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.

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.

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?

Is this an article suggesting that people, in this case feminists, might disagree with each other about important issues? Fancy that eh?

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".

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