White settlers

That is perhaps a question to be addressed to opera singers, actors, dancers &c. who rarely go on stage without doing just that (though not necessarily for half an hour or more, I suppose)...

I was quite obviously not referring to Mrs. T., not least because, as you note, she didn't tend to spend much time on that kind of thing and, in any case, no questions of any kind can be addressed to her now, for rather obvious reasons.

My first question is what (if anything) are "the abominable transatlantics" and how might they and/or their supposed abominality (if that's a word) be perceived as impacting upon different - or pehaps more correctly differently described - types of feminism?

My second is what (if anything) is meant by "the uninteresting sex"? and begets further sub-questions such as (a) which sex might that be and (b) to whom and for what reasons might anyone (surely not everyone) perceive it to be "uninteresting"?

My third is what direct connection anyone's "gay" movies have with any kind of feminism?

The much vaunted notion of "sexual equality" usually means equality of treatment, opportunity and the like as distinct from total equality which is as impossible as it is undesirable; this is presumably why Ms Greer seeks to draw a distinction between "equality feminism" and "liberation feminism".

Another question; why is this thread so entitled? (unless it be that you're choosing to focus on Ms Greer's remarks from the specific perspective of where she made them rather than considering their content from a more global perspective)...

That very much depends upon how many issues there are to be addressed and how many questions raised therey that need to be answered.


Again, that would depend upon how many issues are being addressed and how many questions they raise.

To remind you, I addressed to you (and, for that matter, to anyone else who might be interested) the following three questions:

1. What (if anything) are "the abominable transatlantics" and how might they and/or their supposed abominality (if that's a word) be perceived as impacting upon different - or pehaps more correctly differently described - types of feminism?

2. What (if anything) is meant by "the uninteresting sex"? - which itself begets further sub-questions such as (a) which sex might that be? and (b) to whom and on what grounds might anyone (surely not everyone?) perceive it to be "uninteresting"?

3. What direct connection could anyone's "gay" movies have with any kind of feminism?

I then added a point about types of feminism, following on specifically from Ms Greer's statement on that subject, to wit "the much vaunted notion of 'sexual equality' usually means equality of treatment, opportunity and the like as distinct from total equality which is as impossible as it is undesirable; this is presumably why Ms Greer seeks to draw a distinction between 'equality feminism' and 'liberation feminism'.

I further asked why this thread is so entitled (unless it be that you're choosing to focus on Ms Greer's remarks from the specific perspective of where she made them rather than considering their content from a more global perspective).

If I may say so, however, your observations that
"It does not do to introduce and speak of a multiplicity of perspectives"
and
"There can be no more than one true view"
clearly go nowhere towards addessing any of the above, not least in their implicit assumption that what's under consideration here is a single simple issue, which is self-evidently not the case.