I think the proper thing is to view Greer in the context of her time, society, and life. She did some things for feminism that should be recognized. Meanwhile, we can also discuss her faults. It shouldn’t be a matter of she’s either all in or all out. She can be right on some things and wrong on others.
It’s not new. I remember arguing 40 years ago with my militant feminist lesbian sister about transgender people. Yeah, I’d say “hostile” covers it.
They’re entitled to their opinions. I think that you should be courteous even to people you disagree with or find loathsome, because that’s part of being civilized. I may disagree with Greer, but if she agrees to be courteous towards others I can live with that.
In terms of “sperm that flows like tap water”, there’s a double standard regarding young teen boys that goes far beyond “heroes of the left” as evidenced by the responses to every “Hot 25 year old teacher bangs 13 year old student” story.
I’d never heard of this woman until this thread so no defense really here, just saying that you don’t have to be a Leftist Hero to get a public pass as a woman attracted to horny teen boys.
Is this another word you don’t know what it means? The endgame is the final consequence. It’s the actual goal. Miller’s post was about how stupid that would be. Even if you hate political correctness, saying it’s all been leading up to keeping this woman from saying transphobic things is insane.
I didn’t know that someone named Germaine Greer exists until reading this thread. All I know about her stance on transgender issues comes from the short BBC article that the OP linked. So she believes that transgender women are not women? Isn’t that what the great majority of people believed until recently? Isn’t that what the law says in most places? Isn’t that in agreement with most dictionaries and biology textbooks?
Obviously people have different opinions on the question, but no one should be banned from campus or bullied for holding the opinion that Greer holds, or any opinion.
Anyways, to answer the OP: of course it does. Because it shows her feminism to be false. Rather than being anti-bigotry, she only cares about the bigotry that affects her.
Does it invalidate her entire life? No. But it does make her no longer someone that can be cited as a hero. It’s beyond the point where “because of the times” is acceptable.
That she cares more about how she is “harassed” for her opinions than about the trans people she is actively discriminating against shows an undercurrent of selfishness.
Ultimately, all the different forms of anti-bigotry are about caring about other people–about not being selfish. Someone who puts themselves first in these situations is the actual original definition of an SJW.
No, this is a very good thing. It means we are progressing. We are getting closer to the ultimate goal. More and more forms of bigotry are becoming socially unacceptable.
Transphobia is joining the ranks of racism, sexism, and homophobia as things that are not acceptable. This is no different from not letting a KKK member speak. If you make a public showing of your bigotry, you won’t be allowed to speak at places that view your bigotry as wrong.
This idea that everyone is required to let anyone say whatever they want is just fucking bullshit. That’s not freedom of speech.
Just like you have the right to kick me out of your house if I start saying shit about your mother. You have a right to never invite me over because I’ve said shit about your mother somewhere else. Not only a right, but no one would remotely begrudge me for doing so. No one would say I have to let you in and let you speak.
Yet you want to argue that colleges should have to let people speak who have said discriminatory, hateful things about some of their students.
Society is improving, and you just want to pull us back. You want to decrease the net happiness of the world and thus make it a worse place. I just don’t understand why anyone wants this.
Public speaking is completely obsolete as a means of disseminating information and ideas. Nowadays, inviting someone to speak at your institution is just theatre. You’re either making a show of support for the speaker’s point of view, or you’re trying to appear broadminded by inviting “the other side” to speak. I suppose one could also invite a speaker in order to ambush them. (That would at least be entertaining.) But regardless of the intent, it’s a symbolic gesture. It doesn’t really contribute much to the interchange of ideas.
Nothing that Germaine Greer has said is bigotry. Your post is a perfect example of how leftists fight by accusing everyone who disagrees with them of “bigotry”, while never caring whether the accusation is true. Do you even know what the word bigotry means? Here’s the definition: “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”
Obviously Greer does not do that. Obviously the students who are trying to prevent her from speaking on campus do. They are the bigots, by definition, not her. If they succeed in forcibly shutting her up, it’s a sign that bigotry is spreading and becoming more acceptable, not less acceptable.
Actually that’s exactly what freedom of speech is.
I disagree. A good speaker can be more compelling than the same words written. There is also considerable value to be had in the experience of hearing an in-person talk with a group–partly in the vibe in the room at the time, perhaps in questions, but also in the awareness and discussion that follows.
It’s like the difference between seeing a stage play with a group of friends, versus watching a video of the same play at home.
Even if they disagree with her–even if she’s wrong–I think the Cardiff students cheated themselves here.
Her book, The Female Eunuch, was the first book I ever purchased with my own money, having heard Sally Struthers’ character on All in the Family talk about women and equality and how Germaine Greer’s book was all about women “empowering ourselves”. I was raised with grandparents who were the Southern Bunkers. They even LOOKED the part. I wanted something more than what I saw from them (ignoring the fact that they’d been happily married for 40+ years at the time) and their traditional roles. Anyway, I bought the book with my babysitting money. It was a huge disappointment. She seemed to loathe men and to me she was so envious of this power she perceived that women were not granted. She likened traditional family to slavery for women. To me she came off as shrill and bitter and made women seem even weaker for allowing ourselves to be fooled in to traditional roles, but keep in mind I was 15 and it was a full 14 years after the book came out. Things had changed a lot for women by 1985.
Maybe I was bitter about spending my money on such a disappointment, but every time I’ve seen her name since then I cringe, and a lot of the reason I cringe is because she doesn’t really seem pro-women so much as anti-men. Given her recent comment about Jenner, I stand by my opinion. Why would she even say such a thing other than still harboring some hatred toward men, that even if they desire to be women so much they have their organs reassigned and dress and behave the part they STILL must be men, and not just that, she felt the need to point out that many people think they don’t play their “part” well enough.
I can see why she’d not be welcome given these comments on top of some of the other bizarre positions she’s taken in the past 45 years. I’d have no interest in hearing her talk either. Is she really relevant to these modern times? What would be the benefit of attending her talk?
I’ve never heard of her, so it doesn’t mar her historic legacy for me. Skimming her Wikipedia page, it appears that she and I would not have agreed on much anyway despite both labeling ourselves as feminists.
I’m only vaguely familiar with her, in the sense that I’ve seen her name at some point in the past. So, at least for me, I really don’t care all that much one way or the other about her legacy. Still, for what it’s worth, I think it’s both yes and no.
Yes, in the sense that, as others pointed out, she may have been pioneering in her time, but times have changed and some, perhaps many, people will judge her in this light rather than how things used to be. Some may also argue that her being a feminist but not fighting against other forms of bigotry that don’t directly affect her makes her somewhat of a hypocrite.
I also say no for a couple reasons. As someone mentioned upthread, I do think it’s odd that someone who was seen as a pioneer now won’t show up to an event because of how today’s activists will treat her. It’s not uncommon that people that were activists or seen as extremes in their day will be seen as tamer or even conservative in a later light if their movements are succesful.
The other reason I say no is that I think it is just silly to say someone who has issues with transwomen is a misogynist. That’s not to say she isn’t still potentially prejudiced or bigoted, but I would call that transphobic or a similar term, not misogynist. There are issues that both have in common, but there’s a completely different set of issues that face transwomen that other women don’t face, and I don’t think it makes sense to lump them all together and say someone that maybe doesn’t care or actively is against certain issues that only face transwomen is misogynist as a whole. In my mind, it’s not all that different than someone who might also be a feminist, but not necessarily care so much about issues more specific to an ethnic or racial sub groups like hispanic or black women.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton opposed the Fifteenth Amendment because it didn’t give women the right to vote, only men. She had worked as an abolitionist for many years.