Greer at the Opera House, Eva Cox, Julia Gillard and MTR. Feminism today. *Sigh*

7 Feb

There’s been a debate raging in the media for over three weeks now as to whether or not morals campaigner Melinda Tankard Reist’s claim to be a feminist is legitimate. Some of the arguments are addressed here and here.

This has come at a convenient time for the Sydney Opera House events management team, who have now co-opted the debate and the threats of defamation made against me by Tankard Reist as advertising material for their upcoming event starring Germaine Greer and Naomi Wolf. This event is titled “The F-Word,” and up until the legal threat the organisers were worried that nobody was interested in feminism anymore. The resulting internecine wars have gone a long way towards cheering them up.

Any woman who believes she has the right to tell any other woman she may not call herself a feminist is engaging in an act of bullying. A woman may self-identify in whatever way she chooses. Others may disagree with her choice but disagreement isn’t the same thing as attempting to deny her the right to define herself as she sees fit.

There were at least twenty-seven different factions of feminism last time I counted, many with oppositional points of view. Hegemonic attempts to impose just one definition of the ideology as the norm on all women who would thus identify themselves, is antithetical to feminist principles.

In a situation where the group calls itself “feminist” and is but one of many groups identifying as such, on what grounds does this group assume the entitlement and privilege that allows them to declare all others ineligible?

The ongoing fights about who is entitled to identify herself as a “feminist” are a sad indicator of an ideology that is rapidly disappearing up its own fundament. For example, presented with a choice between engaging in public debate about the other issues the Reist defamation threats have raised, such as free speech, our defamation laws, the rights of bloggers and social media users, all of which are or would once have been considered feminist issues, the public feminists decided to ignore all that.

Then we have the pro Tankard Reist argument that she is an “authentic” feminist as presented here. Whenever someone uses the word “authentic” in an argument such as this I wonder why. To cast other feminists as “inauthentic” perhaps? The article is written by women who describe themselves as “radical” feminists. Are they also authentic? Have I fallen down a rabbit hole?

The battle for and against is two sides of the same struggle for sole possession and domination of the feminist narrative. A struggle that is founded on exclusion, expulsion, entitlement, privilege, and an appalling lack of imagination.

If I wanted to define feminism for myself, I would turn to bell hooks

Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys.

 At the risk of incurring the usual old anti feminist slurs, I’d suggest that any woman or group of women who seek to take possession of the term “feminist” are engaging in their own form of patriarchal domination, and one that we could all do well without.

I don’t know if Greer and Wolfe will be discussing any of this. But I am bemused as I watch a defamation threat made against me by a self-described feminist, turned into an advertisement for an Opera House event at which two of the planet’s most famous feminists will discuss the relevance of feminism. Irony, anyone?

Then there’s the furore about whether or not criticism leveled at Julia Gillard is sexist and misogynist. This is difficult. I’m of the opinion that there is a strong misogynist undercurrent, but I can’t prove it. It’s easy enough to find examples of male PM’s whose appearance is subject to mockery, and exaggerating physical appearance of politicians is the cartoonists’ stock in trade.

Gillard comes with baggage of the worst kind. Would the emotions surrounding that baggage have remained so powerfully alive had a man ousted Kevin Rudd? Is it worse when a woman does it? And if so, why? Is this a manifestation of unresolved mother issues from the time when many of us were under some woman’s thumb, and powerless? Does it hurt more when a woman does it because they aren’t supposed to?

Fascinating questions for an analyst of the collective psyche.

I do take issue with the argument that because she’s a woman Gillard has less authority. She has authority, and in my opinion that authority is both increasing and stabilising as she grows into her role.

Rather, there are those among us who resent a woman’s authority. We might like to reframe that as the woman’s regrettable lack of that quality, however I don’t believe that’s the case in this instance. Anyone who watched as Gillard calmly instructed her bodyguards to ensure Abbott’s safety on Australia Day can’t claim the woman has no authority. It’s innate.

The inability to accept and deal with a female authority figure  is often expressed in dismissive contempt.

