We demand that Rabble.ca end your association with Meghan Murphy as blogger

480 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

mark_alfred wrote:

So, I feel Rabble should make up its mind where it stands.

Why? And to what end? Is it a political party? I thought this was a news site, and as such part of its job is to be a forum for divergent and sometimes contradictory positions.

Again, this is hardly the only area where there are conflicting ideas. Sorry, but I don't see the problem.

As for labour issues, the only one I see here is having someone called out publicly with a demand that she be fired. Not sure how I'd feel if it was my name being tossed around.

 

 

 

mark_alfred

It's more than a conflicting idea, I feel.  We're talking about a fundamental rights question.  Do sex workers deserve rights?  Or should sex work be abolished?  Not having a position on a fundamental rights question is a problem.  In other areas, there is a framework of fundamental rights that are not up for debate, and within this framework there will be conflicting ideas as to how best to achieve such rights.  But that's not the case here.  The fundamental rights question has not been answered.  Rather, it's been cowardly avoided by Rabble. 

6079_Smith_W

Well yes it is a rights question (rights on both sides of this issue, I might add), with some recent court rulings.

How does the fact that there are some people here who support decriminalization and others who do not have anything to do with that? How is people expressing that range of opinion in any way an assault on those rights?

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

For those who are confused; susan started this thread in the sex worker rights forum. Unionist asked that it be moved to rabble reactions. Meg moved it at 4:30 today.

mark_alfred

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well yes it is a rights question (rights on both sides of this issue, I might add), with some recent court rulings.

How does the fact that there are some people here who support decriminalization and others who do not have anything to do with that? How is people expressing that range of opinion in any way an assault on those rights?

To reiterate what I previously said, "And it is only here [re: sex workers] that I find Rabble allows such an incompatible stance.  Outside of sex workers, other groups' rights and fair working conditions are sacrosanct at Rabble, and are not open to be questioned. [..] Rather [for sex workers], there is a set up safe ghetto (the sex workers' rights forum) but otherwise it's open season.  I find this quite weird."

Again, I'm talking about a different treatment from Rabble toward this issue from how they treat other issues.  Their treatment of this issue is an anomaly.  Like Rabble has done with other issues, they need to make up their mind on this issue.

susan davis

Timebandit wrote:
For context: susan says she doesn't understand my comment in her post #41. Susan, when you say things like "there is nothing radical about people who regurgitate the tired old victorian stereo types....", it sounds very much like you are characterizing those whose opinions differ from yours as prudes. There's no Victorian morality at play in the discussions about sex work on babble - some of us disagree with you for reasons that are not inherently anti-sex.

 

as i said, i was not refering to victorian morality....i was refering to exclusionist victorian feminism - sufferagettes - ie- they only wanted the vote for white wealthy educated women....i was not refering to victorian morality or social gospel. i never mentioned sex once.

the tired old victorian stereotype is that its ok to comprimise the safety of one group of women to save another....orfor one group of women to presume to know what is best for all women....

susan davis

i also want to clarify that i did not start this petition, i received it and an invitation to sign. i do know most of the groups who signed it though and understand their frustration. generally speaking all we want is a level playing field.

the problem being named here is the writing style which subbtley or overtly insinuates that decrim advocates - sex workers - are working for the rights of pimps or are enabling child rape as was said today on twitter. we are not. we are fighting for our rights - safe working conditions - and protection of law...

meghan knows this but yet continues to make these kinds of references.

there is also the issue of debunked or unethical data and of course many other issues raised by the letter writers.

its fine to discuss these things but people should be aware and take caution when educating the public on these issues. we deserve a fair discussion. we don't deserved to be labled the pimp lobby or any of the other dergatory things that have been said. after all, how can people make an informed decision on this if all they understand is sex workers are either destitute and down troden or they are working in cahouts with the pimps so get what they deserve as criminals.

rabble has policies about these kinds of things, why are they not enforced, there are rules in journalism, why are they not followed/

onlinediscountanvils

mark_alfred wrote:

Like Rabble has done with other issues, they need to make up their mind on this issue.

 

Although I doubt they'll ever come out and say it, I think they have made up their mind on this issue. For example, there are two active threads on this topic. Both were opened in forums that enjoy special status on babble. This thread was opened in the sex worker rights forum, but got concern-trolled into the reactions forum, thus making it a free-for-all for anyone who wants to attack sex workers. The other thread remains in the feminist forum, despite the fact that it too deals with the controversy surrounding rabble's employment of a sex work prohibitionist.

Pondering

If sex work were work like any other then there would be no such thing as sexual assault it would just be assault, or maybe theft. Rabble doesn't defend the rights of drug dealers either, or illegal cigarette sales, or bootleggers, or any other illegal occupation.

We don't defend the rights of oil workers to work the oil sands of Alberta either. We want to abolish their jobs.

Prostitution is extremely harmful to many women. There is argument as to the extent of the harm and the best way to prevent it but no one claims that it is harmless.

Your simplistic analysis is shallow and does a disservice to the many women that have suffered as a result of prostitution. It is also deeply disrespectful of the many progressive women who believe that we are all damaged by prostitution and the many women who are survivors and have spoken out against it. Even if you accept the premise that women who want to do sex work should be able to it doesn't justify your callous disregard for survivors and for women who have dedicated their lives to helping victims.

 

mark_alfred

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Like Rabble has done with other issues, they need to make up their mind on this issue.

 

Although I doubt they'll ever come out and say it, I think they have made up their mind on this issue. For example, there are two active threads on this topic. Both were opened in forums that enjoy special status on babble. This thread was opened in the sex worker rights forum, but got concern-trolled into the reactions forum, thus making it a free-for-all for anyone who wants to attack sex workers. The other thread remains in the feminist forum, despite the fact that it too deals with the controversy surrounding rabble's employment of a sex work prohibitionist.

With some sadness I too noticed that.

onlinediscountanvils

^^ Case in point... 8.5 hours ago Pondering's post wouldn't have been acceptable in this thread.

[cross-posted with Mark]

jas

susan davis wrote:
i also want to clarify that i did not start this petition, i received it and an invitation to sign. i do know most of the groups who signed it though and understand their frustration. generally speaking all we want is a level playing field.

Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier, but does Rabble host blogs or articles from sex workers who advocate more along the lines you're looking for, Susan? If so, then it sounds like there's a level playing field here. If not, then that might be something to look into. I'm sure they wouldn't reject such content, as long as it's advocacy and not attack articles.

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

i also want to clarify that i did not start this petition, i received it and an invitation to sign. i do know most of the groups who signed it though and understand their frustration. generally speaking all we want is a level playing field.

the problem being named here is the writing style which subbtley or overtly insinuates that decrim advocates - sex workers - are working for the rights of pimps or are enabling child rape as was said today on twitter. we are not. we are fighting for our rights - safe working conditions - and protection of law...

meghan knows this but yet continues to make these kinds of references.

there is also the issue of debunked or unethical data and of course many other issues raised by the letter writers.

its fine to discuss these things but people should be aware and take caution when educating the public on these issues. we deserve a fair discussion. we don't deserved to be labled the pimp lobby or any of the other dergatory things that have been said. after all, how can people make an informed decision on this if all they understand is sex workers are either destitute and down troden or they are working in cahouts with the pimps so get what they deserve as criminals.

rabble has policies about these kinds of things, why are they not enforced, there are rules in journalism, why are they not followed/

If you are going to make those kinds of allegations against someone I think you should quote them and provide a link seeing as you are speaking of a writer who publishes online.

Slumberjack

Sineed wrote:
It's not so much a conspiracy but rather a structural oppression.

Agreed.  The situation is marbled with structuralist tone and tendency isn't it, where ultimately the police and other violent people are left in charge to sort things out.  For example, Megan Murphy's usual offerings on gender relations can't really be argued against, with events and situations being as they are, but at the same time it's enough to get on your nerves because it provides for no escape for anyone.  It constitutes an endless and vitriolic feedback loop in which there is no getting off of that merry-go-round.  Everyone, along with their acrimony, assorted tribulations, and nausea are frozen into position.  I feel bad for the communities who have this delimiting way of thinking thrust in their path like a barrier.

6079_Smith_W

Mark Alfred, you didn't answer my question. It was a simple one.

How does people voicing their opinions infringe on others' rights, specifically the ones you are talking about?

