AT Oz Conservative, Mark Richardson writes about the Jill Meagher case:

The news here in Australia has been dominated by a murder and abduction case in inner-city Melbourne. A beautiful woman, Jill Meagher, who migrated from Ireland and who married a local man, had been drinking till the early hours of the morning with work colleagues. When she decided to leave, one of the men offered to walk her home but she declined. Walking home alone she was raped and murdered. The alleged perpetrator was arrested, in part, because of evidence from CCTV cameras.

It’s a desperately sad thing to read about and I couldn’t help but think about the moment she turned down the offer of a male friend to walk her home.

Catherine Deveny, a radical leftist writer, has an interesting connection to this case. She believes that she was attacked by the same man earlier this year, having recognised him on the CCTV footage. She has also pondered the moment that Jill Meagher turned down the offer of being walked home, but from a very different perspective to mine:

Like all of us I am deeply disturbed by the disappearance of Jill Meagher. It’s very close to home on many levels. The thing in the report that really resonated is as she left the bar her male work colleague asked if he could walk her home. She said no. Repeatedly.

Which would have been pretty much what I would have said. Actually my response would have been more like, “F… off. Walk me home? Like you could protect me. I walk these streets all the time. Thanks sunshine. I grew up in Reservoir. I can look after myself.”

…You cannot rely on ‘a man walking you home’. Nor should you want to. Your city sister. Walk wherever you like.

[cont.]

—– Comments ——

Diana writes:

I learned about the Jill Meagher case from your blog, clicked on the links, and eventually found myself in a predictable swamp of left-wing insanity. What more is there to say, except that these people are destructively insane (as opposed to being harmlessly insane) and incorrigible.

The real question is, how did people like Catherine Deveny come to dominate the culture, when they are so obviously destructively crazy? She’s not a great deadly wit, like Oscar Wilde. She’s mediocre. How did she get her job? I can’t blame it on the lack of competition in Australia. We have scores like her.

Laura writes:

Catherine Deveny is a celebrity atheist. She is a writer who is dyslexic (go figure). She lives in an “atheist kibbutz” with her “partner, gay husband and three sons.” How did she get her job? I was going to say maybe its because she’s attractive, but, I’m not so sure about that. Apparently, many people find her funny.

Michael writes:

I went to college in the mid-nineties in downtown Atlanta. At the time, Atlanta was the murder capital of the country (I am sure it ranks higher now). Late night study sessions often ended after midnight. The hardest part of the evening was not struggling through complex Euler equations, but convincing the one or two female members of the study group they needed an escort to their dorm. The conversation each night consisted of the following:

“I am going to escort you home tonight.”

“No, thank-you, nothing will happen.”

“You are of course aware there were XX muggings and x rape in the area this week.”

“I will be fine.”

Mind you, this is the 30th or 40th iteration of this same conversation. I categorically refused to allow a female to walk back on her own. Eventually, we wind through and two of us would escort her home. Strangely enough, after dropping them off they were extremely grateful, until the next study session.

Now, I live in Manhattan. While crime is extremely low, I still believe in escorting women home. For the most part I hear the same objections. The new twist is the one night stand culture. I am constantly fighting the belief I am escorting them back only to sleep with them. Just like in college, they are always extremely grateful when I see them back to their place. One woman in particular, who insisted male chivalry did not exist, wrote a nice note the next day thanking me and proclaimed, “perhaps chivalry is not dead.”

To be quite honest, I do not understand the phenomenon. Is this the true face of feminism? Can the ridiculousness be overcome through a clear demonstration of proper ideals?

Laura writes:

 I think there’s no question that the one-night stand culture does change the entire meaning of being escorted home.

Paul writes:

Megan Clement (who was mentioned by Mark Richardson), fortunately, did not say or imply, “Violence was part of the efforts of men as a class to subordinate women.” She simply complained that men are stronger than women. She summed it up with, “Because, unfortunately, there is still no safe haven from being a woman.” She is being accurate but simplistic by limiting the set of vulnerable people to women. Children, minorities, small people, nice people, and wimps, for example, are vulnerable. Women have no monopoly on vulnerability.

On the other hand, the tragically foolish and vulgarily-posed Catherine Deveny used vogue vulgarities to hit us with things only truculent people (people that need a fat lip), fools say:

“I did not want to seem like a bandwagon jumper, a time waster, an alarmist or a *uss; ***k off. Walk me home? Like you could protect me [sic]. I walk these streets all the time. Thanks sunshine. I grew up in Reservoir. I can look after myself.”

She persists in her feminist (liberal) orthodoxy when she says:

“Who do I trust to not [sic] use this terrible situation to whip up fear, accusations or ratings?”

Yet exactly what she needs is fear of violence, accusations against the violent criminals among her culture, and increased ratings to teach potential allies to fight these truisms.

Then she becomes illiterate and expands on her evil talk:

“My tips for women wanting to feel safe [sic]. Buy a bike, use main roads and learn self-defence [sic]. You cannot rely on ‘a man walking you home’ [punctuation?]. Nor should you want to [sic]. Your city sister [sic]. Walk wherever you like.”

It is evil to encourage sheep to lie with wolves. The fruit of her evil talk is illustrated at the end of her mess, when she ends up contradicting herself by calling on women to call the police, which contradicts her earlier truculence, “Walk wherever you like.”

Diana writes:

I asked, “How did she (Deveny) get her job?” You answered, “Apparently, many people find her funny.”

Let’s unpack that, as the academic feminists say. (Unpack is indeed one of their favorite buzzwords.)

OK, I admit that I don’t know Australian culture intimately. But it strikes me as awfully similar to any other modern country, especially the other Anglophone countries. And this I know from personal experience, modern mass culture is dominated by an artsy, incestuous clique.

This clique is what the late Harold Rosenberg* called “a herd of independent minds.”They look alike, they think alike, they eat alike, they do everything alike. They marry each other (yes, they still marry). They hire each other, and only each other.

I don’t think that Deveny got her job, actually, her position, because she’s funny. I think she attained professional distinction, such as it is, because men in her clique have been browbeaten into displaying her crummy wares.

There is a more contemporary word for “browbeating” that I think is apposite here, but I’ll spare you. I think you know what it is.

** I don’t really know what Rosenberg’s politics were. Probably liberal, but I think he would be sickened by contemporary culture.

Laura writes:

That does not fully explain her celebrity. Deveny would not last if people found her tasteless and crude. For instance, if she spoke honestly about racial issues or insulted Islam or mocked homosexuals, she would not be a celebrity. Period. But she can make fun of Christianity endlessly, and people think she’s a scream.

Diana adds to  her comments above:

I looked at her website and also noticed the prominence and prevalence of photographs of Deveny. This is a noteworthy characteristic of feminists of her type: preening narcissism. Look at me!

If feminists could think logically, they would be true to their 1970s principles, which is that looks shouldn’t matter to a woman’s success, anymore than they matter to a man’s.

Of course, everyone with a brain knows that looks matter to men too, albeit in a different way. But my point is, if Deveny wants to be a real old fashioned true bluestocking feminist, she should stop calling attention to her looks. Because that’s looksism.

Please follow and like us: