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,

@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.

"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.

Good work squeers.

@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.

@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.