≡ Menu

We can’t let the shouters, silence the rest of us.

Melinda Tankard-Reist shouts a lot.

She shouts about porn and the exploitation of women, she presents herself as a feminist and campaigns against the sexualisation of our girls.

Playboy bunnies on eight year old girls knickers make me a bit shouty as well and I think we should all be making a lot more noise about the sexualisation of our little girls.

BUT

What Melinda Tankard Reist would prefer that we didn’t know about her is that she is a fundamentalist Christian.

A god botherer of the first order who attends a Baptist church.

I didn’t know this, because to be honest even though I follow Melinda Tankard Reist on twitter I find her hysterical screechings to be a bit exhausting and I only notice her occasionally.

Once I was made aware of Melinda Tankard Reist’s religious leanings a lot of her opinions were immediately put into context.

A context that Melinda Tankard Reist doesn’t seem to like me having.

And it also seems that Melinda Tankard Reist  would prefer that her religious preferences aren’t talked about.

Melinda Tankard Reist says,

“She tries to follow Jesus, but she doesn’t want anybody focusing on her religion because that will distract from her work.”

I tend to disagree.

I think it is of critical importance that we have a context within which to frame our responses to Melinda Tankard Reist’s anti porn and anti abortion campaigns.

I think that  Melinda Tankard Reist’s religion is very, very important to how I perceive her and her work. It doesn’t distract me from her work at all, it gives me the previously mentioned context.

 

Dr Jennifer Wilson has been persistent in her  public questioning of Melinda Tankard Reist and Dr Wilson writes that she is now being sued by Tankard Reist for declaring on her blog, “No Place for Sheep” that Tankard Reist is a Baptist and attends a Baptist church.

MTR threatens Sheep with legal action if we don’t censor our posts about her immediately

In the conversation that ensued on twitter between No place for Sheep, Weezmgk and myself, I offered my public support to Dr Wilson

This conversation in turn inspired  Machine Gun Keyboard to write this post in support of Dr Wilson

Melinda Tankard-Reist is not the internet nor sex police

So here I stand on my soapbox on my blog declaring loudly that I am Spartacus, because it is incredibly, incredibly important that WE DO NOT LET THE SHOUTERS WIN.

We the public should always, always question the motivations of high profile public campaigners,politicians or anyone else that purports to speak in our name.

I AM SPARTACUS!

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • kathryn January 18, 2012, 9:06 am

    I AM SPARTACUS

    I’m also a feminist who firmly believes that a woman has every right to be a stripper or appear in pornographic movies if that’s what she wishes to do.

    • Sophia Grace January 18, 2012, 10:47 am

      ^^^ what Kathryn said.
      I mean, yeah, I don’t like the idea of my kids being hypersexualized, either. BUT, slut-shaming is equally wretched. And no man, woman, or politician has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body. I am an ethical person and feel that it’s inappropriate to harm another person. But if that person is taking up space in MY body without my permission, you can bet yer arse I’m going to stop it any way I need to.

  • katesaysstuff January 18, 2012, 10:46 am

    Aha.

    I follow her too and have agreed with a few things here and there. I was not aware of her anti-abortion stance and with that will unfollow. Because as a WOMAN I believe women have the right to bodily autonomy.

    • Mahboubeh April 21, 2012, 11:33 am

      I think you will find that the matter at issue is not wehther Tankard Reist is religious or a Baptist (any fool could see that saying someone is a Baptist is not defamatory), but wehther she is deceitful and duplicitous, as claimed by Jennifer Wilson. Maybe you should do some reading and some thinking before you charge off like a pompous peter. Have you thought for example that the references on wikipedia to her being a Baptist were deleted because they were inaccurate? In that case, why would she fear the Streisand effect? The Streisand effect is when someone is trying to keep certain information private (eg the location of one’s home, or who one is sleeping with), not when one welcomes the wide correction of an error that is peddled so widely that fools think it is true (I read it on wikipedia! it must be true!).Honestly, did you fall from the silly tree this morning and hit every branch going down? JB

      • frogpondsrock April 22, 2012, 6:50 am

        I encourage debate here on frog ponds rock but I will not tolerate name calling or abuse. This comment has only just made it through and if Kate is offended by your insults I will remove your comment immediately, Kate lodges a complaint. Any further discussions NEED to be polite. You can be passionate in your opposition to someones point of view and rebut their argument successfully without having to resort to name calling and put downs. This is your only warning.

  • Rosie January 18, 2012, 3:17 pm

    Question the motivations of high-profile campaigners, politicians etc. ? ALWAYS!!!! There is so often a hidden agenda. More people should learn to question news items and never assume that they are fact. Again – hidden agendas ! But, my word, there are some very loud shouters!

  • Elephant's Child January 18, 2012, 5:32 pm

    Aaaargh. With you about 1000 per cent about the sexualisation about our girls. Who are no longer allowed a childhood.
    I also believe completely and emphatically in a woman’s right to choose. On abortions yes, but on what she chooses to wear, her occupation, her religious beliefs.

  • river January 18, 2012, 8:16 pm

    I don’t see why the fuss about people knowing she’s a religious baptist, is she not proud of who or what she is?

  • Ali January 18, 2012, 9:58 pm

    Like you there are probably some things that I would agree with her about. Feminism though, isn’t about limiting the choices of women or creating shame. Anyone who advocates taking choice away from women and claims to speak on behalf of women whilst spouting right-wing bile is going to end up making me grumpy. To me it seems pretty clear that her Christianity informs her broader views, how could such a closely held set of beliefs not? If someone is peddling their viewpoints all over the place then I want to know if something like Christianity is coming in to play. The whole thing irks me. Especially because she’s getting herself all worked up about it. Also, I think you’re awesome. xxxx

  • janet January 19, 2012, 12:21 am

    Wow, what a tempest! She must realize that so many of us stop listening when we know something is coming from a right-wing-religious source. Here in Massachusetts I always shut them off. She may be mad about losing a big chunk of her audience. But I agree with letting little girls be children for as long as possible… there’s time enough when they are teens for all the rest of it.

  • Kathy January 21, 2012, 7:26 pm

    My understanding is that the legal action is being threatened because MTR alleges that Jennifer implied that she was being deceptive / duplicitous about her religious views, which MTR states is false (ie, that she has not been deceptive / duplicitous). This is a fine distinction in some ways but I think it’s one worth making – that MTR says she’s not upset about being “outed” as a Baptist, but rather about being painted as trying to hide her religious views. (Obviously, there would be no breath of an action for simply stating “MTR is a Baptist” without commentary, as she is, in fact, a Baptist 🙂

    With that said, on the broader issue, to me this is all about credentialling, as Leslie Cannold pointed out a while ago. Is it relevant to know where leaders / thinkers come from in assessing their views? Do we need to know their backgrounds, their behaviours, their actions, their beliefs; or can / should their views stand in splendid isolation, to be evaluated only at face value? This has come up in quite a different context recently on Feministe re academic Hugo Schwitzer and his background, and I’ve been thinking it through a lot.

    The view I’ve come to is that it IS relevant to know about these things where they have a direct bearing on the area in which the person is assuming moral, intellectual or political leadership. This counts for people whose moral positions are informed by an over-arching ideology (such as a religion), as well as for people whose actions or behaviours contradict or undermine their stated ideas. I’m not a fan of what I’d label irrelevant gossip – I really don’t care who politcians sleep with, for example – but in the case of an activist like MTR, hell yeah it’s relevant that she’s a Baptist, and it does play into my assessment of her views (and explains some of them, such as her anti-choice stance, pretty well. I say this as a child of Protestant sect that is first cousin to the Baptists).

    NB: I have no opinion on whether she has in fact tried to conceal her religious beliefs or church membership.

Next post:

Previous post: