The breadth and vitriol of the attack
The petition to Rabble to fire Meghan Murphy (the content of which is Sheila Sampath’s ignorant and dishonest post) shows this as the first comment, signed by Sarah Hunt:
Feminism has a long history of racist, classist, colonial wrongdoings that have, in recent years, been recognized as exclusionary and oppressive. Racism, transphobia and anti-sex work rhetoric have no place in a supposedly forward-thinking feminist organization. I am appalled by the kinds of violent attacks that MM has initiated against sex workers, trans women and women of color through her columns and on social media. I stand in solidarity with the grassroots individuals and groups who initiated this campaign to end Rabble’s complicity in MM’s hateful actions.
Emphasis mine. Violent attacks!! As if Meghan Murphy had been beating up and killing sex workers, trans women and women of color.
Rabble didn’t dump her though, but it also didn’t tell off the people who were accusing her of violence and racism. A large group of feminists and feminist organizations published its own open letter to Rabble, defending Murphy in strong terms.
We, the undersigned, wish to express our deep dissatisfaction with rabble’s response to the recent attacks on Meghan Murphy.
In past weeks, Meghan Murphy has become the target of a vicious and focused attack that we believe is aimed not only at her — as the most visible voice of a set of feminist principles with which we broadly agree — but at women in general and feminists specifically.
This attack — sparked by an article at Playboy magazine and a petition inspired by the Men’s Rights Movement and women who are known for their promotion of the sex industry — focuses nominally on a brief piece written by Murphy in response to nude photos published of a trans woman named Laverne Cox. Her piece criticized the notion that the publication of highly sexualized, pornographic photographs of a woman or trans woman is “empowering.” We see no fair basis upon which the piece can be characterized as “transphobic.” Moreover, the definition of “transphobia” is, like its partner in discourse, “whorephobia,” a subject of debate. For those of us who still adhere to democratic standards and principles of fair journalism, it is disturbing to see critique converted to “phobia/personal attack” resulting in an end to rational discussion.
You know what? I too think it’s ludicrous and self-indulgent to think (or pretend to think) that appearing in porny photos is “empowering” for women…but I guess I don’t need to say that, do I, since the depth of my depravity was so thoroughly plumbed at Freethought Blogs last summer.
Given that there is no reasonable argument that Murphy’s article discriminates against or is disrespectful to trans people, it is our belief that the breadth and vitriol of the attack on her and the ideas she articulates is rooted in a broader attempt to marginalize and inevitably silence women and feminists who agree with her political views — and ours.
Indeed. There’s a lot of that around.
As evidenced by her work at Feminist Current and at rabble, Murphy has taken a principled, feminist position in opposition to the institutionalization of women’s oppression and exploitation through prostitution and in support of the goal of the abolition of prostitution beginning with the criminalization of the men in charge of the prostitution industry — pimps and traffickers — and the consumers of women’s bodies — johns.
There has been, and is, deep division across many constituencies with respect to this issue, accompanied by a concerted effort from the sex industry and those on the sex industry bandwagon — often including women — to attack, smear, stalk, harass and threaten any woman — or man — who threatens the flow of cash streaming from women’s backs into the pockets of exploiters. In our view rabble has consistently supported, published and given wide berth to these voices at the expense of reasoned argument, debate and discussion, rather than articulate a principled stand on the issue.
The one ray of light at rabble on feminist issues and prostitution is Meghan Murphy. Unlike many in the pro-prostitution, anti-feminist, and transactivist movements, Murphy depends on analysis and reasoned argument in articles she has written at Feminist Current and rabble. Her detractors have failed to actually engage with the arguments Murphy makes. Instead they favour vicious, personal attacks and astroturfing. These attacks now threaten her employment and career, not only at rabble, but elsewhere.
As women and feminists who depend on Murphy’s integrity as a journalist and her ability to think and write analytically and lucidly, this is of deep concern to us. We support her and we vehemently oppose the effort to silence her public voice.
And they’re not pleased that Rabble did so little to support Meghan Murphy (ah how familiar that sounds, too).
While it may not be possible for rabble to take a principled position on each and every issue, we, your readers, demand that at the very least you provide an environment wherein reasoned discussion is encouraged and ad hominem attack is not tolerated.
Many of the blog and opinion pieces you have sponsored have not met that basic expectation. Personal attack against certain voices appears to be encouraged, thus legitimizing the kind of vicious campaign levelled against Meghan Murphy and her supporters. By not taking a firm stand and making a clear statement in support of Murphy’s journalism, published in your own digital pages and appreciated by a broad spectrum of women, feminists, and male supporters of feminist principles, you are implicated in the current witch hunt. rabble thus harms not only Meghan Murphy both personally and professionally, but also stifles public discussion of complex and difficult issues that are simply not covered adequately in mainstream media.
It’s all so familiar.
Quoted from the article
“In our view rabble has consistently supported, published and given wide berth to these voices at the expense of reasoned argument, debate and discussion, rather than articulate a principled stand on the issue.”
Point of interest:
“rrabble has supported” something means that rabble favored it, yes?
“rrabble has … published” something means it has put something forward.
“rabble has … given wide berth to” something means that it has gone well out of its way to AVOID something, doesn’t it? I.e., the opposite of supporting something and the opposite of promulgating something by publishing it. Is it just me, or have I got it wrong?
maddog1129@1:
I suspect that the author meant “supported” in the sense of defended, “published” in the sense of “paid to write”, and “given a wide berth” in the sense of “given discretion about what to write”. The author is not exactly a good writer, and unfamiliar (apparently) with several english words. Also a pretty shitty intellectual, as intellectuals go.
I’m sure it just means I’m old or somethin’, but it seems to me, once upon a time, ‘violent’ and ‘violence’ were an adjective and noun that had particular, rather fixed meanings. You could use them figuratively, yes, with proper care, maybe the context to establish this was what was meant, or even humourously (as in: they were in violent agreement), but, generally, outside these cases, even ‘violent rhetoric’ would generally be assumed to have either threatened violence, or to have at least luridly and none-too-obliquely referenced it, maybe in somewhat wistful fashion. Y’know, ‘Sometimes, I dream of hitting them with bricks’, possibly accompanied by soliloquies on what a great release one might expect to find such action. Or even (more topically) ‘punch ’em out; I’ll pay the legal bills’, that sorta thing… And even these, I might add, seem to me a bit milquetoast against what I find myself expecting when I’m told someone’s speech is actually ‘violent’; ‘violent rhetoric’ in my tiny little mind, generally suggests to me stuff more of the ‘we will dance in the invaders’ blood/we will fashion grotesque (but artisanal) handmade crafts from their skulls’ variety…
But I’ll allow all of the above, at least, absolutely can be called ‘violent’, whether more or less picturesquely so..
Where, however, this fashion arose that you could so casually call it ‘violent’ of someone to express opinions lacking such trappings, but with which you happen to disagree, I don’t quite know, but I do generally reflexively lump speakers and writers who do this somewhere in the bottom of the bargain bin of the barely, technically literate, and possibly less intellectually rigorous or honest…
Somewhere near the YouTube comments thread bin, in short.
And it seems to me beyond this _especially_ when there’s _actual_ violence going around, implying someone actually bears responsibility isn’t something you should be doing just because their opinion happens to be at variance with your own, and you’d prefer they shut up now. Rather, that’s the sort of thing I’d like to see people weigh a bit more, before claiming.
And finally, sadly, it seems to me we’ve needed those words frequently enough for their actual, original uses, of late. Me, I figure, we probably shouldn’t be repurposing ’em for this other thing, now, of all times. It’s just asking for trouble. As having to commission new ones or somethin’ to explicitly label the stuff involving the actual bullets, fists, and bombs, well, look, that’d just be incredibly inconvenient, at the moment. Get back to us maybe next century?
maddog – yes, giving something a wide berth definitely means avoiding it.
I assumed they meant “leeway,” instead of “wide berth.” Another good nautical expression.
@A J Milne, It is my understanding that Laverne Cox gave rise to describing any and all refusal, to submit and obey, as violence when they said that “misgendering is an act of violence.” I am informed on the tumblr on a daily basis that refusal to participate in sexy times with men and or men who identify as women is literally killing them. The dreaded blue balls, I suppose.
