Cronin started talking over Greer (not many people manage that). Greer got snarky when she thought Cronin was talking down to her (which is understandable). Bragg got all pouty because Cronin kept telling him he was wrong. The endless 'Nature vs Nurture' debate...academics love it.

Germaine Greer gets it and is prophetic in many arguments. She just doesn't have the scientific knowledge that Helena Cronin does to mesh the ideas together. But then again Helena probably lacks the sociological knowledge that Germaine has. Great conversation and they should talk more.

wow.. I could listen to these two women all day and night! Brillant! Both exceptional and thoughtful women who do identify as feminists. Which i have no argument against their traditional positions as well as how i can completely agree with their positions against modern mistakes of feminism.

7:30 Just love it when whatisface goes into this long spiel to explain to Germaine what Helena is saying, and then when he sits back triumphantly with a "that's it, right?" Helena says, quickly, smoothly and firmly: "No!" :)

Germain claims that she doesn't need the obvious explained to her then she says "Whatever it means". She clearly needs LOTS of things explained to her.

One problem with the public discourse on this topic (and many others) is the inability of so many people (such as the moderator here) to properly reason about statistical truths.

I'm a fan of both women but in this context Greer sounds decidedly woolly while Cronin stands on a foundation of solid facts. The one thing I'd question is the idea of anything evolved as permanent, which is an oxymoron. If we engineered selection on other criteria we'd quickly see different outcomes, as we do with smaller fish and elephants with smaller tusks.

The host of the discussion was surprisingly condescending and obnoxious.

Fact versus rhetoric! Fact wins.

I felt so emasculated working in a creche and was bullied terribly. My co workee told me that the bully was frustrated as she couldn't flirt with me as i am gay.

"it doesn't teach us the sort of societies we OUGHT to have". Thank you Helena for a rare distinction between IS and OUGHT.

At least Greer is honest (unlike most of her ilk) in saying that women do not want equality but rather privileged difference (i.e. special status based upon their special feminine traits) This is a radical departure from current SJW wisdom that all sex differences are socially constructed. Of course Greer is now on the outs with feminist establishment, and has been deplatformed for her non-conforming views. It is assumed that identical outcomes is by definition a good thing. Should we force women to take rolls that they do not want in the pursuit of equal outcomes.

The cross talk is too irritating for me. It distracts from the topic.

It amazes me that people still deny science like this. The more radical people are, the more they seem to deny science.

I like what Cronin has to say, some of which she repeats here. Greer is more flexible in her arguments. You have to wonder at times if it's more important for Greer to win points than promote an ideology, however Cronins interjections somewhat undermines her "females are non-competitive" position. An interesting discussion. Colonel Harts comments strike me as being made by by the really screechy type of "feminist", the host was totally professional.

I find it astounding and frankly slightly infuriating that both the interviewer and greer need to have it explained to them multiple times that exceptions to the norm are just that... _exceptions_. Why is it that this woman (greer) is given any credence in any scientific discussion whatsoever?

I reckon women are competitive as an individual rather than for the benefit or a family. Whereas men seem more competitive for the family grouping they are in.

I never thought I'd say this as I've always disliked Germaine Greer, but I miss the days when feminists actually had some kind of ability to discuss things and not get triggered. You know how far we've regressed when Germaine Greer feels like progress from where we are

I should add, having returned to this site from another discussion involving Cronin, that, fresh and persuasive as Cronin's arguments are, she repeats them ad nauseum. Nature V Nurture debates in general are pretty old stuff. I think that anyone who tries holding the position that one or the other is exclusively responsible for behaviour is sailing toward hidden shoals.

Weird how entrenched the feminist dogma was at the BBC even near 20 years ago. The male presenter seems astounded that the Doctor is arguing against the idea that males and females are basically identical and differences are entirely cultural.

"Maybe we need to change the nature of men". That quote really sums up what feminism is mostly about: Most feminists simply don't like men. And in many cases I understand them, since many men are idiots or horrible people, and both men and women should avoid those men. But feminism's crusade has come to be about changing men, simply because many women don't like how many men are.

"I want to see less brilliance" - Well, there you have it. Regression is the goal.

I am frustrated with the number of times Dr. Greer is being interrupted

Yes, my mum is a survivor.

However much intelligent observation and analysis has enabled these two women to form opinions on the comparative differences of male and female behaviour, the fact is that their musings do not assist global society, not in any tangible way at least. Swelling further the tome-bound shelves of the British Library has not in the past delivered any measurable form of equality or fairness, however it has undoubtedly created a comfortable life for some through book sales.

there cannot be equity between the sexes, when there is no equity within either sex. Individuals can be anything, groups cannot.

If it`s all about the survival of the fittest,then it cannot be a real science - How do you judge who is fittest of those who survive? Seems more like a tautology.

Awesome, I can relate to Helena...but er, not to that other one ;-) Also, why does SHE have to be so so rude ?

How many women hunt/ fight? Clean sewers. Maybe we need to make male and femal boxers fight? Run races against eachother? How many feminists would cry "natural differences" between the two halves?

Helena can iron my shirts any time

The big feminist mistake is that we need to re-engineer our society. Both women seem to push this notion that the current system isn't allowing women to succeed and therefore must be changed to accommodate women. It is more likely the society evolved the way it did to best suit our natural differences. However, as technology gave women greater amounts of time to become active members in society rather than the passive members, we had the raise of feminism. Women have the natural tendency to want to shape the society to be fairer and I agree with Greer women are more socialist. As a result, women see a male dominated society as anti-equality and push to fix the inequality. However, society evolved as it did for a reason, competitiveness creates the greatest advances and yet the most inequality. Inequality should not be considered a bad thing because it is what forces men to compete and improve. If we are all treated equally then there is no pressure to work harder or achieve. Greer suggested that Bill Gates should be "counterbalanced by a woman of great humanity and vision". This idea is a very feminist one that if only a woman was there to counterbalance the competitive nature of men then the world would be better. This is fine if your goal is to stop human advancement. Adding such a notion to business would destroy that business. What allows businesses to succeed is their ability to compete. Often when we see businesses fail it is due to them stopping to innovate and adopting a more feminist philosophy. We need to recognize that men and women are different and we should let them act based on their natures rather. The result would probably be a society where more women would be home makers and a more male dominated work place. This is not to say that we should force this situation but rather allow both men and women do to what naturally comes to them.

