The first thing I got riled up about as a brand new parent was the sexualisation of little girls. In fact, it is one of the first things I started writing about on this blog. It is enormously disappointing to me that Melinda Tankard Reist has become the voice in Australia for this topic.
Two reasons.
Tankard Reist has a very narrow view on what are appropriate expressions of sexuality for adults. This means that it is easy for opponents to dismiss criticism of the sexualisation of children as being anti-sex. I think the denial of children’s sexuality actually harms the movement because it falls short of calling for children to be given the space to explore their sexuality for themselves without adult exploitation, manipulation and commercialisation. It tangles children up with the wrongful policing of young women’s sexuality, which has the effect of bringing the ‘small l’ liberals out in defence of advertisers, marketers and ‘free-choice-perfectly-informed consumers’. I find much of Tankard Reist’s work to be tinged with a kind of slut-shaming tone. Personally, I don’t think the problem with Bratz dolls is that they look like whores, I think the problem with these children’s toys is that they look like an adult version of sexuality and materialism. I also think there is a problem with someone thinking ‘whores’ are the very lowest expression of sexuality and therefore the very worst thing a girl could imitate.
And secondly, I just don’t find her feminism very analytical. Tankard Reist is good at picking up on examples of sexism and spreading the word on them – and I’ve enjoyed a lot of what she’s written in this area – but, she’s not so good at identifying the deeper themes beneath the sexism or in moving a stalled public conversation forward. This is why I was so very excited when I first heard Shelley Kulperger speak on the topic. Because yes! feminist analysis uncovering who is really most vulnerable when it comes to the sexualisation of children (hint: has something to do with intersectionality), and also, hey, what is therefore so wrong with the liberal defence of ‘sexy children’s advertising’, and hey, not being anti-sex either.
Tankard Reist is also a self-proclaimed anti-choice feminist. I don’t have a problem with feminists being personally opposed to abortion, but I have huge problems with women believing they can be feminist and at the same time actively campaign against the choice of abortion being available to other women. If you think you know better than women what they should do with their own bodies, you are not a feminist. If you think a better world would make abortion obsolete for women, then you better be directing all your attention towards making it a better world for women rather than closing options for women who exist in this world right now, because otherwise, you are not a feminist. If you hang about with the Right to Lifers, I’m going to damn well question your feminism. Right to Life harasses and terrifies women seeking abortions, this is not feminism. If you’re a feminist and you feel some urgent desire to work with Right to Life then you better be bloody campaigning within to get them to stop treating women that way. The so-called Feminists for Life in my state wrote a newsletter for a long time with the word ‘feminists’ unwittingly misspelled in the title – frankly, it is difficult for me to believe that women who couldn’t spell ‘feminist’ were anything but opportunistic in using the term to describe their group.
So, thank you Helen, Melinda Tankard Reist doesn’t speak for me either as a feminist.
Media, stop using Tankard Reist as the voice of Australian feminist motherhood.
I have never heard of Melinda Reist before today, but everything she seems to represent (mixing up anti-commercialization of sex with anti-sexuality in general) is very much a problem in the US, as well. And in feminism throughout the world, I suspect.
Damn straight!! A call to arms, bluemilk. I want to print this out and carry it around on cards for people, it’s so well-expressed… Particularly the idea about not closing options for women who live in :this: world, right now. This post is going to be one of my all time favourites.
Hallelujah!
[…] berries or locally-produced artisan cheeses and working on their knitting projects. All those Mommy Blogs and craft sales and DIY cupcake dresses. It’s the DIY aesthetic of Riot Girl taken a dozen […]
I’m not sure if you saw this article:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/antiporn-activist-threatens-to-sue-blogger-over-religion-claims-20120116-1q39d.html
I thought I was the only person who felt that way after reading some articles by feminists. Thanks.
Perhaps my view about MTR would be different if I hadn’t witnessed her being attacked at the conference. I don’t know.
I don’t think MTR and I are the same kind of feminists. I’m worried that you think that.
Yes, I’m well aware of the patriarchal structures that oppress women.
Please delete my posts above. Thanks.
Catherine, I’ve deleted your previous comments by request but let me know if you change your mind and want them reinstated. As I said to you by email, I liked your comments, they were thought-provoking and insightful.
@Catherine
You have a very good point about the MSM being lazy and relying on one person to be the ‘voice of’…
I don’t see having sympathy for how someone was treated as necessarily agreeing with her views. It is a shame that MTR was treated badly by a room of feminists, but I understand that it is difficult to remain calm when someone who advocates anti-abortion speaks to a room of women who are (mostly) passionately pro-choice because it forms an essential part of their feminist identity. This is of course no excuse.
Mindy, MTR did not attend the conference I’m referring to.They convicted her in absentia.