You raised it as a problem. Please explain how.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan davis wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
For context: susan says she doesn't understand my comment in her post #41. Susan, when you say things like "there is nothing radical about people who regurgitate the tired old victorian stereo types....", it sounds very much like you are characterizing those whose opinions differ from yours as prudes. There's no Victorian morality at play in the discussions about sex work on babble - some of us disagree with you for reasons that are not inherently anti-sex.

 

as i said, i was not refering to victorian morality....i was refering to exclusionist victorian feminism - sufferagettes - ie- they only wanted the vote for white wealthy educated women....i was not refering to victorian morality or social gospel. i never mentioned sex once.

the tired old victorian stereotype is that its ok to comprimise the safety of one group of women to save another....orfor one group of women to presume to know what is best for all women....

That's an interestingly ahistorical reading of Victorian suffrage.

It's also a nice scramble backwards.  Nice to see you're keeping limber.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
How about banning all the NDP cheerleaders who sat quietly while Libya was bombed, with the active support of Turmel and company?

We suspected more or less what they would say if they had anything to say at all, but the point is that many of them quite understandably didn't comment.  Still, I wouldn't support banning based on speculation as to what might have been said.  It's a different scenario entirely from what is being discussed here, which has to do with accusations of oppressive speech by someone who has been placed in charge.

Quote:
I disagree with Meghan Murphy's stand on sex work. But if she is banned/fired/burned at the stake in response to this petition or whatever it is - I'm done with Rabble, both politically and financially.

This is a bit of an extreme position.  Why not let Rabble.ca respond, if in fact they feel that the groups making these demands are important enough for them to bother acknowledging, and base your decision on the content and quality of the response either way.

hookstrapped

Pondering wrote:

If sex work were work like any other then there would be no such thing as sexual assault it would just be assault, or maybe theft.

Are you suggesting that sexual assault only occurs in the context of sex work and not other forms of work? And if not (because that would be a pretty ridiculous assertion), what is your point? And considering that police are a major source of assault, sexual and otherwise, against sex workers, how does criminalization of sex work reduce sexual assault against sex workers? 

Pondering wrote:

Your simplistic analysis is shallow and does a disservice to the many women that have suffered as a result of prostitution. It is also deeply disrespectful of the many progressive women who believe that we are all damaged by prostitution and the many women who are survivors and have spoken out against it. 

Your assertion of all women being damaged by prostitution is eerily similar to the assertion that gay marriage threatens and damages traditional heterosexual marriage and deserves the same demand for evidence.

 

mark_alfred

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Mark Alfred, you didn't answer my question. It was a simple one.

How does people voicing their opinions infringe on others' rights, specifically the ones you are talking about?

You raised it as a problem. Please explain how.

I didn't say that was the problem.  If you felt I was saying that, you've misread my post (#49).  I said a framework for the discussion needs to be established, because the two basic sides are incompatible, and thus any discussion upon it will go nowhere. 

 

6079_Smith_W

Mark Alfred,

You said this at #52:

Quote:

It's more than a conflicting idea, I feel.  We're talking about a fundamental rights question.

You are right that I am assuming that waving around the flag of "rights" means that there is some impact on those rights because that is generally why one uses that issue. In this case, a red herring, IMO.

So, how does that make it so special that conflicting ideas aren't allowed and we aren't even allowed to talk about it? And if there is no impact then what is the big deal and why do you raise that issue at all? Besides, it is not as if any of these rights are absolute. Most rights conflict with one another on some level and have to be balanced. We generally do so through discussion, not reverent silence and obeisance to some presumed absolute right.

Talking about rights is not an assault on those rights. Shutting down discussion on the other hand....

 

 

 

susan davis

Timebandit wrote:

 

That's an interestingly ahistorical reading of Victorian suffrage.

It's also a nice scramble backwards.  Nice to see you're keeping limber.

eat a snickers, you get a little hostile when you are hungry.

susan davis

jas wrote:

susan davis wrote:
i also want to clarify that i did not start this petition, i received it and an invitation to sign. i do know most of the groups who signed it though and understand their frustration. generally speaking all we want is a level playing field.

Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier, but does Rabble host blogs or articles from sex workers who advocate more along the lines you're looking for, Susan? If so, then it sounds like there's a level playing field here. If not, then that might be something to look into. I'm sure they wouldn't reject such content, as long as it's advocacy and not attack articles.

i am unsure....but my reference to a level playing field means that people would not resort to bashing us or using known to be debunked or unethical data. as an example an article from der spiegle in germany is being hoisted as fact or some kind of proof that decriminalization is bad. it is not a research paper, it is not fact and we are not calling for legalization like they have in germany. we had that . it sucked and many died.

but yet it is offered here as if proof of the harms of decrim....that writing is not in a journalistic piece by a journalism student however.

when meghan writes she is a journalist and that carries a whole host of ethics rules as well.

the question being raised is not "who is right" (decrim or abolition) the question is "why do we allow myths and biases to be perpetuated as truth?" why are the rules not followed?

mark_alfred

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So, how does that make it so special that conflicting ideas aren't allowed and we aren't even allowed to talk about it? And if there is no impact then what is the big deal and why do you raise that issue at all? Besides, it is not as if any of these rights are absolute. Most rights conflict with one another on some level and have to be balanced. We generally do so through discussion, not reverent silence and obeisance to some presumed absolute right.

Talking about rights is not an assault on those rights. Shutting down discussion on the other hand....

 

Via Babble Policy there are frameworks for discussion.  Within those frameworks, a lot of different opinions occur, which is good.  But those opinions are to stay within the framework as set up by Rabble.  I gave the labour example in post #49, which perhaps was a bit too obtuse.  Other examples are abortion/family planning & LBGTQ.  Discussion and sharing of ideas occurs within the framework of being in favour of these rights.  Ideas arguing that such rights are illegitimate or unnatural are not allowed here (and rightly so, otherwise discussions surrounding such issues would be unproductive and unpleasant).  Rabble has set up a framework for discussion on these issues, but hasn't for the sex work issue.  It's currently a free for all where anything goes (from sex workers need rights to it's illegitimate and a danger to all women).  There's no middle ground.  The premise each side is relying on is diametrically opposed.  Thus, the discussions are unproductive and unpleasant.  As Rabble has done for other issues, I feel Rabble needs to set up a framework for this issue.

So, as I said in post #49 (which inspired your question) I stated,

Quote:
So, I feel Rabble should make up its mind where it stands.  Rather than cowardly trying to accommodate two incompatible contradictory positions, they should either simply say "we support sex-workers' rights as a fundamental value" and let Ms. Murphy know that future articles must abide by this, or say "we feel sex work is not work but rather is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism that needs to be abolished" and do away with the sex workers' rights forum and allow Ms. Murphy to continue her writing unabated.

Anyway 6079_Smith_W, I suspect we're simply in disagreement on this one.  Which is fine.  I have nothing more to say in response to your queries.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

From the Murphy thread in the feminist forum, here's me repeating myself:

Quote:
I don't think it's helpful for rabble to endorse one feminist position over another (as has been referenced by mark alfred in the other thread).  Babble itself has given a dedicated forum for sex worker's rights, and that is a space for discussion from that particular point of view.  It is not, however, the only feminist point of view on the topic and we shouldn't be muzzling one branch of purportedly progressive thinking over another (although both sides would argue that the other isn't actually progressive).  It's not even a binary for or against question - there are a multitude of positions along the sliding scale.

That said, Murphy has been villified well beyond the extent of her approach to the question of sex work.  The campaign to get her fired from rabble is just the most recent attack. 

Some things that Murphy writes I agree with.  Others I have mixed feelings about.  Many would lump her position and mine together.  If rabble decides that Murphy's position is not welcome here, though, it will be a message to some long-time babblers that we aren't welcome here, either, and that would be a sad thing, I think, for us.

Ultimately, I think that this issue is too thorny for rabble to endorse one narrow conception of feminism over another.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan, haven't you been cautioned about personal remarks?

FWIW, I'm not being hostile.  I'm actually working very hard at being polite.

I'm not sure what Victorian stereotypes you're citing - certainly, you aren't talking about any tropes out of the suffrage movement of the Victorian era that I'm familiar with.  It isn't the first time you've implied or outright accused people who aren't all "rah rah" for your side of the argument of being anti-sex, so it seemed the most logical meaning of your somewhat addled-sounding comment.  If you meant something else, perhaps you should embrace some clarity of language and help us out on what it is you're actually getting at.

Pondering

hookstrapped wrote:
Are you suggesting that sexual assault only occurs in the context of sex work and not other forms of work? And if not (because that would be a pretty ridiculous assertion), what is your point?

