tip off

Razer: The Monthly‘s Louis Nowra needs a good vajazzling

Generally, International Women’s Day is an occasion to which I pay little mind. In 1979, Brown Owl flashed my non-regulation underwear as a caution to all assembled Guides. I have since reasoned that it is better to wrap one’s self in solitude than risk being multiply stung by the hive mind.

As I am terrified that the Sisters’ Army might want to examine my underwear, I tend to avoid IWD. The past week, however, has upchucked surprises sufficiently nasty to rev my angry parts. And these all, by chance, involve the feminine form.

I learned recently of the aesthetic practice: vajazzling. This, it seems, is an elective for those who have passed Advanced Brazilian. The female sex organ, bereft of its hair, is encrusted with crystals; Swarovski, of course. Apparently, demand outstripped supply when Jennifer Love Hewitt, a woman unencumbered by talent or charm, told press that she needed to paste jewels on her v-gina in order to feel good about it.

Here, there are two salient conclusions to which one might be led. These are (a) the desire for visual perfection has become unmanageable and (b) any bitch who dislikes her own c-nt so much as JLH needs to go to hospital.

As tempting as it is to disburse all time and thought on Love’s poonanny-loathing, it’s the broader implications of this twat-ritual that concern us today. Vajazzling has been greeted by many “liberated” women with the sort of You Go Girl finger snapping normally reserved for daytime television. Blogger Bryce Gruber is among the women who casually confuse sparkly flaps for “empowerment”.

I shan’t go on. Except to say, it makes Carrie Bradshaw read like Solanus. SCUM and the city.

Then, I learned of My New Pink Button.  This vaginal pigment has already exploded online and unchained a tsunami of disgust. So, I shan’t go on about that much longer either except to say: is there no feminine crevice immune to pimping?

Which brings me to the third, and final, thing that prompted me to thought on IWD. Forty years ago almost to the day, the scholar Germaine Greer showed us a new site for insurgency. It was on the female body. “You might consider tasting your menstrual blood,” she dared her readers with The Female Eunuch. If in performing this test the revolutionary wannabe felt ill, she had “a long way to go, baby”.

A confidence that baby would go a long way informed this scorching, funny polemic. When Greer wrote about the yoke of grooming or the fear of menses, she did so with a purpose in mind: to move the body and, by extension, identity to the hub of discourse. The refusal to relegate the self and its associated flesh to absence was, and remains, a central project of feminism; or of gender studies, as the specialty is now more broadly known.

To sound less like my failed undergraduate self, Greer said: I’m a woman. Here’s my tits and bits. Now that you’ve seen them, can we please get on with the business of living outside of “man” and “woman” as we have known these categories? This fixation on the body was, in my reading, a project intended to remake woman as more than the sum of her looks; to free us from the fairytale idea that the true moral register of a woman is her appearance.

Last Friday, Australian magazine The Monthly published an essay on The Female Eunuch to “commemorate” the book’s 40th anniversary. Here was an opportunity to contextualise what is arguably the most popular work ever written by an Australian public intellectual. Instead, they decided to talk about how ugly Greer is. Which she isn’t. I hope I’m that hot at her age.

But THIS is not, at all, the point. This piece was written by a guy called Louis Nowra. And it was commissioned by Ben Naperstak, a 12-year-old whose stewardship of the august periodical might be kindly called uneven.

Basically, Nowra says: Greer bangs on about the body too much. Also, she is ugly and looks quite old. Besides which, my mother never read her book. And neither did a lot of other people’s mothers. Because, look, women are still obsessed by their own appearance. Did I mention that Germaine Greer was ugly?

If you don’t believe me, look here, here or here . But don’t, whatever you do, buy this effing magazine. I want Naperstak sent back to nursery school for not only defecating on his intellectual heritage but saying crap such as “political correctness is the enemy of intelligent debate” in Nowra’s defence. No, you’re the enemy.

And your mate, Louis Nowra, who goes on and interminably on about Greer, who looks like a “demented grandmother”, being too optimistic. How could she possibly think women would change their attitudes viz. “young women today love shopping more than ever”.

Seriously. Nowra is saying: the world didn’t change, so she shouldn’t have bothered. Should we apply this logic to Kapital and bitch that Marx ever wrote it because, clearly, expansionist capitalism was just going to get more and more complex? Should we fling a big old poop on the Gettysburg address while we’re at it and say: well, Abe, things are still pretty fucked for African-Americans, you should never have said any of that?

As for going on about Greer’s appearance? Wait until I have vajazzled in order that you may choke on the Swarovski crystals of my feminist unease. How dare you not accord this writer and thinker her due without resorting to cheap jibes.

In this forum, by the way, I can be cheap. You, however, were paid, at the rate of $1 a word, to write for a periodical that purports to be the voice of leftist erudition. And what did you do? You did what all your blokey mates have been doing with a little more elegance for years. To wit: you have reduced Greer to a desiccated caricature while claiming the detonation of “political correctness” to justify your out-and-out misogyny.

Greer attracts violent spittle of the type not because she is a polemicist, but because she has a cunt. Her every utterance or teeny, tiny op-ed column is the subject of scrutiny and fuel to the flame of what is, let it be said, pure hatred of feminism. I mean, Bob Ellis can vomit ad infinitum anything his cut-price shiraz provokes. And everyone says: Dear Old Bob. As much as I adore him, Clive James can write an entire work while pulling his pud and his sanctity and his oeuvre remain intact.

Greer DARES to say what we’d all be thinking several months later on the occasion of Steve Irwin’s death and she is called a hag. She DARES to write an informed history on the young male as visual object and she is called a dried-out old cougar.

Fuck off. She’s a bright and occasionally charming old ratbag who is far more erudite than most of what passes for an Australian “public intellectual” and should be revered. Greer may have done her utmost to change the world. Sadly, she was unable to undo the boring sexism that drives so many Australian female thinkers into silence.

Or vajazzling.

Fuck off. I’m going to paint my vagina.  We love doing that, we ladies. And shopping, too.

Happy fucking International fucking Women’s Day.

*This piece first appeared on Helen Razer’s blog Bad Hostess.

  • 1
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    I never thought I’d agree with Helen Razer, but I fully agree with and endorse this article.

    Congratulations to Crikey for publishing it. I hope she got $1.00 a word, or even more.

    Thank you, Helen.

  • 2
    Mike Jones
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    …. And Crikey’s point in republishing this potty-mouth commentary on a retrospective of Germ might be ….. ? Commenting about an already published review …. how meta can you get ? A slow news day ?

  • 3
    Joel Tozer
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    This article doesn’t deserve its place of third most important news item in Crikey news.

  • 4
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I can share the rage in this article without entirely endorsing its expression. Germain Greer has contributed so much to intellectual life in Australia, from her amazing book ‘The Female Eunich’ to her still lively contributions to Australian public discussions. She is still a magnificent and charismatic person with a towering intellect, not averse to initiating or promoting an argument.

  • 5
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, I don’t usually enjoy Razer’s work, but this is fantastic. Well done Helen. Nowra is truly an embarrasment; We can do so much better.

  • 6
    Diana Gribble
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been stewing about this vicious, stupid piece by Louis Nowra and feeling cowardly that I haven’t found a way of expressing my outrage. I could never have done it as well as Helen.

    Thank you from me too.

  • 7
    Margaret Bozik
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    I was so busy picking up my jaw off the floor after following the links to vajazzing and My New Pink Button that I almost missed the part of the article about Germaine Greer.

    One can criticise Greer for being an intellectual elitist and disagree with some of her uncompromising views - but she is far less offensive than the purveyors of products and procedures designed to increase women’s dissatisfaction with their own bodies and sap their time, energy and money.

  • 8
    Charles Livingstone
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Of course, Louis Nowra would never try to attract attention to himself, would he? What a creep! I guess he deserves the Monthly, and vice versa. Well said, Ms Razer. Potty mouthed you may be, but it sure suits the object of your comments.

  • 9
    The Bad Penny
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Well said! As it happens, this is not the first time that Mr Nowra has revealed himself in print as sexist. Read this article about his thoughts on the capabilities of women writers:

  • 10
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Why is it that the most boring, pompous people identify as ‘bohemian’ - is it a little like ‘cool’ - if you have to self-describe it, then you’re instantly disqualified?

  • 11
    Skepticus Autartikus
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    This is by far the best thing ever published by Crikey! FINALLY, somebody who can actually write. Onya Helen. You fucking well Go Girl!

  • 12
    Peter Forrester
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Well done Helen Razer. Both you and Germaine Greer have had the courage to confront bad behaviour and highlight the destructive beliefs that underly it. I remember reading The Female Eunuch as an eighteen year old in 1972, fresh out of my all male secondary school and about to enter university. That book helped me to understand and better manage the male culture that also oppresses men. Peter Forrester

  • 13
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    This article doesn’t deserve its place of third most important news item in Crikey news.”

    Agreed, it should be the headline article.

  • 14
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Helen’s always been a favourite of mine. I was so saddened when she abruptly left 774 Melbourne’s Sunday morning program and haven’t listened to it since.

    She’s spot-on about Germaine Greer who’s been vilified and attacked for merely telling it like it is. But Germaine has an insuperable problem, i.e. she’s a genuine, thoughtful, intellectual from a basically hick country which is defiantly anti-intellectual and can’t tolerate any criticism unless it’s against one or t’others favourite football team.

    I well remember first reading The Female Eunich. It truly changed my life, my husband’s life, my mother’s life, and my son’s life. His understanding of gender roles was predicated upon it.

    Germaine Greer is one of the very few Australians in the history of the world who’s wrought meaningful change. We should celebrate her.

    Thank you, Helen, for reminding us.

  • 15
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Helen for putting it so clearly as to why Louis Nowra ‘s views should be dismissed. I couldn’y understand why a bloke had been asked to comment without any kind of understanding. I found his general descriptions of older women confirming the viewpoint of the Female Eunuch ie women especially old women shouldn’t be seen or heard.

    Women may still shop and might even enjoy it but what does this add to the sum total of human knowledge. Men like to shop too - for cars, yachts, and other boys’ toys.

    Women’s lives have changed because of Germaine Greer despite his flippant responses, as now they can have or leave relationships, have their own income and have childcare as a backup. It’s not perfect but it sure is different to 1970. I agree it should have been the No#1 article.

  • 16
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Helen. I was thinking about getting the latest Monthly to see if it had got back some of its old form but luckily didn’t. Now I can save my pennies. Louis Nowra an intellectual. God help us.

  • 17
    sean diggins
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    I’ve always loved reading Razar.
    More please….

  • 18
    Anne Cooper
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never forgiven Nowra for having a goal defence shooting goals in an extremely pedestrian play at Belvoir St. Stupid writing, and it just just goes to show - he’s never been one to be burdened by details.
    But anyone who did see Germaine Greer speak last in 2008 would have been gratified and humbled to be in the presence of such generosity and wisdom. She is a national treasure. As for Louis Nowra’s contribution to Australia’s intellectual life…

  • 19
    Dermot McGuire
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    thank you helen. well done.

  • 20
    vivienne wynter
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    To Helen Razer: bless your f**ckin cotton socks. Never change, not a word, not a look askance, not a whit.

    To Crikey: by publishing Helen’s piece you have demonstrated that Crikey is a f**ckload more relevant, contemporary, sophisticated and intelligent that the disappointment that The Monthly turned out to be. It’s very very disappointing that The Monthly, which was so promising, has let its misogynist slip show by indulging in nasty piece of good old fashioned sexist intellectual bashing with Louis Nowra’s piece.