In many ways turning the Gillard story into a gender argument is not helpful, even though misogyny is undoubtedly present and ought to be outed if possible. Nevertheless, a woman can’t win when gender becomes the focus of the debate, and Bob Brown didn’t do Gillard any favours by attempting to defend her. I doubt it’s a stoush the PM herself is eager to engage with.

And so to the second feminist Australian Legend to be honoured by Australia Post, Eva Cox.

After referring to me as a nit-picking blogger in her article for New Matilda on whether Tankard Reist is a feminist or not, Cox later apologised for the insult.

However, as she then went ahead and published the same article again here I’ve come to the conclusion that her apology meant less than nothing.

It’s interesting being silenced from both ends of the feminist spectrum. Tankard Reist uses the law in an effort to control me. Cox chooses the arguably more subtle method of refusing to name me and dismissing my arguments at the same time. A man would be pilloried for using the same negating tactics against a woman writer.

Cox apparently has no objections to the law being employed to silence female dissent, which surprises me somewhat, but there you go. Tankard Reist has positively seized upon the law as an instrument of personal control, and has now resorted to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights as well.

Then there’s this description of me and my kind made by Cathy Sherry, in her article defending Tankard Reist. I am, she writes, an  “unaccountable blogger sneering and abusing from the safety of [my] bedroom.” According to Ms Sherry, I’m not even worthy of an office simply because I blog. In a later comment elsewhere Ms Sherry refers to me as “faceless” as well, while Anne Summers refers to me simply as “a blogger”. Summers also apologised later.

How to explain this feminist contempt for female bloggers? One would think that blogging and feminism were made for each other. The blog offers an ordinary woman a voice where once there was a deep silence that has been broken only by a select few.

At the end of  three weeks of remarkable encounters with a variety of self-described feminists I have to conclude that because I’m unknown, a blogger, and entirely without influence I don’t count as a feminist or as a woman, and am to be shut up one way or another by a feminist who has more of a public presence than me.

I’m not unduly upset by all this, but I am very puzzled, as well as a little aggravated. I fear it says a great deal about where feminism is today, and it isn’t pretty. I fear it suggests that feminism has sold itself out to some of the values it once despised and resisted. I fear it’s going to be all down hill from here, if we aren’t very careful.

37 Responses to “Greer at the Opera House, Eva Cox, Julia Gillard and MTR. Feminism today. *Sigh*”

  1. Ray (novelactivist) February 7, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    Words either mean something or they mean nothing.


  2. Hawkpeter February 7, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    Question: Can a man be a ‘feminist’?


  3. paul walter February 7, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    No, Greer,Cox, Wolfe, Summers, et al, can be legitimately regarded as feminists rather than fascists. Feminists seek debate; fascists clamp it.
    Dr Wilson, it may be that an error in expression from someone like Cox is a relatively small misdemeanour when set against the malicious conscious supressiveness of the Moral Right, you should not allow a twig to obscure the glorious and heartening view of a veritable forest of potential allies.


  4. ItsBouquet February 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    It’s interesting that the Opera House events management team are happy to utilise the controversy between yourself and MTR to plug their event… I wonder if it’s occurred to them to consider inviting the protagonists to appear beside the luminaries?


    • Jennifer Wilson February 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

      I don’t think so! This has been such a lesson for me in HOW THINGS WORK!!!


  5. paul walter February 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    hawkpeter, perhaps yes and no. Obviously men can support the activities of women for a fairer go for women, when the arguments are compelling enough. And when women raise issues and a wider social discussion gets going, unacceptable laws eventually get replaced, in many instances.
    Equally, there some types of feminists who will deny that men can offer support for women, or will refuse their support, since their ideological base has it that men are uncomprehending enemies and nothing can bridge the gap; fringe separatist/essentalist “rad” feminisms tend to be maginalised given the subsequent flavour and tone of their ideas.
    Paradoxically, the recourse to rad essentialism seems to have been the down fall of conservative feminism, for just that reason. They have not been able to enter into fruitful debate with those curious at their ideas, beyond the infantile “all men are beasts” refrain, so then attempt to silence dissent through legal means.


  6. Hypocritophobe February 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

    Let the likes of Cox devalue themselves and their brand.Seems to be working.

