feminism
18 Jan 2012
'Call Me Whatever The Hell You Want'
Feminism, not religion, is at the heart of controversy about Melinda Tankard Reist. Who decides who gets to use the f-word, asks Eva Cox
Melinda Tankard Reist last week threatened legal action against a blogger who alleged that she downplayed her religious affiliations in an interview for Sunday Life magazine. This has prompted an almighty discussion about free speech, religion and feminism.
The issue of Tankard Reist’s religious beliefs and whether they are acknowledged is not the real issue here. It is a surrogate argument about who can call themselves a feminist. Tankard Reist’s critics are mostly opposed to her claims to be a new-style feminist. They it hard to frame such an argument — so they look for other hooks to hang her on, such as suspect affiliations.
Interesting, the final line in the article that started this interchange stated, "For Tankard Reist’s part, she says she’s not interested in labels — she just wants people to engage with the substance of what she has to say. ‘Call me whatever the hell you want, I don’t care," she says. "I believe my work is pro-woman, pro-girl. Just let me get on with it.’"
Why therefore has she taken this action? Since the blog in question isn’t heavily trafficked, Reist’s lawyer’s letter may be part of a strategy to gain publicity rather than suppress comment. Threatening legal action against a blogger who has strong free speech views is likely to attract wider media attention to the blog posting and its subject. As Tankard Reist is herself a blogger, writer, speaker and so on, media coverage is very desirable to raise her profile further.
I’m not inclined to use people’s religious affiliations as a basis for judgement but there is an argument for publicising religious beliefs. While adherents of each religion may have many different ways of using their faith, their stated beliefs can connect up dots to create a wider picture. As far as Tankard Reist’s public views are concerned, it may allow critics to try to identify underlying sources. It may be that her beliefs do mean that her views fail to meet what I would see as basic feminist criteria
Tankard Reist’s views on porn and sexual images suggest that she sees women as needing protection from depictions that may result in wrong assumptions or choices. She taps into anxieties about the status of women in an increasingly commodified world. Her earlier political involvement was anti-abortion and presumably anti-contraception, and her role while working for Brian Harradine ties in with this approach.
Her collection of public priorities can be seen to reflect some puritanical views that are part of feminist history. Women members of the Christian Temperance Union fought for women to get the vote in the hope that women would vote to ban alcohol. However, politics has changed over the past hundred years — and I hoped we had overcome the particularly limited view that the role of women, as God’s police, was to keep evil masculinity on the straight and narrow.
The new prominence of Melinda Tankard Reist forms part of a current retro groundswell which derives from current anxieties about the dominance of markets over ethics in the public sphere and the loss of what are seen as community values. This is in evidence in the numbers of women in politics who are pushing conservative social views. These are not Maggie Thatchers or Angela Merkels, hard-headed members of political parties who play it very like men. Rather they are younger, populist women with conservative, anti-choice views on family issues. The Tea Party in the US seems to attract many of these. They do increase the number of women bidding for power; but can also undermine feminist gains by promoting traditionally differentiated gender roles. Is this the feminism we want to encourage?
Feminism, in my view at least, should not use the power of institutions, including the state, to protect women from the right to make up their own minds. Equality must both redress gender biases and redistribute power so we all take on our share of responsibilities as well as rights. Setting up women as needing protection from male-driven sins means denying the role of Eve as the tempting source of knowledge. As an unbeliever, I quote these archetypes to illustrate my objections to some forms of so-called conservative feminism. It is not feminist to infantilise women by removing our right to make the wrong choices.
We need to recognise that all genders have similar capacities to make good and bad choices and need similar conditions in which to make them. While I am no fan of sexploitation, of objectifying and commodifying human beings, I do not see tactics of censorship and banning of particular manifestations as useful. Emphasising women as victims also contributes to gender-based biases in political thinking.
We need to address the current policy machismo in the priorities of our political parties, which emerges as encouraging individual self-interest as against social sharing. Good societies require political culture changes to encourage us all to be socially connected, more cooperative, ethical and caring. This is my feminist push. Campaigns against tasteless porn and crappy T-shirts may seek to protect women, but they fail to address the broader gender biases of market forces. This is the argument we should be having — not nit-picking about perceived religious ties.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 12:59PM
Another ‘basic criteria’ that Cox might want to consider is opposition to prostitutition and pornography, which has been central to the feminist movement since the first wave. On this criteria, a number of libertarian commentators writing against Tankard Reist at the moment would not qualify as feminists. The ‘feminist push’ that Cox recommends reflects no aspect of social organising taking place in the name of women’s liberation, either now or in the past. A vague call for all of us to become more ‘ethical’ or ‘caring’ is not a feminist demand. The feminist project centres on resisting male sexual dominion over women—whether this dominion is achieved through the institutions of marriage, the church, or the sex industry. The movement that Tankard Reist has been key to organising in Australia over the past five years can be described as feminist in its broad-based mobilisation of women against corporate pedophilia, prostitution, pornography, and the medicalisation of women and girls’ lives. Cox might not like its criticism of male sexuality, but there is no historical or theoretical basis for the claim the movement isn’t feminist. Cox might want to reconsider her own self-labeling as a feminist if she can’t stomach the idea the movement might criticise male behaviour.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 1:07PM
Thanks for this article Eva. I have a few comments though.
By conflating “religious affiliation” with “stated beliefs”, I think you miss the relevance of labeling. As I understand it, one of the two assertions being challenged by MTR is the assertion that she “is a Baptist”.
I don’t think these kind of “is a” labels do anything other than reference (and therefore perpetuate) discriminatory and oppressive stereotypes. Who are we to say whether or not MTR “is” a Baptist? What business of ours is MTR’s identity? Sure, it might be possible to make sociological generalisations about the beliefs of socially-constructed categories of people (e.g. races, genders, religious affiliations), but the exceptions to such generalisations (and the contingency of the way the categories are defined) is what makes them discriminatory and oppressive.
In other words: pick an issue, and I can show you self-identified “Baptists” on both sides of that issue. There are many issues on which there might be a clear majority of Baptists on one side, and some issues with respect to which a majority of Baptists (and non-Baptists) might even claim that if you are not on a particular side you are not “a real Baptist”, but that is all beside the point. The point is that calling someone “a Baptist” (even if they admit to being one) is not a fair way of adjudicating a person’s views or “creat[ing] a wider picture” of the person.
And it’s not just the indeterminacy of “is a” labels that makes them dangerous. It’s also the nature of labeling itself. By tying beliefs to identity, we perpetuate structures of discrimination. For example, you would presumably agree that there are people out there who have a viscerally negative reaction to anyone who describes themselves (or who is described by others) as a “feminist”. I can think of two ways to combat this: insist that “feminists” are good/correct, or forget about adjudicating people’s identities and focus on the goodness/accuracy of ideas themselves (e.g. the idea that society is deeply patriarchal and must be radically restructured).
I believe that, as a result of how modernity constructs subjectivity, there is a prevailing tendency to tie belief statements to identity. For example, when someone says “I don’t like Julia Gillard”, what they often mean is “I am the type of person who doesn’t like Julia Gillard”, and that is also the meaning that the statement is often perceived to have. I further believe that this obsession with identity has adverse effects.
Therefore, I don’t care whether MTR calls herself “a feminist”, just as I don’t care whether she calls herself “a man”, “a Baptist”, or “an African-American”*. What I do care about is whether the things she says perpetuate or undermine hegemonic structures of discrimination and oppression (patriarchy, racism, etc.). This is where I believe the focus should be.
