HOWARD SUTHERLAND writes:

The Telegraph publishes Germaine Greer lauding the “slut walk” women “fighting for their right to be dirty.” I’m not sure how familiar you are with the British press, but The Telegraph is generally considered the leading conservative broadsheet; small- and large-C alike. Yet another indication, alas, of just what ‘conservative’ now means in the ever-less-United Kingdom of less-than-Great Britain! Truly, this sort of thing challenges one’s ability to hope for recovery. Greer and her ilk are a social cancer on the West, and in British terms Greer is an imported one (Aussie).

Laura writes:

Greer’s argument is so absurd it amounts to lunacy, which is to be expected from a woman who has trumpeted every form of feminist nonsense and contradiction. She says it’s important that women embrace sluttiness so they can lose their hang ups about sexual pleasure and also their hang ups about cleaning their homes.  That’s right. Women are forced by some unseen conspiracy to clean. Women are denied the right – by men apparently – to be filthy. They do not pursue cleanliness with skill and devotion because they preferclean dwellings themselves but because they are – in the fevered imaginaton of this addled feminist – idiots and conformists and slaves who succumb to the slightest social pressure. With slut walks, we might finally have the chance to be promiscuously dirty. Hip, hip hooray! I knew feminism was going to get us somewhere! Social collapse, household collapse – it’s all just a neat form of dirtiness!

I repeat, she is around the bend – and please, Germaine, don’t ever invite me to your house. Greer writes:

Men already enjoy the right to be dirty. In the usual rugby house, unwashed dishes can be found festering under beds as well as piled to chin height in the sink. The rubbish bin will contain an impacted mess of stomped-down rubbish. The lavatory would be only too accurately described as a bog. The filth becomes a challenge; the first man to crack and grab the Hoover is a sissy. In mixed digs in our tolerant universities, it’s the women who are forever cleaning the shared facilities, because the men won’t. The con is a simple one. If you don’t mind that the toilet’s disgusting, then don’t clean it; if you do, then do. Girls don’t have the option of not minding. Dirty house equals dirty woman equals tramp.

If women are to overthrow the tyranny of perpetual cleansing, we have to be able to say: “Yes, I am a slut. My house could be cleaner. My sheets could be whiter. I could be without sexual fantasies too – pure as the untrodden snow – but I’m not. I’m a slut and proud.” The rejection by women of compulsory cleansing of mind, body and soul is a necessary pre-condition of liberation. Besides, taking part in what looks like an endless “vicars and tarts’ street party is not just bad-ass. It’s fun.

Mr. Sutherland writes:

It is odd, indeed. Is Greer tergiversating about sluttishness’ equalling physical dirtiness to show her erudition? I don’t think all those gals are flouncing around because they want to be physically un-clean! And does she think there is something wrong with a woman’s natural wish to live in a clean house, even if she has to clean it herself? While I’m no neat-freak, I slightly resent her presumption that all men prefer to wallow like hogs. 

Greer is around the bend, but she is – unfortunately – quite influential (she can command column-inches in The Telegraph, for example), and an elder statesman, if that’s the word, of the feminist movement. And her influence is both pervasive and unremittingly negative.

Laura writes:

Here is Greer in her youth. And, here is a picture of the elder statesman today.

                                                                — Comments —

Caroline writes:

I couldn’t find this in a quick Google search, but I remember reading that Germaine Greer once said, “Of course I tried to have a child. I have the medical bills to prove it.” (paraphrased from memory). Apparently, GG tried to have a child later in life. 

This struck me as being so sad—and the true essence of feminism: to decouple women from their God-given role as the bearer and nurturer of life. When I was researching the writings of the founding mothers (??) of NOW, I found essays that gleefully looked forward to the invention of artificial wombs.

Laura writes:

There is so much to say about Greer’s career as Marxist-feminist author, including her work promoting lust for teenage boys. Wikipedia has an extensive description of her writings.

Brenda writes:

For some odd reason, I can’t get this particular movie scene out of my head: in ‘To Sir, With Love,’ Sidney Poitier, as the schoolteacher, Mr. Thackeray, tells his class of teenage toughs, “No man likes a slut for long, and only the worst kind will marry one.” How about it? Is this something that will burn itself out, as the participants in these stupid slut walks realize that no man will have them? No, I suppose there will always be just enough of the “worst kind” to make the match even, eh?

Eva writes:

I thought you might enjoy this link to a blog by a doctor in Australia about unhappy women he sees sometimes at his practice, whom he refers to as “Germain’s (sic) Daughters.” 

According to the author, Germaine has recently expressed some regret over her younger days, but judging from her recent defense of the ridiculous “slut walks” that may not be the case.

Laura writes:

Germaine Greer’s work is filled with inconsistencies. Inconsistency is consistent with her philosophy.

Remember, much of feminism will make perfunctory concessions to femininity. That does not take away from the utter falsity of the ideas. Evil rarely appears unadulterated by the good.

Please follow and like us: