The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why the need for consensus? > Comments

Why the need for consensus? : Comments

By Petra Bueskens, published 14/2/2012

MTR and the current feminist controversy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Although there are many definitions of a feminist, I would have thought that one of the primary determinants would be remove the shackles of convention and allow people choice based on life style and individual conscience. MTR actively campaigns against the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and pretty much anything the Catholic church has a problem with.

While she has a right to her opinion, once she fights against hard won freedoms for women, she is no more a feminist than Stalin was a humanitarian.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 7:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article provides an example of what, in military parlance, is known as the error of 'situating the appreciation'.

The author, in her third paragraph, asserts the existence of a controversy surrounding one-time OLO author Melinda Tankard Reist, in the role of victim, being "cast out of feminism". The first sentence of that paragraph asks:

"What does all this [being "cast out
of feminism"] have to do with Melinda
Tankard Reist and the current cyber
controversy being fought out in various
opinion pieces in the Australian media
and blogosphere?"

`

To answer is: absolutely nothing!

`

The whole controversy, although existing and taking up much space in the MSM, to which she refers, is naught but a massive red herring. True it is that MTR is one protagonist, but the real controversy is not about being 'cast out of feminism' but about first resort being taken to the threat of defamation litigation in an attempt to silence someone identified by MTR as a critic, the other protagonist who is not even mentioned in the article! That protagonist is regular OLO contributing author, and blogger (at 'No Place for Sheep', http://noplaceforsheep.com/ ) Dr Jennifer Wilson.

The defamation threats were first revealed by Jennifer Wilson here: http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/14/mtr-threatens-sheep-with-legal-action-if-we-dont-censor-our-posts-about-her-immediately/

Those threats were consequent upon the publication by Dr Wilson, in her blog, of this article: http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/10/the-questions-rachel-hills-didnt-ask-melinda-tankard-reist/

The article by Rachel Hills referred to by Dr Wilson was one that had been published in the 'Sunday Life' insert magazine to the Sydney Sun-Herald of 8 January 2012, accompanied by front page headline "anti-raunch, anti-porn, pro-life [:] Melinda Tankard Reist's new brand of feminism". Hills' article: http://rachelhills.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/whos-afraid-of-melinda-tankard-reist/

Just so viewers have a chance of realizing that this is a freedom of speech issue, and that the attempt to shut down Jennifer Wilson and her blog was one initiated by MTR. Any 'casting out of feminism' that may be occurring is at MTR's own hand, being occasioned by a refusal to engage in any public debate on her own account.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 8:24:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer Wilson is a regular contributing author to OLO, with 35 articles contributed since 29 July 2009, the most recent having been published on 2 December 2011.

Up until 4 October 2010, MTR had been a regular contributing author to OLO, having had 42 articles published on OLO since 4 March 2004. Viewers will note that I referred in my preceding post to MTR as a 'one-time OLO author', and thereby hangs a tale.

The 'cyber controversy' referred to by Petra Bueskens (author of this red herring, and possibly 'bandwaggoning' OLO article) was primarily one of outrage, from the twitterverse at large, at resort having been taken to the threat of defamation action by MTR against Jennifer Wilson. MTR and some of her supporters have sought to rebrand this negative reaction to her defamation threats, one largely occurring on the Twitter hashtag timeline '#MTRsues', as 'twitter hate' directed at MTR as 'victim'. (The entire '#MTRsues' timeline has been tracked since its outset, with all tweets archived by the web service Tweet Reports. Claims of 'twitter hate' can largely be debunked.)

The tale as to MTR being a one-time OLO author came out as a consequence of a poster posting upon Wilson's blog expressing disappointment at an apparent lack of support from OLO in this attempt to shut her down, JW having previously actively supported OLO when its revenue was attacked over the OLO editorial policy in relation to the Muehlenberg article in November 2010. It turns out that GrahamY was simply unaware that the '#MTRsues' controversy had blown up.

It also came out, in an email exchange between GrahamY and JW, that MTR had demanded of OLO that it cease publishing Jennifer Wilson if MTR was to continue contributing articles. GrahamY declined to be stood over in this manner, and Jennifer Wilson has continued to be published on OLO. Presumably MTR has made good on her threat, as I don't think OLO attempted to emplace any ban on further contributions by her.

So what have we with MTR v JW? A standover girl with malice aforethought?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 11:26:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is this an article suggesting that people, in this case feminists, might disagree with each other about important issues? Fancy that eh?
Posted by Senior Victorian, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 11:33:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Forrest, for the detailed account of all this.

As you know, I followed this controversy from the outset and I agree that the strong feelings engendered throughout stemmed from the issue of freedom of speech and that MTR's threats of defamation appeared to rest on rather frivolous foundations.

It is telling that Jennifer Wilson was not mentioned in this article...What?...how can you omit to mention one of the two protagonists if you're writing a balanced piece alluding to the present controversy.

I actually tweeted to Jennifer in the middle of this to comment that I wondered what feminists in the third world talked about? She replied that they were just trying to survive and that all this was "first world feminist crap".
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 11:44:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forest well said.

I think that the article is leaving out too much of the issue to be taken seriously.

The whole concept of who can be feminists is not a new one. The question of men being feminists is another topic which seems to have been the source of quite a bit of debate, http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/20133 (google for more).

My impression of Jennifer Wilson is that she is an honest person more concerned with trying to get to a valid understanding of an issue and willing to consider the context rather than pushing a dogma.

The question of who someone is compared to what they say is always difficult. If I'm listening to political commentary I'd like to know if the speaker is affiliated with one of the political parties or any other factors likely to introduce significant bias. If a speaker is a regular commentator is affiliated with a political party and tries to supress that information that to becomes relevant.

Where an argument is backed by credible evidence and takes care to treat the case for and against fairly then the who should not matter. MTR is not a dispassionate observer trying to lay out evidence based arguments for and against an issue, she is an advocate.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 12:10:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well our current PM has shown to have told lies, backstabbed, be anti gay 'marriage ' want to send illegal arrivals to Malaysia, bring in deceitful taxes. Does this make her a feminist? Is this all the caring side of feminism. The feminist still seem to back the sisterhood no matter how deceitful or incompetent or contradictory. Stand against killing babies though and you are kicked out.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 1:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the link, Forrest Gumpp, I had wondered what all the fuss
was about. I read Jennifer's supposedly offending blog post and I
felt that it was extremely well written and got to the heart of the
matter, when it came to fundamentalist attitudes to sex. The topic
should be debated far more openly, even if its uncomfortable for
some.

MTR could have chosen to answer the questions. I would have
been interested in reading her response, for its not just about
her, but the larger question of fundamentalist Christians and
their attitude to sex. To me sex is something quite normal and
natural, but apparently I am wrong. I would like to know where
I am wrong and why.

What often happens in these debates is that rather then answering
the questions, its easier just to shoot the messenger. That seemingly
was the case yet again.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 2:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no need for "consensus." There is, however, a need for honesty, particularly from those who are writing opinion pieces on this matter. Honesty requires a balanced account, and that most certainly demands an honest explanation of the origins of this unedifying brawl about who can and cannot be a feminist.

This self-described "radical feminist" author has silenced me in her account, and repressed discussion of the issue of free speech, defamation law, and the privilege (patriarchal, BTW) afforded to public figures who can afford to threaten lesser mortals with financial ruin in order to shut them up. In this she is no different from just about every other feminist who has made public comment.

This indicates to me an ideology so far up its own fundament that it barely matters anymore in the real world. Rather than address the real issues this threatened defamation action raises for an awful lot of people, including women, leading Australian feminists can think of nothing better to quarrel about than who is and isn't one. As if anybody with a brain in their head cares.

Thank you, author, for not just leaving me out of a group or two, but for eradicating me entirely from your narrative and in so doing, white-washing Tankard Reist's role in this.

In my book Reist not a feminist because she refuses to answer perfectly reasonable questions and engage in debate, and she attempts to silence the woman who asks for this through the use of legal threats.

However, whether she's called a feminist or not is totally irrelevant to anything, and she's perfectly entitled to describe herself as such if she wants.

Just don't call her a Baptist, is my advice. You'll get letters form her lawyers.
Posted by briar rose, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 4:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby "but the larger question of fundamentalist Christians and
their attitude to sex" I don't think that there is a single attitude to sex. Most would say only within marriage, most would be opposed to use of the anus but beyond that attitudes vary considerably.

Some clearly have some big hang up's being obsessed by the topic, publicly ranting against immorality while keeping their secret sin private. Some of the obsessed may manage to control themselves and grow increasingly bitter and twisted.
I suspect that the bulk are much more conventional, one partner, occasionally a little adventurous but kid's a mortgage and life keeping it all pretty normal.

There are sections of christianity that see sex as dirty or only for procreation (don't leave them alone with your kids) but most including a lot of fundies see it as very healthy within a marriage.

Jennifer, sad to see you having gone through this junk.
"not a feminist because she refuses to answer perfectly reasonable questions and engage in debate" - that would disqualify quite a few who've posted here at times.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 5:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This seems, rhetorically, a thoroughly postmodern article in that there's apparently room for myriad versions of feminist stereotypes; an interesting if contradictory position since a stereotype is itself a variegate nomenclature. The author seems implicitly to rule out the possibility of a liberal(?) feminism distinct from generalisations, groupthink and feminised social etiquette. The research has it, apparently, that women are not disposed to think in isolation, or in the abstract, but "in terms of the specific circumstances and relationships of those involved". Modern theory has it that the individual (male?) propensity for (solo) excogitation is eccentric, while the enlightened-unenlightened think in terms of networks, never presuming upon individual thought, let alone delicate sensibilities.

All this is merely foreground, however, for the argument Petra is attempting to straddle: that the "top girls" are excluding MTR for being a maverick (apologies for the male metaphor). That's right; on the one hand the ladies (feminists) are bound by the codes of the henhouse, of empathy and consensus within their subgroups, but on the other hand MTR is an individual--a rogue or rooster, or Mule or maverick, and that's why she's demonised by her erstwhile comrades. Because rather than fitting a stereotype herself she's able to transcend them and personify contradictory social discourses. MTR is the feminist Messiah! The first(?) of her kind to stand outside the variegata of feminist norms, unbounded by apparent contradictions--such as the paternal God of the Baptists. Indeed MTR is “the other” and not a conservative at all! She's only labelled a conservative by liberal feminists with a narrow "horizon of truth". MTR is in fact a "radical conservative", right up there with Robert Manne!

Give me a break! This article is tosh from beginning to end; it denies gendered-women the capacity for radical thought then grants it to MTR, her ultra-conservative Christian views on sex and abortion--and reactionary recourse to litigation?--being her credentials.

The great feminists, nearly extinct, have no need of groupthink or consensus, or the antiquated religious props of puritan-paternalism and patriarchy.

I have to say too, Petra, that your hairstyle looks stereotypical to me.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 6:39:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was the decision to write Jennifer Wilson out of this story a conscious one?

          "...as I understand it Tankard Reist is not against a woman’s right to choose, she simply
          has critical concerns about the context and consequences of abortion for women..."

Why are we still reading things like this? Melinda, why does everyone still have to speculate?
Posted by rubiginosa, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 6:48:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author, Petra Bueskens, concludes "certainly being for women’s freedom, equality and self-determination is integral to being a feminist" yet, further up - in the meat of the article - partially but primarily had classified feminists by their sexuality and partnering 'situation'; whether they are 'married' or single, and other often unrelated things they might do; but, Not by what they espouse or advocate, generally or specifically?! That is surprisingly contrary! An ideology without any ideals?!

As far as specific advocated in the field of feminism - it is not enough that their advocacy "is defined by a passionate belief in women’s human and reproductive rights". It is not enough to to say someone is both conservative and radical on one "topic", without defining that "topic" and without a nuanced outline or an outline of the nuances, particularly as far as abortion goes.

It is all very well having or espousing "concern about the experience of grief after abortion for some women", but if that is quantitatively a small component of the whole abortion scenario, or more grey than other aspects, such as the proportion seeking abortion who have genuine contraceptive failure, then the type of "belief in women's human and reproductive rights" and the degree of passion might be more ripe for discussion.

Certainly, "being for women’s freedom, equality and self-determination is integral to being a feminist".
.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 7:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also, empathy and altruism are not ethics, or terms or processes interchangeable for ethics. They are all different, but worth considering for many socio-political scenarios.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 7:23:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We hear crap like "being for women’s freedom, equality and self-determination is integral to being a feminist" and "I would have thought that one of the primary determinants would be remove the shackles of convention and allow people choice based on life style and individual conscience" far too often.

The big idea of the article is that everything can be questioned. Personally, I am sick to death of fun-feminism. The feminist movement should aspire to be more than a bunch of selfish women doing whatever they want, labelling it choice and pretending that everything they do is a selfless act of altruism for the benefit of the sisterhood.

