Yes, she didn't explain at all well what she meant. She also could give no answer to the Libyan question from DD either. It was an excellent QT though, with both her and Hitchens on the panel. Hitchens's reply to DD, when confronted with criticism of the Mail's content, saying he worked for the MoS and not the DM, was another classic As was the audience member who silenced him.
I didn't see the programme, so I can't comment on that. What annoys me about Germaine is that she boils every single issue down to men v women, even when it's inappropriate to do so. Men are always the "baddies" and women the oppressed victims in her mind.
True feminism should be about trying to achieve equality, not just slagging men off for the sake of it. She always seems very bitter.
Yes, she didn't explain at all well what she meant. She also could give no answer to the Libyan question from DD either. It was an excellent QT though, with both her and Hitchens on the panel. Hitchens's reply to DD, when confronted with criticism of the Mail's content, saying he worked for the MoS and not the DM, was another classic As was the audience member who silenced him.
Ah yes, three times David asked her a direct question re, Libya and three times she answered him with something else not related to the question.
Can't believe that people here simply slag her off even though they haven't watch the programme in question.
I agree I got her point, but it was clumsily executed. She's not saying kissing daddy goodnight is wrong or unnatural, but the 'way' they were encouraged to be girlie-girls, and when they grow up, utilise such girlie-girl tactics (which may evolve into sexual flirting) to get what they want.
Also, yes, I kissed my dad goodnight on the cheek sometimes as a boy. Nothing wrong with that.:)
Whilst discussing the sexualisation of children she said that little girls are taught to flirt by kissing their daddies goodnight ........I am still reeling at this statement !!!!
She was talking out her bum, quite frankly. It was a disgusting thing to say.
She's totally right although she did phrase it wrong.
All interaction with parents during formative years socialises the child for interaction with that sex during adulthood. So a girl that is encouraged by her father to be fluffy, girlie, giggly, etc, will interact that way with men when she is an adult, and also the same between mothers and sons - it's why people tend to form relationships with partners who have similar qualities to their opposite sex parent, or in the case of children whose parents were absent during childhood with a partner that has parental qualities (ie. older).
This may have been what she meant but the "kissing goodnight" example she chose to use was a ridiculous thing to say. I'd have expected something better from a supposedly intellegent woman.
The reason it was a stupid example is because it implies that little girls kissing their daddies goodnight is somehow unique to a father daughter relationship. This is obviously not true. Little girls are just as likely to kiss their mummy goodnight, little boys kiss their mummy goodnight, and little boys kiss their daddy goodnight. In short, loving/loved children kiss their parents goodnight regardless of the sex of the child or parent.
While GG may have had a valid overall point to make whe was twisting an innocent display of affection between a child and parent to support her argument and ended up making herseff look stupid and doing her cause more harm than good.
i saw the programme . shes a disgusting perverted twisted old hag, who on one hand despises the sexualisation of girls, yet publishes books like these- all in the name of "art"
Did I imply that? No. I simply meant the idea of a simple peck on the cheek of their father telling them good-night after a bedtime story is any kind of act of sexualisation that would effect kids and introduce them to sexual ideas at an early age...is...well its absurd. Typical PC/liberal bullshit.
I agree with most of what you say except the last part. It is anything but PC liberal bullshit. It is 1960's 70's hippy free love bullshit
I think this woman should be sectioned. What she said about all our soldiers raping was bordering on the deranged. I know soldiers that are currently fighting for our country and how can TV authorities give this woman a forum to convey these rubbish and irresponsible views startling
Whilst discussing the sexualisation of children she said that little girls are taught to flirt by kissing their daddies goodnight ........I am still reeling at this statement !!!!
I always thought little girls had a natural ability to flirt and twist men around their little finger from a very young age, not that they are taught how to do it!
My reply was after a few bevvies last night, but I still stand by the comment.
For centuries you have always had 'Daddy's little girl', 'Mummy's little boy' - it's called being part of a family, and was never in any way deemed as sexually provocative as she indicated. Ms Greer is notorious for being either very spot on or way, way off beam. This time she got it horribly wrong.
That sex education in schools takes away children's innocence and is propoganda for promiscuity and increases the number of abortions. The man is a dinosaur.
I've seen quite a few comments from posters on here to the effect that they understand what GG was trying to say, but that she expressed herself badly.Sorry, I don't think so.
She has a long history of skewing discussions her way, so that otherwise reasonable people think they have to find common ground with her, frankly, extreme views.
The context of her remarks about the small girl kissing her father was the sexualisation of children. Notice how her take on affection within a family was couched in such a way as to infer that this was part of that sexualisation. Honi soit qui mal y pense ? GG is no stranger to keeping her opponents off balance by introducing outrageous, or offensive, comments into the discussion. She may well believe that all men are abusers of females (as all soldiers are latent, or real, rapists) but putting that comment out there shifted the discussion nearer to her position, because reasonable people will, initially, automatically try to accommodate others views. I know there was a shocked studio reaction to her comment, but to my mind, it wasn't strong enough. She has a perverted view of human relationships, one that militant feminists have been pushing for 4 decades.
