Are you familiar with Christine de Pizan? She lived from 1364-1430 and was a successful woman writer and business person in her own right. She directly addressed the misogyny of her contemporary’s texts,specifically “The Book of the CIty of Ladies” and supported herself and her family with her writing, on her own terms.

(I was introduced to this summer by a medieval scholar, Julia Simms Holderness.) There is another example of competent and creative women. I reccommend we focus on what’s working. Yes, not identifying with an oppressor to define one’s self. Dr. Greer’s perspective is not an “alternative” view, it’s a clearing of facts.

The fact that most of the women who called in were all so “anxiously” looking for Ms. Greer’s opinion about the progression of women’s in the society and the work force and her “prediction” of how women would fare in the future. Come on, can’t you make your own observation(whether accurate or not) and be comfortable with it? don’t you know that you don’t need someone’s permission to decide what you want to do for your own future?
and by the way, as a woman myself, I actually have had much better experiences working with men than women.

My peers and I in the Gender Studies major at all-women’s institution Mount Holyoke College regular engage in conversation about why so many of our peers disidentify with “feminism.”

We trace this disidentification to discourses of backlash in the 1990s, but also to disillusionment with the alleged “third wave” of feminism and poor communication of feminist heritage between Ms. Greer’s generation and ours. Many of peers are unaware that Ms. Greer’s generation of feminists are responsible for the cloth on metal stirrups in gynecologists’ offices or for rape crisis centers. We instead associate feminism with the backlash discourses of “bra-burners,” but also with the truly irrelevant arguments against pink that Ms. Greer espouses.

I’m a boyish-looking lesbian and I love pink. Ms. Greer’s arguments against pink bespeak the kind of disconnect between our generations where my peers see the uselessness of feminist arguments. I suggest that this is related to the absolute failures of third wave feminism in the 1990s to address real problems.

I suggest trace Third-wave incoherence to the post-structuralist deconstructions of identity of in gay and lesbian studies which seem irrelevant to many of my peers, but moreover, the general political apathy economically comfortable 1990s youth and the terrible writing 1990s feminists like Muscio.

Ms. Greer supposes that my generation will eventually come feminist consciousness, perhaps when we chafe at the motherhood and gender roles in marriage. I suggest that we will not come to “consciousness” if feminists do not articulate clear goals. Third-wave feminism was incoherent, espousing many political goals. I suggest that the most important goal is for Ms. Greer’s generation and my own to work together at communicating the heritage of feminism, as happens on a small scale in the Gender Studies major at Mount Holyoke. This will be the fourth-wave of feminism.

I loved tuning in this morning and finding Germaine Greer on the air! It is so nice to hear feminist topics being discussed and not ignored, and Germain was sensational. Usually I just love that Tom Ashbrook can take the most outlandish comments and not be thrown off but respond with an open mind and consider all angles. I was surprised and slightly irritated to hear him get so uncomfortable and dismissive of some of the comments that Germaine made, comments that I found compelling and honest, and at least worth considering. Feminism, race, and sex are difficult topics, but I did not expect Tom Ashbrook to be uncomfortable discussing them.

Ms. Greer suggests, wrongly, that young women will eventually come to feminist consciousness, perhaps when they chafe at the strictures of motherhood and gender roles in marriage. We’ll never identify with feminism if we don’t know about it. Too many of my peers at the all-women’s institution of Mount Holyoke College don’t know that Ms. Greer’s generation is responsible for the cloth on the metal stirrups in gynecologists’ offices, and for rape crisis centers.

We grew up only hearing anti-feminist backlash and the incoherent third-wave feminist conversations. How can my generation identify with feminism when Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton claim its mantle but espouse completely different ideals? Why would my lesbian peers at Mount Holyoke care about 1990s deconstructions of gender identity when they faced homophic violence in high school?

Ms. Greer’s generation and my generation have to communicate in order to articulate a more coherent fourth wave of feminism. This happens in the Gender Studies major at Mount Holyoke College. Feminists of Ms. Greer’s generation teach us what they did. Now, my peers will go on to promote women’s colleges internationally, study discourses of masculinity in Central America, and perform gender-confirmation surgery (“sex-reassignment”). But what about the rest of our school? I suggest the primary task for a fourth-wave of feminism is to articulate our heritage and our goals more clearly than what my generation grew up with.

As a side note, I am totally a personal fan of third-wave, post-structuralist deconstructions of sexual identity and gender performance. In fact, I think it’s another failure of third-wave feminism to communicate the importance of deconstruction to radical gay rights: 1990s queer theory finds its heritage in the radical deconstructions of lay gay and lesbian scholars in the 1970s. Historians like Jonathan Katz and Lillian Faderman reconceived of homosexuals as people whose identities were located less in their biological or psychological drives, and more in history and culture.

I personally believe in the productive power of academic discourse in popular discourse. But there’s more pragmatic work to be done by directly contributing to popular discourse with PSAs like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbWDNM0wuAc&NR=1

May Tulin,
I found your comments compelling, and I agree that your generation will never identify with feminism if Ms. Greer’s generation fails to communicate effectively with your generation, and I don’t see this communication currently happening to such an extent it can pull the pendulum back a bit from the anti-feminist backlash so evident in this past wave, as it were. Your example of the Sarah Palins juxtaposed with the Hillary Clintons illustrates a genuine muddling of ideals, messages and potential objectives.

I am a 54 year old male, from Ms. Greer’s era of feminism, and I have been surprised at how many young women are viewing their place in the world. There seems a lot of retrogressive thinking, and I am saddened by it; women of my generation worked so hard to change things for the better!

