'.
After that the mask slips momentarily, and she hints at the truth.
"she was quizzed about the future of feminism and was quick to lament that the movement of the 60s had been largely generated by the media and involved little direct action. We did not win things so much as they were given to us," Greer announced.
There has been a significant change in women's social status in the last 40 years, and feminists like to claim credit for bringing this about themselves. In fact feminism was a response to changing conditions, not the cause of the changing conditions. The change in women's circumstances came about as a result of the development of safe and reliable birth control, mass education, a general rise in working class incomes and living standards, and the industrialisation of the service sector, which meant the sudden appearance of lots of safe service sector jobs, at the same time as a marked decline in traditionally male sources of employment in heavy industry. The 'male' economy and 'male' technology changed women's lives, not the feminist movement, and somewhre deep down inside, Greer knows this. Her entire life's work is based on preaching hatred and deception.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:59 AM September 14th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
>"No doubt she flew there on a plane,"
Don't you mean a BROOMSTICK?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/06/22/greer/in dex.html
I found this article, it is written mostly admiring her, but in a pretty cynical way. It was interesting reading, especially the 2nd page, excluding the closing paragraph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was interesting reading, it wasn't the usual fawning sycophancy I expect from feminist journalists. Thanks for the link.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean westermen are conditioned to be second class, less rights than women and more responsabiltites, the only way to change things is that they react, but only shocks like divorce is what makes them react, we can see that the more active men are father rights activists.
Some decades before men did not cared about it, well that guy had bad luck, but this won´t happen to me, now that everyone knows a friend or a relative destroyed by divorce, become aware, the more divorces the better, just a matter of reaching the critical mass.
On a general approach good news, on an individual bases problably not.
Take Care!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