My point is that sex is not like any other service such as non-erotic massage. Sexual intimacy holds a unique place in human behavior. This is why sexual assault exists as a category that is considered uniquely damaging.

hookstrapped wrote:
And considering that police are a major source of assault, sexual and otherwise, against sex workers, how does criminalization of sex work reduce sexual assault against sex workers?

Sex workers themselves are not subject to arrest unless they are near daycares or schools etc. which I think most women would avoid doing anyway.

Pondering wrote:
Your simplistic analysis is shallow and does a disservice to the many women that have suffered as a result of prostitution. It is also deeply disrespectful of the many progressive women who believe that we are all damaged by prostitution and the many women who are survivors and have spoken out against it. 

hookstrapped wrote:
Your assertion of all women being damaged by prostitution is eerily similar to the assertion that gay marriage threatens and damages traditional heterosexual marriage and deserves the same demand for evidence.

Marriage is an institution not the half of the human race that has been subjegated by patriarcy and is still struggling for equality.

Marriage is legal. Gay people were petitioning for a right that everyone else enjoys, access to.

Prostitution is the commercialization of human sexuality, not something people are born being.

 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

i am unsure....but my reference to a level playing field means that people would not resort to bashing us or using known to be debunked or unethical data. as an example an article from der spiegle in germany is being hoisted as fact or some kind of proof that decriminalization is bad. it is not a research paper, it is not fact and we are not calling for legalization like they have in germany. we had that . it sucked and many died.

but yet it is offered here as if proof of the harms of decrim....that writing is not in a journalistic piece by a journalism student however.

Linking to and quoting articles is perfectly valid in this venue. Some brothel in another country that demands passports was used as a defence for decriminalization without so much as a link provided even though decriminalization would not restrict prostitution to brothels. Readers of der spiegle can evaluate the validity of the information themselves.

How do you envision other non-discriminatory labour laws being applied? That is, a client shouldn't be able to choose the sex or age or any other personal characteristic of the service provider.

6079_Smith_W

mark_alfred wrote:

Anyway 6079_Smith_W, I suspect we're simply in disagreement on this one.  Which is fine.  I have nothing more to say in response to your queries.

Um.. no my dear, I think your disagreement may be with rabble.

As for your raising the issue of rights as being distinct from any other disagreement, I think my question stands.You can leave it unanswered if you want.

and @ Timebandit

I don't think it is a matter of being too thorny. It is entirely inappropriate. Again, is this a political party or a news forum? If the point is having a space where we can discuss issues, having it walled in by doctrine is a quick way to make the whole thing irrelevant.

 

6079_Smith_W

Gotcha Though evidently some are pushing for just that.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Agreed.  What I meant by "too thorny" is that feminism will always both intersect with issues around sex work, and yet maintain an uneasiness with those issues.  Or at least, segments of feminism will.  I don't think that branding a rabble-approved feminism would be a useful act.

susan davis

Pondering wrote:

susan davis wrote:

i am unsure....but my reference to a level playing field means that people would not resort to bashing us or using known to be debunked or unethical data. as an example an article from der spiegle in germany is being hoisted as fact or some kind of proof that decriminalization is bad. it is not a research paper, it is not fact and we are not calling for legalization like they have in germany. we had that . it sucked and many died.

but yet it is offered here as if proof of the harms of decrim....that writing is not in a journalistic piece by a journalism student however.

Linking to and quoting articles is perfectly valid in this venue. Some brothel in another country that demands passports was used as a defence for decriminalization without so much as a link provided even though decriminalization would not restrict prostitution to brothels. Readers of der spiegle can evaluate the validity of the information themselves.

How do you envision other non-discriminatory labour laws being applied? That is, a client shouldn't be able to choose the sex or age or any other personal characteristic of the service provider.

 

again, this discussion is not about decrim vs abolition....i don't care to discuss that with you. its completely pointless. the borthel example in another country was example of legalization....we don't support that....remember?

this discussion is about how writers/ journalists are allowed to insinuate the motivations of decrim advocates are on behalf of pimp,etc and how debunked data is often hoisted as fact when we know it is not.

why can't abolitionist journalists operate within the boundaries of the rules which govern their profession....?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan, disagreeing with your (self-interested) assessment does not constitute a breach of journalistic ethics.  Trying to interfere with Murphy's employment is a vendetta move and it does nothing to attract support for you and yours. 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
again, this discussion is not about decrim vs abolition....i don't care to discuss that with you. its completely pointless. the borthel example in another country was example of legalization....we don't support that....remember?