    Bad call The Monthly. Good call Crikey. Women and men who like women around Australia will be saluting you.

    PS I saw Germaine Greer at The Brisbane Powerhouse years ago and she got a rock star reception. I wonder if Louis Nowra, who describes Greer as a ‘demented grandmother’ has ever actually seen Germaine Greer in person.

  • 21
    Hilary McPhee
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Have been composing responses in my head to Nowra’s vicious and stupid swipe at Greer ever since Friday - and didn’t write anything partly out of fear of being branded a batty old dame myself . That’s what makes the Monthly’s lazy trivialising so enfeebling and infuriating. Thank you Helen - a brilliant analysis. Your link with vajazzling is spot on. Remember the attacks Ariel Levy collected when she was here promoting her Feminist Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture not long ago ago.

  • 22
    Richard Murphy
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Vituperous old dyke gets vajazzling ovation!

  • 23
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    I’ve got no intention of buying Bob’s Blog (aka The Monthly) even if it existed in rural Victoria, so there’s nothing to go on here except Razer’s slash. Might well be justified, but how are we to know? Why doesn’t Crikey run Nowra’s piece? It links to/reprints all sorts of content, including Razer’s reprint here.

  • 24
    helen hostess
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Hi Hilary.HR here. I do recall the Levy kerfuffle. Personally, I like to dress like an aging hooker circa 1964 and so was not, immediately, won by this ascetic text. But: such attacks for the crime of describing the mores of Girls Gone Wild.
    This was not a book without merit. Which is why it sold. Despite the jeers of so many critics that stifled gender studies/feminist texts for the last few years. It is not that there is no audience for books of the type. Authors are, quite justifiably, too terrified to write them.
    They might be called old. Or vituperative. Or a dyke.
    Richard. You too may eat me, you foul sod. What do you add to the debate in calling me an “old dyke”. It is true that I am 40 and it is true that I am not straight. But, sheesh, what IS your point?

  • 25
    Ruth Brown
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Frank: We would happily link to the piece, but it is behind a paywall. It would be plagiarism for us to simply reproduce the article. Nevertheless, you can read the first four paragraphs here.

    Ruth Brown
    Crikey web editor

  • 26
    Richard Murphy
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    @HH: The point is not intellectual, but visceral, and open to change. I too am a fan of TFE. Am somewhat bemused by the rest of your comment?

  • 27
    helen hostess
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    You didn’t call me a vituperative old dyke?

  • 28
    Skepticus Autartikus
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:20 pm | Permalink


    How dare you call Helen “old!”

  • 29
    Richard Murphy
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    @HH: Well, you are just slightly to the left of harpydom.

  • 30
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Herr arr! Ms Razer I salute you. The Monthly hasn’t got two men to rub together. Just a juvenile on strings and an old coot who reads like a man drowning in a kiddy pool. Greer may be hard live with sometimes, but to hinge an argument for her lack of relevance on the fact that she has, in fact, grown 40 years older in the 40 years since The Female Eunuch was published is really embarasing.

  • 31
    helen hostess
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    What the fuck ever, Richard. After 15 years of being called a harpy, harridan or, in my younger days, a slut, your jibes are just white noise.
    If you want to hurt me, critique my writing.

  • 32
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Germaines trouble is that she’s not.

