Fire everyone the intersectionalists dislike
Following links from one article to another article I followed yet another and found myself reading a horrifically mindless and dishonest open letter to a website “demanding” that it ditch Meghan Murphy. It’s dated May 1 2015 and it’s written by one Sheila Sampath, whose vocabulary is almost entirely made up of jargon plus lies. I think I remember some mumblings about it last year, but I don’t think I investigated further. It’s a sterling sample of the worst kind of self-consciously (and self-admiringly) “intersectional” politics de nos jours.
Editor’s note: below is an open letter to rabble.ca. To sign the change.org petition, demanding they end their association with Meghan Murphy as editor and columnist, click here.
Open Letter to the Editors of Rabble.ca,
We are feminists, grassroots community groups and organizations that support intersectional feminism.
As if all other feminists are anti-intersectional feminists, and think women’s issues are the only issues that matter. That’s bullshit. The faction of the left that loudly calls itself intersectional does not have a monopoly on giving a shit about race, class, poverty, homophobia, disability and all the other issues that intersect with feminism. That label implies that they do, and they don’t.
We are concerned about your ongoing relationship with Meghan Murphy as one of your editors. Murphy has been publishing material that dehumanizes and disrespects women with different experiences and perspectives than hers for many years, in particular Black women, women in the sex industry and trans women.
Liars. No she hasn’t. They disagree with her, but that’s not the same thing. She doesn’t dehumanize anyone, and that’s a vile accusation. They make that pretty obvious when they try to offer examples of Murphy doing what they accuse her of.
By allowing Murphy to continue as an editor at Rabble.ca you are giving a platform to her hate and we are writing to demand that you end your association with her as editor and columnist.
It’s not “hate” – that’s another ugly accusation and a lie. And who do they think they are, “demanding” that anyone shun her?
Recently, Murphy published a piece about Laverne Cox’s decision to pose nude for a US women’s magazine. In her piece, Murphy attacks for Cox for attempting to achieve a “‘perfect’ body as defined by a patriarchal/porn culture, through plastic surgery, and then presenting it as a sexualized object for public consumption” and later mocks her and other trans women for “spending thousands and thousands of dollars sculpting their bodies in order to look like some cartoonish version of ‘woman,’ as defined by the porn industry and pop culture.”
So what? That’s her view, and it shouldn’t be a forbidden view. It’s not as if there is no patriarchal/porn culture, it’s not as if some women don’t try to meet the expectations of that culture, it’s not as if it’s outrageous to object to both. There’s certainly nothing dehumanizing about it, nor is it hate.
Laverne Cox is not a cartoonish version of a woman. She is a woman, a Black trans woman who is changing history by defining her own beauty and lovability in the public sphere.
That’s their view. Murphy has a different view. Why is that a reason for them to demand that Rabble.ca dump Murphy?
For years, Murphy’s racism and attacks on women who trade/sell sex or are trans have been tolerated or supported and published by Rabble, including this article where she pits Black women against each other, calling another Black trans woman (Janet Mock) “selfish” for using glamour to feel powerful–and again maligning a Black trans woman’s decisions about her body.
“Murphy’s racism” nothing – that’s just more ugly abuse.
This is not a question of free speech, it is a question of offering active support to bigots. For example, Rabble would not employ right wing christian fundamentalists for their opinions as their stance clearly undermines the dignity and humanity of communities they are not a part of. The same is the case for Murphy. She is a white, cis, non sex working person who writes with contempt about communities that she is not a member of. It is unjust of Rabble to financially support her bigotry. Rabble is stronger and more relevant when it publishes the voices of those who are directly impacted by the issues they cover. Doing otherwise has made Rabble unsafe for many members of marginalized populations who write from a place of personal experience.
Is that anti-intellectual enough?
People like that make me embarrassed to be on the left.
How dare Murphy say anything other than the Approved Dogma? Burn her at the stake!
Rabble.ca’s response alluded to the fact that they too, are intersectional feminists, but there is room for different perspectives. Unfortunately they also wrote this overly simplistic nonsence:
“Broadly speaking, sex worker advocates believe that to achieve this, decriminalization is required. Prohibitionists/abolitionists believe that the way to keep sex workers safe is to abolish the sex industry.”
This is where they are absolutely and unequivocally WRONG. Abolitionists are not only concerned about the safety of so-called “sex workers” – we are concerned about the safety of all women and children both inside prostitution and out, recognizing that one affects the other. The decriminalization group denies that prostitution affects how women are perceived and treated in a society that allows it…. and their willfull ignorance protects that position. Make no mistake – the decriminalization perspective is driven by males; then, of course, it is embraced by “intersectional” feminists who believe if trans, aboriginal and poor women are driven into prostitution, prostitution must be protected and allowed to continue. Which is a bizarre perspective to say the least.
Notice the equivocation. What Murphy said:
Sampath asserts:
But Murphy didn’t call Cox a “cartoonish version of a woman.” She said she’d sculpted her body to look like a cartoonish version of Woman. One could say the same thing of Pamela Anderson; the criticism is directed at how they’ve chosen to look, not at anything else about them.
“Unsafe.” Oh, bite me. If you find an opposing viewpoint “unsafe” you need therapy. I’m not kidding.
I am fascinated by this idea that one’s sense of safety dissipates when one reads something they disagree with. How do they function in the world?
But are they actually on “the left”? They seem repressive and authoritarian — i.e., right wing or reactionary — to me.
Also, I can’t understand what “unsafe” means in this context. Who is endangered, and in what way?
Yeah, none of those words have concrete or discreet meanings anymore.
At some point just about everybody becomes a racist and a bigot.
And I cannot stand the term “impacted” when the word ‘affected’.
“Impacted” is also a medical term for someone who is so extremely constipated their feces is almost rock solid.
Rabble is stronger and more relevant when it publishes the voices of those who are directly impacted…
So Sheila Sampath is ‘impacted’?
@maddog1129
I usually refer to them as the “activist left” for clarification. Another blogger I read calls them “authoritarian left,” but yeah, a distinction needs to be made here.
Same here, but we’ve lost that battle. (Although not entirely. I do some editing, so I occasionally get the opportunity to correct the mistake.) You know what’s even worse? “Negatively impacted” for “harmed.” Two multi-syllable words used incorrectly in place of one bi-syllable that says what is meant. Arrrrgh.
And then there’s the horrific non-word “impactful”…
@BarbsWire This is the kind of thing I read this blog and its comments for. I guess I may have been hazily aware of the idea that there was a connection, but hadn’t seriously thought about your point that as long as prostitution is legal/accepted women, especially particularly vulnerable women, are harmed in several ways I can think of off the top of my head (but hadn’t until now).
“Negatively impacted” for “harmed.” Two multi-syllable words used incorrectly in place of one bi-syllable that says what is meant.
Yes,exactly.
And it’s also best to avoid adverbs ending in ‘ly’
I never run quickly to catch a flight
I dash.
Re: ‘safe’ – when my kid says ‘I felt unsafe’ I don’t know if he means ‘I feared someone might beat me up’ or ‘I feared I might lose control of myself due to strong emotions’. He was taught the latter at school.