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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

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