Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Paranoid Android

Steve Irwin deserved it, says Germaine Greer

100 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Paranoid Android

:angry2: For God sake, Ms Greer - have a heart!!!! :angry2:

Controversial reporter Germaine Greer has taken the recent Steve Irwin tragedy and used it to bolster her own sensationalist media. Her article in The Guardian Newspaper smacks of selfishness. If you have these views woman, by all means have them. But keep them to yourself while the world at large, and more importantly, his family and relatives, grieve the loss.

Edit: I should note that I'm not entirely disagreeing with everything in this article. Some of it makes sense. Some of it is trumped up, but a little is valid. I'm posting this as a thread on its own because Germaine Greer, the day after the man's death, printed an article that would be circulated worldwide, summing up that Irwin not only deserved it, but that we're better off without him. At best, it's extremely insensitve to the family he leaves behind. At best....

-----------------------------------------------------

Germaine Greer

Tuesday September 5, 2006

The Guardian

The world mourns. World-famous wildlife warrior Steve Irwin has died a hero, doing the thing he loved, filming a sequence for a new TV series. He was supposed to have been making a new documentary to have been called Ocean's Deadliest, but, when filming was held up by bad weather, he decided to "go off and shoot a few segments" for his eight-year-old daughter's upcoming TV series, "just stuff on the reef and little animals". His manager John Stainton "just said fine, anything that would keep him moving and keep his adrenaline going". Evidently it's Stainton's job to keep Irwin pumped larger than life, shouting "Crikey!" and punching the air.

Irwin was the real Crocodile Dundee, a great Australian, an ambassador for wildlife, a global phenomenon, a superhuman generator of merchandise, books, interactive video-games and action figures. The only creatures he couldn't dominate were parrots. A parrot once did its best to rip his nose off his face. Parrots are a lot smarter than crocodiles.

What seems to have happened on Batt Reef is that Irwin and a cameraman went off in a little dinghy to see what they could find. What they found were stingrays. You can just imagine Irwin yelling: "Just look at these beauties! Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse!" (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.) All Australian children know about stingrays. We are now being told that only three people have ever been killed by Australian stingrays. One of them must have been the chap who bought it 60 years ago in Brighton Baths where my school used to go on swimming days. Port Philip Bay was famous for stingrays, which are fine as long as you can see them, but they do what most Dasyatidae do, which is bury themselves in the sand or mud with only their eyes sticking out. What you don't want to do with a stingray is stand on it. The lashing response of the tail is automatic; the barb is coated with a bacterial slime as deadly as rotten oyster toxin.

As a Melbourne boy, Irwin should have had a healthy respect for stingrays, which are actually commoner, and bigger, in southern waters than they are near Port Douglas, where he was killed. The film-makers maintain that the ray that took Irwin out was a "bull ray", or Dasyatis brevicaudata, but this is not usually found as far north as Port Douglas. Marine biologist Dr Meredith Peach has been quoted as saying, "It's really quite unusual for divers to be stung unless they are grappling with the animal and, knowing Steve Irwin, perhaps that may have been the case." Not much sympathy there then.

The only time Irwin ever seemed less than entirely lovable to his fans (as distinct from zoologists) was when he went into the Australia Zoo crocodile enclosure with his month-old baby son in one hand and a dead chicken in the other. For a second you didn't know which one he meant to feed to the crocodile. If the crocodile had been less depressed it might have made the decision for him. As the catatonic beast obediently downed its tiny snack, Irwin walked his baby on the grass, not something that paediatricians recommend for rubbery baby legs even when there isn't a stir-crazy carnivore a few feet away. The adoring world was momentarily appalled. They called it child abuse. The whole spectacle was revolting. The crocodile would rather have been anywhere else and the chicken had had a grim life too, but that's entertainment at Australia Zoo.

Irwin's response to the sudden outburst of criticism was bizarre. He believed that he had the crocodile under control. But he could have fallen over, suggested an interviewer. He admitted that was possible, but only if a meteor had hit the earth and caused an earthquake of 6.6 on the Richter scale. That sort of self-delusion is what it takes to be a "real Aussie larrikin".

What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss. There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies. There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike. Easy enough to avoid, if you know what's coming. Even my cat knew that much. Those of us who live with snakes, as I do with no fewer than 12 front-fanged venomous snake species in my bit of Queensland rainforest, know that they will get out of our way if we leave them a choice. Some snakes are described as aggressive, but, if you're a snake, unprovoked aggression doesn't make sense. Snakes on a plane only want to get off. But Irwin was an entertainer, a 21st-century version of a lion-tamer, with crocodiles instead of lions.

In 2004, Irwin was accused of illegally encroaching on the space of penguins, seals and humpback whales in Antarctica, where he was filming a documentary called Ice Breaker. An investigation by the Australian Environmental Department resulted in no action being taken, which is not surprising seeing that John Howard, the prime minister, made sure that Irwin was one of the guests invited to a "gala barbecue" for George Bush a few months before. Howard is now Irwin's chief mourner, which is only fair, seeing that Irwin announced that Howard is the greatest leader the world has ever seen.

The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn.

Source

------------------------------------------------------------

How can anyone say this, really? :angry2:

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uversa

Although I thought he was awesome, I think its a pretty fair article...

Edit- I think its fair in that shes right - animals do need space - and he was happy to intrude on any animal he came into contact with.

But this following quote is completely rude and over the top..

The only time Irwin ever seemed less than entirely lovable to his fans (as distinct from zoologists) was when he went into the Australia Zoo crocodile enclosure with his month-old baby son in one hand and a dead chicken in the other. For a second you didn't know which one he meant to feed to the crocodile. If the crocodile had been less depressed it might have made the decision for him. As the catatonic beast obediently downed its tiny snack, Irwin walked his baby on the grass, not something that paediatricians recommend for rubbery baby legs even when there isn't a stir-crazy carnivore a few feet away. The adoring world was momentarily appalled. They called it child abuse. The whole spectacle was revolting. The crocodile would rather have been anywhere else and the chicken had had a grim life too, but that's entertainment at Australia Zoo.

This, however, is an absolutely awesome reply and is in character with the legend that he was..

Irwin's response to the sudden outburst of criticism was bizarre. He believed that he had the crocodile under control. But he could have fallen over, suggested an interviewer. He admitted that was possible, but only if a meteor had hit the earth and caused an earthquake of 6.6 on the Richter scale

Superb response!

Edited by Uversa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
earthchick

While I don't think anyone deserves such an awful death, not even Irwin, I think most people saw it coming. I think we all knew that sooner or later one such stunt of his was going to cause his demise.

I am among those who were appalled at that stunt with his baby. That croc could have gone for the child. Most parents wouldn't dream of endangering their own child. To me that was right up there with Michael Jackson dangling his infant over the balcony railing. Very sad.

I had often thought too, that you'd think that now that he was a father, with the responsibility of a child to raise and care for, he would calm down and live a less dangerous life. Quite frankly, I also used to wonder about the man's sanity.

But despite all that, his death is certainly a tragedy and very sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wcturnersr

Yes, Me and my kids used to sit there and watch him all the time, until he pulled that little stunt with his child. I stopped watching him all together. The response he gave to the interviewer on how he couldn't fall down was complete nonsense. I used to be a professional scaffold builder. You wouldn't see me climb up a 300 ft scaffold with one hand and have my month old in another.

Anyway, I am sorry to see him go. He had made a huge name for himself that will be long remembered. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

I think the thing is that

1. He died too young. Its very unfortunate and a real tragedy. Even if he was stupid and did encroach on things his life touched many many people. He was an incredible man, full of life and energy. Its a shame.

2. I posted this the other day as well. I think what she is touching on is my gut instinct upon hearing this that he was "swimming with the ray."

I think he handled the ray. It was his style. I don't think he was simply swimming along and it was a freak accident. I don't think that the camera man boxed him in.

What I think is that perhaps off camera he handled the ray. Perhaps holding onto it or swimming around it. He wasn't a distant viewer.

What I think is upsetting about the child is that he's full of crap. Ask Sigfried and Roy if animals are always under complete control. Crocodiles are fast. If the croc lunged at him and he staggered then he could have dropped the child or the croc could have grabbed the baby's foot.

What people are realizing is that he treated the baby the same way he treated the animals. That nothing is off limits for a good photo op. And as much as I liked him, this is just indecent.

I think it may have been that the crocodile was drugged. And he couldn't admit this because then all the animal rights people would have gone bannana boats.

But what I think that people are secretly harboring is this gut feeling that using animals for our entertainment is wrong. Picking up an animal is sort of like picking up a midget or very short person.

Its a very disrespectful thing to do. Animals are not ours to pick up and handle for photo ops. Nor should they be messed with for a good shot.

Chumming sharks so that someone can grab its nose while fascinating is disrespectful, an unfair advantage in a sense. Not playing with fire but humiliating an animal with a sense of dominance that only occurrs for a few minutes while you get your picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady

That Steve was interacting with animals at the time of his death doesn't mean he was bothering the animal. This literally from all accounts was a freak accident. Thousands of people swim with rays every year and some get pierced in non lethal places. This just happened by sheer fate to hit him in the heart.

I don't think that he pushed animals any futher than any other person on tv that interacts with animals. I remember the old Wild Kingdom with the Marlen Perkins, he always let the young guys wrestle the giant anaconda, and they did just that. I don't think Steve took any more risks than anyone who works with animals. Some animal handlers have been stomped to death, bitten to death you name it. Working with animals, no matter how careful can sometimes cost you your life.

Having said that, you could walk out on the sidewalk and be hit by a runaway car. If we are to take anything away from Steve's death its that life is short and enjoy it while you can. I think you can't take away from the fact that Steve lived life his way, and he lived it doing things he loved. He helped conserve over 90,000 acres of land for animals in Australia, built up the Zoo he loved and raised awareness about habitat loss, got kids excited about animals (and not just the cute ones). I think it is cynical of anyone to say he deserved it or he was being reckless. If anyone knew the risks, he did, if anyone knew that animals aren't to be toyed with it was him. He had enough scars on him to know that animals can hurt you, but he did it because he loved them.

This person who wrote this article, I doubt they are doing what they love. I think it comes down to respecting the dead, not sullying the name of someone beloved by millions to sell a few more papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

, but he did it because he loved them.

This person who wrote this article, I doubt they are doing what they love. I think it comes down to respecting the dead, not sullying the name of someone beloved by millions to sell a few more papers.

I don't see this argument that "he did it because he loved them." I think he did it because it brought him fame and attention.

I mean if I run into Mini Me on the sidewalk and Pick him up and toss him around abit and give him lots of hugs and kisses, I may love him but I am treating him disrespectfully.

If you respect something and love it you treat it with the dignity it deserves. You don't use it for entertainment.

That said the writer of the article is doing exactly what she accused him of doing. She's not treating him with respect but is using him to get attention and media hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timon

This women's article is complete trash, she could have said all those things about Steve Urwin while he was alive, but after he dies she has the nerve to write some crap like this. What she wrote doesnt even make sense.

We as humans p*** off animals everyday, we put the toxic gas in the air, we pollute the oceans, we would ruin an ecosystem in a second if it meant we could profit from it. So what gives anyone the right to talk about Steve Urwin's death like that, he was one of us who really truly cared about animals. He risked life and limb to bring the world closer to animals so that maybe we could learn to respect wildlife a little more and this is how you repay such a unique man. For shame. What has this lady done for animals to be able to criticize Steve Urwin, about as much as most people, nothing.

Steve Urwin was an icon of our time and we should all be sad to lose him, no one will come after him with the guts, charm and enthusiasm that he had, showing the world the beauty in wildlife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poetic Reven

GG=Attention whore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

I think the thing is that

1. He died too young. Its very unfortunate and a real tragedy. Even if he was stupid and did encroach on things his life touched many many people. He was an incredible man, full of life and energy. Its a shame.

2. I posted this the other day as well. I think what she is touching on is my gut instinct upon hearing this that he was "swimming with the ray."

I think he handled the ray. It was his style. I don't think he was simply swimming along and it was a freak accident. I don't think that the camera man boxed him in.

What I think is that perhaps off camera he handled the ray. Perhaps holding onto it or swimming around it. He wasn't a distant viewer.

What I think is upsetting about the child is that he's full of crap. Ask Sigfried and Roy if animals are always under complete control. Crocodiles are fast. If the croc lunged at him and he staggered then he could have dropped the child or the croc could have grabbed the baby's foot.

What people are realizing is that he treated the baby the same way he treated the animals. That nothing is off limits for a good photo op. And as much as I liked him, this is just indecent.

I think it may have been that the crocodile was drugged. And he couldn't admit this because then all the animal rights people would have gone bannana boats.

But what I think that people are secretly harboring is this gut feeling that using animals for our entertainment is wrong. Picking up an animal is sort of like picking up a midget or very short person.

Its a very disrespectful thing to do. Animals are not ours to pick up and handle for photo ops. Nor should they be messed with for a good shot.

Chumming sharks so that someone can grab its nose while fascinating is disrespectful, an unfair advantage in a sense. Not playing with fire but humiliating an animal with a sense of dominance that only occurrs for a few minutes while you get your picture.

I've heard from many other people that police reports (after examining the tape) state he wasn't handling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReviewDude

I agree with the people who say this paragraph was completely over the top:

The only time Irwin ever seemed less than entirely lovable to his fans (as distinct from zoologists) was when he went into the Australia Zoo crocodile enclosure with his month-old baby son in one hand and a dead chicken in the other. For a second you didn't know which one he meant to feed to the crocodile. If the crocodile had been less depressed it might have made the decision for him. As the catatonic beast obediently downed its tiny snack, Irwin walked his baby on the grass, not something that paediatricians recommend for rubbery baby legs even when there isn't a stir-crazy carnivore a few feet away. The adoring world was momentarily appalled. They called it child abuse. The whole spectacle was revolting. The crocodile would rather have been anywhere else and the chicken had had a grim life too, but that's entertainment at Australia Zoo.

At no point was the baby in any danger. Steve had it cradled away from the croc, and if there's anyone who knows how to handle one (a child and a dangerous animal) it's him. I would have agreed it was a bad idea had the croc come anywhere near him - but the point is it wanted its food, not the humans...

GG=Attention whore

Haha! Agreed :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glenndo4000

not only is she an attention seeking, cold hearted, selfish piece of s***, but she is also completely wrong about EVERYTHING she said.

and the article has many mistakes in it aswell.

:angry2: :angry2: :angry2: :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

I've heard from many other people that police reports (after examining the tape) state he wasn't handling it.

I stated that I thought he was handling it off camera. The camera didn't capture the whole scenerio.

He may have interacted with it before filming began.

But then again I don't really know! :geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

This women's article is complete trash, she could have said all those things about Steve Urwin while he was alive, but after he dies she has the nerve to write some crap like this. What she wrote doesnt even make sense.

We as humans p*** off animals everyday, we put the toxic gas in the air, we pollute the oceans, we would ruin an ecosystem in a second if it meant we could profit from it. So what gives anyone the right to talk about Steve Urwin's death like that, he was one of us who really truly cared about animals. He risked life and limb to bring the world closer to animals so that maybe we could learn to respect wildlife a little more and this is how you repay such a unique man. For shame. What has this lady done for animals to be able to criticize Steve Urwin, about as much as most people, nothing.

Steve Urwin was an icon of our time and we should all be sad to lose him, no one will come after him with the guts, charm and enthusiasm that he had, showing the world the beauty in wildlife.

Crikey mate, you could at least spell his name right if you're gonna defend him! LOL :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReviewDude

Crikey mate, you could at least spell his name right if you're gonna defend him! LOL :ph34r:

Hehe, I thought that too. Although, phonetically it's right, so I guess it'll pass :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glenndo4000

anyway, how can she critisize someone who is a complete expert and professional at wildlife, when she hardly knows a thing about it? which she clearly doesn't...

she makes be sick, physically.

:angry2:

p.s does anyone, by chance have her address? or her email address?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crawler2000

the crocodile hunter is the greatest thing to ever happen to animal planet and dicovey channel.he is an expert and has the balls to play with crocs. he dident deserve it,well not by some dumb stingray.he should have went out being eaten by the biggest crocodile while fighting it.now thats a true legend. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anubi

Germaine Greer isn't really a serious figure thou with her assertions and opinions on the members of the male sex . She has always been somewhat negatively biased on their appraisal , and unfortunately this time too, at the death of her fellow countryman who, otherwise, seems to be held in high regard by all. myself included.

This time , I believe .. she is standing on the shoulders of giants , through steve's popularity , that she wishes to get her hate-filled propoganda listened to once again .

Edited by Anubi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious Molecules

I don't see this argument that "he did it because he loved them." I think he did it because it brought him fame and attention.

I mean if I run into Mini Me on the sidewalk and Pick him up and toss him around abit and give him lots of hugs and kisses, I may love him but I am treating him disrespectfully.

If you respect something and love it you treat it with the dignity it deserves. You don't use it for entertainment.

That said the writer of the article is doing exactly what she accused him of doing. She's not treating him with respect but is using him to get attention and media hype.

I love how you choose to use midgets and "short people" as an example, when it's no different if you used an example like picking up a stranger in the supermarket. :angry:

You still got a point with the whole respect thing, but then again then all people who held a dog "captured" should feel guilty. People who aren't demonstrating against slaugther houses each day should feel guilty. How can you justify slaughtering and eating animals when you can't justify picking them up and kissing them because it's disrespectful ?

Paradox.

Wild animals wants to eat us and kill us, because that's how nature is.

What's also pretty natural is humans need for beeing entertained and if millions of people around the world could love watching something so much, then maybe that's just a sign to Steve that what he was doing, was apreciated by many people and especially children who are used to watching booring monotomous documentaries that would actually just turn them off on nature.

What Steve knew was, that if you want to get a message through, you have to speak loud and speak so everyone can understand. You won't get a conservation message through better than exploiting human nature via entertainment. Sitting at home on your high horse maintaining your so called respect for animals isn't gonna cut it either. Maybe you have a better plan in getting a conservation message across ?

Infact the easyiest way to get around the more "evil" aspecpts of beeing human would be to slit your wrists or you could accept beeing a human. Who loves eating meat, who loves watching people wrestle natures wild animals, who loves watching porn, who kills for his beliefs, who is mean to people "below" his social status, who is greedy, who is selfish in so many ways, who loves drinking himself stupid, who loves hitting people who hit him etc etc etc.

Supress it, and it will only come back tenfold.

Steve knew exactly what he was doing and i can assure you it wasn't for personal wealth or fame. Most money he made was put straight back into conservation.

We can agree that it may be sad, but that's life. We do disrepectful things, that in the end are in respect. We fight small wars, to avoid the really big ones etc etc. The thing that always repeats itself are the people who dosn't quite grasp the bigger picture of it all and discredits people for doing the dirty work for them.

Sorry if i come through a bit aggrivated, but i can't help get a little emotional when seeing someone like Steve recieve discredit for doing exactly what everyone else was too weak to do. Getting a message across about conservation, doing what he had to do, knowing human nature and their need for beeing entertained.

That's just my perspective of it all offcourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riotboy555

If Steve Irwin were still alive, he'd beat this lady up, baby in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

I love how you choose to use midgets and "short people" as an example, when it's no different if you used an example like picking up a stranger in the supermarket. :angry:

I used that example for a reason. Its disrespectful for a totally different reason. I am not sure what your point is about "picking up a stranger in the supermarket" because that would be crazy and stupid but it would not be anywhere near as disrespectful as picking up a midget which IS the point I am trying to get across.

You pick up a snake and wrap it around your neck and pretend to be brave by dominating the creature for a few moments. But dumped in the wild and see what happens, the ray took him out in a matter of minutes.

That doesn't strike me as a person who has respect for nature and yadda yadda yadda. And sorry but he did make a huge amount of money off this type of behavior. Sorry its the truth. I am sure he really loved what he did for a living but sorry that's not the same as loving the animals. Circus trainers might "love their job" Sigfried and Roy loved animals too but they still pulled them up on stage for entertainment.

Excuse me for not putting this guy in the same category as Jane Goodall. Not the same thing at all.

All your claptrap about eating meat and being suicidal for being human is pure and total nonsense, lets digress shall we? Lets stir it up with outrageous diversion shall we?

I'm not biting.

His baby incident is what it was, a show that he regarding even his own child as worthy of sensationalism in order to get a photo op.

While I admire the man for many reasons I still don't admire him for these kinds of things. You going bonkers won't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purplos

You know, I never saw any Steve Irwin shows until last night. I always thought he was too over-the-top showman for my tastes, and I was right. Not only that, but, in my opinion, he antagonised and traumatized animals into getting a great picture. Every animal he came into contact with was manhandled repeatedly, and made to witness shouting and wild gesticulating, which must have been even more frightening. In truth, the baby thing does not bother me as much as how he treated wild animals.

This writer's timing is HORRID. She should not be writing this stuff right after his death. She probably shouldn't be writing this stuff at all because 'to each their own.' But I see where she is coming from.

Just wanted to add though -- his work for the preservation of animals, with the zoo, etc. is GOOD. Nothing can take that away.

Edited by Purplos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tcgram

It doesn't matter if you agree with Steve Irwin's lifestyle or not. Everyone has the right to say what he/she thinks, but that article is just being disrepectful to his family during this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

It doesn't matter if you agree with Steve Irwin's lifestyle or not. Everyone has the right to say what he/she thinks, but that article is just being disrepectful to his family during this time.

I agree. Its kicking them when they are down.

I think that it stems as I said earlier with this whole discomfort of being told it was a freak accident. Most people know sting rays to be calm creatures. Seems as though he may have freaked it out.

Either way the timing is all wrong and the writer is going to get paid back in spades for this. Karma is a stingray!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timon

Hehe, I thought that too. Although, phonetically it's right, so I guess it'll pass :D

Whoops, I did spell it wrong, sorry for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.