‘Misgendering = violent oppressive genocide’ etc comes from a long chain of escalation and equivocation:
Misgendering can be a way to abuse someone for being trans, and the fact that it could also be an accident is discarded because intent isn’t magic after all. Therefore, misgendering = abuse.
Abuse can lead to depression. Therefore, misgendering = abuse = intent to cause depression.
Depression is a major contributor to the chance that a person will become suicidal. Therefore, misgendering = abuse = intent to cause depression = intent to cause suicide i.e. death.
And since the original step in that chain – misgendering – is particularly relevant to the trans demographic, the final step is plain: misgendering is not just attempted murder, it is attempted murder against an entire population group. Hey presto, genocide.
The same method can be applied to all sorts of silly shit, another example would be: ogling can be a form of sexual harassment, which is a type of sexual assault. Another type of sexual assault is rape, therefore ogling is rape because it is different in magnitude but not different in category. Boom, ogling is rape.
In other words, there is enough dishonest wordplay to make Ken Ham proud.
It’s probably partly lack of sleep, and general stress, but I’m now trying to work out if refusing to participate in sexytimes is _also_ violent oppressive genocide…
Honestly, I just had a headache. I had no idea.
See what’s her face’s mother calling her Michael (I think) in Sense 8 for an example of actual abusive misgendering.
Holms, you make me glad I’m a mathematician.
100 and 1 are both in the same sets of numbers. Since they are both natural numbers, they are in the same category, just as ogling is in the same category as rape. But 100 =/= 1.
Feel free to take that and use it to break such conflation of ideas.
#8
I have heard it claimed that being either straight or gay is sexist, because in either case, your idea of ‘attractive’ is heavily determined by sex; you are thus preemptively excluding people purely on the basis of their body pattern. As far as I could tell, the person was sincere.
When I pointed out the very obvious fact that this could be applied not just to sex, but to every demographic axis in existence: age, bodyweight, disfigurement, physical and/or mental impairment to name just a few; and on that basis, it could then be argued that a person was ageist unless they found all ages equally attractive, fatphobic unless they found all bodyweights equally attractive, ableist unless they found all disfigured people as attractive as the non-disfigured… and on through the list.
The person agreed with me.
Their reasoning ran a somewhat familiar course: another demographic is race. If a person finds people attractive or unattractive largely on the basis of their race, it is much easier to accept that this is prejudice, probably because racial profiling is much better known than e.g. ableism. Since attraction / unattraction based on race is prejudicial against that demographic, and since all of those other things are also demographics, it follows that finding people unattractive on the basis of [demographic] is always an example of prejudice against that demographic.
Which has the appearence of reasonableness at first, but completely omits the fact that physical attraction is not a process involving conscious thought. When a person looks at a male and female model, they don’t consciously instruct their libido to only be interested in the woman, it just happens that way for most men and some women, vice versa when looking at the man.
We can apply this throughout all the other demographics too: no one instructs themselves to find people attractive or unattractive along [demographic]. Some demographics might be dominated by broad trends (such as increasing age correlating with decreasing sexual appeal), others might be fairly whimsical, having little to no observable trend… and I think race is in this category.
When looking at attractiveness with respect to race, I have read that individuals might naturally be attracted to their own group slightly more than to other groups on the basis of familiarity with their own group… but then, I have also read that the familiarity explanation is disputed. What is NOT disputed however, is that there is most certainly a heavy component of conscious prejudice when it comes to attraction to other races. If we polled a KKK rally for example on the attractiveness of a bunch of black models, and compared that to a poll of a random control group, I think no one will be surprised if the KKK cohort rates the models much less favourably than the control group.
And now I think I have finally zeroed in on where this reasoning falls down. When using race to make the case [that any pattern of attraction or non-attraction along any demographic axis = bigotry against that demographic], they are comparing apples to oranges. That is, sexual attraction based on some axis that follows a huge and natural trend (only being attracted to one sex, or not being attracted to octogenarians) is being compared to one where the trend in unconscious attraction is small or absent, and is skewed by the indisputable conscious prejudice at play.
Yeesh. The extremely short version of the mess above: the person is intentionally or unintentionally confusing the unconscious sexual attraction with conscious bigotry by way of an unfair comparison. Jesus fucking christ that toock too long, but then a lot of that post was taken up by me setting out my thoughts so that I could figure out what my thoughts actually were!