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.

131 thoughts on “Razer: The Monthly‘s Louis Nowra needs a good vajazzling”
Frank Campbell
March 12, 2010 at 10:15 amDon’t we all, SBH…
But I can see the headline in the News of the World now: “GOTCHA: celebrity grannie snares Aryan hunk in court backflip”
Venise Alstergren
March 12, 2010 at 1:47 pmFRANK CAMPBELL: So the divine Louis Nowra is of Iris extraction? This could possibly mean he’s a Catholic+ misogynist. Could be that ‘I wonder whose kissing her Now (ra)? Is of the same school as our beloved leader of the opposition.
In which case we can all cut our throats.
SBH
March 13, 2010 at 12:08 amNow Frank, I’ve overcome my feelings that Napstead is a manipulative little prick who courts controversy for the sake of circulation and had a solid read of the piece and it seems that Nowra sees women like his mum and his aunty as saintly working class madonnas and modern women as shallow stupid whores. He seems to fundmentally understand what Greer was trying to do or the time she was doing it. His statement that all Greer did was transpose her ideas on Marcuse’s theoretical framework is stunning in its dismissiveness. Even if this pergorative assessment were accurate it ignores the fact that this had never been done for women before. On the up side the piece is written with sparkling, pugnacious style but that only shows that just because you can write doesn’t mean you can think.
A final comment, the delicious irony of Nowra’s wife defending him in the Oz would be lost on no one who’s read Greer
Frank Campbell
March 13, 2010 at 9:46 amScan down these 100 posts- don’t they reek of prejudice? Hardly anyone’s read Bega/Doyle’s piece, yet their loyalty to Greer is such they obey Razer’s half a dozen casual paras to excoriate him. (I’ve already listed above what many of you free-speechers said about The Monthly (9.02 am 10/3))
Doyle’s attributes/views according to the lynch mob:
“gutless shit-stirrer”
“a fat balding wog”
“possibly a catholic/misogynist”
“a real prick”
“angry, defensive, self-righteous and ultimately insecure”
“mean-spirited”
“an embarrasment” (sic)
“a creep”
“sexist”
“vicious and stupid swipe”
“a puerile shit”
“40 years of pissy wind-baggery”
Might all be true. I wouldn’t know. But neither do you.
It’s that tribal culture again. Group loyalty transcends everything. Note that the sycophancy of some men here to Greer exceeds that of the women.
SBH
March 13, 2010 at 1:04 pmFranky, like I said yes I read the piece. Those comments could be applied to the piece I read easily. Its an astonishingly shallow piece which seems to dervive it’s energy from Louis romanticisation of women in general and his mummy and aunties in particular. Lets see how many people remember Louis Nowra in 40 years though. That will be the really test.
Frank Campbell
March 13, 2010 at 1:29 pmSBH: fair enough. You’ve now read it. Feel free to tell us in some detail. I’m sure I’ll learn more from that than from HellRazer…
Why don’t we all break with tradition and read it? Then do a Giggles Byrne Tuesday book club thing…I’ll put a big flower on me ear, a Hardy perennial…
Katherine
March 13, 2010 at 3:13 pmAs a young-ish woman (33 with a 1yo bub), I thought I’d contribute my thoughts on the whole vajazzling phenomenon.
It’s up there for me with the Brazilian (I mean, who *doesn’t* want to look like a 12 year old girl?), and labial cosmetic surgery (for that honeymoon-fresh vajayjay).
We were born with certain characteristics and aging is one of these things. We are supposed to have pubic hair, peeps, as much of an evolutionary throwback as it may be, and when you have a baby, well, let’s just say everything kind of gets rearranged down there. It doesn’t mean that I want my girly bits to go back to how it was – it’s a reminder of one of the best things that ever happened to me.
I should add that being 12 years old was pretty comprehensively sh*thouse and I’m in NO hurry to go back there either.
If *you* feel the need to make with the perky on your pinkbits, knock yourself out. Just don’t pretend like it’s the “normal” thing to do, or that you have good self-esteem while you’re doing it.
scottyp
March 13, 2010 at 3:18 pmFrank Campbell- hear hear. You point out what is clear- half these posters haven’t even read the article. From Razers little rant it isn’t even clear that she has read it. She doesn’t engage with any of Nowra’s arguments- she just picks a few things up from the first page and blows them up into a hysterical, foam flecked and shallow rant. Weak writing, weak arguments- just weak. I would hope for a better comeback to an article which is supposedly so deeply flawed- i’ve yet to see one on here.
Venise Alstergren
March 13, 2010 at 6:12 pmSCOTTYP: I’ve come across that name before. Where oh where? It will come back to me.
FRANK CAMPBELL: I don’t want to depress you, but going on his mother’s performance, I’d say Rupert Murdoch is good for quite a few more years.
SBH
March 13, 2010 at 6:20 pmScottyp the problem with nowra’s peice is he doesn’t make any knid of reasoned argument he just shitcans Greer