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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?