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.

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.

Squeers, if you are asking for my feminist credentials I have absolutely none.

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.

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.

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..