Great post. I have been dismayed by the nasty personal attacks on MTR this week, but that doesn’t mean that I’m comfortable with her role as a self-appointed spokesperson for the feminist movement. Your analysis of why is spot on. Thank you.
I’ve identified as feminist for 30 years. I shouldn’t have to flash my academic record or my writing about whether some feminists can police others to prove my feminism. I would never campaign against a woman’s reproductive rights. Perhaps my views on some things have softened over the years, but that one stands firm.
To engage with your argument:
Lets say millions of women in the world identify as feminist, even though they are religious and don’t approve of abortion (whether they actively campaign against it or not). Who is going to tell them they can’t be feminists?
If a woman believes what you say a feminist believes and doesn’t identify as feminist, would you insist that she is?
I think feminism for most people is a journey – I am learning and making mistakes and changing my mind and expanding my ideas and reading and deepening my understanding all the time. I also think it is fine for a woman to find feminism and identify herself as such and not have done a lot of reading or talking or testing her ideas of it with other feminists. Totally fine. The more the merrier, hooray for her. A woman telling her truth about her life is a feminist and her lived experience is a rich source of feminist knowledge and all that.
BUT if she wants to be identified as a public figure for the movement then I think certain core expectations need to be met. That’s the problem with MTR. And really, would any movement be any different? Can I speak as an Evangelical Christian without believing in God? Can I expect to be accepted and supported by Evangelical Christians when I identify as a non-believer? Can I campaign against having faith and still be a public figure for the church?
Oh, and I’ve done some media, after I published a piece on motherhood and power in SMH, eight years ago. Radio was fine. Television – it was Insight – they edited out everything I said about societal structures that do impact mothering, or could support mothering. They just wanted me to oppose the attachment parent (who shared care with her partner, so not exactly extreme – they seemed to have it together). And they had footage of a mum taking her small kids shopping at 5pm – she told me after the taping that they encouraged her kids to be feral for the filming and tried to present the parents as incompetent.
Just be careful.
I saw that particular program. It was terrible and was so clearly a set up (for the supermarket shopping mother and the attachment parenting family).
Regarding your critique of ‘policing feminism,’ I can see where you are coming from but surely this is a hazy line at best. If feminism was merely about self-identifying then it would cease to have any real meaning.
I realise that many people do use the word in just such a way, as in, “feminism means that women should be free to make their own choices and I choose X, Y or Z, and, therefore, I am a feminist,” but this could hardly be considered to be a valid argument.
What if X was a role that was exploited or subjugated on the basis of gender? Or, more relevantly, what if Y was a role that exploited other women? Or what if Z was a role that served to reinforced the patriarchal structures that exploit many other women?
Doing what you want to do is hardly the definition of feminism – especially if what you ‘want to do’ is informed, constrained and defined by patriarchal structures or, even worse, if what you want to do actually serves to subjugate, control or exploit other women (and reinforce patriarchy while you’re at it).
And this brings us nicely to actively taking an anti-choice stance – this is a choice that actually serves to control other women and to reinforce the patriarchal control over their bodies by the State. As such, I don’t think it is a compatible with feminism.
[…] the heat of this Melinda Tankard Reist debate I thought it might be a good time to post a link to this piece, “The rights of the […]
[…] it’s a feminist issue. No, hang on, it’s all about religion. Or Censorship. Or Bratz dolls. Or something. I’m not saying that these aren’t all factors, or valid points of […]
I love this blog.
To those who want to proclaim that MTR is a victim of spineless attacks, you should have seen MTR and her crew attack Catherine Lumby and Alan McKee a few years ago when they appeared on that dreaful ABC show “Difference of Opinion”. MTR is about using feminist symbols to manipulate the ‘flock’ and bring them back to her God.
[…] Magowan and Peggy Orenstein – a point I have also been arguing – and it is where people like Melinda Tankard Reist really let the discussion down here in Australia. Share this:StumbleUponEmailTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
Well said, you’ve highlighted all the points I wanted to make without using a single swear word or sticking a fork into anyone. I salute you! Is this Tankard creature even Australian? What is it with Australia adopting and sucking down all sorts of self proclaimed experts that aren’t even taken seriously in their own countries (nay continents)? It’s the same with the Monckton creature-it’s only in Australia that he 1. Gets treated like + referred to as a Lord (and a mathematician-neither of which he actually is) and 2. Paid to give expert opinion talks for which idiots put down $3000 a pop to hear him espouse his non-scientific conspira-crap.
MTR lives in Australia, she’s homegrown. Monckton inherited his title of Lord and is entitled to use it, he is not a member of the House of Lords although he still wants his hereditary rights to a seat there. Those rights were abolished some time before he inherited his title.
I don’t know why people insist on parting with good $ to hear him.