so disappointed in Germaine Greer

I expect there's a wide mix of scenarios ranging from:

1. woman offers to sleep with man to gain favour
2. man suggests sleeping with him will curry favour
3. man clearly states that sleeping with him will land a definite role
4. man threatens that not sleeping with him will ensure woman doesn't get role
5. man threatens that not sleeping with him will ensure she never gets a role in the future
6. man actively assaults or rapes woman

There's probably a few I've missed, but you get the gist.
I think Greer is technically right for 1, 2 and 3 where a woman is effectively agreeing to the deal (sex for favours). However, she's forgetting that it's not usually between 2 equal status people with an equitable deal. One is usually much more influential and the other statistically unlikely to succeed without getting a role in the first place.

As for 4,5 and 6, those are blackmail and assault cases which are even worse.

I am sure some women set out to open their legs to land a role. But I am even more sure the majority who did spread their legs will have felt obligated or pressured into doing so, and quite possibly at fairly young age. It's an abuse of power most of the time I would say.

Just catching up on the thread so not sure if anyone has posted this, but Germaine Greer was the author of 'The Beautiful Boy', 'a study of the youthful male face and form, from antiquity to the present day', which consists of pictures of teenage boys to 'advance women's reclamation of their capacity for and right to visual pleasure'.

'Greer has described the book as "full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists".'

In other words, photos of pretty kids for women to leer at.
Yes, Germaine's idea of women's' liberation is equality in leering at teenagers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautiful_Boy

Yes - I think people keep trying to dig her out of her hermitage to get her to speak on and front issues - and she just wants them to fuck off and leave her to it - she is in a position of being able to pick and choose her gigs, and activism isn't her bag anyway. She is an academic.

I apologise about butting without rtft - but Germaine Greer, for some reason has always had disdain for feminist activism and marches. She said it was because it showed how "small and few of you there are" - like it is an embarrassment to feminism.

Now that social media, hashtags and big marches are happening, she can't complain about it being too small.

So I just think she has a weird aversion to it that she hasn't analysed. Maybe it is her own misogyny or something. Or maybe she feels territorial about the issues - like - where were you back in the day eh?

I dunno - but I don't think those comments were coming from the most intelligent or enlightened part of Germaine Greer, but so what, no one is perfect and I love most of what she does.

I agree fortuna. And I find it frustrating to hear that women should just change in order for things to be better, as though it's just a matter of choosing to be different and then everything will be fine. Yes women should be encouraged not to kowtow to men, to strive to get what they want etc but with the awareness of just how difficult that can be. Women aren't in the position they're in because they can't fight for themselves, they're in that position because men have deliberately put them and kept them there.

I think one difference is that women take no for an answer when they ask for a raise and men are taught that no is the beginning of a negotiation

no doubt true, but a woman who negotiates in the same manner as a man risks being seen as aggressive and being penalized for stepping outside of behavioral norms

not saying women ought not to negotiate for themselves, just that there are multiple constraints to navigate

I think one difference is that women take no for an answer when they ask for a raise and men are taught that no is the beginning of a negotiation.

I think she is wrong, but I am saying she is trying to differentiate between those who expect to have to exchange sex on the casting couch for a role and do so "prostitute themselves" and those who do not go into the industry with that expectation.
There is altogether too much of a "what did you expect" coming at women when they try to talk about sexual harassment.

Also I'm wary of any argument that implies that women should be more like men in order to succeed because I think that again sidesteps the real issue and says that men can behave whatever way they want but women are wrong and have to change.

I think you're conflating a couple of different things, I think because there's a chicken and egg situation going on. Yes we do encourage women to be polite but that's with good reason - as that's the game we've had to play to survive. We're not polite for fun - we're polite because men have set the rules for us and we've had to play by them, whether we want to or not, or face the consequences. Things are changing, definitely, and women do need to learn to be less polite, without question. But women who aren't polite are actively choosing not to play the game - they're going against the powers that be (men).

In the study reported in this article for example, it was found that women were given much more negative personal feedback and were far more often called 'abrasive' than men were. Women were essentially told to 'pipe down' - ie be more polite, quieter, less 'bossy.'

I would go so far as to say that not one of the successful women I know or have come across puts 'being kind' at the top of their list of positive characteristics

When if you ask a population level number of women, the answer would be different. Just on my social media account, the sheer volume of women posting memes about 'love and kindness' is overwhelming.

It's nice in theory, but I am not sure kindness will get you anywhere when dealing with power crazed men

I think uppity men are punished too occasionally

I'm not sure it is definitely a sex difference. It might be, but the very successful women I know and have come across almost always have a 'no shit' attitude to them so it cannot be always the case?

I worry that we are teaching women to be too kind all the time. We don't afford that same judgement on men.

Of course uppity women are penalised, look what the State did to Helen Steel.

I am not sure they overlook the women, and although I nearly hate myself for saying it, women don't tend to fight for the promotions - again they have a tendency to look at the world through their (socialised?) reasonable and agreeable lens and then think everyone else (men) think like them and fairness will prevail.

