Germaine Greer - pedophile?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1752671,00.html

Half the people in this forum think that that kind of thing with kids is OK anyway.

Three quarters of the remainder think it's not really wrong if the victim is male.

The rest will join me in reviling this "feminist icon" and seeing her double standard for what it is. Rail your entire life against the exploitation of women - but exploit little boys at the same time.

THIS is why you hear "I'm not a feminist, but..."

 

ew. okay, first off, you gotta get the chip off the shoulder. no one in their right mind will support the physical abuse of men while fighting the physical abuse of women. no one will support the degradation of young men while battling the sexual exploitation of young women. get over it.

 

RE: no one in their right mind will support the physical abuse of men while fighting the physical abuse of women. no one will support the degradation of young men while battling the sexual exploitation of young women

You haven't read the article have you?

 

Oh right. You're calling Germaine Greer crazy.

At last we agree on something.

 

yeah. that's some fucked up shit.

 

that's nasty. no i didn't read the whole article, it grossed me out too much. Blarg, that shit just isn't cool, no matter the gender of people involved.

 

What we should be hearing is "I am proud to be a feminist, but she's defiling the term."

Judging solely on the quotes from the cover and from Greer, it sounds incredibly twisted.

 

I think Greer tends to go a bit far, but... and heres thething, I think the main idea was the fact that young men are very attractive, they are physically beautiful, I dont mean boys, I mean men, But I suppose boys can be nbeautiful, if there is no sexual desire involved in the appreciation of the form of the body. But, as I was saying, why shouldnt older women look at younger men, and desire them, just as older men look at younger women and desire them, their bodies being pert, their skin glowing...

 

In either case, if the models are 18 or older, that's fine. It's still objectifying people, but whatever if the model is of the legal age to consent. But the article says they are "pre-pubescent lovelies".

Older men who deserve respect will be unnerved when he notices a young woman, goes "damn she's hot", then finds out that she's only 16. Forget about the "pre-pubescent" girls. I'm simply holding so-called feminists to the same standard.

If her point was to make a stand for women's right to objectify men just as men have objectified women (which I think is a poor goal -- we should be striving to treat everyone as they should be treated, no oppress others as we have been oppressed), she should have used 18+ year old models.

There is quite a bit of artwork focusing on children and how cute they can be and how beautiful that innocence is. But those children are in cute child-like sitations, not sexually suggestive poses. Not having seen the book, I would be inclined to give Greer the benefit of the doubt, except the comments from the book-cover and from Greer herself strongly suggest that there is a sexual element to the photos.

 

Do you understand the phrase "In their right mind"?

And she's right. You clearly do have a chip on your sholder. About half of your posts in this forum are you accusing woman of things that almost every woman in this forum disagrees with, and yet you continue arguing.

 

Just cause you hippie women don't shave your legs either doesn't mean most North American women don't.

That jest was meant to make a point.

 

Didn't our dear freind JIIMAAN post this very thing just about a year ago? Yes, I think he did.

And, for a while there you were doing OK, Iron.

 

I'm not attacking anyone in particular, Mags. And I have no clue who jiimmaan is either.

 

<Shrug> Just a dude who wasn't too fond of the female gender. You did, however, pull up a few of his dead threads when you first started posting....

Chill, OK. All womyn aren't out to get you. (And I'm saying this to be nice, really.) Greer is seen as a bit of a nut, even by a lot of classical feminists.

 

Iron Goth is a misogynist. Look it up if you don't know, but that would be really sad. But I'm sure you wouldn't look it up anyway, IG,becasue you are just that smart. NOT!!

 

I don't think Irongoth dislikes women any more than he dislikes everyone else. I just thinks he likes to stir the shit and get people upset.

 

I'm not surprised that a centre-right newspaper would print an article like this.

The first sentence: "IS THERE an element of paedophilia in the new feminism?" ...

At best, the author is making comments about other fellow female columnists - not self-proclaimed feminists - while he compares and contrasts his opinions to "News of the World", "The Sunday Times", and "Today". All of these newspapers have a slighter left-leaning target audience. And they are all owned by News Corp.

For argument sake, there have been countless cases where male offenders of the same crime have also been given lighter sentences.

This article is totally overplayed IMO. "Oh no! Not feminists! Protect the puppies!"

 

Its a disturbing trend that has been occuring lately with cases of women sexually abusing boys. In some ways I find it even more disturbing that cases of men with girls. They shouldnt be allowed to get away with it. Anyone remember the recent case where a teacher who slept with her 15 year old student was supposdaly 'too pretty' to go to prison because she would get 'preyed on by sexual predators'. WTF? What would you call what she was doing?

 

Our society tends to believe that women are always good with children and for children and should be with children (raising children). Our society believes that men are bad with children and bad for children and schould be out in the workforce in jobs where they don't come into contact with young children.

This woman is not a feminist, shes crazy. She obviously has no idea how hard we all are on men who look at little girls. Shes not helping any 'oppressed' women by making that book. She should be fighting the "girls are sluts, guys are studs" bs.

I don't even know if we should call it oppression. Why do guys call girls sluts? Do they not like the fact that shes spreading STDS to all their friends? Nobody looks at like that do they, unless they are really cynical? I can't imagine why guys don't like girls giving lots of guys head. Its just crazy. It must be religion related.

Just remember, shes a female pedaphile not a feminist.

 

She's an academic. You can't call someone a pedophile because of what they study, and write about. Judge her work, which I'm sure none of you have ever even glanced over, before you judge her based on someone else's formulated opinion in this bogus article.