"Feral hag"??!!#

I didn't write about the passing of Steve Irwin, because frankly I didn't have a lot to say and everyone else seemed to be going overboard in their own expressions of grief and admiration. I also didn't write about the opinion piece that Germaine Greer wrote in the Guardian, because although I thought it was ill-timed and unnecessarily nasty, particularly so soon after the poor family had just lost a husband, father, and son, I also felt that the sycophantic media coverage was getting pretty nauseating and so some kind of balance was needed.

However, this article by John Birmingham did get my attention. When exactly did he decide to run for Liberal preselection and why must be continue to masquerade as a lefty in order to just throw sh#t at everyone who genuinely does have lefty values?

First, he writes not one but two articles where he makes ridiculous sweeping generalisations about the clichéd latte-drinking-lefties-with-no-sense-of-humour and generally tries to insult everyone who doesn't vote for Howard. Now, in attacking Germaine Greer for her opinion piece on Steve Irwin, he seems to find it necessary to hypothesize about how the entire "inner urban elite" (this time painted as "a significant minority"; "a whole class of Australian sophisticates"; and "self-styled green activists or sympathisers") felt about Irwin's death and to lampoon them for daring not to grieve over a man they had never met.

The crowning glory for me, however, and the part that has now cemented my permanent dislike of Birmingham, is when, instead of dealing with her arguments, he chooses to describe Greer as a "feral hag" and also manages to throw in a gratuitous allusion to those ridiculous accusations that she is a paedophile and is only sexually interested in young boys. Essentially, he is saying that since Germaine Greer is old and female and, therefore, not sexually attractive to guys like John Birmingham, her opinions are completely irrelevant and she should learn to shut up and know her place.

Update: As an aside, Helen over a Cast Iron Balcony has a great post on the similarities between Irwin and Greer - she thinks that essentially they are both Larrikins and we are simply unwilling to allow a woman to adopt such a role in our culture. Rings quite true for Birmingham's reaction, doesn't it?

Another update: Tigtog has a post about the general reaction to Greer's article and also points out the general misogyny that is driving people's anger over the content of her article (a misogyny so well embodied by Birmingham). She also links to an article by Tracee Hutchison in the Age which deals with this issue at greater length.

Tracee's conclusion is right on the money:

Very little of the anti-intellectual hot air blown about this week has been about what Germaine Greer may or may not have thought about Steve Irwin. It had everything to do with a dominant male power-base telling women to be seen and not heard. Of marginalising a particular kind of woman and reducing us to condition and circumstance. Of reminding those of us who like to speak our mind to watch our step, to remember our place and to shut up and agree with the menfolk. We are all a lot poorer for the unsightly fallout.