  • 33
    Denise de Vreeze
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Helen, & thank you Crikey for putting her article near the top of today’s list. Helen Razer is correct about Germaine Greer. Germaine has sometimes looked like an eccentric intellectual but so what? Is the best criticism that can be mounted is that she is “ugly”. I stopped reading The Monthly about the time the editor was changed- I suppose I should look up the Nowra essay but I’ll have to find a free copy. What is it that Helen wrote today which justifies the “potty-mouthed” label? Surely not the c-word! Personally I find “demented grandmother”, and for that matter “cougar” a lot more offensive. We thought in the 70s that women 30 years in the future would not be subject to gratuitous insults - bad judgement. Just to establish my probable position in Louis Nowra’s categories as irrelevant/past-it/hag, what is it with “brazilians” and now “vajazzling”? I can say ‘vagina’ and ‘labia’ out loud in public but the wide publicity about these erotic practices/adornments smacks of male voyeurism to me - especially since last week’s Hungry Beast coverage of labial plastic surgery. The emphasis doesn’t seem to be doing much for young women’s confidence.

  • 34
    helen hostess
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Conceivably, Denise, you are just deluded in your anger. Perhaps you are old. Or a dyke. Or, worse, an old harpy dyke. It is only in these terms the opinions of women can be read. Your sexuality and physique remains the true register of your character.
    SO, let’s just go shopping, shall we? And braid each other’s hair.

  • 35
    lorraine benham
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Fantastic stuff Helen, Not only does Nowra comprehensively fail to appreciate the nature of the paradigm shifting contribution Germaine Greer made to our broader society and specifically to the consciousness of women he manages to disparage her continuing courageous journey of intellectual and emotional discovery Makes you wonder really doesn’t it. What is it about the spectre of ‘age’ that drives him to write such drivel? Is baby cheeks all worried about eventually becoming a wrinkly himself. How sad.

  • 36
    Bob the builder
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never thought of the Monthly as “the voice of leftist erudition”, but did often buy it to support interesting articles and debate, but in the last few years it got so boring, like Dissent (which sort of started that way), and batty, like the Quarterly Essay (I will never look at it again after that moronic Toohey piece on the intervention), that I haven’t followed it for a while.
    Having had my inarticulate teenage thoughts crystallised by the Female Eunuch I have remained a big fan and read most of her subsequent stuff (Sex and Destiny is fantastic too).
    Like some others I’m not usually a big fan of Razer’s, but this is spot on and an appropriate salvo for International Women’s Day.
    I don’t care how old Louis is, he is just a puerile shit and hiding behind “I refuse to be politically correct” (and therefore if you criticise me you’re suppressing debate) is pissweak.
    I was going to buy the Monthly to read this because it looked interesting, so thankyou to Crikey and Razer for saving me the irritation!

  • 37
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    But don’t, whatever you do, buy this effing magazine.”

    So what’s the point in pistol-whipping Nowra? OK Helen, you’ve pulped his balls in absentia. Great ritual. Very Razer, but apparently he needs razing, not theatrical abuse, jeered on by tribal commenters who can’t or won’t read the poxed article.

    If you think Nowra needs dismembering, do it. I’m sure Crikey would give you the space.

    Otherwise it’s all so, ummm, Fitzroy.

  • 38
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    thanks Helen. I have been stewing with anger about Nowra’s drivel ever since I saw it last week (they keep sending the Monthly even though my subscription expired last year, go figure). I was grateful to Eva Cox and Anne Summers for their responses, but yours takes the biscuit. you are so very very skilled at taking the power away from the bully. well done. thank you.

    loved it when you said, re the ugly slur - ‘she’s not. I hope I’m half as hot when I’m her age’. as my daughter would say - ‘totes’. 40 years after TFE and women are still disparaged for looking like women! it’s just mad.

    well done crikey for giving profile to your article.

  • 39
    Niall Clugston
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Well, this is the second article I’ve read and it doesn’t tell me what Greer said in the “Female Eunuch” and how it has stood the test of time. And obviously Nowra’s article doesn’t either… So much for intellectual debate.

  • 40
    Roberto Tedesco
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    I realised then that none of the working-class women who worked with her would ever read The Female Eunuch” - go to with the insight Louie boy! (This was after he talked of having had (get rid of that past tense) a chip on his shoulder because he grew up in a housing commish unit.)