Every choice has a context and that context should be analysed. Some people are so afraid of looking judgemental that they won't critique any choice by any woman.

Every choice has consequences. If one woman's choices has negative consequences for other people, expect to hear about it. People who want the benefits of feminism should expect to pay some of the cost. They should think of women as a collective with a shared destiny. They should think of the team, not themselves.

Choices can also have negative consequences for the individual. How can women be the most that they can be if people are so afraid of looking judgemental that they won't discuss these consequences?

Every choice is judged by others and commented on by others. Why socialise women to expect to go through life without anyone commenting on their choices? It ain't going to happen. Some of the unhappiest people that I know have no tolerence for criticism.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 9:41:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fourteen comments so far, all of which disturbingly miss the point. But having followed the OLO commentariat on the gender threads for a while now, missing the point IS the whole point. Pretending not to understand, and blindly sticking to that pretence, is a powerful tool of social control.

Women have a voice, indeed half the voice of humanity, but patriarchal history has ordained that women's voices have to be expressed within the carefully nurtured boundaries of a patriarchal context. A woman who expresses any concept that offers a female viewpoint that strays from those boundaries is deemed a threat, to be corrected through constant reminders that her thinking processes must ruled by perverse ideologies.

Although Ms Wilson writes about a number of issues, the underlying trope governing all she writes is the steadfast belief that she is shattering kneejerk conservative mindsets - but nevertheless, mindsets that Ms Wilson creates in her own image. 'No place for sheep' - get it? In her many, many, MANY articles condemning Melinda Tankard Reist, she has carved out a devoted writing fellowship that nurtures confusion by first proclaiming and then attacking supposed conservative Christian positions that Melinda Tankard Reist has never held. In this carefully controlled universe constructed by Ms Wilson, only a screwed-up Christian mentality could possibly be driving a woman who campaigns against corporate pornification of a culture that increasingly sexualises women and girls - but almost never men and boys - to sell products and values that entrench a patriarchal view of the world.

I'm sure it sucks to have a legal action thrown at you, but it would also suck to have your work and writings repeatedly turned into a playground for pseudo-progressives to portray you as a warped and neurotic morality-whipped Christian, simply because they don't like what you have to say about how our culture straightjackets human sexuality.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 9:45:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney, it is you that seems to miss some points.

Firstly, hardly anybody is attacking Ms Tankard-Reists views - or any other porn. critic's views - about pornography, particularly, as you and many others put it, her "campaigns against corporate pornification of a culture that increasingly sexualises women and girls". In light of the recent 'flare-up', the pornography thing is, as others have said, a misrepresentation and a side-show, a strawman red-herring.

I'm not sure Ms Tankard-Reist has said "our culture straightjackets human sexuality", as you imply.

Many people hold nuanced and varying views about many similar areas, and change those views over time. The significance of those views and changes about them often depends on context, particularly in public discourse and in lobbying.

I'm not sure how Jennifer Wilson might be, as you imply, concerned that Ms Tankard-Reist has strayed from the "boundaries of a patriarchal context."

Petra Beuskens has recently had this to say -

"Her religious perspective, and her putative “anti-abortion” stance is itself complex: rooted in a belief in the sanctity of life and a sense that women ought not to live in a society where single motherhood consigns them to poverty (as indeed it does). She is critical of the social context within which women make decisions about abortion. She is also critical of the termination of disabled or otherwise “imperfect” foetuses, ..." http://wheelercentre.com/dailies/post/8e2f5fb15b3a/
.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 10:41:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would think MTR is feminist enough. In all her writtings I cannot remember her ever saying anything positive about the male gender.

That would be sufficient enough to define feminism, which is just a dressed up term for male-bashing.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 10:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looks very much like a bitch-fight between different kinds of nagging fascists. As none of them is in favour of treating men equality or freedom for anyone who disagrees with their opinions, but only in what kind of double standard they can impose by coercion, none of them qualify as feminists, or all of them qualify as feminists and hypocrites, one or the other.
Posted by Matt L., Tuesday, 14 February 2012 10:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Killarney
I gather from your post that you are perfectly comfortable with the attempted repression of my voice because you don't agree with my point of view?

And you are content to witness this repressive "tool of social control" being employed to silence views that differ from that of yourself and Reist?

And you are more than happy to see this tool wielded in the form of patriarchal defamation laws by a woman whose views you do agree with against a woman whose views you dislike?

I am critical of many of Reist' views. However silencing her is not an option in my moral universe. She has a right to speak, and guess what, so do I. I also have the right to ask Reist, a very public figure who seeks to influence public policy that profoundly affects women, questions about where she is coming from.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 5:29:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...I am personally overjoyed to see the "pair" shredding each other publicly. A good metaphor for the fate of their articles, I would suggest.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 5:32:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Matt and diver_dan - saddened by both your posts.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 7:14:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,
I've addressed the contradictory contentions of the article and am critical of a degenerate feminism generally that has nothing but a "domestic" agenda; no vision of a different kind of society and culture.

"...a woman who campaigns against corporate pornification of a culture that increasingly sexualises women and girls - but almost never men and boys - to sell products and values that entrench a patriarchal view of the world".

It's not "corporate pornification", it's the free market, it's capitalism in action, amorally and indifferently driven by demand. MTR isn't agitating for radical change, only reactionary reform based on the delusion that we have a culture to be corrupted or saved. We don't have a "culture", patriarchal or otherwise, it fell long ago; we have a consumer base and commodities, and culture is reduced to appetite and whim, hypertrophically nurtured and cultivated. Capitalism shows us what we are essentially, taking fundamental drives like appetite, desire, insecurity, narcissism and fear, and nourishing them to the point where they're no longer character-flaws to be overcome, but prime vices (nay virtues!) that overcome and dominate us; that is, mature vices that make a mockery of the trappings of civilisation and culture that formerly constituted us. Capitalism ultimate provides "freedom" then, from stereotypes and from morality, from all constraint; it allows us to parody ourselves.
To polemicise "morality" against "patriarchy" is antiquated and naive, and appealing to regulation is intellectually incestuous.
THe pietistically offended MTR ought to leave off pruning the foliage and attack the root. This is the topic that ought to be the bone of feminist contention, but it requires capacities of abstract thought and political will. The ladies continue to disappoint, both in their commodified sensibilities and their determination to blame men.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 7:28:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar rose,
"I gather from your post that you are perfectly comfortable with the attempted repression of my voice because you don't agree with my point of view?"

You would have to be joking of course.

