Melinda Tankard Reist has been pilloried for her stance on pornography, as a pro-life supporter and for declared Christian beliefs. There have been vociferous calls for her to surrender her feminist badge. Tankard Reist also receives daily hate emails threatening her with acts of sexual violence.
Psychoanalyst Carl Jung is reputed to have said 'I'm glad I'm Jung and not a Jungian'. The price of any definition of allegiance can be the pressure to conform to narrowly defined 'right' principles, to have acceptable, 'right' allegiances, and involves the risk of being branded an outsider.
More importantly not being admitted to the club seems to mean that arguments are not to be considered on their merits or examined with true rigor. This has been the fate of Melinda Tankard Reist who describes herself as an activist and feminist.
In an article in the Drum titled 'Tankard Reist Furore: Feminists on the attack' Claire Bongiorno also questions labelling as critique. Bongiorno reports that leading feminists such as Eva Cox and Anne Summers have specifically questioned Tankard Reist's right to call herself a feminist, thereby removing an invisible stamp of approval. But have her arguments been fully and fairly considered?
Tankard Reist has been denounced as unworthy to claim feminist credentials on at least three counts.
Firstly she is arguing that pervasive and extreme pornographic depiction of women's sexual expression is limited, degrading and a negative influence on young women and men's sexuality. She maintains that the porn industry deliberately targets boys as young as 11. She has also campaigned against the inappropriate sexualisation of children in advertising and marketing.
Secondly Tankard Reist is pro-choice, editor of a book titled Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief After Abortion. Thirdly she is criticised for having worked as an advisor to Senator Brian Harradine, a strong opponent of abortion.
Overarching all of this, she is discredited for her Christian beliefs. When asked about her Christianity informing her values, she states that she tries and mostly fails to follow the teachings of Jesus.
But why should any of this the be a cornerstone for judging her argument ?
It is playing the woman, not the ball, and more closely resembles rowdy one-eyed barrackers at