*One caveat: there may be cases in which the speech act itself (i.e. the practice of stating “I am a …”, or “she is a …”) perpetuates or undermines hegemonic structures of discrimination and oppression (e.g. “I am a racist”, “He is misogynist”). Even in those cases, however, it is the speech act itself, not the “identity”, that should be praised or criticised.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 1:49PM
@caroline, I think you should do some reading of your own, the feminist movement has always been very broad, right from the start. You only have to look at Melbourne from around 1885 to 1920 to see the incredible breadth of ideas all falling into the category of ‘feminism’ (eg, the temperance union as discussed versus the unionist feminists who agitated for social welfare and against conscription). The movement continued to grow in all directions. I would count Cox as a feminist as she strives to have men and women treated equally. We continue this strange notion that women must be protected from men rather than that women should be equals.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 2:20PM
@caroline. It’s rather amusing that immediately after Ms Cox discusses the infighting over labels, you set out to create an “in” group and an “out” group based on prostitution and pornography.
I am a feminist. I’m also a pornographer. I know a lot of sex workers, erotic filmmakers and adult performers who also consider themselves feminist. One of the big things we all agree on is that adult women should be allowed to make their own choices. This includes the choice to watch porn, to appear in porn, to make porn or to willingly engage in sex work. Anti porn feminists such as Melinda Tankard Reist would seek to deny choice to women - as, it seems, would you.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 2:25PM
The same old thing that causes all this trouble, religious beliefs. Who says one religion is better than the other, infact religion is a load of crap, has anyone come back to say that they have been there (Heaven/Hell) or actually seen what people are conned into believing, I think not, would you buy a new car without seeing it first or obtain some results as to how that car would perform, I think not.
Another example of relegion causing trouble.
As for migrants coming to this country and wanting to continue with their religious beliefs to flout our laws just to suit themselves, it is not on. Migrants come to our country to have a better life and if they don’t want to accept our hospitality, rules and laws then go back to where you came from.
As for using the “F” word to get your point across or to describe something just goes to show how ignorant and uneducated they are, in other words nothing between the ears.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 2:52PM
@mypreferredusername “The point is that calling someone “a Baptist” (even if they admit to being one) is not a fair way of adjudicating a person’s views or “creat[ing] a wider picture” of the person.”
I would argue it is, actually. You can’t choose your religion or sex but you can choose your religious affiliation. If you are publically going to a Baptist church and regularly agreeing with the views propagated by that church, then it’s fair to assume that you can be labelled a Baptist (or evangelical, or whatever). Religion is essentially a philosophical viewpoint. Different churches take different philosophical stances on different issues. If you’re making the effort to attend and putting money in the tithe box, it’s fair to say you’re endorsing what’s being said.*
And religious beliefs - being philosophical - do inform a person’s character and opinion. If you believe that people have souls, you may well wish to argue that the soul begins at conception and that informs your opposition to abortion. All well and good, but you should say as much.
I’m an atheist and that informs my opinions as well because it means I don’t accept religious arguments against abortion, or porn, or whatever. And too often I’ve seen religiously motivated people try to mask their arguments with pseudo-science or dodgy research. So if I know where a person is coming from, it helps me to better evaluate what they’re saying.
* Unless of course you’re just going to church out of familial habit or to appear good or to buy your way into heaven, which seems to be a motivation for some people. It’s important to note that these types don’t normally take up public morality crusades or write columns about it.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 2:54PM
Woops… in the second paragraph I meant to write “You can’t choose your race or sex” You can definitely choose your religion.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 2:56PM
This is the most refreshingly succinct argument I’ve seen in a long time.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 4:53PM
@MsNaughty Thanks for the reply. But, like Eva, you’re conflating identity with beliefs. I certainly agree with your statement that “religious beliefs - being philosophical - do inform a person’s character and opinion”. What I do not agree with is the idea that calling yourself “a Baptist” (or being called one by other people) does anything except refer to discriminatory and oppressive stereotypes.
As for whether “publically going to a Baptist church and regularly agreeing with the views propagated by that church” makes it ok for us to label someone “a Baptist”, why do we get to be the arbiters of that label? Why is it important for us to be able to define other people’s identities? “Publically going to a Baptist church and regularly agreeing with the views propagated by that church” are actions, and they may be actions that you and I want to criticise (I certainly do), but there is no need to attach those actions to a particular identity (and I would argue that only harm can come of doing so). I would criticise someone for engaging in those actions irrespective of whether they considered themselves “a Baptist”.
As you alluded to in your footnote, identity /= beliefs. Many people who consider themselves “Baptists” never attend Baptist churches and strongly disagree with the views propagated by those churches. Why they still consider themselves “Baptists” is a matter for them, and because it concerns their identity I don’t believe we have the right to tell them they are mistaken. Similarly, many people who strongly share the views of the Baptist churches do not consider themselves “Baptists”, and again, I don’t think we are in a position to prescribe an identity for them. In all cases, we should focus on (e.g. criticise) the beliefs, not dictate the rules of identity.
As another example, you say that the fact you are “an atheist” means that you “don’t accept religious arguments against abortion”, etc. Why not just say that you don’t accept religious arguments against abortion? Why do you have to tie your belief to an identity? Doing so places the focus on whether having that identity really means that you must hold that belief, etc., rather than on whether that belief is a good/accurate one. (You might be surprised how little common ground, if any, actually exists among people who call themselves “atheists”.)
Similarly, why do you care whether the people using “pseudo-science or dodgy research” are religiously motivated? If it really is dodgy science, why not just expose it as such? Perhaps it is because you are judging how “dodgy” the science is by how much you agree with the motivations of the person presenting it? To me that’s a pretty dangerous road to head down. But in any event, I think by “religiously motivated” you really just mean “holds certain religious beliefs”, in which case we’re in beliefs territory and I don’t think criticising others’ beliefs is problematic. Things only become problematic (i.e. discriminatory and oppressive) when you either reason from beliefs to identity (i.e. Person X believes Y, therefore Person X is a Z) or from identity to beliefs (i.e. Person X is a Z, therefore Person X believes Y).
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 5:13PM
I think @carolinenorma provides the right counterargument that the “feminist project centres on resisting male sexual dominion over women” so Melinda must be in there somehow.
And Eva is 100% correct that MTR’s godbothering is a distraction. It might be the god factor that caused her to take a backward moralistic approach to “resisting male sexual domination” but it’s pointless to focus on that. The issue at hand is how to give women choices such as exiting porn/prostitution if they should so choose.
What we are arguing about here is the way MTR is “resisting male sexual domintation over women” is also disempowering women. And yes that is wrong. MTR has got the right aims, but is going about trying to fulfil those in a totally incorrect way.
If I could take the time, I would NOT be suggesting that anything be banned or that men are evil and should be cautioned as a whole. I WOULD be suggesting that public funding and public support exist for workable “porn exit programs” and more importantly for “prostitution exit programs”. It might even be nice to make the purchase of sex a tort in civil law, but that’s way ahead of us.
What needs to happen is that women who are actual victims of “male sexual domination” including sex slavery and want to get out, have some kind of realistic recourse.
For women who are happy being paid to have or simulate sex with random guys, so be it. Trying to change this is simply not within the scope of the “feminism project” and arguably should never be in anyone’s political scope, were it not for an outdated conception of a imaginary patriarch in the sky.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 5:23PM
@MsNaughty, MsPreferredUser is right in pulling you up for saying: “I’m an atheist and … it means I don’t accept religious arguments against abortion, or porn, or whatever.”
I assume what you meant was simply “I dismiss arguments against the principle which are based on faith (e.g. abortion is wrong because Buddha said so) because they’re not substantial in themselves but rely on the opinions of some fictitious or historically murky person rather than a primary opinion”.
I would say I don’t accept any argument against women’s right to choose to abort (or to choose to go full term and mother). It’s just too important.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 7:33PM
Ummm I have a name, Ms Cox. I’m not “a blogger.” My name is Jennifer Wilson.
I find extraordinary that a woman writing an entire article on feminism neglects to observe the courtesy of naming the one of two woman at the centre of the dispute, and instead chooses to refer to her as “a blogger.”
Have some respect for me, before you preach feminism to everyone else.
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 12 at 8:23PM
To clarify, I used the term “Baptist” because at the time I wrote the piece I was unaware that all Christians subscribe to the doctrine of the virgin birth. Had I known that, I would have simply described Tankard Reist as “Christian.”
According to this doctrine, the mother of christ had to be a virgin because a sexually active woman is regarded as an impure woman, and an impure body could not be used to gestate and deliver the son of god. A woman is allowed to be “impure” if married, and if heterosexual, however. Ask MTR what her position is on lesbians.
Now if you all are happy that a woman who subscribes to this sick belief about women and our sexuality earns her living pre/proscribing the sexual representation and behaviours of women in 2012, then knock yourselves out.
Whether or not MTR is a feminist? Who cares. Feminism is crawling up its own fundament with these divisive cat fights about who is and who isn’t. When we’ve addressed DV, child abuse, equal pay etc etc etc then we can sit around with our heads up our bums fighting about who can be called feminist or not Until then, it’s a wank ladies and we’re wanking while the world burns.
Jennifer Wilson (That’s Dr. to you Ms Cox)
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 1:40AM
mypreferredusername, I have to pull you up on your comments against Atheist’s. There are enough myths out there from the Religious nutters in this world who live life on a hate based belief system. In my personal opinion, I wouldn’t say that I don’t accept religious based arguments against anything, for the simple fact that they are human beings first & some religious people actually have a little bit of intelligence in their favor.
There are good reasons for not agreeing with someone & whether or not it is based on a religious belief or a personal belief & claimed to be religious for the sake of populist exorcism of other peoples rights in a gang related evangelical environment, it is still a persons belief, whether it is right or wrong.
Melinda Tankard, in my view, is suing for defamation because she has been exposed for what as well as who she is. She has been exposed for the nasty little crony & hate based religious beliefs she holds so dearly to her heart.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 2:18AM
Having just discussed the bullying issues associated with facebook with a tearful 15 y o daughter,I find the same verbal bullying dressed up in jargon and pseudo-intellectual language on this blog. As a mere male, I am obviously not qualified to discuss feminism and its issues, nor its definition nor its issues. As a mere male, however I notice that in the service station, the women’s magazines mainly have women on the cover, and the men’s magazines mainly have women on the cover. The women’s magazines have photos of dresses worn by what look like 13 year old boys with long hair and lipstick, while the men’s magazines have pictures of women who look like … well, women.
Why is it that women are so critical of other women? Why is it that women who have climbed the ladder of success so often pull the ladder up after them? Why is that the women on this blog feel compelled to introduce religion as an issue, when they show their ignorance of theology? Why is that feminist atheists are so blissfully ignorant of their own assumptions - consensus within both their latte group and chardonnay group constitutes universal principles apparently - when criticising Christians, and unaware of differences in Christian beliefs, and also unaware of Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic beliefs?
Personally, I am more interested in a campaign to end FGM in Tanzania rather than Australia, because in Australia, feminists only consider membership of boards and internecine catfights worthy of their energy. I also note that child abuse gets a brief mention but not in the context of Aboriginal female children. Now that would be racist.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 6:11AM
Philip Dowling
Why is it that men start practically all of the planet’s wars? Why is it that men so often kill other men? Why is it that men beat up women? Why is that men such as Tony Abbott abandon all consideration for the welfare of this country and it’s people to wage a petulant male war against the first female PM….. do you want me to continue in the same stupid gendered vein as the one in which you are so loudly lamenting?
As I made clear I have no time for feminist masturbatory twaddle about who gets to wear the label, but the arguments you put up against this are barely disguised misogyny.
As for your complaint that I have no understanding of theology - as far as I am concerned it would serve me just as well to attempt a doctorate on the tooth fairy and santa claus. Theological debates are IMO no more useful to the world than fights about who’s allowed to be a feminist.
Jennifer Wilson.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 6:21AM
That should be its not it’s. I don’t want the feckin grammar police after me as well.
Jennifer Wilson.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 7:36AM
Atheist’s don’t knock at your door & shove their beliefs down your throat or blow people up, as a friend recently wrote on my face book wall.
Why is a crooked letter that can’t be straitened, is a parent’s response to a child with too many questions.
If the government pass laws against the bikers for guilt by association, I will use them to attack the very gangs who live by hate based religious discriminatory beliefs. (Government, Churches & Feminist’s)
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 8:09AM
Religions are given the right to discriminate against other human groups by being exempted from some anti discrimination legislation. Yet we are supposed to accept that their arguments on morality are not affected by their religious beliefs?
Way to have it both ways.
Jennifer Wilson
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 11:08AM
Dr Wilson,
I too thought it was weird that you weren’t named in the article. I actually assumed that Ms Cox must have checked with you and that you had opted not to be named. Interesting to hear that that was not the case.
Since you apparently share my belief in the futility (and even danger) of arguing about who gets to call themselves “a feminist”, can’t you see that a similar futility and danger is associated with labeling people “Christian” or “Baptist”?
You say above: “all Christians subscribe to the doctrine of the virgin birth”. Yet in what sense is this true? Sociologically, for instance, it is easily disproven. Many people who identify as “Christian” believe that the contents of the Bible are entirely fictitious and should be read as a morality tale rather than as a historical account. Are you going to tell those people that they have no right to call themselves “Christian”? Similarly, there are people who believe in the virgin birth who do not, for whatever reason, identify as “Christian”. I believe that it is very dangerous to start telling people “you are X” and “you are Y”. Why not let people construct their own identities (or at least not be generalised about because of the identity that their social experience has given them)?
You summarise the doctrine of the virgin birth above as: “the mother of christ had to be a virgin because a sexually active woman is regarded as an impure woman, and an impure body could not be used to gestate and deliver the son of god. A woman is allowed to be “impure” if married, and if heterosexual, however.” Now I believe the question of whether or not MTR subscribes to this particular doctrine is an important one that you are right to pursue. But MTR self-identifying as a “Christian” (or regularly attending a Baptist church, or being anti-abortion, or being anti-gay marriage) does not mean that she necessarily subscribes to it.
In other words, I think we have to be very careful about attributing beliefs to people based on their actions or identity. There is a big difference between asserting that the doctrine of the virgin birth is anti-feminist and asserting that “Christians” are anti-feminist. To do the former is to attack an idea, and attacking ideas is, I would say, the raison d’etre of intellectual debate. But to do the latter is to attack (and generalise about) individuals’ identities, of which—I believe—no good can come.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 11:26AM
I almost fell off my desk chair laughing when I read the article and posts about this subject…seems characterised by circular logic, name-calling, sidetracking, nitpicking, getting off -topic, grandstanding and finger-pointing - really - is it any wonder men don’t understnad women - look at how you have been debating!! I don’t even understand what the hell you all have your knickers in a twist about!! Can someone explain it to me again and be rational about it?
Any person who is empowered and free, needs no labels, needs no proving to others the validity of their beliefs, needs no title before their name, is not threatened by others’ viewpoints or beliefs and thus does not get defensive, offended or need to attack, degrade or name-call others’beliefs…
I am a women. I don’t consider myself a feminist (especially if this is the sort of bullshit that you all go on about). I DO believe in liberty and empowerment for ALL people regardless of gender, sexuality, race, body shape, professional status, marriage status, age…or whateverthehellelse human beings use to segregate, dehumanise, create divisions, subordinate etcetcetc another human being or group of human beings (or creatures or ecosystems for that matter).
Sorry but I reckon the lot of you need to GET A LIFE!