Every time someone has a different opinion to a feminist they are labelled a “misogynist" or “woman hater" or “patriarchal”

That is done to silence the person.

But considering the lies, fraud, mistruth, manipulation of facts, misinformation, suppression of information, hypocrisy and deceit of feminism, there is a lot to be critical of feminism.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 8:22:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a lengthy article by Jennifer on this issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/30/3418912.htm
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 8:42:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have written this reply in two parts given that it is over the allotted word limit.

Part 1

A number of the responses here assume that I have not addressed what they consider to be the real issue. This issue is defined by Forrest, Poirot, briar rose and others as fundamentally about the defamation action Melinda Tankard Reist has taken against Jennifer Wilson for labelling her a Baptist. This is not, to put it bluntly, what I consider the central issue to be. At the very least it is not the subject matter of my article. The MTR controversy does not all boil down to Jennifer Wilson, even if this was a trigger for the ensuing debate.

I have written a piece addressing the furore that emerged over MTR regarding whether or not she is, or can call herself, a feminist. On this matter I concluded that she can and engaged in a discussion on what I think are some of the reasons this exclusion took place.
Elsewhere http://wheelercentre.com/dailies/post/8e2f5fb15b3a/ I have talked about what I think is the deeper issue, and that is the challenge MTR poses to the prevailing liberal view on porn. She is directly challenging this industry and, as a result, the dogs are barking. She is being attacked personally rather than having her arguments engaged with substantively. It is this, I believe, that she is challenging.

While it is true that Jennifer Wilson is a central protagonist in the defamation litigation (she’s the recipient!) and I agree this must be an awful experience; this is not the only intellectual, social, political or moral issue at stake. I am not trivialising JW’s experience. I am saying it is beyond the scope of the present discussion.
Posted by PetraB, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

This point [MTR "vrs" JW] has been addressed by many of the other articles I mention in my piece. Everyone who has followed this story knows this sequence of events and the role that Jennifer Wilson has had. Indeed there is an entire twitter thread dedicated to it #MTRsues. I didn't need to or want to repeat what is already known.
I made a separate point regarding feminism and the exclusion of MTR. I also ask questions about group think and its impact on the level of debate.

It seems that some of the replies here assume that such a discussion is either irrelevant or missing the point (notably their point rather than the one that I, as the author, chose to write about). My point is this: some of those who have made comments here may think the debate between and among feminists is irrelevant, but I do not. In addition, an opinion piece is by definition partial. Charges of failing to cover “the issue” miss the point, which is precisely to move away from adversarial thinking on this matter.
Posted by PetraB, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:35:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PetraB

"The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of the following attributes:
• sex
• relationship status
• pregnancy
• parental status
• breastfeeding
• age
• race
• impairment
• RELIGIOUS BELIEF or RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY"

Now if someone is attacked or defamed publicly for their RELIGIOUS BELIEF or RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY, then they are liable under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

Of course that act is routinely dismissed by many who want to label others names such as “religious nutters” or god-bothers” etc, and I can remember making a complaint to a university recently that was harbouring a feminist, and this feminist had labelled someone a “god-botherer”, which was directly outside of the anti-discrimination policy of that university.

I must admit I have no great level of trust or respect for any self-proclaimed feminist, but I do have a particular dislike for Leslie Cannold, and it is disappointing that any liable action is not directed in that direction.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Elsewhere http://wheelercentre.com/dailies/post/8e2f5fb15b3a/ I have talked about what I think is the deeper issue, and that is the challenge MTR poses to the prevailing liberal view on porn. She is directly challenging this industry and, as a result, the dogs are barking. She is being attacked personally rather than having her arguments engaged with substantively. It is this, I believe, that she is challenging."
Posted by PetraB, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:33:12 PM

I completely disagree that a/the(?) "deeper issue" is "the challenge MTR poses to the prevailing liberal view on porn."

I disagree there is a "prevailing liberal view on porn". I also disagree that "the dogs are barking" over MTRs challenge to porn.

What evidence shows there is a "prevailing liberal view on porn"?

What evidence is there that MTR is being attacked personally over her challenge to porn?
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 1:10:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@petraB
I find your explanation entirely disingenuous. I most certainly did not attack or even refer to Reist's position on pornography in the blog post that provoked her defamation threats. The threats are entirely based on questions about her religious beliefs.

I refer you to this article published on ABC religion and Ethics site today which clearly presents the issues for which I am being threatened with defamation. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/02/15/3431296.htm

As this is without any doubt at all the crux of the matter, I am appalled that you consider it morally and ethically outside the scope of your attention. I take it you are morally and ethically supportive of the employment of the law against a woman who asked questions everyone is entitled to ask and to expect to have answered, by someone who has sought to establish themselves as an arbiter of society's morals.

I am not, for your information blindly "pro porn." I have on several occasions publicly agreed with some of Reist's positions on various matters. Therefore I am the last person you ought to accuse of attempting to silence her on these on these or any other issues.

When I question where she is coming from, it is with a great deal of concern, and because I think it matters that we know this. I am perfectly capable of discrediting the views I disagree with, without needing to resort to questions about her religion. Unlike Reist, I use evidence to support my disagreement.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 1:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Petra Bueskins states in her post of Wednesday 15 February 2012 at 12:35:55 PM:

"Everyone who has followed this story
knows this sequence of events and the
role that Jennifer Wilson has had."

With all due respect, it does not show.

One of the reasons this article was even able to be written, and to perform the smokescreening function that it does, is best seen in a 'pocket biography' of MTR written by her friend Miranda Devine. See: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-being-christian-gets-you-crucified/story-e6frezz0-1226250226632

Miranda Devine's piece attempts to attribute claimed 'Twitter hate' as having been a response to, initially, Rachel Hills' 8 January Sun-Herald article in generality, and, subsequently, MTR's having been publicly called for being a 'fundamentalist Christian' in Jennifer Wilson's blog piece of 10 January 2012.

Miranda's piece failed to state that the explosion of outrage on the Twitter hashtag '#MTRsues' did not occur until after 14 January when Jennifer Wilson revealed the defamation action threat on her blog, and that that outrage was in overwhelming measure at MTR's seeming first resort to such defamation proceedings in an attempt to silence someone MTR had identified as a critic, and little or nothing to do with MTR's religious or feminist affiliations real or perceived.

I commented in detail upon the chronological deficiencies of Miranda's piece here: http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/21/entitlement-bullying-and-private-faith/#comment-11175

Further, the opinion-piece(s) controversy as to MTR's feminist qualifications, far from any 'casting [of] her out from feminism', has, if anything, on balance upheld her status therein, to the extent that it was ever in question. The whole function of this faux controversy has been to divert attention from the free speech issue resident in MTR's first resort to defamation action in an attempt to silence a person, Jennifer Wilson, she had already identified as some sort of threat to the realization of her ambitions.

MTR was lying in wait for Jennifer Wilson. MTR had already tried to have Wilson shut out from publication on OLO, remember, long before Hills' article was published, but Wilson did not learn about this attempt until MTR sued! http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/17/some-thoughts-on-being-threatened-with-defamation-by-melinda-tankard-reist/#comment-10738 in response to http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/17/some-thoughts-on-being-threatened-with-defamation-by-melinda-tankard-reist/#comment-10707
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 2:12:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers I reckon that's your best ever post. A darn good read!
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 3:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well thanks, Houellebecq, I think..

You'll forgive my hesitation; unlike feeling feminists, I suspect you're seldom earnest and your compliments tend to leave one on guard. This evolved sensibility does you great credit, of course, and sincerity should never be trusted.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 3:48:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose,
You don’t seem to agree or like the personal policies or beliefs of MTR, and you have attempted to tie this to her religion.

Unfortunately, under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, this is discrimination.

It is similar to a feminist saying someone “lacks balls”, because they didn’t agree with the actions that person had taken, and a feminist has recently said this in the press.

That feminist has carried out discrimination, because they had discriminated on the grounds of “physical feature”

Feminists have called for anti-discrimination legislation, and now they have it I think they are some of the first people to break the law under that legislation.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 4:08:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the places that we disagree, Jennifer, is in defining your blog post, or your disagreement with Tankard Reist, as the critical issue here. For all your talk of objectivity and evidence, surely you would concede that perhaps you are not the most objective person on this matter? By which I mean you are necessarily impacted by this at a very personal level. Therefore, for you, the matter of defamation and litigation is central, in your words, “without any doubt at all the crux of the matter”.

I don’t believe any of us are objective. The best we can hope for is to follow rules that maximise objectivity and to engage with the multitude of perspectives on any given matter with the hope of expanding our own understanding. My point is that for you the matter of litigation is central, but this is not so for everyone. For the topics I address in my article – feminism, insiders and outsiders, liberals and conservatives - it is not.

When I refer to “the dogs barking” I mean that Tankard Reist cops a lot of vitriol for her unrelenting stance on pornography and the sexualisation of women and girls. Again, I am not making this point exclusively in relation to you. You are one of her critics. True. But you are not the only one, nor are you among the more vicious. Recall, I didn’t even mention you in my article, which is part of your problem isn’t it?

With regards your question – Am I supportive of a woman being silenced? Of course I am not. I think we should all be able to speak freely (albeit respectfully) but calling someone something they are not is not the same thing. It strikes me as a fairly benign mistake – I wouldn’t be suing you if you called me a Baptist – but I’m not Melinda Tankard Reist, and I don’t know her reasons for doing so. This aspect of the problem is beyond my expertise. As I have said repeatedly, my focus was on a different, even if related, matter.
Posted by PetraB, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 4:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2:

I have read your position on pornography and can see that you do indeed hold a nuanced view. However, for whatever reason, your arguments gain greatest traction where they are critical of those who are critical of porn. You seem most intent on exposing the spurious motives, “bad research”, or religiously inspired (read: delusional, biased, conservative) background of those who are critical of porn.

Given that this is a very abusive industry (in general, not always – yes, there’s a small amount of DIY porn that’s OK, there’s some feminist porn), I wonder why, if you agree with at least some of Tankard Reist’s concerns about the sex-industry, you spend so much energy on “exposing” her?

I agree it matters where people are coming from. However, if a person’s beliefs are reduced to a stereotype and there is a pre-existing bias regarding how that will be interpreted e.g., Tankard Reist’s Christianity disqualifies her from making a feminist critique about porn, or slaps a conservative label on her which is ultimately designed to shut her up, then that too is open to critique. As I said in my article, "Outing Tankard-Reist’s Christianity, or her concerns about abortion ... has a subtext in liberal circles: once identified as such she can no longer be a 'real feminist'. She is not one of 'us'. Rather, she is a fake".

Moreover, in a world that reduces politics to sound-bites, Tankard-Reist’s complexity is lost. What is at stake here is the truncation of her identity and politics for the purposes of, as Klein and Hawthorn say, cutting an influential critic of the porn and prostitution industries to her knees. The “exposure” of Tankard Reist’s beliefs is hardly designed to illuminate her activism, it’s designed to render it and her flawed. That feminists should participate in this is abhorrent, though I also offer some explanations for why this may be so.

Alain de Botton had a funny tweet today that is germane to this discussion: “Intolerance from atheists is more shocking because of how much they target precisely this flaw in their opponents.”
Posted by PetraB, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 4:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, whatever your grounds for suspecting Houllebecq is seldom earnest about 'feeling feminists' he is clearly on record as wanting to be a mother to his children... so that should count for something.
Yours sincerely,
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 5:19:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@PetraB
I'd be more inclined to agree with your analysis if any of the discussion of whether MTR should be called a feminist or not, your article included, chastised MTR for her attempt to silence Wilson through legal threats. The only place where this aspect is raised at all is on more obscure blogs, and in the comments sections of articles by "prominent" feminists. It *is* what started this particular controversy. Virtually all prominent feminists who have written about this ignore this trigger, and instead claim that it is all about MTR's abortion stance. Again, if even one of the mainstream writing about the poor, horrible attacks MTR was suffering, and the nature of "excluding" people from feminism, acknowledged that the whole thing was triggered by MTR's own actions, then I'd be more inclined to take your points seriously. As it is, I'm more inclined to wonder if anyone who threatens legal action in the manner MTR did can truly call themselves a feminist.
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 8:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What is at stake here is the truncation of her [MTR's] identity and politics for the purposes of ... cutting an influential critic of the porn and prostitution industries to her knees. The “exposure” of Tankard Reist’s beliefs is hardly designed to illuminate her activism, it’s designed to render it and her flawed. That feminists should participate in this is abhorrent ..."
Posted by PetraB, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 4:27:52 PM

I addressed this assertion/claim earlier today; Wed, 15 February 1:10:03pm. It seems to be a false position that you attack to detract from other issues ie. a strawman red-herring. It is disappointing to see such unsupported propositions.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 8:19:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good work squeers.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 8:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@PetraB
I have no problem at all with Reist describing herself as a feminist.

If you had read the article at today's Religion and Ethic site you would be quite clear as to what I'm saying about disclosure, and why I'm saying it.

I have no problem at all with Reist being religious. I do have a problem with her refusal to explain what effect her beliefs have on her moral stance, as she has done several times lately. As I explain in the article you didn't read, with references.

I do not believe Reist's Christianity disqualifies her from anything as long as she is prepared to be open about its effects on her morality. Which she is not.

I am not in the least intolerant of religious people, as you would see if you read my article, except when they attempt to impose their morality on society.

Of course I have a personal interest in the issue of free speech at the moment. However this case, should it proceed, will set an alarming precedent for anyone who blogs. This is why it has attracted so much interest other than the feminist. Once upon a time, free speech, especially for women, would have been a core feminist issue. You clearly demonstrate that is no longer the case. Now all that apparently matters is whether or not someone can be a feminist according to somebody else.

Reist has "exposed" herself as a Christian, the question is how does her faith influence her morality. Is she a religious conservative? To what extent does she support pro choice? What is her notion of an acceptable public representation of female sexuality? Can she accommodate her beliefs to tolerate those who do not find all pornography objectionable and if not why not? You think we have no right to ask these questions of her? You think we must sit meekly by and accept her moral prescriptions? Why do you think that?

Asking these questions in no way equates to "intolerance." This is a conflation that I find utterly bizarre.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 8:57:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@PetraB
I am "critical of those who are critical of porn" because I strongly object to unsubstantiated claims that we are on our inevitable way to a sexual apocalypse, driven by the sexual savagery of men.

I object to the stance that all porn is bad.

I object to the position that women who work in the sex industry and porn are too dumb and or damaged to know what they are doing and need to be protected from the victimisation of men.

I believe there are situations in which some or all of the above apply. I also believe there are situations in which none of the above apply. I do not believe that because some of the above apply some of the time in some situations, we must ban and censor everything anti porn crusaders find offensive.

We already have stringent laws in place that address violence against women in all situations. If these are ever properly enacted we should not need anymore. The anti porn crusaders seem to me to thrive on a totally ineffective "ain't it awful" meme that garners them considerable notoriety and achieves very little else.

Apart from that, read Squeers. That post is brilliant and says everything else that needs to be said.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 9:21:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose

Why are Christians the only people who get accused of imposing their morality onto society. I know a few other people who insist that they know exactly what we are and aren't allowed to think about sexuality in general and women's sexuality in particular.

It is a bit much to claim to stand for freedom of choice, then to tell us what we are and aren't allowed to think about those choices.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 16 February 2012 6:52:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk,
I chose to agree.

Judge not the person on their gender.

“Oh but we have to have a female Prime Minister because she is female.”

Judge not the person on their religion.

“Oh but someone can’t be religious and be a feminist.”

Throw out anti-discrimination laws.

“Oh but we have to have ant-discrimination laws to stop discrimination of women.”
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 February 2012 7:31:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Petra,

"...there is often an uncritical assumption that all conservatism, and all religious faith is suspect, necessarily oppressive and reactionary..."

It could be assumed on that point the MTR is averse to being compared to luminaries of the past who have endeavoured to, in Squeers' words, engage in pruning instead of attacking the root....Mary Whitehouse, for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Whitehouse

So it seems that the system which grew from patriarchal and conservative roots has spawned in its service a Hydra of visually intense media. As Camille Paglia points out, "Judeo-Christianity has failed to control the pagan Western eye."
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 16 February 2012 8:44:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote.#...In the nineteen eighties academic psychologist Carol Gilligan identified women’s “ethic of care”…#.

…And in the nineteen sixties, The Japanese invented their greatest contribution to confusion, a unique Japanese translation into English of the “Honda” Motorcycle manual! Dangerously incomprehensible: And if it were not for the pictures that accompanied the manual, totally useless.

...Maybe likewise, (and to assist in the education of posters who walk upon another “Earth” such as myself), The “Feminazi” attached to OLO, may consider in future, posting in “Comic form”.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 February 2012 9:26:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk,
CHRISTianity was a radical teaching that was utterly subversive, but it was soon distorted and instrumentalised by Rome and today Christianity is generally synonymous with conservatism. It’s somehow done a complete reversal and gone from being for the destitute to for the privileged; a scourge and a rationale for the bourgeoisie—apologies for the politically-loaded term, it’s just apt.
According to Terry Eagleton, “Christians who are not an affront to the powers-that-be, are not being faithful to his [Christ’s] mission”.
Baptists would seem to be the archetypal Christian idealists, slavishly devoted to the word (a nauseating poststructural labyrinth), but curiously cowed by it rather than motivated in political or practical ways; content rather to sit on their hands while they wave them about and to treat the world like a morality play, rather than the dystopia it was for Christ and still is.
Jesus wasn’t about reform, or purging sin by baptism; he didn’t even require the whores and misfits he hung out with to seek forgiveness; rather, they were the victims and proof of a state of tyranny and human failure. The coming kingdom of God wasn’t about cleansing and purifying a world of pedestrian sin, but overthrowing the exploitative governmental powers that nurtured and presided over it.
I’d like to know how MTR reconciles Jesus’ radical Christianity with her apparent doctrine of social reform? And how she reconciles radical feminism with rigid and impractical strictures like the sanctity of (human) life, and repression? I don’t see how these add up to meaningful emancipation for women, or anyone; they’re just regulation for the system.
If MTR has written on these matters perhaps someone can point me to the text? The material point is that these are valid questions and thus the articles of offence taken by MTR are invalid. It’s illegitimate to claim personal immunity from debate, and to prefer a defence based on idiosyncrasy, on a public stage and under publicly owned and debated banner like feminism.
MTR is the one who should be defending her position.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 16 February 2012 9:34:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PetraB, in her post of Wednesday 15 February 2012 at 4:14:59 PM asserts:

"One of the places that we disagree, Jennifer,
is in defining your blog post, or your disagreement
with Tankard Reist, as the critical issue here.
For all your talk of objectivity and evidence,
surely you would concede that perhaps you are
not the most objective person on this matter?"

Brazen as this attempt to exclude, by disqualification, one person from a field of two protagonists is, it is totally consistent with the persistent attempts to invert this issue such as to make MTR appear to be the victim that seem to have characterised the pronouncements of the 'established' feminism commentariat from the first, once the scale of Twitter outrage, and the size of the bandwagon upon which they could hitch a ride in their own interests, became apparent.

