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”
Lysistrata
March 14, 2010 at 11:00 pmHi Frank,
I notice that you are unhappy with my responses to Scottyp – no doubt thinking that his insults which are far longer and detailed against women are OK, since you don’t tell him to moderate his language. You then give me a reading list of what I “should” be reading and doing. Sorry but I have too many loads of washing to do all of that reading about topics I am far from convinced would enhance my enjoyment of life, and would add little to the sum total of human knowledge. I am quite happy to leave it to you.
Cath is right – the Female Eunuch was about everyday realities for women not some mythical space. That is why it had such an impact on women’s lives in Australia in contrast to the sophistry of Nowra.
Venise – of course female castration is on the topic – it just takes the neatening of female genitalia to the extreme. It is the same thing, to think that female genitalia needs to be medically fixed to appeal to a man.
Elan
March 15, 2010 at 12:19 amWell THAT took some time! I have read through every post.
I picked this topic up while linking to ‘comments’; one of them interested me, and here I is!
Nowra has critiqued Greer’s book-40 year anniversary. Helen Razer is not happy about what he wrote.
(I have TFE, I got it when it came out. It did not change my life).
I don’t know who Nowra is. I have heard the name that’s all. I care little about what he or anyone else writes, if I simply am not interested in reading same.
I don’t know who Helen Razer is. She is entitled to her view, AND how she puts it.
So is Nowra.
I DO know of GG. I do not particularly like her, she is arrogant and elitist, and has written little about women who really DO need a little ‘liberation’.
Bob Ellis came up. What an arrogant prat! He has done very well out of his friendship with the SA Premier after making a documentary about same-which nobody I know has ever seen, let alone purchased. Ellis then took a lucrative ‘consultancy’ role with the SA Government..
I care little that JLH put sparklers on her bits,-if she wants to do that, that’s her business. (I once saw a pic of a fellow with various bits of ironmongery hanging off his salami. That’s also his business).
FORCED mutilation of female genitalia is foul. That is different and is rightly strongly condemned.
_________________
Of all these posts I can most closely relate to the one put up by SAMMY 10/3-10.56am.
I’m inclined to agree with him.
The irony of feminism is that it has been spruiked by women who least need it, to women who were simply unable….unable!! to achieve it. With one exception the Pankhurst’s did much the same thing.
_________________
I’m NOT being patronising, but I’m buggered if I’m going to get worked up about the opinions of Nowra/Greer/Ellis.
I have no interest in any of them, and thus I won’t waste my energy giving a Wombat’s scrotum for what they say.
‘night.
Gavin Costello
March 15, 2010 at 1:03 amWell I’ve finally read Nowra’s piece, and having read Ms Razers response, I fear both of them have gone off on a tangent. Not so much as much of the, dare I say it, “commentary” here has done. Though, I’m sure Crikey are happy.
So Crikey, with all the money you made from this piece of linkbait, how about you actually commission someone to write an actual critique of The Female Eunuch 40 years on? For Nowra certainly hasn’t.
Frank Campbell
March 15, 2010 at 9:17 amLys:
“(ScottyP) his insults which are far longer and detailed against women”
What are they? You’re verballing him. He might be a ratbag, but we need to see the rat and the bag. It’s called evidence. Something missing in Hellrazer’s piece and virtually all the comments.
“You then give me a reading list of what I “should” be reading…”
The “reading list” consisted solely of the article you excoriate but haven’t read.
Verballing again.
Bob the builder
March 15, 2010 at 10:54 am@Venise.