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 11:41AM
Amazonia - war begins with attitudes, beliefs etc FIRST - no one gender is immune to the attitudes of hate, jealousy, judgmentalism, closed-mindedness, racism, selfishness, self interest above societal wellbeing. War is about competition for resources (food, oil, land) - no one gender is immune from wanting more or better than another group or region, for wanting power over others.
Do you really believe that women do not also harbour these traits or act on them? I have been discriminated against be many women in my life! Women in authority discriminate if you don’t hold the same feminist values/beliefs as them. Many women have used their sexual appeal to manipulate and gain favour of men over myself and my ability level or capabilities. Women who are skinny lord it over anyone else. Married women exclude me (I am a single mother) in many circles. My own mother rejects my single-hood and my pursuit of tertiary studies and a profession above a prioirity for finding a husband.
If we worry about what others think of us we won’t achieve anything meaningful in our lives and thus won’t TRULY live the dream of empowerment, of being true to ourselves and living a positive, healthy life abundant in well being for ouselves and those around us. This nees NO gender separation surely?
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 11:48AM
fightmumma, I am a man & an Atheist (there’s two labels for the record) & understand women very well, but insist that what ever your smoking over there to make you almost fall off your chair, share it around.
I point your attention in the direction of the excellent article which Eva wrote & which all have responded to accordingly (“Melinda Tankard Reist last week threatened legal action against a blogger who alleged that she downplayed her religious affiliations in an interview for Sunday Life magazine. This has prompted an almighty discussion about free speech, religion and feminism”) & have displayed the very reactions it was advocated for.
Just because you don’t like some responses & have to return to ridicule based denial doesn’t cover up for the fact that someone such as myself, knows a lie when they see it & no feminist campaign is going to change those facts. As you claim your not a FEMINIST, you well know that I’m not claiming that you are trying to run a campaign.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 12:04PM
fightmumma, without wanting to put words in her mouth, I don’t think Dr Wilson was arguing that women aren’t capable of warmongering. I think she was simply pointing out was that gendered discussions of behavioural characteristics are unproductive. Similarly, I don’t think she would argue (and in any event, I certainly wouldn’t) that women are incapable of enforcing discriminatory social norms. As I see it, the problem with such (patriarchal) norms is precisely their ubiquity, i.e. the fact that they are endorsed and enforced not just by members of the group that benefits but by members of the group who do not.
It’s all very well to say that everything would be ok and we wouldn’t need feminism if everyone stopped worrying what others think of them, but unfortunately it’s not that simple. We are social creatures whose identities and subjectivities are inevitably shaped by our social environments. I’m glad that you feel so empowered, but many people do not share that feeling and I don’t think it’s good enough to just tell those people to stop worrying what other people think of them. There is also the problem of patriarchal norms (such as the ideal of self-sufficiency) operating invisibly to make people feel empowered when they are actually perpetuating patriarchy. I’m not saying you are necessarily in that category, but I think all of us must remain vigilant by regularly asking ourselves whose interests are really being served by the attitudes and practices we adopt.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 12:10PM
And one more post-
This idea of whether or not pornography and prostitution (or abortion?) are actually pro or anti-feminist is definitely an interesting debate.
Ms Naughty I do have one question for you and would be interested in your response…
Yes I can understand that choice and the freedom to do what we want with our bodies COULD constitute a type of liberty and I suppose you you argue equality with men? But I have two responses to you…
First is - you clarify your comment with “willingly engage in…” and I just wonder whether or not you can see or acknowledge that social pressures influence one’s ability to do something WILLINGLY or not? For example - girls can willingly choose to starve themselves even to death, but what social forces are at play that influence their need to want to be skinny? I would posit that that need is a complex interplay of FITTING IN especially to an image of a sexy woman that MEN want? AND identifying their own self as ONLY a body and only to be looked at and judged by others. That their self worth is tied up unfortunately in MEN wanting them and wanting a particular TYPE of woman too. Your industry perpetuates this image and role of women and thus possibly the dominance of men defining women’s value. This is a suggestion I am intersted in your response to??
Secondly - I have been heavily involved in the professional kickboxing and boxing scene for the last decade as a fighter (now THERE’S women’s liberation for you!!) and have the idea of a sexual (to please MEN), beautiful, skinny woman shoved in my face all the time by ringgirls and a predominantly male crowd. I have taken my two sons to car races and motorbike stunt shows where my boys are forced to see women dressed ready for a fuck and for men to visually get-off on. One argument that women are free to do what they wish with their bodies and sex - yes I do see that side of it but - don’t these types of practices contribute to a particular view of women. It is once again a specific view of women that is not empowering to the diverse and broad range of achievements and potentials and capacities of the female mind, body, soul, whatever - it is again one dominated by men’s pleasure and men’s power in defining our worth as sexual and physical only.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m no prude - I love sex, am adventurous and have few inhibitions in that area, having declined offers to become involved in your industry - however, in terms of social values - doesn’t this still influence both men and women to view women in narrow and non empowering ways?
I am also not a skinny woman and love my curves, not at all feeling embarrassed or inferior for not being skinny. Yet the other women at the kickboxing gym I used to go to and fight for - they strived to be skinny and impress the male trainer/owner. I was fitter, stronger and had more cunt than the lot of them put together. The pressure to diet ridiculously was quite strong and to kiss-up to the trainer. However I just focussed on my fitness and skills. They never did well when they sparred me - completely gutless and all about image - will never get you anywhere in the real world of a boxing ring!! Loved it!! I consider myself liberated and that is despite being abused in every way imaginably as a child, sexually assaulted a few years ago, and getting myself out of an abusive marriage…
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 12:29PM
athiestno1 - actually I don’t think I said I didn’t like the responses - they were for the large part intersting and thought-provoking.
But as you point out - the areas to discuss were free speech, religion and feminism…I don’t understand the need for belittling any group in order to discuss these very important topics - indeed - starting down the path of who might be better than whom re religious viewpoints is not constructive and sets up antagonistic paths which serve no purpose - it seems religious and athiestic types are both guilty of this! And no I don’t like that type of us v them behaviour, but that is probably some little inadequacy of my own which I’m happy to acknowledge and check out in my own time for my own and my family’s benefit.
I don’t understand where I’m in denial could you elaborate on that one (perhaps you are making unfounded assumptions)? I have lived a very hard life and know my own reality and particularly how men and religion have been abusive and degrading towards me AND my own journey of recovery from suicide, depression, self harm, alcoholism…so I don’t see where you are coming from on that account…degrading and attacking people based on religious beliefs I don’t understand either…I prefer organic anarchy myself…and religion and sexuality are just social power tools used by ruling classes to maintain power and wealth and keep the common populations of the globe bickering uselessly amongst themselves…
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 12:35PM
myprefferredusername - yes I’ll take that on board - I’m studying community welfare at uniat the moment - so there are many avenues, perspectives and approaches for addressing social problems. And yes I agree - it isn’t as simple as saying don’t worry (I have depression and that’s kinda like when people say “get over it”!! NOT helpful at all!!) I have to add my own feeling of empowerment has not come easily but through hard work and self analyisis and overcoming…but this is where all the above posts begin to frustrate me - because we need to get off our arses and out into the real world and do all the dirty owrk that needs doing to help our girls and boys have fulfilling lives. We need to keep our focus and purpose in mind and it is through HANDS ON ACTION, example, togetherness that good things will be achieved…
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 1:19PM
Atheistno1, Perhaps you have forgotten the Brigate Rosse in Italy, the Baader-Meinhoff gang in Germany, and similar anarchist groups throughout history which were not motivated by religion.
The Rwanda genocide was unfortunately noteworthy by the participation of clerics in the slaughter of their own co-religionists.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 1:19PM
Atheistno1, Perhaps you have forgotten the Brigate Rosse in Italy, the Baader-Meinhoff gang in Germany, and similar anarchist groups throughout history which were not motivated by religion.
The Rwanda genocide was unfortunately noteworthy by the participation of clerics in the slaughter of their own co-religionists.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 1:54PM
Phil, I haven’t forgotten history in it’s raw forms at all bro. I make the distinction between blatant hatred & all those things that fightmumma commented on & mostly agree with her analysis. Those common day issues which are easily overlooked because we don’t fit the bill & the general everyday plight to be the one that stands out is all a part of human nature.
fightmumma, I’m 50 years of age & did Community welfare over 20 years ago now & one thing they can’t teach you, is the changing times to come. One must learn to deal with new waves of human behavior & much of those come with legal chemical drugs & the imbalances on the brain from the side effects they have & political brainwashing through psychological suggestion & many social factors incorporated with changes to the law within the legal system in between.
Feminism is one of those factors which are under the political influence & greatly categorized within religion & the reason why women scream OH MY GOD all the time, so they can continue the charade which gets them all the social security benefits & ultimate control of family law.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 1:57PM
Jennifer Wilson,
Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher all started wars. It is arguable that percentage wise, countries with female leaders are more likely to go to war than those with male leaders.
As for why men kill men, I think that the figures indicate that you are most likely to be killed by a partner or another close relative.
I am so pleased to see the term misogynist, this along with racist,homophobe, climate denier are of course de rigeur in any trendy post these days, preferably used in combination.
The level of theology I was referring to was equivalent to that of the HSC Studies of Religion. I find it disturbing that people often tell Christians firstly what their beliefs are, and then why they are wrong. I have no problem with Christians being criticised but it is best done in an informed fashion. Self-described Christians have a gamut of views from the fundamentalist Biblical literalist to the bishop who thinks that the introduction of sharia law in the UK might be a positive step.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 2:24PM
Philip Dowling,
Yes the three women you named did start wars but I doubt very much if there are only three men you can name who did the same.
Regardless, I’ve never argued that women aren’t capable of at least as much savagery as men, we are. You started the gender thing not me.
I find it disturbing that many Christians seem to be so coy about revealing their beliefs that I find myself at the pointy end of a def threat because I dared to speculate.
I’ve had it with this Christian thing. I did my level best to find out what Christians believe IN GENERAL, and it emerged that the doctrine of the virgin birth is universal in Christian belief.
If Christians in public life are not prepared to be open about what they do and don’t believe then they can’t blame anyone else for making informed assumptions. It is not my purpose in life to familiarise myself with every blessed variation of Christianity, anymore than I am required to be up with every variation of feminism.
Both ideologies seem to be to be way too precious about themselves for their own good. IMHO.
Jennifer Wilson
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 3:30PM
Jennifer - hi - thanks for your thoughts - I would suggest that Christianity is about loving your neighbour, about the teachings of J.C. turning the other cheek, love, hope, humility, mercy, forgiveness. The central theme of Christianity being about a virgin birth is not accurate though it gives people a fabulous opportunity to fight, argue, kill, judge etc - which is very ironic considering the above values!!!
My parents were taught to beat the will out of their children - also quite an interesting parenting approach given the message of forgiveness and love that JC taught!!
Athiestno1 - yes I think I know what you mean - many of these liberation-type movements begin with good intentions but develop into the motivations of the most vocal, assertive people within the movement (maybe the union movement might be another e.g.?) I think this happens with the disabilities movement too where one group will seek power, status, high profile for their own interests over other groups and their interests…
It is a sad indication of how poorly acccepting and inflexible our society is for addressing individual needs or smaller group’s interest areas when we have to band together to “force” some sort of societal change in order to achieve anything personal, “different” from mainstream, or possibly threatening to the status quo.
I actually live predominantly from parenting payment and a parttime wage because of domestic violence and my ex not paying any child support - so I spose I benefit from some of what you mention above - but that whole issue of family law that you mention is an unfortunate example of one power group completely overriding the justice of another group based solely on gender rather than individual cases, needs, circumstances - once again this is because society’s bureaucratic system cannot cope with non-administrativable, individual, localised, small scale methods of running society.
Marx posited that capitalism actually impacts the human psyche (re competitivism, commodifying everything) - this would be interesting to test through research given Western society’s saturation of capitalist ways of doing everything.
…bum I’m rambling again!!
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 5:34PM
eva cox
Apologies Dr Jennifer Wilson, the omission was not intended to show contempt but to focus on MTR’s actions, not yours. Re many of the other comments, I am surprised that there was limited engagment with the points I raised. I think there are issues about the use of the definitions if we lose sight of the politics in a welter of inclusiveness. Thanks for the comments on what i did say! I appreciate the feedback and debate!
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 5:55PM
Philip, you note, “Self-described Christians have a gamut of views from the fundamentalist Biblical literalist to the bishop who thinks that the introduction of sharia law in the UK might be a positive step.” I am not noting this to be pedantic, but actually it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who thinks the latter, well he SAYS that, or something like that anyway (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1137/archbishops-lect…). The point is that it is not just any old bishop saying this but the Primate of all England and the “head” of the worldwide Anglican communion (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/pages/roles-and-priorities.html). So your point is actually stronger (this should not be taken as an endorsement of your other points though :). And one of the LEAST universally held beliefs of Christians (who actually tend to identify themselves under a more specific name (Lutherans or Catholics or Roman Catholics etc, which is itself an indication of lack of “universality”) is the doctrine of the virgin birth. You don’t need to be a theologian to work this out, just google it with any number of terms eg Kung or Spong. This supports mypreferredusername’s posts about identity and beliefs, which I wish I had written, and written with such clarity and grace. Helen
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 7:54PM
Loathe the way anyone who objects to the demeaning depiction of women in pornography is attacked like this. All these unlearned and self-congratulatory comments about religion! Eva Cox’s waffly reduction of feminism to people being nice to each other in an ideal world is an insult to the intelligence. No reasoned argument, no discourse or dialogue with the points that Tankard-Reist has raised. The sacred cow that cannot be questioned is pornography. No, that’s a great gift to the world of course. Almost as wonderful as abortion. How can anyone argue about something that has no downside?
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 9:57PM
eva cox
I do wish peop[le would read what I say not assume it. Re Helen’s longer post, my comment on earlier feminists was not the general suffrage movememnt but the views of some in the Women’s Christian Temperance Unuion. I agree most others were inspiring. And I hardly think my views on women are as goody two shoes, but my feminism is about recognising female strengths and weaknesses, and giving these the same credence and value as both male versions. Victimhood is easier to sell in conservative times but really does not make progress possible.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 10:55PM
G’day eva - can you tell me what your intention on using the word “victimhood” is? Do you mean the woe-is-me attitude that people use to gain audience, favour and support from people who identify with that mentality? Or is there something in that word that I haven’t come across before?
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 11:12PM
I have to say that everywhere I look there is a disheartening degree of sniping and nastiness amongst women who call themselves feminists. Nicely summed up by Miranda Celeste Hale here:
http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/07/03/feminists-can-be-bullies-too/
describes very nicely the behaviour of people here:
http://hoydenabouttown.com/20120116.11185/melinda-tankard-reist-doesnt-s…
and Helen’s response to a reasonable comment here:
http://www.castironbalcony.com/2012/01/16/melinda-tankard-reist-doesnt-s…
No wonder women dissociate themselves from the word feminist.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 4:59AM
fightmumma,
I can see your objective when describing the common good of Christianity as “about loving your neighbor, about the teachings of J.C. turning the other cheek, love, hope, humility, mercy, forgiveness” & although I share your sentiments to a certain degree but hope is a wonderful thing that you will use on many levels in your counseling experiences with distressed people. However, in many cases it backfires when the client realizes your intention is to gloss the situation over periodically & until you can get them past the most detrimental part of their despair.
In reality, Their is no such thing as God & saving someone is not always stopping them from ending their life but reducing the mental anguish which they will suffer from. It is a well known fact that people suffer worse from mental anguish & that torture is based heavily on it & worse than physical pain. As far as goes with your perceptions on “minority groups”, I have to point out that you have a lot to learn about the real side of Gangs in a minority group within a religious majority & Feminism is one of those Gangs within that majority.
It is a very weak person who can’t take control of their addiction & it is a gutless week coward who gets their Gang members to attack another & others in order to maintain & defend their addiction. Religion is an Addiction for the fear of the unknown & the fear of insecurity.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 7:54AM
athiestno1 - pls don’t put words or intention into my mouth/mind when you don’t even know me. I have recovered from suicidal thoughts myself and know full well of one person’s battle the depths of despair and the confusion those feelings cause. I would never gloss over anything (you are making assumptions based on what - your suspicions about my religious beliefs? Your own obsessions with no god? What?) - in the end it is a client’s decision what direction counselling progresses in or what ground is covered re client centred approaches. I have no intention of telling any client how to think or what to feel which is usually the big cause of their problems in the first place!
I will always have a lot to learn because I’m happy to admit and even discover MORE areas where I don’t know something, explore new ideas etc and feel no insecurity or inadequacy for this - and notice that I don’t need to become negative to a group or indulge in putdowns either.
There’s a big wide world out there and I’m not looking in the rear view mirror unless a bit of reversing is necessary. Each person has the freedom to explore their own spirituality, beliefs, think and feel however they want, behave in accordance with their own morality and answer to the natural consequences of this re responsibility and rights).
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 11:19AM
Ladies, please - you are becoming hysterical.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 11:36AM
Unfortunately this article has attracted a lot of comments from an too many people with nothing of substance to say on the topic at hand.
If you are simply part of the circle gathered around and tempted to point excitedly and say “Fight! Look, it’s a fight!” please resist.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 1:38PM
eva cox
Ben Pobje wash yoiur mouth out with soap! I don’t notice the male responses, including yours, show any serious quality because you have no Womb!
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 2:08PM
Ben you crack me up - you might not have a womb but you’ve got plenty of balls making a comment on this article!! live long and prosper!!
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 2:53PM
Pobjie you fecker.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 3:05PM
Eva, as you link only to my blog and not to the article I wrote on Hills’ piece, I am wondering if you actually read the blog I wrote that has caused Melinda Tankard Reist to threaten me with defamation.
If you didn’t you have no business writing an article alleging that my argument is “nit picking,” or indeed on making any comment on it, or the situation.
If you did, why didn’t you link the readers of your piece to the contested article instead of just to my blog, which contains over 200 posts? You don’t even give them the title of the post to help them find it if they are interested.
I accept your apology for dehumanising me by calling me “a blogger.” In my world, whenever I refer to a human being in my writing I name them, unless requested otherwise.
Jennifer Wilson.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 3:36PM
Eva, darling you are making sense, your article hit me like an exploding Molotov. I may have had an orgasm but these days I cant tell. There are so few good integrated and directed articles in the mainstream Web media on Feminisms that my interest in ‘Feminism’ in all its forms has waned substantially in the last ten years. It is refreshing to see people getting on with engaging in their Particular revolutions. What is or what isnt tends to be academic. However while I have no detectable womb I do nurture the fervent hope that I will see more and more social independence in both men and women… at least in my dreams. That women will fix their own cars build or pay for their own homes and stop using their kids as a meal ticket and men will look after their own kids and buy more inflatable toys (not that I’m a Connoisseur) if they are complaining about women in their lives. I believe my Masculism is as real as the GFC or any god.
You have made so many quotes so one will have to do to comment on. “It is not feminist to infantilise women by removing our right to make the wrong choices.” Should read; It is not my particular Feminism to infantilise women by removing our right to make the wrong choices. If you concur I’m with you probably because I would like to see more wild women - take difference as it comes and hautily challenge everything, especially the acceptable.
Mumma Hi! Despite being unsure as to whether I even exist, I loved this> “Any person who is empowered and free, needs no labels, needs no proving to others the validity of their beliefs, needs no title before their name, is not threatened by others’ viewpoints or beliefs and thus does not get defensive, offended or need to attack, degrade or name-call others’beliefs…”
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 3:44PM
And further, I would like to amend the title of this piece to “Call me whatever the hell you want but don’t call me a Baptist”
Or you’ll be hearing from my lawyers.
Jennifer Wilson.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 3:56PM
G’day guywire! Thanks! Yeah - I find that whenever I’m a bit offended or upset by someone, something etc - if I’m honest with myself, it is often me who could learn, adjust or grow more flexible - even if I consider the other person/situation etc “wrong” I can still benefit somehow. Probably learnt this a bit through boxing where it isn’t nice to get a punch in the nose or overpowered by someone - getting emotional or sulking contributes nothing to becoming a better boxer/fighter, in fact I’m more likely to keep gettin’ boxed in the head until I adapt and grow a pair!!
Your comment (and I’m just being silly…ok…very silly) “Despite being unsure as to whether I even exist”- are you God? hehe!!
And finally - maintaining the wonderful theme of the silly - guywire, honey - if you had a wild woman…would you be able to handle her!! hehe :-)
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 4:00PM
Amazonia, Jennifer - keep swinging the fists girl!! Never ever ever give in to bullies!! Fight even if you are not going to win! Fight because by fighting you are already a winner!! The person who does not fight or resist a bully - loses by default.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 5:14PM
Eva, this is a fair question. Did you actually read the blog I wrote that caused Tankard Reist to threaten me with defamation before you wrote this article?
Jennifer Wilson
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 6:41PM
yes, I did read it, but, as I said earlier, I was interested in the MTR issues. Despite your vitriol and assumptions about what I say, I supect we agree on lots of things. I do not take formal religious affiliation as seriously as presumed beliefs. Interestinglky the way the postings on this item has wander4d into religions has separated the discussion from the feminist politics. This confirms my claim that these debates often trivialise the political issues as people vent their religious prejudices.
I wanted to see whom people thought could be defined as feminist, a question that is worth pursuing without accusations of name calling, bullying, hysteria etc. The general tone of many of the postings suggest too many people can’t deal with feminism with some gravitas. Some males writing seem to tangle their dicks and fingers in trying to be insulting or maybe amusing. I still want a debate on whether using some parts of feminist insights can add to possibilities of making society more civil but so far the indications are this hasn’t worked.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 7:25PM
Vitriol? I have no vitriolic feelings towards you at all. Please don’t misread determination as animosity. I expect that from the patriarchy.
I asked because the third sentence of my piece is this: “As feminists we learn to always ask anyone who is publicly morally prescriptive where they are coming from.”
As a second waver you’ll remember that baby feminists were taught to question the agenda of just about everybody, including one another. I’ve got no wish to return to those tedious times, however, considering where someone is coming from, especially when they’re public figures interested in influencing public policy, and especially when they are determined to impose a particular form of sexual representation of women on our society, I remember that wise advice: ask where they are coming from.
I am gobsmacked that you consider this nit picking. Tankard Reist is anti abortion and anti a lot of other things. Her views are not based on sound evidence, indeed, many of her views are refuted by sound evidence. So is if she is not basing her views on evidence, where is she getting them from? A belief system of some sort perhaps? All the indicators suggest that is the case. She has since said on the ABC and in the SMH and the mamamia website that she is a Christian who tries to do what Jesus wants.
Apparently you don’t think it’s necessary for women to know this. I think it is fundamental (!) to a discussion of feminist politics and MTR. We know Tony Abbott’s position on abortion stems from his catholicism. We tell him, some of us, to get his rosaries off our ovaries. Yet we don’t need to know where Tankard Reist is coming from when she campaigns against abortion?
This was my point, as you’ll know having read the piece. Not that religion should be dismissed, or that Tankard Reist’s views should be dismissed ( she has some I agree with), but that her views be placed in the context of her religious beliefs, so women can know where she is coming from.
Quite frankly, I don’t think all that many people care who can or cannot be defined as a feminist. But if we are going to find ourselves subjected to conservative religious oppression and repression, then I for one want to know as much as I can about that. If you think it’s nit picking, take a look at the US, where the Republican Presidential candidates are anti choice and likely creationist to boot, and see women as issuing from one of their ribs, and then tell me religion doesn’t matter in feminist politics, and talking about it is only an excuse to express prejudice. That, Eva, is rot.
I’m only interested in religion when it rears its head in public figures who have influence of some kind. As far as I’m concerned everybody can believe whatever they want. But nobody has the right to attempt to engineer society in accordance with their religious belief.
I really have no ill feeling towards you, certainly nowhere near that HPringle seems to bear you. I don’t think you can expect that someone towards whom you have been so dismissive as to firstly not name her, and then without any discussion of her arguments inform your readers is a nit picker, is going to respond to you warmly.
You were interested in the MTR issues? Then I ask you the same question I asked Rachel Hills. Why aren’t you interested in her religious affiliations? Jennifer.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 8:01PM
I don’t bear ill feeling towards Eva, quite the contrary. HP
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 8:04PM
Glad to hear it.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 8:06PM
@hpringle Are you still travelling the blogosphere correcting spelling mistakes?
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 9:45PM
Amazonia - how do you see it as possible to separate off some beliefs from others and decide which are coming from religious affiliation and origin…and which are from philosophy/rationality…or…say…a political ideology like for example…feminism? Our judgments, preferences have to come from somewhere, culture, class, religion, experience, philosophy - there is plenty of discussion within sociology circles that value-free behaviour is a myth. Is it any less subjective, biased, prejudiced by values to adopt views on politics from your own political ideas…which from these posts has demonstrated a broad degree AND a contradictory set of values/perspectives? I’m just asking - interested what you have to say. Do you view your own approach to social policy for example, as any more valid because of your own political affiliation? Or beliefs/lack of?
My background is growing up in a religious cult and so I don’t really identify with organised religion, and the views on here are interesting when viewed from the outside (like when I watch a boxing bout as different to when I’m fighting one myself!) but from where I stand when people of whatever camp/position set each other in opposition, judge, condemn - it feels that you actually each adopt the behaviour and values that you profess to NOT endorse? This is only a possible observation.
Posted Saturday, 21 January 12 at 2:49PM
fightmumma,
I’m sorry you took me to be putting words in your mouth & I can assure you that I wasn’t. Anything I’ve said to you was on the basis that you have an educated understanding of human behavioral social sciences & to help you with your ability to help others with an educated value of the issues you will face. Your past is not what I have in mind when speaking of social welfare issues, that is up to you to deal with both in discussion on social web sites or in the professional field of community welfare.
As an Atheist, I welcome death, live for a life of quality & not quantity, unlike the religious institutions who use those values to condemn anyone who is not of their faith & coming back to the feminist’s, play the same game on issues which condemn men for their own interests & not for the good of all society.
Posted Saturday, 21 January 12 at 3:31PM
athiestno1 - it was where you said “glossing over” because if anything I could criticise myself for the opposite ie of standing up and confronting problems/issues. I tend to jump in the deep end and see how I go - it can get pretty painful/scary confronting deep dark rooms of one’s mind/past (re the johari window) but I feel I far from gloss over anything especially on some fluffy, feelgoody idea of hope based on a religion!
My experiences within a religious cult have created, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to religion, a distaste for fanaticism in all its forms - I picture this as when a person can only see or validate their own views, perspective and experience whilst not accepting that others exist or being willing to listen to others’views, blinkered tunnel vision, antagonism towards others who do not fully, unquestioningly accept that view, who bully, judge and condemn others based on that view, who have no empathy or sensitivity to other people experiencing life in other ways, who don’t want me to think for myself…
I can pick these tendencies pretty instincively now cos of previous experience - I very much dislike the aggression, opposition, inflexibility, abuse/oppression, force, attitude of superiority, lack of collaboration/teamwork that this fanaticism creates. I’m not that interested in religion OR feminism or anything/anyone else that tells me what to think or to blindly follow someone else cos they tell me that they know better than me what/how to think.
If we want lives of quality, as you say, we get that by respecting and utilising diversity, innovation, dialogue, creativity, freedom to learn and express, but mostly by working together - which fanaticism does not do.
So you and I might have more in common than you think we do.
Posted Sunday, 22 January 12 at 12:43PM
PhilipD, “I am obviously not qualified to discuss feminism and its issues, nor its definition nor its issues”.
Why not! You may or may not be qualified But do you have to be a professionalised pro-Feminist to put in your two cents worth? This is part of what free speech is all about and it may be the thing that originally distracted a whole swathe of powerful potential Feminism sympathisers using Baptist Theology. The ‘Mens Movement’ had plenty of ‘Christians’ too.
“Why is it that women are so critical of other women? Why is it that women who have climbed the ladder of success so often pull the ladder up after them?”
I would suggest that men AND women do these things, it seems to be a part of the human condition.
and,
I’m only talking to you cos neither of us have a womb. Hi Bro!
“Why is that the women on this blog feel compelled to introduce religion as an issue.”
I seems to me that Eva Cox herself introduced religion in her first paragraph and we are all stuck with hearing it rattling around in the responses. To make the best of it maybe we should switch to the topic; “How Feminism has disaffected the religious nuts of the world”. Hang on! maybe that is the topic.
I myself would like to hear of the tall tales and true of the glorious battles and friendships made in the icy wastes of humanitarian kindness.
Posted Sunday, 22 January 12 at 2:27PM
hi guywire and philipD -
If you read the bloggers article it seems to be a very emotional rection to MTR with Jennifer’s main contention seeming to be that the article J.W. responded to failed to discuss MTR’s religious beliefs. And that J.W. appears to believe that pornography (keep your pants on guywire) and prostitution are forms of females’ expression of their sexuality (thus should not be regulated/censored because this would restrict women’s right to sexual expression).
It seems that:
* the author of the artcile about MTR was the one who decided what to write about and print, cutting out much material she had covered with MTR, including mention of religious beliefs,
* this author admits she should have “mentioned it in passing” which J.W. still doesn’t like because she seems to think that the religious beliefs are the most important aspect to what MTR has to say due to religious beliefs affecting MTR’s sense of morality,
* Eva Cox makes her own slant on it too, turning the topic around to be about how feminists “should” be defined - “The issue of Tankard Reist’s religious beliefs and whether they are acknowledged is not the real issue here. It is a surrogate argument about who can call themselves a feminist.”
* there are factions within fem that believe you can’t be a Christian and a feminist - and others that belive you can
* pornography, prostitution, abortion are antifeminist, according to some fem groups, and profeminist according to other groups,
* that some people like J.W. run the risk of excluding the majoirty of women from feminism because, by far, around the globe women live in religious cultures and value their families and roles within their culture/family/religion, will she attack and judge them too…a bit like a religious nutter would?
* some people prefer to use “prawn” rather than the real word while Ben Pobjie uses the word “cock” in his article
Posted Sunday, 22 January 12 at 11:37PM
fightmumma, I know you & I have more in common than you think I think I do. LOL
I’d like to leave NM as a news site & I’m sure NM would prefer that too, so if you want to talk more casually look me up on Face Book. Regards, Matt Meurer.
Posted Monday, 23 January 12 at 12:38AM
Mumma “there are factions within fem that believe you can’t be a Christian and a feminist - and others that belive you can”
If a Christian (mass murderers or not) can also be a Policeman, a Greenie, a Liberal, a Vegan and a Cat Lover, then a Christian can be any form of Feminist they want and a Feminist can also be a Christian (albeit less likely for Mormons). Thousands might disagree they can be both but that much is clear to me. It doesnt mean they are right, it just means they are Human or maybe just hard line.
“cutting out much material she had covered with MTR, including mention of religious beliefs,” doesnt seem crucial to me especially if she made some cash (or was empowered somehow) to boot because lets face it we humans kill for our principles.
Religious beliefs migh affect a persons Morality but nothing stands before Busines as Usual and its co-dependent the Almighty Dollar.
Who can call themselves a Feminist of a particular persuasion? Anyone can and they do. “Everyone’s opinion is worth having though their reasoning seldom convinces anyone but themselves”. *JG Evans
Posted Monday, 23 January 12 at 9:30AM
That’s a lot of ‘labels’ guywire & I have to agree with what your trying to say.
Even though I’m an Atheist, I live in a so called “Christian democracy” & which therefor makes Christianity the basis of my constitution.
One must have a constitution regardless of which country they come from, even if they are Muslim & from an Arabic state.
Posted Monday, 23 January 12 at 10:19AM
The radical feminist argument concerning pornography is not reducible to a communitarian ethic regarding the pitfalls of capitalism. Feminists, like Tankard Reist are concerned with the sex-industry because it seriously harms and exploits women and girls, not just because it makes billions of dollars. Commodification is central but harm is the real issue. In other words, Tankard Reist doesn’t exist simply because, as Cox says, there are “current anxieties about the dominance of markets over ethics in the public sphere”. She is part of a long feminist line of abolitionists of sexual slavery that began with the critique of the coverture in the late eighteenth century and now concentrates on the last bastion of male sex-right: pornography and prostitution.
When women and increasingly girls are reduced to body parts and orifices, as they are in porn, and this is one of the most popular forms of pop-culture consumed by men (often in secret), we have a massive societal problem on our hands. Why is that position so hard to countenance? Why are those who espouse it howled down, harassed, belittled, caricatured and otherwise demonised? Surely because they’ve struck a nerve? I’m not suggesting Cox is doing this but she does imply that Tankard Reist has some murky religious background that disqualifies her from feminism. I wonder: what is the point of this?
Cox in part agrees with Tankard Reist’s arguments concerning pornography, but her dismissive use of the term “sexploitation” fails to accord the abolitionist argument its due. It is thanks to feminists such as Tankard Reist (Dines, Jeffries and others) that the problem of porn, and the sex-industry more generally, is back on the agenda. This argument cannot be conflated with the right, and it cannot be reduced to a critique of capital by the left. It concerns as Caroline Norma says “the dominion of women by men”.
It’s not about making women victims, it is about acknowledging the society wide effects of a powerful, visceral form of media which depicts women as sex-objects to be used and brutalised. Even at its most benign pornography defines women’s worth in their looks and sexual value to men, and abstracts this from their humanity. Just because an individual woman defines her participation in the sex-industry as “empowering” does not mean that porn is not damaging to women as a sex class. Sociology 101 tells us that an individual’s experience is not the same thing as an institutional or structural impact. For example, one young woman may make a lot of money in porn and feel ok about it, but does that make it ok if ten other women have entered the industry because of homelessness, poverty, drug addiction, sexual abuse, or sex trafficking? And what about society at large and the impacts of pornification on male and female sexuality? What about the women and girls who find themselves pressured into – or worse, forced into – sex acts men have seen on porn? What about the partners of male users who are deeply distressed when they stumble across a gargantuan porn habit?
The issue here is over who can legitimately call themselves a feminist and, given the mutually exclusive criteria established by those in different camps, it seems there are some irreconcilable differences. One has to live with the paradox both of (inevitably) subscribing to a position and accepting that there are a multiplicity of positions. Melinda Tankard Reist is no less a feminist than Eva Cox, but she is a feminist with a different underlying philosophy and politics. 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, which is an argument that deserves a hearing. I find it deeply problematic that she is not pro-choice, it is certainly incompatible with my own feminism, but this does not automatically disqualify her other arguments concerning pornography and the sexualisation of girls in popular culture. Here she has an important contribution to make.
The real question is not whether she is a feminist or not. Of course she is. The real question is why people are looking to derail her argument concerning the deleterious impact of porn. I would say – as a therapist – that we are in denial as a culture and very defended against the kinds of arguments that question male sex-right.
Posted Monday, 23 January 12 at 2:12PM
athiestno! hehe so funny!! more than I think you think I think I do!! I actually thought of that after I posted it ie that I only have an impression of what you think…so funny…aren’t our beliefs systems and perceptions so funny!!
Posted Monday, 23 January 12 at 2:39PM
petrab - this is excellent, well written!! “acknowledging the society wide effects of a powerful, visceral form of media which depicts women as sex-objects to be used and brutalised. Even at its most benign pornography defines women’s worth in their looks and sexual value to men, and abstracts this from their humanity”.
Well, actually…the whole post is excellent thanks petrab!
Although petrab, I have 2 thoughts…men are also reduced to body parts too aren’t they (and bank balances by some women)…and, are male prostitutes just as exploited by women? Also, I like some pornography, which when used by myself and a partner in the privacy of my home, seems pretty harmless, now I’m wondering how that fits into this bigger ethical topic?!!
I’d like to add that I asked both Ms Naughty and Amazonia some questions based on similar line of thinking as petrab and have received no reply by them. But thank you to the people who HAVE replied (which ironically TWO are men!!)
As petrab says - with the reality being that “there are some irreconcilable differences”, which being the case, logic perhaps demands (or my logic I suppose) that bashing heads against each other or against brick walls only results in injury and casualties of some sort - NOT a constructive outcome.
Guywire - yes I think we’re on the same page about this, the religion of money and profit trumps all else, principles, morality and christianity included. The big question is what is actually important? We can only ever truly do something about our own lives can’t we!
And as athiestno1 adds - the reality is we live in large social groups where many aspects of society are out of our control and opposite to our personal preference. So we only have a few choices once again!
Getting back to my boxing roots - we have to roll with the punches!! (oh and keep on the front foot as much as possible too!!)
Posted Tuesday, 24 January 12 at 2:38AM
Mumma Our brainwaves must be in sync. Men are reduced to Wallets Transport and Security and theres gotta be a particular Feminism that says Male Prostitution exploits the Women who frequent them. And Pork away pal, you can blame your lust on your particular allpowerful divine entity.
“(which ironically TWO are men!!)”. That’s not Irony, That may or may not be Sexual Politics. Good luck with the investigation.
Yeah! “roll with the punches!!” and dont take static for an answer.
Athiestno, “Even though I’m an Atheist, I live in a so called “Christian democracy” & which therefor makes Christianity the basis of my constitution.”
The morality that Christians espouse flys in the face of our political representatives decisions. This involves me in pointless (except for the money) wars and I sometimes am ashamed at our unaware and brutal hypocrisy. As for democracy we do what we are told and police back our unrepresentive representatives. Christian Democracy dwells on a cloud and adherents are advised to pack a parachute. The Article made me think, however there may have been an overuse of the words Christian and Religious.
Posted Tuesday, 24 January 12 at 12:10PM
guywire,
People don’t seem to understand that the difference between democracy & the laws it is based on are separate from religion. Our laws are based on the Magna Carta & not on religion, Christianity is just the mostly practiced form of religion & therefor gives western culture the title of ‘Christian’ society.