Germaine Greer

[Ariana12]

An article from 1989. She always knew. And she was ostracised for it

A Google search doesn't bring up much about Vietnam other than the fact that she was a war correspondent there and "focused on the human aspect of the war" which I would say is a good thing to do, as well as the social consequences of the American military presence.

If you want your criticism of her to be taken seriously you might want to specify what your criticism is.

I couldn't care less if you take it seriously or not.

Righto, we can all safely ignore you.

Not sure that someones dislike for Greer because of what she may have said on an unrelated issue is very germane (sorry😬) to discussion of this article.

Yes, it's somewhere between derailing and the tired old trope that if someone says something with which you disagree then it's fine to cancel them for ever and ever, amen.

When my 1st child was born in 35 years ago Toysrus just had toys shelved by category. By the time no 2 was born 3 years later it was segregated into pink and blue aisles. That was the start of enabling the phenomenon of "playing with the wrong toys".

I read that she had moved into residential care during Covid, but has moved herself back out since.

she is an incredible thinker and I doubt whether she ever gave any fucks at all.

Her desert island discs is worth a listen

DID link www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009mfhs

I think she has meant it in the Freudian sense of the word.

Ah… perhaps you can explain to us what that is?

I think but don’t quote as it’s quite a while, it’s something to do with Eros and drive for life and reproduction and life affirming feelings such as creativity but I am not an expert and could be mixing up my psychologist’s. I think it was a concept rather than definitive. Maybe be better to google it…

I ChatGPT’d ‘what would Freud have meant by erotic’ - does this sound about right? If so then you might well be right.

When Freud used the word “erotic,” he did not mean it in the narrow, modern sense of “sexually explicit” or “pornographic.”
For Freud, erotic = related to Eros — the life drive.
Here’s what that meant in his framework:

1. Erotic meant “libidinal,” not just sexual

Freud used erotic to describe psychic energy (libido) that seeks:

• pleasure
• attachment
• vitality
• connection
• self-preservation

That energy could be expressed through:

• affection
• creativity
• ambition
• play
• curiosity
• love of beauty
• intellectual passion

Sexual activity was only one outlet among many.

1. Eroticism extended beyond the genitals

Freud believed erotic energy could be invested in:

• ideas
• people
• ideals
• work
• art
• the self (narcissism)

So when he spoke of “erotic cathexis,” he meant psychological investment, not arousal in the everyday sense.

1. Erotic vs. destructiveLater in his work, Freud contrasted:

• Eros (life drive) → erotic, binding, creative, unifying forces
• Thanatos (death drive) → aggressive, destructive, disintegrating forces

“Erotic” therefore often meant that which binds things together, keeps the psyche organized, and sustains life.

1. Why this causes confusion todayModern English narrowed erotic to mean “sexually explicit,” but Freud was using:

• a classical Greek philosophical term
• filtered through 19th-century medical language

So when Freud wrote about erotic impulses in children, for example, he was not implying adult sexuality—he meant pleasure-seeking and attachment behaviors.

In short
For Freud, “erotic” meant life-affirming psychic energy oriented toward pleasure, connection, and continuity, not simply sexual desire.

Yes that sounds right. I am thinking that’s how she was describing the intense love you would have for your baby.

(although I a bit wary of ChatGPT and I am not expert enough to detect if it’s made up)

@ErrolTheDragon & @Asianbrit that’s really interesting, thank you!
I had guessed she meant the sensual pleasures of mothering but this provides so much more insight, and fills out what she might have meant.

Love GG, always have. Read The Female Eunuch as a teenager, along with The Second Sex, both were formative. She rocks and gives no fucks.

👌🏼👌🏼

I saw it on Twitter - so not much better clarity. I think it comes from the Independent Magazine for July 1989, but I can't find a clearer copy. Sorry

Love GG. Totally nothing to do with this topic but for years she wrote a column in the Saturday Telegraph about her gardens and dogs which was a delight.

It's cyclical not linear - there was strict division into boys'/girls' toys, then there was an interlude when kids could just be kids - 35 years ago sounds about right, before the Princess/Fairy/Butterfly thing took over and then it was back to boy's toys/girls' toys.

Excuse the derail from GG, but the issue of the rise and fall of blatant stereotyping interests me a lot

A catalogue from the biggest toy shop here in Ireland came through my letterbox recently, and being a bit of a gender nerd, I went though it to see how toys were presented:

Toys for under 3 or so, kids were 'unisex', and the children in the photos were mixed.

After that, there were two streams: the big names like Lego have obviously copped on to stereotyping, and they don't have any photos of children at all; one or two brands have a girl as well as a boy but very few.

However:
All dolls had photographs of girls.
All pretend make-up, crafts like bead-making etc were all girls.

Most of the 'action' toys didn't have photos of children at all, but those who did had boys.

The science sets section was mostly boys and men on the boxes, one or two had a girl - the girls are often 'hovering' rather than participating actively.
Then in the corner there were two science sets that were for making perfume and... something else, I can't remember. These two items had a border of a pink haze around them separating them from the rest of the page🙄

So technically, the big companies go gender neutral, but subtle and not so subtle division into girls' and boy's are worked into the colours, illustrations, etc.
And dolls are for girls, full stop.

Derail over, sorry!

Bath bombs, I expect, Marie.

There is no coherent explanation - it's all about the male sex drive for trans identifying males while trans identifying females appear to be running away from predatory men or womanhood or both.

Where is the line drawn between erotic and sensual pleasure? Is it simply context?
For instance people say they enjoy a massage - I assume they would call it a sensual pleasure - but if done by a lover it would be described as erotic? How is that pleasure any different if done by a masseur? (Personally I find the idea of a massage by a stranger very off-putting, I know I would be tense and eager to get away.)
However being touched by a member of my family is pleasurable and frankly (short of sex) the most pleasurable sensation I have experienced was breastfeeding my babies. I would describe it as erotic.

@itisanothername I think it is contingent on the person(s) and the context. Your example is a good one - I love a massage and for many years have gone to the same practice. The massueuses are all female, mostly middle aged or little bit under, and the experience is very caring. They are skilled and knowledgeable but it feels like being looked after (as well as specific targeting of muscles like a sports massage). Maybe it goes back to grooming behaviour when we were apes? I think humans evolved to be in a tribe and to need touch, and that many modern, particularly Western, societies have distorted and narrowed that to only sexual touch.

Lucy Jones is quite good about maternal physicality in Matrescence, focusing on the mother-baby dyad, and how the infant doesn’t really know it is separate from its mother for the first few months.

I remember the first time my baby had a slight bump I found myself surprised that I didn’t feel it!

Nora Ephron also published a scathing review of Jan Morris's book. It was absolutely spot on (Jan Morris didn't want to be a woman Jan wanted to be a girl). I used to be able to access it online years ago but I think it has been scrubbed from the internet for a while now.

There was a screenshot of some of it on the recent Simon Jenkins thread.