And I think this thread has run its course.

High achieving women who self-identify as feminists yet whose only writings on feminist issues are to scold other feminists for not meeting their particular purity tests are parasites on feminism. They have reaped the benefits of it, yet now berate it. They are defending the privileges they now hold by attempting to discredit feminists who want to reform the inequities which benefit these high-flying women while oppressing other women.

Senator Bartlett showed that there was a well-publicised and huge meeting on IWD to listen to an Islamic feminist speak of issues facing Muslim women and how Western feminists could help. That Bone didn’t know about that event says volumes about her commitment to the feminist movement compared to her lip-service to feminist solidarity by pointing to her own high-achiever status. Albrechtsen and Devine do just the same. Why shouldn’t feminists feel hostile towards them?

I am being sincere when I ask you this: why this obsession with deriding Janet Albrechtsen as ‘Number 1 feminist of convenience?’ As I said on a previous thread, I challenge any LP woman to put her “feministâ€? credentials against the married, Ph.D-holding former corporate-lawyer, who is now one of Australia’s most highly-paid and influential journalists and ABC board-director while she raises a young family; Janet Albrechtsen (or even Miranda Devine if you prefer).

I would imagine that all the women (and men) from Wollstencraft to Wynhausen, from Stein to Steinhem would be tickled pink at the progress that personages aux Albrechtsen et Devine represent in the advancement of feminism.

Why the hate campaign?

I don’t suggest conspiracy theories though i can see how it could be imputed but thanks for explaining the policy.

Yeah Rob, i noticed that the counter was at 203 and then it went to 199 comments at about midnight – and has again jumped to 205.

No conspiracy. I only just noticed that philip travers has been linking to a large public corporation’s main page as his homepage in every single comment he’s made here. That’s link-spamming. Seeing as his comments are so long and tend to disrupt threads anyway, I wen’t back through comments and deleted all his long posts, and I stripped that URL from the very few short ones.

And I’m still waiting for Kim to come up with an organisation that worthy of 100 of my hard earned.

Rob, jo linked to a whole slew of organisations in this comment upthread on 12 March 2007 at 9:59 pm. Kim endorsed her selection in the very next comment. That’s over a week ago.

Mark did you read my comments about FGM?

No, I’m sorry, I haven’t, but the reason for my absence from this blog has been time pressures.

all these red herrings about what i have not dealt with

Bone’s whole argument is a red herring about what people “have not dealt with”, surely?

And I’m sure if your memory doesn’t serve you, you can read up the thread.

I want all societies to advance to the point where war is no longer necessary but until that day there will regrettably be wars that must be fought

And, I’m sorry, informally yours, how does claiming this war “must be fought” differ from actively supporting it and all its violent and destructive consequences? Does it somehow absolve you of considering the price others pay?

Look, I’ve never in my life claimed to be a socialist of any sort. But I’m afraid that the pro-war Last Superpower crowd, are far less representative of left opinion than most of us on this blog. And certainly of socialist opinion. If your response to this blog is to say “eugh eugh eugh”, then nothing is compelling you to come here.

You haven’t answered my questions about whether or not your concern for human rights is restricted to areas where the US is fighting wars that you believe are historically necessary? What is the actual reason for your support of the Iraq War? Is it really a humanitarian impulse, or do you share the view characteristic of the Last Superpower crowd? Those aren’t necessarily hostile questions, but you’re quick to seize the high moral ground. If you’re so concerned about fighting “fascists” then why exactly is it that you’ve singled out these ones?

And incidentally, you repeat all the same canards that the right do – despite or because of your supposed “united front” of convenience with Bush. To oppose the Iraq War is not equivalent to supporting Sunni (or Shia) violence. I defy you to find any comment I’ve made on this blog which could be reasonably interpreted that way.

And I’ve re-read the post, and I’m still confident your interpretation of it is selective.

Anyway, I’m meant to be taking a break from blogging, and I also share the views of others as to why fundamentally it’s a waste of energy engaging with people whose views are solely ideological and not amenable either to reason or moral questioning.

Mark did you read my comments about FGM? Of course i have concerns about other aspects of women’s lives under patriarchal societal organisations please stop raising all these red herrings about what i have not dealt with and tell me whether you still think FGM is the same as labiaplasty etc.?

So who is the feminist of convenience Mark or Janet?
This is getting too silly for words.

The whole point of the original post is to rag Pamela Bone and the media and say there are much more important bread and butter issues to talk about. eugh eugh eugh

eugh eugh eugh This site is so-called left and yet it rags socialism and communism and left terminology every chance so what kind of left is it? Ohh that’s right it’s a long time since the ALP removed any references to supporting a socialist agenda so i suppose you’re much closer to the ALP than i realised.

‘What the left can do is stop supporting wars’. (that hurt women and children) how facile does it get? I don’t support war. I support some wars. I don’t cheer them on. I hate war and killing. I want all societies to advance to the point where war is no longer necessary but until that day there will regrettably be wars that must be fought. Iraq is one such war – Vietnam was not.

Re-read the original post Mark and take another think about what you were cheering on.

Because I disagree with the wording for the same reasons others gave, Rob.

What were they again?

Anyway, so I’d better be off, I’m supposed to be having a blogging hiatus!

I thought you were saying you felt very strongly about this issue and that was the reason why you drafted the petition?

What’s happened to your petition?

You didn’t even sign it yourself, I observe.

I have criticized you for being interested only in domestic issues on International Women’s Day

That’s most disingenuous. The whole point of the post is to draw attention to the commitment to international issues many feminists have.

I’ve further asked you to justify calling Pamela Bone’s article schtick or rant

Read the post, and the first 150 or so comments.

You’ve repeatedly criticized me for referring to the pseudo-left when you much more destructively refer to other women as the equivalent of pseudo-feminists. (The feminists of convenience etc)

So Janet Albrechtsen is a feminist?

In the face of that I can’t sit by and say that talking about domestic child care issues is more important than talking about what the left can do to make sure that those little ants can become women fully grown.

What the left can do is stop supporting wars, which create immense suffering for women and children, in some misguided and arrogant notion that the West can liberate people, while of course those who cheer on war pay no price themselves, except morally.

You may demean people for attempting to influence situations in which they actually have some scope to intervene but I don’t.

Does your concern only come into play when women are being oppressed in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Are you concerned, for instance, about the many women who are victims of rape, amputation, torture and dispossession in Somalia? Or Rwanda? Are you concerned about women sold into sex slavery from Moldova? Or only if there’s some US response that can be dressed up as a step along the road to some sort of socialist utopia?

Do you advocate anything other than imperialist war as an adequate means of response?

You might care to reflect on a position which seeks to justify aggressive and destructive war out of a putative concern for human rights, or in the name of abstractions.