Greer disintegrates with every passing syllable..."Bill Gates needs to be counter-balanced by a woman of great blah blah and so forth." What utter hogwash,Bill Gates NEEDS nothing of the kind!...and again;"...the whole IVF jamboree,horribility...",this is not even English!Greer's verbiage degenerates into gibberish in the face of Cronin's masterly command of language.Ooooooh I do luv 'er a lo' already.

I worked in corrections for over thirty years and my opinion for what its worth is that in quality of the officers in general (with no scientific process) is that males are a bell curve, mostly average, with a few really good and a few really bad, and the females were an inverted bell curve with them mainly either being very good or very bad. I worked in prisons for men, so this may have an impact on what I felt I saw. Please don't be too harsh, I repeat that this was just a feeling. When I started there were only four female COs in a large institution, so I watched the changes owing to affirmative action policies, and the idea of "is it better to work with a male or female partner better". To me it became all about individuals, starting with the reality that not all of either sex were good or bad, but the individuals with their characters, backgrounds, abilities etc, and equally important was the willingness to work as a team of two in a very hostile environment. In the end I realized that I didn't prefer male or female partners, but I enjoyed the teamwork that existed with specific COs. It should be said that "don't fish off the company pier" was a hard rule of mine so that aspect wasn't a part of my thinking.

Never thought I'd say this ... but Greer made more sense. Cronin's arguments reminds me of Social Darwinism and ... plain rant.

The interviewer is under a bias assumption that men and women are equal and therefore can put them under the same lens. Men and women are so very different, it is a mistake to assume it. Women have been excuses for mistakes they make, even when they hurt others, people are quick to excuse her, and if the gender is swapped then men are vilified for the same act. Germaine Greer is jealous of men having sexual fantasy of other women and not her, her tone in her voice changes when she talk about male men masturbating. She is jealous of men. She is obsessed, more about sex than men are. Germaine Greer is not a scientist and she will never be, and will always be bias against facts that are staring her in her face, especially when facts state differently against her ideology. If facts do not fit her ideology then facts are dismissed. She is jealous that men are fertile all of his life and women are not. She is jealous of other women who are far more attractive to men, than she is. She is jealous that women get less attractiveness the older they get. She is jealous of porn as the women in porn are far more attractiveness than she is. She is jealous of all the wrong things. She is very superficial. She is willing to dismiss or degrade anything as long as it does not see the hate fill person that she is. Germaine Greer ideology is not based in fact. It like many religious bias views, made up in her head from her own oppressed mindset, rather based on real facts. She so humiliated by been female that she is jealous, so that she demonizes men to feel powerful in herself. She oppresses herself in her views. It is only leads to more misery for her and other women around her as hetro sexual men rejects women as it shows in census data and 1 in 5 women in US reach menopause childless increasing 1% each year, It is highest for White women 1 in 4. Therefore she feels rejected by men, generated by own her negativity of self worth. If she does not get her way she is oppressed, and blame men, yet she wants to oppress men, because she is failed person. Women like Germaine Greer is damaging male-female relationships, that she and women/men like her are generating men hating women and women hating men. She is responsible for the rapidly declining populations that our economy need to fund the State and vast social programs that men have generated up to now, and will not because women like women. Those social programs will start to fail in the next 20 years, because the real earners will not be there to provide for them. Politicians will lose out in the future, because of their disastrous bias gender policies and laws they have put in place.

I reckon germaine might have a point about women and socialism.

Oxymoron: "Feminism as an intellectual discipline" Greer@19:50

"I actually think I probably agree..."Professor of English WHERE???

It's not terribly scientific, but neither is this conversation" *Guffaw* The conversation is only unscientific because 2 of the people in it aren't terribly smart.

first!

too many lesbian like greer is the problem, Greers feminism with be naturally deselect as women with her views fail to reproduce.

Ooo there's more..."...commonsensicallity...."

This statistic fact men are more quantitative and women more qualitative that Cronin is pushing seems suspicious to me. I mean, has she studied indigenous societies before the advent of organized religion and politics. The women were more liberated and dare I say more promiscuous at least in some ways. The insecurity of men actually led to control of women and patriarchy. As an example, there is a book by a Spanish colonizer in North America who wrote about how liberated and relatively much freer women were in choosing partner/partners in the native American nations. The problem is we don't know much about pre-history which complicates the issue. There is some evidence of matriarchal societies at some point of human history. What we tend to view things are in the aftermath of organized societies and religion which is extremely small period given the huge span of man's existence on Earth. What gives the notion that men have been exclusively competitive and women the care giving only may also be suspicious. This so-called Darwinian notion denies women the agency in the survival of the fittest world that the same Darwinian propounds.

Neither of these women need to be taken seriously.

Actually, wouldn't a wife with many husbands make a lot more sense? What does a man need many wives for? He hasn't got the stamina. Unless you come from a backward society that thinks that the goal is littering the planet with as much offspring as possible, having many wives doesn't "produce" anything over having many husbands except liability & unsatisfied wives. Nothing reflects culture more than sexual fantasies. There's no evidence that they are biologically determined. Conin's a fool.