Perhaps it says something about the maleness of this forum. But a female work colleague and I were talking about Germaine Greer and women it seem have a different slant on the story.
She said that amongst her friends the Greer was only stating the bleedingly obvious whem most women hear the a stingray kill Steve Irwin, their first reaction was "what the f$#k did Steve Irwin do to the Stingray first?".
So all you feminist bashers out there, unless you have an XX chromosomal makeup, I suggest you might speak to a woman or two. (Miranda Divine, not sure she counts.)
I don't particularly despise Greer per se. I do have issues with a few of the things she says and some pretty blatant double standards. That said, I appreciate the fact that at times, coming to the half way point isn't enough and you need to overstep the midline in order to prove your point and get the message across. Some times you have to play hard ball and tread on toes. I also totally accept that in the 60's and 70's things were ludicrous for women and someone needed to step up and say things pretty bluntly. Germaine did, and more power to her for doing so.
Although I'm not female, my first reaction when hearing of the incident was precisely the same as your friend. What was Steve doing to the stingray? We've all seen him leap in and grab other things so I guess it was a natural assumption that he was touching/tickling/grabbing rather than merely being close. As it turns out, the police have VERY clearly stated that he was not, in any way antagonising the animal at the time of the incident. My point is, your reaction and the supposedly "female" reaction, have nothing whatsoever to do with gender.
Frankly, I think that from time to time Steve was a bit of an over the top tool and I found the whole thing a bit hard to take, to the point that I opted not to view or listen. I'm also aware of a lot of good things as far as wildlife sanctuaries, habitat purchasing etc that Steve did (which makes up for a heck of a lot of on screen toolishness as far as I'm concerned). He may have had a big mouth that said crikey a lot, but he sure as hell put his money where his mouth was. Actions speak louder than words, even words like "Crikey!"
My analogy stands re the cake competition judge talking about F1 racing. If I was going to be bothered asking anyone for their opinion on Irwin, I'd be no more likely to put Greer on the list of people who's opinions were relevant than I would to ask one of the researchers from the National Drug Research Centre, an Architect, an Accountant, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, or pretty much anyone else utterly unrelated to what he was or what he did.
Someone involved in tourism? Sure.
Someone involved in wildlife care? Sure.
A has-been reactionary feminist? No, sorry, not on the short list, or even the long list.
I simply do not see how she has a relevant or newsworthy viewpoint on the issue.
If a notable person involved in the womens movement had died, would anyone expect Les Hiddins (the bush tucker man) to have some relevant and printworthy comment about it? I think not. And if negative comment was made against the tide of public sentiment and very early on in the grieving process would people tolerate it if he did make comment? Similarly, no.
Short of a grab for publicity since the whole "how great is sex with boys" and the Denton interview thing had drifted off into forgotten land, I fail to see Germaine's motives.
As far as this issue is concerned, her views on Irwin, as far as I can see, are simply not relevant.
Wisdom is not knowing what you should say, so much as sometimes knowing if you should say anything at all. Silence from Germaine (in this case at least) is golden.