Yesterday Crikey ran an expletive laden, bile imbued, highly articulate, poisonous piece of writing by Helen Razer. And boy, it felt good.
Razer was writing in response to Louis Nowra’s now much-maligned essay for The Monthly on the 40th anniversary of The Female Eunuch. The entrails have now been well and truly picked over, including by Greer herself, but Razer’s response stood out because it hummed with anger.
It gave voice to many womens’ reactions to the misguided arguments. But it also articulated an anger at the editor of The Monthly for commissioning the underdone work in the first place.
When asked by The Australian if he should’ve commissioned a woman to write on the subject, The Monthly editor Ben Naparstek replied: “I see political correctness as the enemy of intelligent debate.”
And it was that sniffy, dismissive, inflammatory, under-thought sound bite that was the most dismaying element of this storm in an Affogato cup.
As Crikey reader Boris put it on the website, “This isn’t about ‘political correctness’ Naparstek, it’s about “having a clue what you’re talking about.”
Because The Monthly, you’re it. If you’re not insightful, surprising, and intellectually rigorous, then who will be? Without The Bulletin, without, well, any other regular magazine on our depleted newsstands, you are the only glossy thing going around that devotes time, talent and money to regularly publishing original Australian thought.
Don’t fuck it up.
I enjoyed Helen Razer’s stylish rant enormously. It didn’t make me remember much of The Female Eunuch which I read 40 years ago, the first bit of serious feminist reading I had done, much supplemented but not greatly improved upon by dipping into my daughter’s Women’s Studies honours degree reading material and following the reading advice of a Fay Weldon enthusiast. And nothing matches Dorothy Parker. However…… let me put you on the spot to answer this: what “original Australian thought” has The Monthly published and does it suggest that “time” or “talent” has been devoted to its regular publication?
A discussion of what should be classed as original thought would be of interest. If someone suggests, publicly, for the first time, some simple novel idea like creating free trade zones on Pacific islands so the Pacific Solution could be tried again in a practical and humane way (whether or not you think it a good idea or can see overwhelming objections to it), is that “original Australian thought”. Or does it have to be a bit of joined up exposition and analysis rejigging some whole muddled field of ideas? And what makes it “Australian”? The author, first publication in Australia or relevance to Australian interests, conditions or policies?
You mean ‘girl’ don’t you boy?
O what a joy to read is Helen Razer. Especially when she’s mad. Like many women of my (a certain) age, our hero was Germaine Greer, who together with Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan and Kate Millet demanded we take charge of our lives. We crept out of the kitchen, burned our bras, and had a good look at our vaginas, albeit from a different angle. ‘Political correctness’ was unheard of in the 70s, we had to depend on laws to be laid down regarding sexual discrimination, domestic violence, sexual harassment. Even now the fight is not won. Equal pay for equal work is still not a given but the changes in the past 40 years have been huge, as any baby boomer will attest. Much of the credit for the resurgence of the feminist movement must go to Germaine Greer and a very sincere thanks for the erudition and embrage of Helen Razer in defending her.
I don’t pay money to consume foul language. Keep the swearing out of your yarns and rely on the rational strength of your arguments.
Helen is often enough to make me run and hide, too. But I loved her article.
And why the hell shouldn’t women be able to use as much language, colourful or profane, as they desire in order to make their point.