Professor Greer is the most constructive feminist I’ve ever heard. Her insight into female misogyny was spot on.

Listening to this evening’s replay of Germaine Greer’s interview, I too was a little uncomfortable with Tom Ashbrook’s dismissive sounding reactions to some of her observations.

I agreed with her point of view, her observations on gender roles, and the her challenge for women to treat other women with respect.

Equally disturbing in the interview was Mr Ashbrook’s dismissal of Ms Greer’s comments about President Obama. Yes Tom, the President must gauge everything he says and does against that fact that he is a black man governing in a ‘white’ society.

Thanks to Tom Ashbrook and NPR for inviting Ms Greer to the show.

I am so glad to see the topic of hierarchy and female oppression through the lens of Shakespeare, as well as Shakespeare scholarly studies discussed on radio. As a gay male feminist, I definitely see cases of women siding with mysogynist men, as well as even gay men being mysogynist. We need more people like Dr. Greer in this world – both in academia and elsewhere.

Why do we women have to make that choice in life? I want to make sure that my daugthers are in a position to take on as much education as they can, push themselves to break past their fears, value themselves, their bodies and their purpose in his world. We must give our female children a strong belief in themselves. Equal to their brothers. Happy New Year.

I was disappointed that Tom did not question Germaine Greer about how much is enough for female victim
status, blacks, women and gays are never satisfied
with any progress they make. What they all really
want is not equality but dominance, the focus on
these one issue groups has ruined the Democratic
party and helped the rich enslave the working class,
just a quick look back at the sixties will show you
that, imagine one person working today. Most women
in college today are female not male, but it makes
no difference she will take her victim status gripe
to her grave, it the only thing she knows. She has
played into the hands of Wall Street beasts who would
be happy if everyone worked 12 hours a day 7 days a week.

Cold hard truth: if feminist women are busy working and proving they’re better than men, then the “old fashioned” women will be the ones bearing and raising the next generation. Evolution doesn’t care about women’s empowerment but society should care if a good portion of its most promising mothers become genetic dead ends.

Not sure what you’re getting at, here, Rob L., but not unlike your other comments in other program topics, there is an air of bigotry and ignorance–and a few other things that would create redundancy in my characterization–cloaked in conservatism. There is so much misguided thinking, here, on your part…where to begin…

First:
“‘…if feminist women are busy working and proving they’re better than men…’”

This implies that if a woman is working then she must be a feminist and, therefore, must be trying to be better than men. It could also mean that if a woman chooses to have a career for the purposes of fulfillment or, must have a career for financial reasons, or for both reasons, then she must be trying to demonstrate she is better than men. In all of these possible meanings, the part of the statement quoted attempts to assign a mentality to women in the workforce as having some kind of chip on their shoulders and that they are working to undermine men’s authority in some way.

Second: “‘…the “old fashioned” women will be the ones bearing and raising the next generation.’”

This is a very peculiar statement. Because the phrase “old fashioned” is in quotes; it implies either sarcasm or an opinion that thinks this is misguided terminology. It presumes that women who choose not to have children, or who can’t have children, are living outside of their proper roles, that child rearing is the one and only true purpose of women. It also implies that having children is thought of as old fashioned or outdated by feminists. It also implies that stay at home moms are and will be the only ones having and raising children.

Third: “‘Evolution doesn’t care about women’s empowerment but society should care if a good portion of its most promising mothers become genetic dead ends.’”

Wow! Sounds as though you think that women should only be empowered to have children. How paternalistic of you, and I’m being as kind to your thinking by saying that as I can possibly be. One could almost see you are trying to get God all wrapped up in this, i.e., evolution is not helped by women’s empowerment, but God’s plan sure is hurt by it! You also sound as if you think stay at home moms may not be the most promising genetic material for having and raising children, at least not as much as working women, or feminists, who have shunned their roles and shirked their responsibilities, leaving them “‘genetic dead ends.’” (In a way, you are saying that feminists make better genetic material, which contradicts your basic hypothesis.) If one follows that logic through, then, of course, women who work are doing so at the peril of the earth and, because this is all due to feminism, then, feminism is bringing the earth toward destruction. You also are saying that society doesn’t care about its destruction (the destruction that is most assuredly from women working, having careers, and trying to assert dominance over men).

SO, in conclusion, you sound as though you think that anything women do that is beyond bearing and raising children is destructive and against God!

Brett, you’re unnecessarily self righteous and angry here. I’m just telling it like I see it. The reason so many women have to work today (have to, to pay the bills, not choose to) is because of the rat race. If women were barred from working altogether (a mental exercise, not a recommendation) then house prices would drop in half in many parts of the country, and wages for men would rise because of less competition – and families could support themselves on a single income again. That would free women to take care of children. Raising balanced, educated children and being involved in local community is a far better use of resources than having yet another office worker.

Maybe it is you who is being fooled. The feminist propaganda is very useful to corporations, as they double the workforce and get compliant workers. But it’s just plain destructive to families, as anyone who knows a family with young children and both parents working can see.

Rob L.,
I know you are telling it like you see it, and I am disagreeing with you. Do you think when someone disagrees with you they are being self-righteous and angry? …Since you are speaking about some “‘mental exercise’” only, what purpose can an opinion so removed from the real world hope to have?

I can’t take seriously a mentality that thinks the world’s economic crises are purely the result of “‘feminist propaganda’” being exploited by “‘corporations.’” And that most economic/social problems would be solved if women would just not work, stay home and take care of children. That might fool a bunch of male chauvinists, but the majority of the rest of the world would balk at such notions.

I thought the show was facinating. thank you for sharing it. also, inspiring to see the dialogue it has generated.