The point that Greer made about female circumcision in Sex and Destiny was what right do western middle-class women have to tell other women (from poor countries) what they should do with their bodies? From memory she questioned whether they were actually mere victims of male dominance and compared the practice with other body modification practices, such as tattooing, piercing, etc., etc. that are prevalent and accepted in western countries. And made the point that there is no outcry about male circumcision in western countries – a few decades later she made a similar point about attitudes to breast cancer screening vs. testicular screening; i.e. that if anyone suggested to men that someone else had a right to tell them what to do with their bodies they would tell them where to go; men wouldn’t be corralled into a painful, reasonably pointless regime of physical examination and would reject the notion that anyone else had the right to coerce them into such a humiliating experience on a regular basis; likewise, if there was a move to ban male circumcision it would be rejected as an unreasonable invasion. I think the broader point she was making was that western women’s bodies are still valid sites of interference, whether by western women (and men) judging third-world women’s cultural practices or the medical profession regimenting first-world women through mass screening programs or the medicalisation of pregnancy.
She also made the point that there are a huge range of practices within female circumcision, and the most invasive are quite rare, much more so than the slightly racist hysteria would suggest. The least invasive are almost ritualistic and less invasive than, say, foreskin removal.
In short, Greer has never been a stock-standard feminist, and she has also never been only relevant to middle-class women (and men). The criticisms about not reading Nowra’s piece seem particularly hollow when compared with those critics complete ignorance of Greer; she always talked about all classes of people and was well aware of the situation of working-class women – I don’t for the life of me know how anyone could say she was only relevant to middle-class people, it’s just nonsensical. Not only that, but she talked about women in other cultures (and did the hard yards to meet people on their own turf) and their status not just as women, but as people who were subjected to western domination (by men and women), as her discussion of female circumcision showed.
Anyway, I could go on, but she’s a complex, intelligent, incredibly well-read and well-lived person who challenges us to think. I agree with Frank Campbell’s criticisms of some of the groupthink on this page (although note the curious absence of criticism of those whose views align more closely with his), but that’s hardly Greer’s fault, and anyway doesn’t compare in the slightest to the groupthink on evidence amongst, ummm, economists, the WMD crowd, the Lib/Labs, every major Australian newspaper, etc., etc.
SBH
March 15, 2010 at 12:46 pmCath nailed it
James McDonald
March 15, 2010 at 1:12 pmYep. I agree with Cath. Not everything worth saying reads like a masters dissertation.
scottyp
March 15, 2010 at 1:28 pmLysistrata- I’m glad I made you laugh, although from the tone of your posts I can only imagine how bitter your laughter must be.
I’m not quite sure where my criticism of ‘women’ (plural) was in any of my posts- I certainly criticise Razer- is she somehow emblematic of all women? It seems that you are looking everywhere for misogyny to be outraged against. Regardless of its presence I’m sure you’ll find it.
You again dodge any real dissection and refutation of the assertions Nowra makes about Greer in lieu of a few cheap shots. It’s almost as though you are trying to bait me (and others) into making the sort of misogynist statements that would validate your your framing of the whole discussion as women haters attacking female writers because of their sex. It’s a handy way for you to avoid any real engagement, sledge other posters in ways you would probably decry as sexist if you were the subject of them yourself, and try to take the moral high ground.
Putting on gender war blinkers must make taking positions on issues easy, but really, it’s intellectually lazy.
If you would like some starting points to refute have a look at Sammy’s post- there are a few good ones listed there.
Venise Alstergren
March 15, 2010 at 3:16 pmBOB THE BUILDER: I’m not sure about the points you are making. I’ve read Germaine Greer’s books but was under the opinion she wrote them before there was a a substantial amount of immigration from the Middle East.
Germaine Greer had a point when she said it was not on for Westerners to criticise poorer nations, and their practises. However, I am talking about women of Middle Eastern descent and Oz citizens who are having this operation without consultation with them. I believe I am right in questioning what happens to Oz women.
You make the point that circumcision of small boys and there being no outcry about it. Here you are wrong. There was an outcry about it but it happened just before the AIDS epidemic swept the world. Subsequent research revealed that male circumcision was a deterrent to this disease. the outcry died down.
Like you I have always been a great admirer of Greer’s work.
Jean-Luc
March 26, 2010 at 11:43 amYou are “right” Joel Tozer, it does not deserve third place but FIRST. Poor Louis really sounds like Germaine dared say no to him… doesn’t he?