Well someone else supporting decriminalization did bring it up, not me, so take it up with them.

susan davis wrote:

this discussion is about how writers/ journalists are allowed to insinuate the motivations of decrim advocates are on behalf of pimp,etc and how debunked data is often hoisted as fact when we know it is not.

why can't abolitionist journalists operate within the boundaries of the rules which govern their profession....?

You have offered no evidence of your accusations of a breach of journalistic ethics on the part of Murphy.

susan davis

the letter....? at the begining? did you read it? that is what i am refering to....what is unclear about it....?

onlinediscountanvils

susan davis wrote:

the letter....? at the begining? did you read it? that is what i am refering to....what is unclear about it....?

 

Surely you don't expect people to actually read the thread before jumping in to comment? Wink

susan davis

i suppose you are sadly right ONLDA

Timebandit wrote:

susan, disagreeing with your (self-interested) assessment does not constitute a breach of journalistic ethics.  Trying to interfere with Murphy's employment is a vendetta move and it does nothing to attract support for you and yours. 

i did not start the petition, this is not about disagreeing....this is about being fair and ethical.... not named as in support of or working for the "pimp lobby" and it is also about everything named by the petition writers in their letter....i thought you said we should refrain from personal attacks....this is the second time you have done this to me in this thread....my "self interested" assessment actually may constitute breach of journalistic ethics;

from the Canadian Association of Journalists;

Accuracy

  • We are disciplined in our efforts to verify all facts. Accuracy is the moral imperative of journalists and news organizations, and should not be compromised, even by pressing deadlines of the 24-hour news cycle.
  • We make every effort to verify the identities and backgrounds of our sources.
  • We seek documentation to support the reliability of those sources and their stories, and we are careful to distinguish between assertions and fact. The onus is on us to verify all information, even when it emerges on deadline.
  • We make sure to retain the original context of all quotations or clips, striving to convey the original tone. Our reporting and editing will not change the meaning of a statement or exclude important qualifiers.

Fairness

  • We respect the rights of people involved in the news.
  • We give people, companies or organizations that are publicly accused or criticized opportunity to respond before we publish those criticisms or accusations. We make a genuine and reasonable effort to contact them, and if they decline to comment, we say so.
  • We do not refer to a person’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender self-identification orphysical ability unless it is pertinent to the story.
  • We avoid stereotypes of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. And we take particular care in crime stories.
  • We take special care when reporting on children or those who are otherwise unable to give consent to be interviewed. While some minors, such as athletes, may be used to being interviewed, others might have little understanding of the implications of talking to the media. So when unsure, or when dealing with particularly sensitive subjects, we err on the side of seeking parental consent. Likewise, we take special care when using any material posted to social media by minors, as they may not understand the public nature of their postings.
  • We do not allow our own biases to impede fair and accurate reporting.
  • We respect each person’s right to a fair trial.

while i am sure this only applies to their membership, i feel its an important point if discussions about this are to be informed in a way that ensures people have accurate information and are not fed discriminatory bias via misrepresentation.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan davis wrote:

the letter....? at the begining? did you read it? that is what i am refering to....what is unclear about it....?


Yes, I read it. It's a heavily slanted piece of writing, which I find difficult to take at face value.

susan davis

and timebandit....its a well known fact i thought that the origional suffreagttes only saught the vote for themselves...not women of colour, aborigional women or any other women than them.....

this is what i am refering to, exclusion of some women by women for the betterment (saving) of other women....

it is well known and was part of what we learned during the history of sex work project....those women also began the war on prostitution and white slavery....

