As we approached the twenty-first century it was obvious that the heady days of feminism were numbered. One of the signals was a rash of hastily produced books written by those who had been feminist icons. Spitting and clawing like brawling alley cats, feminists emerging wearing vastly differing colours, and, in some cases, no colours at all.

The books are now providing ample proof – though none has ever been needed for readers of this blog – that feminism has always been a hotch-potch of female confusion resulting in a man-hating diatribe and the fighting of yesterday’s battles.

For the feminazis now to proclaim that they do not hate men, did not intend to cause strife between the sexes, and that feminism would benefit men also, is rather like Attila the Hun declaring that he did not believe in violence and that he was only interested in reconstructing people’s homes.

The crescendo of confusion during the last part of the twentieth century was bad enough, but the publishing of Germaine Greer’s book “The Whole Woman” fanned the flames of confusion scattering seeds of doubt like sparks from a forest fire. Apparently, in many parts of the UK, some wags, with a sense of humour, covered the ‘w’ in ‘whole’ with a piece of red paper making a much more apt title  as women are portrayed in it with more holes than a second-hand dartboard.

Miss Greer has had a very disturbed and confused life; she has never related well to men and has remained childless. This is all rather sad – and it shows in her book. Her desire to be the centre of attention, by whatever means, was brought home to me one morning, some years ago, when a friend dropped in to see me and thrust under my nose a photograph of Germaine Greer sitting on a chair, stark naked, with a cat sitting on her lap. I was thankful that it was the only pussy on view, but, believe me, it was not a pretty sight! I told my friend that showing me such a picture before ten in the morning was a cruel thing to do.

Miss Greer’s styles of hair and dress have always been calculated to attract attention. Her book, with its confused meanderings seemed to have a similar aim. In “The Whole Woman” she claimed that ‘In the last 30 years, women have come a long, long way’ and she also believes that they now enjoy ‘nobler and richer lives’. Well, they are now allowed to drink beer out of cans and put on beer bellies just like men. They smoke as much as men, but, according to the British Thoracic Society, their style of smoking puts them in greater danger of lung cancer. Most women are transvestites and wear trousers making their rear views look larger than ever; they abuse far more children than men do, commit an equal amount of domestic violence; are killing more unborn babies than ever before, thus putting them at greater risk of breast cancer, and are denying their children the care of a father on an ever-increasing scale.

Yes, women have come ‘a long, long way’, but as for leading ‘nobler’ and ‘richer’ lives – I don’t think so!

Another of Miss Greer’s gripes was that ‘only 23% of men will consent to cook when they have a female in the house. Could this be because hardly any women will service a car when they have a male in the house?

She further claimed that most women now work but are paid only 60% of what men earn. She conveniently forgot to point out that most of the women’s work is part time and the figure of 60% is just plain wrong. Of course, when women are prepared to undertake the dangerous and unsocial jobs such as working down sewers, climbing electricity pylons in freezing conditions,driving long-distance lorries and working on the deck of a North Sea oil platform, then I dare say their earnings will rise comparable to men’s earnings.

There is one thing which the authoress is absolutely right about. She says, ‘Power and prestige have seeped out of the professions as women joined them. Teaching is already at rock-bottom; medicine is sliding fast.’

Miss Greer would be able to understand why this happens if only she would read that excellent book by Professor Stephen Goldberg “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”. On page 45 he writes:

‘Every society gives higher status to male roles than to the non-maternal roles of females. To put it another, and I believe more illuminating way: in every society males attain the high status (non-maternal) roles and positions and perform the high status tasks, whatever those tasks are.” Margaret Mead has written:

“In every known human society, the male’s need for achievement can be recognised. Men may cook, or weave or dress dolls or hunt hummingbirds, but if such activities are appropriate occupations of men, then the whole society, men and women alike, votes them as important. When the same occupations are performed by women, they are regarded as less important.”

‘ . . . Business executives are not more important than nurses, but they are given higher status and are usually male. In the Soviet Union, practising (as opposed to research) medical doctors tend to be women, but the role of doctor in the Soviet Union has a lower status than in the United States. If being a practising doctor was given a high status in the Soviet Union, the doctors would be men.’ This rule appears to be set in concrete in all known societies and to try to alter it is like chasing the rainbow. This is precisely what feminism has spent 30 years doing.’ 

But what did other feminists and other, normal women, think about Germaine Greer’s book?

Viv Groskop in The Express thought it was tosh. She resented being told that she was a victim. She said she would not be seen dead with unshaven legs, but that ‘has nothing to do with self-loathing and insecurity and everything to do with good, old-fashioned vanity. That doesn’t mean I would spit on women with sprouting under-arm hair – although I don’t fancy a tete-a-tete with Germaine’s pits.’

In The Daily Telegraph, Edwina Currie called Germaine Greer ‘A great big, hard-boiled prat’. Lesley White in The Sunday Times thought that the most alarming thing about her was her habit of contradicting herself. In The Female Eunuch ‘sex was a forbidden pleasure to grasp and enjoy’. Now she slates the sex-obsessed culture of the young western female.

Zoe Heller in The Daily Telegraph  thought that Greer regarded everyone who disagrees with her as traitors and ignorant fools. ‘How ironic that the scourge of masculinity should have ended up emulating that most piquantly masculine of models – the playground bully.’ I take her point, but someone really should tell her that she is guilty of dealing in stereotypes. Modern research has found that vast numbers of playground bullies are females!

 

By far the best commentary on “The Whole Woman” was Melanie Phillips’ article “Identity Crisis” in The Sunday Times. She made several germane comments:

‘. . .She gives voice to a number of insights for which she will not be forgiven by sister feminists. Thus she acknowledges that women, not men commit most abuse on children, as well as about half of all assaults on siblings or spouses . . . that the current practice of abortion, a totem of women’s liberation, in fact embodies contempt for the female body.

‘ . . . she flays the exploitation of a sexualised culture leading to sex without love, teen pregnancy, genital warts and all. This, she fumes with a straight face, comes of being sold sexual freedom. Can this really be the same Greer who turned sexual freedom into a multinational industry?

‘Is this the same radical who wrote in The Female Eunuch that the true goal of female emancipation was the end of marriage, morality and the state?’

Greer yet again repeats the whinge we have heard ad nauseam  for decades, and Melanie Phillips, yet again, has to explain why:

‘Greer complains about the continuing pay differential between women and men. But many women are low paid because when they become mothers they choose to work less than men; most work part-time, and even where they work full time they generally work fewer hours. Most women choose not to become MPs or captains of industry because they have more important priorities in life if they have children to look after . . . Men and women are different. Their roles are complementary. The unisex androgenous utopia is a myth.’

 

Germaine Greer is by no means the only feminatric who thinks that ‘they don’t make feminism like they used to’. Erica Jong published another book “What do Women Want?” I believe this to be a question that not even women know the answer to and many feminist writers seem to agree.

Pamela Norris in The Independent thought that the authoress is ‘out of touch’ while Kate Chisholm in The Sunday Telegraph thought she is ‘more interested in self-promotion than in the complex relations between the sexes’.

“What do Women Want?” is really nothing more than a hotch-potch of essays, many being about men: Henry Miller, President Clinton and even one about ‘The perfect man’. In The Observer Sally Brampton complained that ‘That ebullient voice has hardened into the strident tones of the party bore. Women scarcely get a look in, except to be awarded an absent-minded pat on the head.’ It seems that feminism is now starting to fly around in ever-decreasing circles. And we all know what happened to the bird that did that!