It doesn't and people don't think like that. And John over the way, will be lobbying and playing the game to get that promotion over Judith (and over George, to be blunt). People rarely get promoted by this emotionally intelligent boss who is able to rationally look at who is the best candidate for the job - they are subject to politics and influencing and again this is where women do not tend to play out their dark side tactics.

Massive generalisations I know, but I know you will know what I mean

There is a lot of solid evidence to show that women are penalised for not being polite in the workplace - they get far more personal criticism than men and they are far less likely to be promoted. If companies really did promote women simply for the good of the company (without any bias) then far more women would be in senior positions than there actually are - companies regularly disadvantage themselves by overlooking female talent.

The more I think about it, the more I cannot find examples where 'aggressive' women are penalised, in fact I think my anecdotal evidence tells me the contrary

That is not to say that they are not labelled something different to a man of the same aggression (e.g. bitch) but that too is something linked to the fact that women are always vilified women for not being nice and agreeable.

Men wouldn't care about the label "bastard to work for" though

I agree we are essentially agreeing

Although I am not convinced that non-polite women are penalised, especially in the workplace - capitalism is our current structure and if a woman is aggressive that suits the competition that is necessary within capitalism.

The more I think about it, the more I cannot find examples where 'aggressive' women are penalised, in fact I think my anecdotal evidence tells me the contrary.

One thing to add is that women are definitely penalised in subtle ways for not playing along with men and being polite - this is another function of their power. I've been in plenty of situations and heard of many others where a woman was considered too 'aggressive,' 'abrasive' etc etc because she didn't politely nod to everything her male colleagues said and on the basis of that she was denied jobs, bonuses and promotions. If you're the weaker party and you're expected to behave a certain way, there can be a very extensive cost to not behaving as expected.

I think what a lot of women definitely need to learn is that they don't owe men anything, that they can, for example, back out of sex at any point, even after it's started. That they don't have to have sex with a partner just because it's been a while or the partner is getting antsy/sulky/shouty. That if a guy is getting in their face they can say 'fuck off' - they don't have to play along (with the safety caveat in mind) and that if other people call them rude or tell them they're overreacting they can tell those people to fuck off too - ridiculous men don't deserve politeness.

The key question I think we should ask here is why women have to think and act essentially like prey in the face of male predators? Why they constantly have to use tactics to guard themselves and judge the best way to get out of a situation with the least injury possible? It's a fucking crazy situation and 'good' men should be fucking ashamed of it.

I think we're essentially agreeing mooncup except for one important caveat. Most men are just chancing their arm and are hoping they get what they want by using women's politeness against them - in that situation not being polite is definitely the way to go - the cheeky fucker will just back down. However, in some situations, that man isn't going to back down no matter what, and not being polite could result in a worse situation. So many rape victims report 'going along' with what was happening, because they knew, instinctively, that if they didn't it would be so much worse.

While I can see a value in women becoming less polite, as this will help them at least to get out of situations where men are depending on women's politeness to get what they want, it absolutely won't help in situations where a man is going to get what he wants no matter what - a lack of 'politeness' may just result in the woman being more badly injured/killed.

Can I just add, and it is only personal experience. I am not so sure not being polite does put us at more risk. As I have got older and more 'don't give a shit', I make a point of tackling men on their bad behaviour and they have backed down every time - this ranges from catcallers, flashers, someone coercing me into having sex for a job.

Literally every time, they have backed down.

I do hope this is just my experience and not just a myth peddled around to keep women quiet

While I can see a value in women becoming less polite, as this will help them at least to get out of situations where men are depending on women's politeness to get what they want, it absolutely won't help in situations where a man is going to get what he wants no matter what - a lack of 'politeness' may just result in the woman being more badly injured/killed.

I agree with you but there are many situations where women can exercise power but it often needs to be co-ordinated and have a tactic behind it (using our dark sides!).

Take this dinner where all the men were groping the waitresses openly - if all the women there had collectively walked out and told the fat sweaty pigs to fuck off, then the outcomes would be different. Yes, the risk they didn't get paid would be there but there are laws against what is expected in the workplace and so an action of 140 women against the organisers to get paid would have been much more productive than an article in the FT.

And maybe next time....

What I am saying is that women are not currently equipped to deal with these situations in a tactical and 'fighty' way. Of course we are encouraged not to tackle the power structures (with this constant theme of the lack of agency of women etc), but that's what I mean about our dark sides - men won't just give up this power. Being nice doesn't work.

I'm not so sure about that Crit.

It's worth remembering that as well as physical intimidation men also used financial control as a way of keeping women powerless, denying access to education and employment, paying them less, etc and women have slowly chipped away at that over the years. We are in a genuinely novel situation now where women have actual financial power and where women-run and women-focused production companies like Reese Witherspoon's Pacific Standard can now finally overcome the spurious barriers that men put in their way. Once they gain a genuine foothold through money it'll be hard to dislodge them - money doesn't care who's holding it.