    I certainly hope they’re reading the collected works of dear old Louis right now, including that splendiferous work “Bad dreaming” and, lest we forget, the (unintended) gigglefest that was “Map of the human heart”.

    Yes Germaine can be frequently annoying and irritating - but she still has style, content and charisma that some others will not achieve in 40 years of pissy wind-baggery.

  • 41
    Skepticus Autartikus
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Helen’s work is fucking fantastic because she cuts the mustard with her keyboard. She fights smoke with fire. She doesn’t demand Nowra be silenced as so many other 1970s airhead feminazis have. “Why didn’t The Monthly get a woman to write the article?” [Edit - No insults please]

  • 42
    Skepticus Autartikus
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Germaine is a Goddess of Ratbaggery. Her cerebral writing is EXTREMELY patchy, and further evidence that people with degrees in English are generally appalling analysts of society, politics, and history. It is her media and popular culture persona/e that is/are so interesting and infectious. And I do weep for her gynecological challenges, as she would have been a hoot of a grandma!

  • 43
    Joanna Mendelssohn
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    Well written Helen. I read “The Female Eunuch” just after I finished university and realised that if I took a job in Canberra with an honours degree I’d still be getting less money than a man with a pass degree. It was one of the books that changed my life as it encouraged me to make decisions without fitting into any preconceived moulds.
    I stopped my regular habit of buying “The Monthly” after the editor commissioned a shocking mish-mash by Sebastian Smee which trivialised the death of Nick Waterlow and his daughter Chloe.
    Louis Nowra (a.k.a. Mark Doyle) alone can’t be blamed for this piece of tripe. The editor commissioned it. The publisher appointed the editor and has done nothing to modify his errors of judgment. The board clearly approves of this, or otherwise they would resign. They are all culpable.

  • 44
    Skepticus Autartikus
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Surely we can recapture the spirit of Athenian democracy and ostracize these white bourgeois baby-boomer banalities like Hamilton and Robert Manne to Antarctica, Christmas Island, or Nauru?

  • 45
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for this. I wish Louis Nowra would stop believing anyone cares about his insight into what women think other than those who are too afraid to talk to them. It reminds me of when he “decided” to grace the Aboriginal community with his expertise on abuse in Bad Dreaming. Thanks a lot mate, really glad to see you’ve stuck with that cause… oh wait you haven’t, you just sprout off on whatever the next thing is you imagine being an expert about. This isn’t about “political correctness” Naparstek, it’s about “having a fucking clue what you’re talking about.”

    Kinda stupid call on the Monthly’s part, seeing as a large segment of the target market might be women and/or people who are interested in having some analysis which is a bit more invested.

  • 46
    Karen Purser
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Helen, thank you - this is the best writing I have read in a long time.
    You have responded perfectly in a way that I and many other women would have loved too but don’t have your skill. I will be sending this to all of my female friends and family, particularly my daughter and her friends as I consider it should be an important part of their education.

  • 47
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    The Monthly comes across as what I term “truck stop” journalism.

    It’s an inadvertant editorial cross between the old Australian Post & the 1970’s Nation Review.

    There’s clearly no ink in any of the editorial staffs veins…poor old Morry was just trying to buy some serious street cred in the publishing world.

    Making a media star out of an inexperienced, over-confident lad was never going to work. The list of contributors shows little knowledge of the wider Australian community.

    Close it Morry….real estate is your forte, and I understand Albert is looking for some help.

  • 48
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    A huge thank you Helen.
    So glad that Crikey published you today.
    When you’re hot, you’re hot.
    This piece is a truly glorious f*cking blowtorch.

  • 49
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    So - should Naperstak stay? or go?

  • 50
    Posted Monday, 8 March 2010 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Agree with Paddy above. Helen, when you’re hot, you’re truly on fire. Loved the passion and pace of your intelligent ball-tearer. Thanks to you and to Crikey.