    As for can a man be a feminist?Depends who you ask.
    If you asked the creatures defending MTR from anonymity the answer is a profound , reverberating no.
    This faction,for want of a better word is made up of very vocal misandrists.This sits nicely with the anti-male attitudes which MTR harnesses when out to nail a scalp to the mast.
    All the proof you need of this common ground of ‘anti-male ‘ attitudes is easily obtained by reading the comments in blogs across the local internet.

    Men create all the hurdles for MTR and the misandrists.
    Didn’t you hear?
    (Oh except for the ones who further their cause)

    Their greatest disdain and venom is HOWEVER saved for the lowest form of life know to their mission.A woman who openly communicates with men.

    (At the risk of repetition)
    Here’s a taste:(again)

    “And, BTW, guilty as charged on an earlier accusation that I am anti-Wilson. Indeed, I am very, very anti-Wilson. But not because of her treatment of MTR. I don’t like her because she is a fake feminist of the Christina Hoff Sommers school. She pretends to be a feminist in order to slag feminism as ‘an insider’. Her sanctimonious garbage about pornography and abortion are just fronts for her to continually attack feminism and suck up to the men’s movement.”


  7. Sam Jandwich February 7, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    I remember in the 90s there was a lot of space given to “diversity feminists” from minority groups, developing countries etc etc who pointed out that western notions of feminism subsumed their own and presumed to speak for them out of turn. Does this school of thought have something to contribute here?

    I am also a little unclear on the extent to which you need to subscribe to and advocate for a matriarchal world view, in order to be thought of as a feminist. If someone lives in a patriarchal society and argues for greater freedoms for women, but does not necessarily advocate that the patriarchy be dismantled and replaced, they would be considered a feminist at home but might have a harder time at this in a matriarchal society. It depends on the context perhaps.

    But with those preambles in mind, I’ve come to the conclusion that, while feminists can legitimately take up any position on the political “spectrum” (if such a thing exists), all that is required to claim the title “feminist” is to be sincere and reflexive (in the sense that you have to say what you believe – not just what you think – and you have to recognise and represent the ways in which your emotions and cultural understandings affect the things you say).

    That is to say, while patriarchy values evidence-based knowledge and is sceptical of where personal, unsubstantiated opinion takes us, feminism values wisdom and is sceptical of where evidence-based knowledge takes us.

    This has a wide variety of implications. For example, it refutes arguments such as those of Cathy Sherry, who argues that feminists should be free to express their opinion without fear of incurring vitriol from their peers, and states that “the real test of tolerance is tolerating those with whom we strongly disagree”. But why should tolerance be a virtue? if you hold to this then surely that means you should tolerate living under conditions that damage you, whilst confining your objections to the realm of polite ideas – that is, she is arguing that feminist arguments should be conducted according to patriarchal principles of argument. I would suggest rather that a feminism based on wisdom constitutively entails engaging in personal attacks and expressly allows labelling people you disagree with as “wrong”, on the grounds that their reflexivity (or could you say, “womanhood”?) is lacking. And if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the, er, boiler room.

    For what it’s worth, I find it an all-too-rare experience to read anything in which the writer is able to give a clear demonstration of sufficient self-awareness and openness to reach this state of reflexivity and present arguments in a fully committed manner. However as I keep saying I regard Jennifer Wilson to be someone who is capable of achieving this (most of the time at least!). I may not agree with her all the time, but given her high state of reflexivity, I think she has some really valuable things to say. I’m an unknown as well, and I haven’t even started my PhD yet, but I think what we are seeing here is a way forward for feminism, and that’s why I’m going to keep reading, and why I think the established order are running so scared.


  8. Doug Quixote February 7, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Simple enough, as far a Cox is concerned : you have not paid your dues. You are an upstart, and have no right to all the publicity she and her ilk so richly deserve.

    Does that sound about right? . . . scrrtchh . . .

    As for MTR , it beggars belief. Add ‘controlling and manipulative’ to her resume, if they weren’t already there.


  9. lola February 7, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    One of Melinda’s flunkies, her posts with me at Mama Mia are . .. make your own minds up!


    • Jennifer Wilson February 8, 2012 at 9:14 am #

      I just read your wonderful exchange at mamamia! I love your determination not to be diverted and fobbed off! I’m so glad you visit my blog, Lola. 🙂


      • Hypocritophobe February 8, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

        You will of course notice that over at mamallia (which is a high school blog made “live”, in an ‘all girls school’, bus, (probably St Trinians) that the tweenies are all shouting down MTRs critics for using imaginary tactics like having a go at her physical appearance,WHILST they bag the crapper out of the way our PM looks,sounds acts and thinks, and the way that the Williams sisters are not worthy of being role models because of the way they dress.

        What a bunch of hypocritical,infantile,immature, egotesticle racist, bigoted slags.


      • Doug Quixote February 8, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

        to Hypocritophobe : “egotesticle”??? Balls to that.


  10. Hypocritophobe February 8, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    What is mUmbrella all about?


  11. Mine's A Newt February 8, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    I think that you can claim to be a feminist, and not actually be one. For example, Tankard Reist’s anti-choice activism on abortion and access to contraception, and effectiveness in stopping funding for overseas services that provide contraceptive advice are anti-feminist, surely. If “feminism” includes in its meaning “the belief that women shouldn’t have control of their reproduction”, then it’s strayed so far from having a coherent meaning that as a word it’s useless.

    As for Greer, she’s been writing in defence of female genital mutilation (FGM) for some time now, comparing it to teenagers wanting to get their ears and noses pierced. I don’t know if that’s as incompatible with feminism as MTR’s ideology is, but it’s certainly incompatible with having any clue about how much “choice” girls and young women have in relation to FGM in cultures where it’s prevalent..

    I gave on on Greer when she supported the Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie; if ever there was a simple case of freedom of speech versus theocratic murder, that was it, and she still picked the wrong side. She’s not an ally of any woman who faces compulsory pregnancy or mutilation by theocrats, or any woman or man who faces murder by theocrats. The hell with her.

    I’d invoke a version of the Groucho Principle there; I wouldn’t want to be part of any movement that seriously wants to lay claim to Greer.

    As for MTR withdrawing her threat, readers of Fighter Ace war comics will remember that Hitler used to keep announcing that he about to invade England, but he never actually got around to it. But he never put out a press release or wrote a letter to Mr Churchill conceding that the invasion wasn’t going to happen. He just made the threat less and less often over time, and then got busy with other concerns.

    MTR won’t write to JW admitting that she’s not going to go to court. But she won’t go to court. This is almost disappointing, because the case would be hilarious, and a good win for free speech. With none of the usual worry about the bad guys – that’s you, MTR, sockpuppets and gang – actually winning.

    By the way, that’s only a specific historical analogy. I’m not doing a Godwin and comparing JW to Churchill, which she wouldn’t appreciate, nor comparing MTR to Hitler. Nah, MTR’s just an authoritarian narcissist with a glass jaw.


    • Helvi February 8, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

      Good post, Mine’s A Newt. I have to say that I was never too impressed with Germaine Greer, she adds a bit of colour to the shows like Q&A and Book Club on ABC when she visits Oz, that’s all…


  12. Hypocritophobe February 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    Last sentence = gold.


  13. Hypocritophobe February 8, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Germaine, has not been a happy camper for decades.Relevance deprivation syndrome?
    Not sure.
    Although I don’t think that would phase her.
    Like many she seems to have lost her Mojo.

    Maybe in reality she sees what damage has been self inflicted on feminism, (lemonism? lemmingism?? )and doesn’t see it as worthy of resuscitating.
    The way it looks around the canberrian halls of pretension,I think this version could probably do with a pillow.

    Start afresh.Now would be the time with Julia and her posse.I doubt the quality/ratio of women pollies will improve or grow under Monsignor Abbott.
    Nor will Labor likely have the bullets in the chamber next time round.
    This is a rare opportunity.

    About Greer,
    I like and respect her views on indigenous issues,though.


  14. paul walter February 8, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Hypocritophobe makes a fair point re Tanky and court action. It would assume the same farcical level as the recent events involving Andrew Bolt, and see a bully hoist on a petard of their own making. So it ought to be to considered as a vehicle for an attempted on going harrassment of the less well resourced Dr Wilson, to impose silence on an investigative line sceptical of MTR and the forces she represents.
    First read, I missed the significance and centrality of Dr Wilson’s inclusion and location of the Bel Hooks quote.
    Hooks, a proud African American, was notable in exposing the self preoccupying tendency that developed in white middle class feminism and subsequent (often unconscious) “othering” of “subaltern” class, gender and ethnic elements outside the charmed circle represented by people like Mia Freedman, Tankard Reist and Sherry, say. These mediate on public perceptions from a covert rather than overt conservatism of the MTR and Devine type, and are as problematic to progressive politics as the open reactionary hot air, with their treacle-covered pearls of Brady Bunch wisdom.
    At least one contributor to these threads recognised this, in presenting the limited and superficial coverage of the Wilson MTR dispute at the vilely saccharine “mamamia” blog; a judas-goat of a blog if ever there was one.
    Finally Greer, I doubt whether she endorses African style circumcision as a rule, or even an exception, but is right to investigate by analogy the issue of the intense weight of atavistic cultural baggage that determines the persistence of a cultural practice. If she suggests that over time, African women have appropriated gfm to become a ritual of feminine expression and female bonding, she’s actually talking about preconditions for belief and we could apply the same process in understanding why certain attitudes toward women from earlier times have died so slowly in our society.


  15. Hypocritophobe February 8, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    “Doug Quixote says:
    February 8, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    to Hypocritophobe : “egotesticle”??? Balls to that.”

    Sorry DQ,

    I didnt mean to huuuuuuurrrrt you.
    I’m just a zealous guy……..


    • Doug Quixote February 9, 2012 at 10:21 am #

      A joke, Hypo. I don’t huuuurrt easily.

      As for Mamamia, it is pretty indulgent St Trinians girly stuff, as you point out. They really ought to grow up. I won’t be going back to that one. Lola was about the only one who added some adult sense.


      • Hypocritophobe February 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

        I used to wave my arms around a lot when I spoke.
        (I get excited sometimes.)
        Till I started to get a dull pain and under arm swelling.
        I visited the GP who referred me on.
        I’ve had to tone down my actions quite a bit.I look a lot like an Irish Folk Dancer,these days.
        Turns out I had ‘Gesticular cancer”.

        Boom boom.


      • Doug Quixote February 9, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

        If you are old enough to remember “Aunty Jack”, I’ll get her to come around and . . . .


  16. Trevor Melksham February 9, 2012 at 3:53 am #

    Every time I hear or read Cox, she is whining about the glass ceiling. I have concluded she is only interested in her own self-aggrandisement and getting her bum into plush jobs and directorships.


  17. Legal Eagle February 9, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Heh, this post reminds me of the time I had an argument with my grandfather at the Christmas table about 15 years ago. He said, “Those feminists have just gone too far with their demands. They just want their cake and to eat it too.” I said, “Which particular strand of feminism are you talking about? You’ll have to specify, as off the top of my head I can think of at least five different strands” [which I proceeded to outline]. My uncle was laughing so hard at this that he almost fell under the table. Grandpa is totally deaf so the argument didn’t go far…but I don’t think that many people realise that there are so many different feminisms.


  18. Hypocritophobe February 9, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    Aagh yes Aunty Jack,
    Those were the days.

    It shows how far back Gary McDonald’s talent goes.
    What a marvellous actor he is.Very underrated, and probably undervalued in many ways.


  19. DontSueMeMTR February 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    I kind of think your focus on ideology may be causing you to overlook some fundamentals of human nature here perhaps. I think a lot of campaigners reach a point where they evolve into a kind of politician; where securing a platform from which one can spruik ones message becomes more important than whatever principle was supposed to be behind the message in the first place. I think you can usually tell when this is happening because the careful discussion of complex issues that would usually be used to engage and educate ones audience, gives way to the kind of sound and fury geared towards whipping up controversy and outrage without confusing people with too much information. The language will become more provocative and rhetorical, the arguments less thoughtful and evidence based, but more one-sided and opinionated, and sometimes you will see them battling tooth and nail against a succession of ever more odious straw foes.

    I think too that with certain campaigners (especially equal rights campaigners), upon discovering how effective it can be to tar critics as sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, or whatever, it becomes something of an automatic reflex. This is both frustrating and disheartening, as it provides substantiation for misogynists, racist and homophobes who claim that all equal rights campaigners do this all the time.

    Of course, some campaigners really don’t have far to go to get to this point and none of this should really be news here.

    I guess some of this goes to the Gillard thing too. Yes, I think there’s a bit of sexism coming in from certain quarters, but really, I don’t think much of the rough treatment has been any rougher than what most politician get. Perhaps the discrepancy is more in people’s gut reactions to it. A lot of people rightly find violence against women abhorrent, but will not bat an eye at a bloke getting his lights punched out, especially if “the mouthy prick was asking for it”. Maybe there’s a bit of that in the way people are viewing this. I don’t know. But I do think that any problems Gillard is having with her authority probably come less from her woman-ness and more from dealing with a hung parliament and a news media which is too lazy to report on anything other than endless leadership speculation.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 12, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

      I have to agree with your first paragraph, though I find it quite disheartening.

      As for the Gillard sexism thing, I’m so bloody fed up with it. I don’t think a bloke should get punched out anymore than a woman. I just wish for a better class of insult all round quite frankly. Keating was masterful.


  20. AJ February 16, 2012 at 8:52 am #

    To me feminism was useful historical movement, its goals now laregly attained its now a matter for history books and resuscitating the flagging careers of no longer relevant commentators like Greer and Cox. Greer always appeared to me to be nothing more than a sh*t stirrer anyway in the Pauline Hanson mould. A lot of her early quotes were merely to extract attention for being controversial and didnt appear to add much to improving a woman’s lot. I can quote examples of trite careless mouthing off if necessary. To me, feminism is about as relevant as prohibition movements and eugenics, both widely controversial social movements now consigned to the history shelves. No wonder the opera house organisers were concerned. Ask women in their 20’s now what they think of feminism and they will a) immediately own up to being one b) struggle to define what they mean by it. It’s a useless over flogged ideological term that shattered like a mirror into so many factions that no one can tell you what the term means in any sense that aligns with the ancient goals of feminism.


    • Elisabeth Wynhausen February 16, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

      Now try repeating these observations in Pakistan’s north-west territories. But do cover your head and arms first.
      If it comes to that why have you succumbed to the extraordinary idea that women in Australia invariably have equal rights. Have you looked at the disparity in pay? The number of women on corporate boards? The number of female editors of metropolitan newspapers? Perhaps not.


      • Jennifer Wilson February 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

        And exactly how does brawling about who is and isn’t a feminist help this inequality? That is my point.


      • AJ February 16, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

        I’m sorry Elizabeth, after 30 years of affirmative action programs, quota based equality, corporates falling over themselves to comply with equal opportunity laws I am forced to conclude that women themselves don’t want these positions as evidenced by the scant number of applications for them. (Some have tried and found life not as rosy as imagined at the top – both guys and girls!) It’s no good blaming the patriachy for a failure by women to act…especially given the sensitivity large corporations have to this nowdays. Affirmitive action may mean actually applying for the job?


  21. Helvi February 16, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    AJ,your negativity stuns me.You don’t give me an impression of being a liberated woman yourself, do you really think the Australian women are equal to men, go to Norway and wittness the equality between sexes…


  22. ItsBouquet February 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    I tend to agree with AJ….that perhaps women have decided that they don’t wish to catapult themselves into the throng every morning. Perhaps being truly liberated is not being led by the herd/nose – not conforming to the template that consumer society has laid down. It surely doesn’t mean a woman has to close her mind or become a doormat. I think there’s something to be said for a woman who is “liberated” enough to choose her own path simply because it’s good for her and those she is with.


  23. Bubblecar February 25, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    This seems a fair and simple way of settling the matter:

    Q: Are there any significant ways in which MTR’s views differ from those of, say, Fred Nile?
    A: Apparently not.

    Q: Is Fred Nile a feminist?
    A: Apparently not.



  1. On Religion and Feminism - February 22, 2012

    […] sexuality and reproductive choice. This prompted much recent navel-gazing as to the definition of who is feminist, with many maintaining the reproductive choice is the deal-breaker. While I don’t doubt that […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: