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”
Richard Murphy
March 9, 2010 at 2:35 am@HR: Why worry, Helen. Lots of people like you. Their enthusiasm leaves me a little gobsmacked in fact. You’re a tearaway, a larrikin performer like Germs herself, who once said of Adriana Huffington’s ‘The Female Woman” that it ‘stumped an oxymoron (TFE) with a pleonasm’. Parfait. But in Oz it’s often style that stumps substance.
Your beatup on those rather normal young ladies powdering their mons’ with pixie dust is way too strident and makes you sound ‘old’ : a 70s pub-rock literary guitar hero. And unconvincing: Methinks you’d be off like a shot with the right invite from the Luxury Spot.
Your feminist fan club is a bit on the matronly side too, no? And we know that’s NOT the way you want it from your hair-tearing opening pars. And barracking for Germs in 2010 is like barracking for TS Eliot in 1960. It’s a done deal. Like painting the town red, or your pussy.
nico
March 9, 2010 at 8:03 amI haven’t read it, but Nowra’s piece comes off as mean-spirited and I would love to know why The Monthly published it. I can’t see the point.
I am pleased no end tho that Crikey published Helen Razer’s response.
Geordie
March 9, 2010 at 8:11 am“I mean, Bob Ellis can vomit ad infinitum anything his cut-price shiraz provokes. And everyone says: Dear Old Bob.”
Um. Helen. Everyone except Louis Nowra, who wrote of Ellis in a recent review for the ALR:
“I don’t know Ellis but have seen him around the traps occasionally. He has a rumbling, melancholic voice that is frequently engaged in a meandering monologue that brooks no interruption and an egotistical insistence in referring to himself in the third person. He’s a caricaturist’s dream, with a face like an aged bloodhound, windswept hair even on a still day and a warped stomach that seems as if Quasimodo’s hump has mysteriously gravitated around to his front. His suits are stained and dishevelled and his tie askew. All in all, he is a walking personification of Tracey Emin’s unmade bed.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/making-a-case-for-the-unexamined-life/story-0-1225721011711
Nowra may be a headkicker, but he’s an equal opportunity headkicker.
kaosmgt
March 9, 2010 at 9:09 amWhile I haven’t yet read my copy of The Monthly i noticed with regret the fact that Nowra was commenting on Greer. Which caused me to ask myself: what’s Nowra got on the new editor – three ‘essays’ in three months? Who does he think he is – Robert Manne? Nowra’s film industry piece was dismissive and bitter, his profile of Abbot only mildly interesting and now a bloke commenting on Greer – come on Ben.
I won’t be renewing my subscription to The Monthly if things continue. Bring back Sally I say and what about some new writers not just the usual suspects?
davidk
March 9, 2010 at 9:20 amI’d never heard of Lois Nowra and hope I never hear of him again. Greer is an intellectual giant among men and women who will be honoured for centuries as one of the few who have changed the world for the better.
weebuns
March 9, 2010 at 9:57 amRazor’s piece refreshes, informs, inspires; wears Doc Martin boots.
Richard Murphy; since you appear not to know your ‘Dingoes’ from your ‘Slits’, nor your strident from your anti-establishment, your efforts to paint the author as matronly makes for crusty reading.
Comments about ‘potty’ language are also misinformed.
This is punk, not potty.
The language is perfectly keen in the context of idiot labial practices, of Greer’s treatment at the paws of chauvinistic journalism; the tip of a v large misogynistic iceberg.
Which, as Bikini Kill would say ‘wants to make a symphony out of the sound of women swallowing their own tongues’. This article deflates them all.
Well written, Helen.
Bogdanovist
March 9, 2010 at 10:08 amLouis Nowra wrote Away and subsequently I had to study it in year 9 English. It was gad awful. I’ve never forgiven him for that. I wish we could have studied The Female Eunuch instead…
Denise de Vreeze
March 9, 2010 at 10:52 amRichard M-you got a bite. Yes I am old and I should be making jam from fruit grown in my own peaceful garden where I have withdrawn from the world. There is a chance though that (only through hindsight of course) I might know something about the world of women. If you are actually a “rather normal young lady” yourself, I would be truly interested in your thoughts on the pixie-dust-on-mons issue.
The Monthly article was about Germaine Greer; Helen Razer objects to Nowra’s dismissal of Greer and the offensive manner in which he has apparently done so. There were some clever links to International Women’s Day and contemporary media ‘coverage’ of women’s bits.
I agree with her that “sparkly flaps” do not bestow power on the person above them.
Idon’t care about an IWD but Germaine Greer still is worth barracking for. See para 10 in Helen Razer’s piece.
Morrison Hoyle
March 9, 2010 at 11:08 amJust as I switch TV channels when I hear the F word and close a library book when I come across it, I am completely turned off by what another comment called the potty-mouthed piece by Razer.
People who can only express themselves by uttering obscenities only reveal their lack of vocabulary and limited intelligence.
I won’t pay Crikey to read this sort of rubbish. Crikey can seek subscribers who delight in filth but if it does, it can leave me out.
Meski
March 9, 2010 at 12:32 pmPaint it with chocolate, that would be in good taste.