Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 3:14:27 GMT -5
Miss Greer the much-loved artless Antipodean authoress has brought out a new book, entitled White Beech, the rainforest years. Miss Prance her reviewer (former directress of the Royal Botanics at Kew) tells us that "on her [Miss Greer's] travels around, she became increasingly concerned about the environmental destruction of her natal country. She saw deforested slopes, feral plants and animals from all over the world, open-cast minds mines, abandoned cattle pastures and mistreatment of the native population. Deciding to do something about this, she, inspired by a bower-bird in 2001, used all her savings to buy a dilapidated property of impenetrable scrub in the subtropical rain-forest zone and went about rehabilitating it and studying its botany. She observes that all the well-known botanists before her were male, and that these botanists had a tendency to name plants after other males." I do not think Miss Greer uses much lip-stick or powder, and this makes her a much more serious person than Mrs. Thatcher ever was does it not. Can it ever be possible to give the time of day to persons who upon rising spend half an hour painting themselves?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 9:00:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 7, 2014 9:42:27 GMT -5
Can it ever be possible to give the time of day to persons who upon rising spend half an hour painting themselves? 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)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 23:51:37 GMT -5
Can it ever be possible to give the time of day to persons who upon rising spend half an hour painting themselves? 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)... So - Mrs. T. was an actress in her salad days . . . I didn't know that.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 8, 2014 1:49:14 GMT -5
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)... So - Mrs. T. was an actress in her salad days . . . I didn't know that. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 4:56:55 GMT -5
Madame Greer has reminded us that equality is an illusory goal. "During the event on Sunday, Greer was critical of equality between the sexes as a goal for modern feminism. “Everyone thinks they understand [equality], but no one understands it. … it’s an illusory goal,” she said. “I’m a liberation feminist, not an equality feminist. Equality is a profoundly conservative aim and it won’t achieve anything.” The abominable transatlantics do not understand this - that is why they are (and always have been) so hag-ridden. Even their "gay" films absurdly devote more screen-time to the uninteresting sex than anything else! Are our Members "liberation feminists"? www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/mar/08/germaine-greer-feminism-ageist-aged-care-sector-under-attack-pensions-australia
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 8, 2015 15:40:10 GMT -5
Madame Greer has reminded us that equality is an illusory goal. "During the event on Sunday, Greer was critical of equality between the sexes as a goal for modern feminism. “Everyone thinks they understand [equality], but no one understands it. … it’s an illusory goal,” she said. “I’m a liberation feminist, not an equality feminist. Equality is a profoundly conservative aim and it won’t achieve anything.” The abominable transatlantics do not understand this - that is why they are (and always have been) so hag-ridden. Even their "gay" films absurdly devote more screen-time to the uninteresting sex than anything else! Are our Members "liberation feminists"? www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/mar/08/germaine-greer-feminism-ageist-aged-care-sector-under-attack-pensions-australiaMy 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)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 5:29:26 GMT -5
It does not do to introduce and speak of a multiplicity of perspectives. There can be no more than one true view can there not.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 12, 2015 7:52:10 GMT -5
It does not do to introduce and speak of a multiplicity of perspectives. That very much depends upon how many issues there are to be addressed and how many questions raised therey that need to be answered. There can be no more than one true view can there not. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 10:23:55 GMT -5
If I may address your question below directly, Sydney: Are our Members "liberation feminists"? I would not define myself as a feminist, although the legendary bb defines herself as a liberation feminist. Upon reflection, I do not define myself as a masculist either, although I am sympathetic to the idea that men and women should seek to get on with one another, even if they cannot be entirely equal, or free.
|
|