Talk:Germaine Greer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Beautiful Boy[edit]

I have removed the following from the introduction and replaced it with a bland sentence to the effect that GG has always been controversial. Apart from giving undue weight to the issue in the introduction it is also bad for the "labelled by some" weasel words. The issue is dealt with in the article and indeed inits own article and that is enough.

Following the publication of her highly controversial book 'The Beautiful Boy' in 2003, Greer has been labelled by some as promoting paedophilia with Greer herself describing the depiction of adolescent males in her own book as "full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists". She goes on to say that, "I know that the only people who are supposed to like looking at pictures of boys are a subgroup of gay men".[1] ¬¬¬¬(Jeremy Dixon, my signature doesn't seem to be working)


Germaine Greer did not simply "translate" Aristophanes, she adapted it into a new version, with a more feminist message. Article just says she "translated" it.

CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence again[edit]

The lead sentence has been problematic for years, see the talk above and in the archives for the history. My problem with the assertion that Greer is "widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century" is that the text is not verifiable. As before, I am not saying that the text is not true, merely that it is unreferenced. I intend to water down the text if references cannot be found. --Surturz (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE for nearly five months. I've made the change. --Surturz (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Greer's place in intellectual history - an expert, balanced survey of this would be good[edit]

I realise this would be very difficult to do without being attacked for bias or lack of comprehensiveness - but I'm not the only one I'm sure who would appreciate a section covering this. Some of this is covered in the detailed sections but some help to give us readers a wider and deeper perspective would be good.

For instance, where is she placed in the feminist firmament compared with others? How is she thought to have materially influenced (or not) broader thought and action?

To what extent is her place in history one of intellectual endeavour as compared with publicising of ideas and causes?

An assessment of her reception and influence (or lack of) in various parts of the world would also interesting to read (though some information on this is given in the article such as that her book, The Female Eunuch, sold very well and was translated into many languages. (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet another whitewash[edit]

Not surprisingly, this article makes no mention of Greer's refusal to condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie or her seeming implication that he deserved it. Also not mentioned are her statements in defense of the banning of women from driving in various Muslim countries, her statements concerning the wearing of burkas to protest the war in Afghanistan and her refusal to condemn honor killings in the Islamic world when specifically asked to do so. Instead we get a bunch of nonsense claiming a marginal writer is some sort of intellectual giant. Even more pathetic is the ridiculous attempt to explain away her clear statements in regards to genital mutilation, as if most women are freely choosing to have the procedure performed on them. Moreover, this article is full of value judgements that do not belong in an encyclopedia. One of the most egregious examples is the following: "She questioned THE PERHAPS SIMPLISTIC VIEW that female genital mutilation was necessarily imposed by men on women rather than by women on women, or even freely chosen, adducing some anecdotal evidence to the contrary..."(emphasis mine). It is absolutely no business of an unbiased encyclopedia to provide cover for a particular subject by claiming that certain views really deserve to be criticized because they are "perhaps simplistic". Also, nowhere does this entry explain that some of the "body mutilation" Greer claims is equal to female genital mutilation is breast augmentation surgery, as if a grown woman choosing to have breast implants is morally equivalent to being forced to have your genitals mutilated as a child. It is pretty self-evident why such a clarification is not provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. There is no grand conspiracy here. Wikipedia is a project that anyone can edit. It is a work in progress created entirely by volunteers. There is no hidden body of writers scribbling a party line or getting paid to concoct wild tales. The articles are not perfect and have never claimed to be so. This one in particular hasn't had many editors working on it, tidying and updating it. We are not here to create hagiography or plaster condemnation. We aim to present a verifiable, neutral point of view. Judging Greer for what she has or has not said is no business of ours. Whether editors like her or not, agree with her or not, has no bearing. We use strong secondary sources to build an encyclopaedia, not to make arguments. I have removed the editorialising comment you pointed out. Span (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah OK, but from memory it was Greer herself who suggested that the view that genital mutilation was inflicted by men on women was simplistic, based on her claimed extensive experience on talking to women who'd been cut. This article attracts a lot of people hostile to the subject who want to inflict a POV on it. ¬¬¬¬

Criticism of transgenderism[edit]

The category Category:Critics of transgenderism and transsexualism was removed for being "unsourced". The article mentions her criticism of transgenderism in the "The Whole Woman" in the chapter 'Pantomime Dames' and details her criticisms of transgenderism from a feminist point of view. She's expressed views critical of transgenderism elsewhere as well, I think that the category should be included. Maybe some more sources need to be added, but she has made a variety of criticisms of transgenderism. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have re-add the cat. Span (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NOT an Emeritus Professor at Warwick University[edit]