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

First of all, there is a difference in writing an opinion piece and straight-ahead reporting, Most of what you're objecting to is opinion, and it's presented as opinion, although with support from sources. Secondly, that Murphy does not uncritically accept your interpretation of the facts - and journalists DO have the leeway to interpret - does not mean she hasn't verified facts. Thirdly, I haven't seen her not respect your "rights". I have, however, seen you claim that you have rights that aren't actually rights, so I'm assuming that disagreement is what you're referring to. Finally, an opinion piece is not "reporting" as it's meant here. BTW, I'm familiar with the CAJ's code of ethics, having been a member. I also dispute that not agreeing with you constitutes misrepresentation. Again, playing at vendettas does very little to make you more credible.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan davis wrote:

and timebandit....its a well known fact i thought that the origional suffreagttes only saught the vote for themselves...not women of colour, aborigional women or any other women than them.....

this is what i am refering to, exclusion of some women by women for the betterment (saving) of other women....

it is well known and was part of what we learned during the history of sex work project....those women also began the war on prostitution and white slavery....


Right, hence the connotation of prudery - which is something you're prone to level at your opponents at the best of times, so it's not like you're ignorant of the connotation. If you're going to throw that out there, the least you can do is own it.

Sineed

If Meghan Murphy breached journalistic ethics, there needs to be proof cited. I have seen not a shred.

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

the letter....? at the begining? did you read it? that is what i am refering to....what is unclear about it....?

I did, and it was a whole lot of accusations and links without quotes. I second Timebandit.

susan davis

where did i say prudery....nowhere......

and maghan insinuation that decrim advocates are working for the pimp lobby is NOT a disagreement....it is her deliberately misrepresenting our intentions....

you know what....whatever....i started this thread to engage people and let people know that i am not some lone nut case who feels meghans writing can be a problem.

thanks for highjacking it though and making it about what you want.

i never called anyone any names but have been called plenty here on rabble. i am sure you would all be much happier without my presense but too bad. i am here, i have done nothing wrong, i always represent myself honestly.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I have already explained that using the phrase "Victorian stereotypes" implies prudery. It's pretty straightforward, Susan. It's also not the first time you've gone down that road and had it explained to you, so in my estimation you very likely know exactly what you're doing.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
It's a heavily slanted piece of writing, which I find difficult to take at face value.

Why is that TB?  Is it because there are no legitimate observations being made in the letter, or is it the case that the source does not legitimately represent the concerns being expressed?  In other words there are no concerns worth being brought forward?  They're all just talking shit?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
It's a heavily slanted piece of writing, which I find difficult to take at face value.

Why is that TB?  Is it because there are no legitimate observations being made in the letter, or is it the case that the source does not legitimately represent the concerns being expressed?  In other words there are no concerns worth being brought forward?  They're all just talking shit?


A good chunk of it is talking shit, for sure. They're cherry picking comments out of context and amping them up to a frenzied degree - Murphy is, in st least some of their instances, not saying what they purport at all and they're hoping we are too lazy to check further. It isn't hard to imagine that when the writers of the letter say "We support working with people to transform their politics toward more equity and accountability." they actually mean, "we support telling you what to think and how to think it so that we are never challenged". If they actually wanted a discussion or to "work with" people who don't agree with them, they wouldn't be engaging in vindictive vendettas to get people fired.

lagatta

Susan, nobody here, whatever her or his opinion on the sex trade, has called for you to be booted off babble or said we'd be happier without your presence. Certainly not me. I just don't want a freelancer to lose a small gig because you disagree with her outlook. Perhaps we should have a "freelancers' rights" forum?

susan davis

yeah sure, i feel so welcome here....pondering....there are plenty of links to quotes by murphy in the letter    click the links...

timebandit....i never said prudery...it was not implied...it was a fricken refernce to the votes for women being only for one group of women not all women....so stop trying to bait me ......please...

i likely knew what i was doing....wth....this is what is lossely refered to as a productive discussion....

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ

Actually they started losing me with the "platform of hate" hyperbolae in the first paragraph. And "not about free speech"? As TB says... hard to take at face value. Sorry, but it is a complete lie.

Really, any points they may have made that may have been worth considering are undercut by them calling out someone by name, and demanding she be silenced.

 

Iamcuriousblue

BTW, I notice that the "We need Meghan Murphy" petition is authored by one Diana Boston. Some might remember her from an extended racist rant against a Latina sex worker on YouTube Diana had a particular dislike of:

 

http://www.i-tube.net/video/divinity-falls-off-the-pole-1

http://www.i-tube.net/video/divinity-falls-off-the-pole-2

http://www.i-tube.net/video/divinity-falls-off-the-pole

 

Such a vanguard of all things egalitarian, this radical feminism.

Pages

Topic locked