I was amused by her take on the coalition govt. "I am a European" she said - not with an accent like that GG. "It's good that the conservatives have to discuss their policies with the Lib. Dems." was cited as a reason she thought the coalition was good for democracy. Actually GG, a few conservatives tell a few L.D 's (who no longer represent their party's views/beliefs) what they're going to do.
People view her as an academic, The evidence I've seen recently is that her arguments are confused and not well researched at all (as evidenced by her article in the Telegraph, 5 or so weeks ago, arguing that British woodlands should be mostly obliterated - including her own wood, on which she says she has spent vast amounts of cash - vs. her recent talk at the Hay festival, where she wanted dogs killed - so that they couldn't walk in her bluebell wood.)
I agree with her to a certain extent, she didn't mean that little girls are seducing their fathers but daddies girls as such learn how to get their own way with men from a young age.
Comments
True feminism should be about trying to achieve equality, not just slagging men off for the sake of it. She always seems very bitter.
Ah yes, three times David asked her a direct question re, Libya and three times she answered him with something else not related to the question.
As I said earlier: hypocrite.
I agree I got her point, but it was clumsily executed. She's not saying kissing daddy goodnight is wrong or unnatural, but the 'way' they were encouraged to be girlie-girls, and when they grow up, utilise such girlie-girl tactics (which may evolve into sexual flirting) to get what they want.
Also, yes, I kissed my dad goodnight on the cheek sometimes as a boy. Nothing wrong with that.:)
Some? Definitely. All? Clearly a ridiculous assertion.
This may have been what she meant but the "kissing goodnight" example she chose to use was a ridiculous thing to say. I'd have expected something better from a supposedly intellegent woman.
The reason it was a stupid example is because it implies that little girls kissing their daddies goodnight is somehow unique to a father daughter relationship. This is obviously not true. Little girls are just as likely to kiss their mummy goodnight, little boys kiss their mummy goodnight, and little boys kiss their daddy goodnight. In short, loving/loved children kiss their parents goodnight regardless of the sex of the child or parent.
While GG may have had a valid overall point to make whe was twisting an innocent display of affection between a child and parent to support her argument and ended up making herseff look stupid and doing her cause more harm than good.
Yeah, that was the one that made me go "WTF??"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Boy-Germaine-Greer/dp/0500284881/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307701685&sr=1-5
What did Hitchens say?
Genuine question, as I didn't see the programme.
I agree with most of what you say except the last part. It is anything but PC liberal bullshit. It is 1960's 70's hippy free love bullshit
There's no need to be diplomatic around here, say what you really mean
I always thought little girls had a natural ability to flirt and twist men around their little finger from a very young age, not that they are taught how to do it!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002083/Germaine-Greer-claims-British-troops-turn-rapists-little-girls-learn-flirt-kissing-dads.html
(See last paragraph)
I see they have left out the bad reception their own Peter Hitchens got to some of the things he said though :rolleyes:
My reply was after a few bevvies last night, but I still stand by the comment.
For centuries you have always had 'Daddy's little girl', 'Mummy's little boy' - it's called being part of a family, and was never in any way deemed as sexually provocative as she indicated. Ms Greer is notorious for being either very spot on or way, way off beam. This time she got it horribly wrong.
That sex education in schools takes away children's innocence and is propoganda for promiscuity and increases the number of abortions. The man is a dinosaur.
She has a long history of skewing discussions her way, so that otherwise reasonable people think they have to find common ground with her, frankly, extreme views.
The context of her remarks about the small girl kissing her father was the sexualisation of children. Notice how her take on affection within a family was couched in such a way as to infer that this was part of that sexualisation. Honi soit qui mal y pense ? GG is no stranger to keeping her opponents off balance by introducing outrageous, or offensive, comments into the discussion. She may well believe that all men are abusers of females (as all soldiers are latent, or real, rapists) but putting that comment out there shifted the discussion nearer to her position, because reasonable people will, initially, automatically try to accommodate others views. I know there was a shocked studio reaction to her comment, but to my mind, it wasn't strong enough. She has a perverted view of human relationships, one that militant feminists have been pushing for 4 decades.
I was amused by her take on the coalition govt. "I am a European" she said - not with an accent like that GG. "It's good that the conservatives have to discuss their policies with the Lib. Dems." was cited as a reason she thought the coalition was good for democracy. Actually GG, a few conservatives tell a few L.D 's (who no longer represent their party's views/beliefs) what they're going to do.
People view her as an academic, The evidence I've seen recently is that her arguments are confused and not well researched at all (as evidenced by her article in the Telegraph, 5 or so weeks ago, arguing that British woodlands should be mostly obliterated - including her own wood, on which she says she has spent vast amounts of cash - vs. her recent talk at the Hay festival, where she wanted dogs killed - so that they couldn't walk in her bluebell wood.)
I genuinely LOL'd when I read your quote in the Mail