See the first and third archived talk pages for earlier discussions.This would seem to a genuine complaint by Germaine Greer herself on this persistently made error: Wikipedia:Help desk#Germaine Greer. For the record, no page on (the University of Warwick's website) identifies Greer as being an Emeritus Professor, always as "former Professor" or just "Professor". Philip Cross (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute[edit]

I've noted that a content dispute has arisen between Mariannathoms (talk · contribs) and Solarra (talk · contribs) regarding Ms Greer's views on transgender issues. In order to avoid an edit war, I invite both parties to discuss the issue here and see if the community can help the matter come to a consensus. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "controversial" in describing her as a radical feminist (cf radical feminism) when she is one of the world's preeminent radical feminists. The removal of her well known criticism[1] of transsexualism is nothing but politically motivated censorship and vandalism of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talkcontribs) 13:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To "facilitate" this, I've fully protected the article for three days. This seemed preferable to handing out blocks for 3RR violations. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
To me was just a matter of what appeared to be vandalism. Honestly I have no feeling on the subject matter, but to me tagging an article from feminist to radical feminist seems to violate WP:NPOV. I see new accounts created to do this all the time and saw this as another example of NPOV vandalism. Nothing personal towards anyone :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed a matter of vandalism, viz. the highly disruptive vandalism perpetrated by Solarra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talkcontribs) 13:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, there is nothing "violating NPOV" in describing a radical feminist as a radical feminist. Radical feminism is one of the largest and most established streams of modern feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talkcontribs) 13:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I personally have no feelings on the matter, just want to make sure WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are followed. If the term 'radical feminist' can be sourced I'd be 100% for it's inclusion as it would be accurate and sourced. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

John Hoffman and ‎Paul Graham in their chapter on Feminism in Introduction to Political Ideologies (2006, p. 187) describes her as a "well-known radical feminist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talkcontribs) 14:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

By all means add the information than, like I said to me I saw it like tagging Barack Obama with 'communist' or George W. Bush with 'Nazi.' I'm real careful with BLP stuff because it can cause a whole lot of harm if it is incorrect. If there is any way I can help you I'd be more than happy to in any way I can. My apologies for all of this! :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Describing her as a radical feminist is not comparable to describing Bush as "Nazi". There is nothing derogatory in itself in describing someone as a radical feminist. Radical feminists frequently call themselves radical. She is widely regarded, and celebrated in some circles, as one of the world's most prominent, if not the most prominent, radical feminists. It's more comparable to describing the leader of a communist party as a communist. Mariannathoms (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted for future reference :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There was no need for the article to have been protected. The edits by Mariannathoms were disruptive, and that editor should have been blocked. No justification was given for giving Greer's views on transsexualism a section by themselves; I believe that doing so over-states their importance, and also confused the organization of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be no objection if Greer is described here as a "radical feminist" if a source for that sobriquet is included (Hoffman and Graham, 2006 ?). The repeated edits by User:Mariannathoms, e.g. here, did not include such a reference. Instead, Mariannathoms hijacked the existing reference to the EB which doesn't support that term.
I do object, however, to the part of the edit which introduces a new section header, "Criticism of transsexuality", and a Greer quote from the Guardian. I think both are unnecessary because they add nothing to the article; Greer's views on transsexuality were already covered and Mariannathoms added nothing. In that, I agree with the edit summary of the first revert by FreeKnowledgeCreator: "Not such a good idea to give her views about transsexuals a section unto itself."
Going further, I think none of the other quotes currently in the article are necessary; they should be distilled into the narration. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
As an outside observer with no opinion one way or the other about the actual content of the article, but only wishing to help resolve the content dispute that had arisen, I have to fault Solarra for reacting to Marianna's changes by calling them vandalism. Marianna's changes constituted a change in tone of the page, and possibly violated neutrality, but they were within the realm of reasonableness, and should have been dealt with through open dialog rather than edit reversion and talk page templating that never addressed the real issue. That is why the temporary protection was applied, and that is why this discussion was opened in the first place. Dialog. Consensus. Those things that make Wikipedia work. It appears to me that Marianna and Solarra have already come to an agreement on the nature of the content. Other editors are now expressing their opinions. Exactly as it should be. Carry on. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)