I'd suggest that I'm reasonably objective in this matter. You will search in vain in my posting history for any significant comment relating to feminism issues. My only direct online interaction with Jennifer Wilson (briar rose) prior to this was in relation to the Assange issue, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11370#193467

I was an observer of the development of this tweetstorm from the very establishment of the hashtag conversation '#MTRsues' for essentially other reasons. My interest arose out of my experiences in the '#reinstateallanasher' hashtag conversation and the encountering of the extreme transience of access to past tweets therein on the Twitter platform. Some of that is outlined here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif . Posts relating to the improperly forced resignation of Ombudsman Allan Asher, in breach of Parliamentary privilege, can be scrolled here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4792#128687

As an OLO article author, Petra Bueskens is entitled to write as she wishes. She does so, in this instance, in the relatively unusual circumstances of eyewitnesses to the unfolding of events having put otherwise transient records of the Twitter conversation that made it an issue on permanent record via the (paid) web service Tweet Reports.

There has been, as yet, no disagreement between JW and MTR. MTR's first and only response to JW has been threat of defamation action.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Thursday, 16 February 2012 10:23:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
Read carefully the anti-discrimination act.

No one has to excuse their religion, or state why they belong to any religion.

Feminists have wanted anti-discrimination, and now they have got it.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 February 2012 12:30:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna:
<Read carefully the anti-discrimination act.

No one has to excuse their religion, or state why they belong to any religion.

Feminists have wanted anti-discrimination, and now they have got it.>

I agree, vanna. I think she should defend her position as a feminist, not a Christian. Feminism has an intellectual base that should be respected and referred to. It doesn't have to be "deferred to", but if one is going to call oneself a feminist and promote so-called feminist ideas, they have to be open to criticism and scrutiny, to defend it and so, optimally, strengthen the position, or evolve the sensibility. The reason feminism--and other intellectual traditions--is commonly made a mockery of, by men and women, is popular-ignorance of its intellectual credentials, which are in fact substantial. Feminism conjures little more in the popular imagination than stereotypes, arguably negative ones, whereas it ought be responding to criticism constructively and developing self-reflexively. There comes a point of veritable impasse, and feminism has been there, but that's no reason to regress and promote consolation polemics.
I think feminists should be taking every opportunity to critique and discuss their intellectual positions publicly and rigorously, so as to make intellectual/political-progress, build credibility and educate the public. Feminism's become a dirty word yet the vast majority don't know the first thing about it.
So again, what are MTR's intellectual credentials, and indeed JW's et al? Let's start talking about feminism and not the cliche's.
This article isn't helpful as it seeks to defend and promote a cloistered individual position based on the premise that feminism is otherwise driven by convention along factional lines. Feminism is or should be an important social/political/intellectual discourse, not a soap-box for the disaffected.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 16 February 2012 1:25:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, if you are asking for my feminist credentials I have absolutely none.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 16 February 2012 2:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry to hear that BR, perhaps you should examine them, you never know what you might find.
I'm not saying we should discuss them here anyway, just that if we're going to save feminism from degenerating further into obscurity, misunderstanding and irrelevance we have to revive the discourse.
If feminism's not going to be theoretically based the label should be dropped on all sides as something once respectable.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 16 February 2012 2:14:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squuers,
So it seems that you now understand that there is such a thing as an anti-discrimination law that does include religion.

So in a job interview, (or any type of interview for that matter), you can’t ask someone about their religion, nor can you suggest that someone is too religious or not religious enough, or call them a god-botherer, or criticse them for their religion.

Something a feminist should remember.

As for feminism being an intellectual exercise, I thought feminism had more to do with getting taxpayer money from the government, and getting more money from men, and feminists will use every type of deception, and every type of misinformation and propaganda tool at their disposal to get at that money.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 February 2012 4:16:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna:
<As for feminism being an intellectual exercise, I thought feminism had more to do with getting taxpayer money from the government, and getting more money from men, and feminists will use every type of deception, and every type of misinformation and propaganda tool at their disposal to get at that money.>

Ah, Vanna, you're referring to the cliche's I mentioned above; yours seems a simple world, bedevilled by feminists and academics but otherwise sound. Matters are more complicated to some of us and feminism has at times been a window with a view. The shutters are down at present but I hope to see them thrown open again.
You could do with some fresh air yourself..
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 16 February 2012 8:06:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
Yeah, I'll be going back to work shortly, to earn money and hand it over to someone else.

And a feminist somewhere will want their slice of my wages.

But I've seen through too much feminist hype to now believe anything they say.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 February 2012 9:38:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As this comments thread has progressed, it has come to be in danger of becoming a hijacked discussion. It is awkward to make this observation, because so much within the article itself has been written without recognition of the circumstances which engendered the tweetstorm and associated publicity upon which this and like MSM articles have piggybacked, as a basis.

Jennifer Wilson, in the 10 January blog post that elicited MTR's lawyers' letter of demand and associated threat of defamation action by MTR, opened quite clearly with the statement:

"Like other commentators, Hills focuses on
Tankard Reist’s pro life feminism. There’s
been a lot of twitter chatter over the last
few days about who is and isn’t a feminist,
and there’s plenty of women who don’t believe
that anyone who is anti abortion can also be
a feminist.

That’s not the argument I’m going to have here,
because for me what is far more important than
whether or not Tankard Reist is a feminist
(whatever that word means, very little I sometimes
fear) are her religious beliefs, and the way in
which they determine her beliefs about human sexuality.

Tankard Reist is a Baptist. ...."

The initial claim as to MTR being a Baptist (one subsequently refuted in favour of a biographical description by Miranda Devine of MTR as having been "brought up Christian, attending Uniting Church services as a child in Mildura", and of MTR currently "[having] no denominational affiliation") was one based upon reasonable inferences able to be drawn from a number of online source documents, including a Wikipedia entry, containing background information on MTR.

One of the things that lent impetus to the Twitter hashtag conversation '#MTRsues', after the initial indignation at MTR taking resort to defamation action against Jennifer Wilson, was the 'clean up' of erstwhile publicly available information that would have, if it remained up on the web, supported Wilson's inferences, that started to take place before peoples' very eyes!

It seems few believed this 'clean up' was just coincidental, but was more believably at MTR's behest.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 18 February 2012 9:09:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are easier ways to defeat feminists like Tankard Reist. Just ask them about personal responsibility then watch them run.
Posted by Aristocrat, Saturday, 18 February 2012 11:46:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest Gumpp,
I sympathise that the discussion hasn't focused on the issue as you see it, and I can see that the issue of MTR's grounds for defamation are dubious; indeed contentious at best and possibly even fraudulent based on your accusation of a "clean-up"; that is, a tampering with the evidence ex post facto. One wonders if MTR has a case, or if it might not backfire?
Nevertheless, I think "hijacked discussion" is a bit strong, at least apropos thoughtful discussion that responded directly to the headline, "Why the need for consensus?" as well as the small print. I responded directly to this and tried to show the logical absurdity of the question. I'm not particularly interested in the spat between the ladies, nor fully up to speed on it apart from your excellent debriefing--though I certainly see the issues as of great moment, both to JW and freedom of speech generally. Were I better versed on the controversy (and more interested), as you are, I might have added to my criticism of logical inconsistency that the premises were also based rhetorically on JW's "established" transgressions, and factional feminism, when as you say no evidence was presented--in fact either ignorance or the evidence was implicitly excised post hoc. I am interested in feminism and political lobbying, and from what I could gather neither of these is being prosecuted by either party with any rigour. What we have is anonymous labels and hobby horses; populism; passionate feelings and a dearth of theoretical or even practical consideration.
It does seem then that I, for one, digressed from the mundane yet momentous issues of honesty and underhandedness you allude to within the dispute, into more thoughtful asides. I have a tendency to do that on OLO.
The banal and more important question then would seem to be: "has anyone saved the undoctored online material on MTR?"
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 18 February 2012 11:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction, it should have read, "in fact either ignorance prevailed or the evidence was implicitly excised post hoc".
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 18 February 2012 11:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A correction to my post of Thursday 16 February 2012 at 10:23:47 AM. The second link posted should have been: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13033#226493

@Squeers

I had none of your posts in mind in mentioning the prospect of thread hijack. What I had in mind were attempts to categorize this controversy as one related to anti-discrimination laws and/or as a catfight between people labeled 'feminists'. Much as MTR might rejoice to see that happen, it was not the basis of the tweetstorm that created the publicity upon which some of what might be perceived as a 'feminist' commentariat have poled in pursuit of their own interests.

Jennifer Wilson's penultimate paragraph in her 10 January 2012 blog post was:

"I don’t care if Melinda Tankard Reist is
defined as a feminist or not. She is anti
abortion. She is deceptive and duplicitous
about her religious beliefs and she does not
declare herself. When asked why not, she
counters that people would not hear her message
if her religious beliefs became a distracting
focus. She does not believe in any public
expression of female sexuality, in other words
she is repressive and dehumanizes women."

As I think her lawyers' second letter strove to emphasise, the claim that MTR considers most damaging to her ambitions is that as to her being 'deceptive and duplicitous about her religious beliefs'.

The really huge revelation for me that arose out of the '#MTRsues' Twitter hashtag conversation was that of MTR's having been for 12 years former Senator Brian Harradine's office staff member and bio-ethics advisor. That, to me, indicated MTR as having synchronous viewpoint to that of the Vatican in this area! I can well imagine that in pitching to an audience of nominally multi-denominational character, and a wider conservative female audience whether Christian or agnostic, that MTR would not want to be seen as the committed facilitator of the implementation of Vatican policy upon the whole community that she has been.

Such might not advance an envisaged parliamentary career.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 18 February 2012 2:04:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Forrest Gumpp,
I didn't think you were shooting across my bow especially, but I did have a large piece of the thread. I take your point that the whole debate over feminist credentials is a decoy designed to detract from the real issue of a vested interest in an institutional line of policy that can hardly be claimed as personal conviction. And it's as well to monitor MTR's political career.

Interestingly, JW's defence of "public
expression of female sexuality" is vested in the notion of sexual/personal freedom, yet today's Science Show was devoted to the topic of hyper-humansexuality as a socialised phenomenon, rather than an expression of freedom. But I digress..
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 18 February 2012 3:51:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

To digress a little further upon your digression. According to Desmond Morris, humans are the most highly sexual of the primates (the only primate apparently where the female of the species achieves orgasm). With an intellect to match, it's no wonder that modern humans have problems integrating intellectual values and biological imperatives.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops, this comment belongs here:

Thanks Poirot,
It's interesting that MTR invokes the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", a secular/humanist document, to protect her Christian parochialism. I might take pause for a moment too to pick on the word "universal". Not only are our grandiose human rights not universally agreed-upon in the cosmos (so far as we know), they're specifically flouted here on Earth! What is universally respected on Earth is "an award of compensation"; ie, "money". That brings one down to Earth!
Good to see MTR's not to caught-up in religious coils.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 18 February 2012 5:03:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

You got that comment in the right (the other) thread I see.

(It's a bit confusing with more than one thread on the same overarching subject :)
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 18 February 2012 5:10:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, in his post of Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 11:52:35 AM, at the conclusion of that post states:

"The banal and more important question
then would seem to be: "has anyone saved
the undoctored online material on MTR?""

The broad answer to this question, if I can be permitted to echo a December 1936 answer given in the Dial to an equally important question from General Mulcahy, by Eamon de Valera, is "I think so".

(Thats just a little enigma to lessen the banality for the historically inquisitive. Happy Googling!)

One of the reasons I am somewhat informed as to this whole issue is that I was alerted to the defamation action threats against JW very early on via a tweet from he who self-confessedly tweets too much, Twitter userID 'GrogsGamut' (Greg Jericho) whom, sadly, I 'follow' on Twitter. Having only recently become acquainted with the deficiencies with respect to the continued accessibility of tweets on the Twitter platform itself, through the loss of acces to the '#reinstateallanasher' timeline tweets, I took it upon myself to have the '#MTRsues' timeline tracked from its outset by the third party web service Tweet Reports.

As a consequence of that tracking having been instituted, an archive of all tweets to that hashtag conversation now exists. Anyone may have access to it by signing up for the free seven day trial of Tweet Reports, and actually import that archive for the cost of as little as US $9 for but one month's subscription to the service. Anyone can peruse, free, a substantial part of that archive, backward from the most recent tweets, here: http://search.tweetreports.com/search_results.php?search=%23MTRsues&sear=Y . JW has taken out a subscription.

Many of the tweets in the archive contain links to online documents, or references to non-digitised records, as well as constituting a record as to informed users interested in this controversy. Some users tweeting display significant levels of skills in following the electronic trails of information removal or alteration.

As an example, this Twitter exchange: https://twitter.com/#!/Aulieude/status/164668958052589568

https://twitter.com/#!/ForrestGumpp/status/164686480906788864

https://twitter.com/#!/Aulieude/status/164696460892446721
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 19 February 2012 12:13:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy