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

480 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I was pissed off at the absurd accusation that critics of the sex industry are all rightwing prudes for mandatory lifelong heterosexual marriage.

Was this accusation made by members of the PIMP LOBBY?

In another thread on the same topic, it's been suggested that any man who's in favour of decriminalization rather than abolition is secretly just trying to make sure that he or his "dude bros" have easy access to sex workers.  Personally, I'd rather be called a prude.

Really, I'd rather that the discussion not take the form of people trying to insinuate the very worst possible thing about anyone who disagrees with them, but as they say, "If wishes were fishes..." and all that.  And sadly a few respectful and honest people can't turn a whole thread (or three of them) around any more than one good apple can make a bushel of spoiled ones fresh.

takeitslowly

as a trans woman i think i should just stick with the LGBTQ fourm , which is very popular..lol.

Sineed

Mr Magoo wrote:
In another thread on the same topic, it's been suggested that any man who's in favour of decriminalization rather than abolition is secretly just trying to make sure that he or his "dude bros" have easy access to sex workers.

That was me, and you are misquoting me slightly. I said that progressive men in favour of decrim are "unthinkingly" protecting their dude bros' access to women's bodies. There's a difference between male privilege, and a conspiracy, and I think generally people are too disorganized, gossipy and incompetent to keep any conspiracies hidden for long.

Slumberjack

But I don't know any dude bros who access women's bodies for money, let alone friends or even casual acquaintences.  Anyway, that kind of exchange and Pondering's accusatory mode of expression does have a silencing effect.  That's likely well and fine for some, but maybe others would've liked to further explore the rhetorical similarities particular to historical counter-movements and changes in social attitudes.

lagatta

The thing about heterosexual and "sacred" relationships was somehere upstream, but I'm damned sure not wasting a second to track it down.

Slumberjack

Why bother mentioning it if you didn't understand what you thought you read on the first skim?

Slumberjack

takeitslowly wrote:
as a trans woman i think i should just stick with the LGBTQ fourm , which is very popular..lol.

I would have responded with, 'introduce whatever you like' for discussion, but it's quite understandable if you didn't.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I was pissed off at the absurd accusation that critics of the sex industry are all rightwing prudes for mandatory lifelong heterosexual marriage.

Was this accusation made by members of the PIMP LOBBY?

Check post 140 and has the term "pimp lobby" been used by abolitionists in this or any recent thread?

 

 

Gustave

Sineed wrote:

I don't see how stigmatization and criminalization ties into the most drastic harm of sex work: putting women in the way of psychopathic men who prey on women. I'm not convinced that legalization will protect women from the Robert William Pictons of this world, men whose motivations are difficult for most of us (men and women both) to comprehend.

Did you read the Himel decision? Psychopaths DO NOT operate in brothels. The evidence is overwhelming. Brothels are by far the safest work places for sex workers. And that's why the new law does not make brothels illegal. The problem with abolitionnists like extremist organizations and sects like la CLES in Montreal is that they are calling law enforcement to raid brothels and massage parlours systematically to get rid of prostitution. Even the most consevative police forces will not do that because they know the consequences.

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

But I don't know any dude bros who access women's bodies for money, let alone friends or even casual acquaintences.  Anyway, that kind of exchange and Pondering's accusatory mode of expression does have a silencing effect.  That's likely well and fine for some, but maybe others would've liked to further explore the rhetorical similarities particular to historical counter-movements and changes in social attitudes.

Your post 140 drew parallels between abolitionists, racists and homophobes. You also stated that abolitionists don't care about "collateral damage" in another post. You also drew parallels between prostitution and marriage or other relationships that have an economic aspect to them. I don't buy your offended innocence act.

Brachina

Caissa wrote:

Shut the expletive deleted thread down for Marx sake.

 

 No absolutely not, this conversation is too important to run away from just because some heat is being generated.

 And I changed my mind about Murphy being fired, I didn't realize she'd called for Chris Brown's murder, death threats crosses the line beyond free speech. She needs to go. A woman got kicked out of the Aberta NDP cacus for less then hateful thing Murphy has said or the death threat.

takeitslowly

THe bigger issue here is that each different forum is like an echo chamber. There's obviously not going to be agreement or much solidarity between the different groups.

Brachina

Gustave wrote:

Sineed wrote:

I don't see how stigmatization and criminalization ties into the most drastic harm of sex work: putting women in the way of psychopathic men who prey on women. I'm not convinced that legalization will protect women from the Robert William Pictons of this world, men whose motivations are difficult for most of us (men and women both) to comprehend.

Did you read the Himel decision? Psychopaths DO NOT operate in brothels. The evidence is overwhelming. Brothels are by far the safest work places for sex workers. And that's why the new law does not make brothels illegal. The problem with abolitionnists like extremist organizations and sects like la CLES in Montreal is that they are calling law enforcement to raid brothels and massage parlours systematically to get rid of prostitution. Even the most consevative police forces will not do that because they know the consequences.

 You're not under the mistaken impression that these groups give two shits about these women? No they're in it for the big rescue industy dollars, they lose out big time when fear of prostitution goes down, but a nice crack down with media attention funnels all kinds of money to them. Its corruption 101. And the non professional abolutionists support it because it makes them uncomfortable and maybe sometimes inconvienced, and how dare sex workers put making a living and surviving before the abolionists interests. 

 I think Rabble is at a crossroads, it can support sex workers or it can support abolionists, it can't support both, it can support trans rights or it can support transphobia, ect... I back the letter 100%.

6079_Smith_W

You're a bit late, brachina. And no, she still doesn't have to go.

 

Brachina

 A day late and a dollar.short, story of.my life, still don't mean I can't.give my 2 cents. I still stand by my statement.

Brachina

takeitslowly wrote:

THe bigger issue here is that each different forum is like an echo chamber. There's obviously not going to be agreement or much solidarity between the different groups.

 

 You nailed it. Actual most of the forums on here aren't even echo chambers, they just empty most of time. You could scream in them and no one would read you scream. The rest are echo chambers. The most shocking thing about Debater quiting the Liberals wasn't the quiting its was someone on rabbles position changed or even become more open. This site is drowning in its own thirst confirmation bias as the msm. We need rabble, but its in crisis.

 Anyway if Murphy isn't being fired perhaps Susan Davis can be offered her own column as a counter point to Murphy's.

 Also PS its a said day in feminism when MRAs treat a group of feminists with more respect then rabble.

6079_Smith_W

Brachina wrote:

 A day late and a dollar.short, story of.my life, still don't mean I can't.give my 2 cents. I still stand by my statement.

Obviously, and no one is saying you can't But if you are insisting on grand policy standsyou can make those on your own site. I think we just settled the issue of free discussion.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think Rabble is at a crossroads, it can support sex workers or it can support abolionists, it can't support both

Why is it necessary for rabble to bless either position?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That was me, and you are misquoting me slightly. I said that progressive men in favour of decrim are "unthinkingly" protecting their dude bros' access to women's bodies. There's a difference between male privilege, and a conspiracy, and I think generally people are too disorganized, gossipy and incompetent to keep any conspiracies hidden for long.

Alright.

I also support the right of adults to legally purchase and consume alcohol.

And I suppose if someone were motivated enough, they could point out that I'm either knowingly or unknowingly (read: callously or witlessly) standing shoulder to shoulder with Molsons and Labatts and Seagrams.  And that I'm so invested in "freedom" and "choice" that I'm turning a blind eye to alcoholism, DUI fatalities, and poverty.  And hey, maybe I only hold this opinion because I'm hoping to go out this weekend and get blotto at Mickey Fynns -- how shallow and empty is that compared to the pain of a child losing a parent to liver disease?  How can I not see how wrong I am?

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
Your post 140 drew parallels between abolitionists, racists and homophobes. You also stated that abolitionists don't care about "collateral damage" in another post. You also drew parallels between prostitution and marriage or other relationships that have an economic aspect to them. I don't buy your offended innocence act.

If they did give a hoot about collateral damage, they'd offer suggestions instead of condemnation and the cops.  The statement about not caring is either true, or it isn't.  I happen to think it's true.  The parallels are not figments of my imagination.  They present themselves as concerns within feminist discourse itself.  It's not my fault if you are unwilling to come to terms with that.

quizzical

pretty funny, read not so much, how the men will and are going to great lengths to trivialize and silence those against prostitution. right to the point of pretending they know what's going on in our minds as shown by their horrendous comments stating "we don't care".

fu i'm FN heritage and i've seen first hand what prostitution does to FN women, their families and our cultures.

...... men thinking they have a right to put down women who are against their exploitation of us. yep yep yep your all so progressive and knowing.

Slumberjack

It's impossible to carry on a conversation under these conditions.  But that's the entire point, to duct tape everyone's mouth shut with nonsense.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
I had earlier argued for Rabble to make up its mind given the mutual incompatibility of the two positions (see post #s 49 & 74).

I'm glad you're rethinking your earlier insistence that Rabble "make up its mind". I just wanted to mention that there are far more than "two positions" involved, and the very act of portraying the matter this way makes discussion and solutions difficult.

For example: I know women who consider sex work as a pure byproduct of patriarchy, colonialism, and class society, which must be opposed and eventually overcome as part of the struggle for the equality of women - but who also oppose criminalization either of the sale or the purchase of sex, because they believe it endangers sex workers, and because they don't believe that criminal law in the hands of the Stephen Harpers (or anyone else) and their police and courts is the vehicle to freedom and equality for women. Exception, of course, for coercion, trafficking, etc.

Where does that fit in your dichotomy?

When obviously sincere and committed activists on "both sides" (as you portray it) spend so much time and passion hurling invective at each other, each accusing the other of (in essence) not really caring about women... then maybe there's something wrong with how the dialogue is being framed. I just can't see any villains in this piece - so why do some see each other as villains?

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Because although there is a spectrum of positions, as well as those who see the firing and free speech issues as different, than the actual political/social question, the vitriol is pretty much flying between two positions. It is a shorthand, to be sure, but so long as the focus is on that dynamic, it is going to come back to that. If we could get past that and look for things like common ground it would go aways to healing that rift.

And yeah, I don't see any villains either. But then, it isn't like we don't see this same dynamic played out in plenty of other areas and issues here.

But maybe mark_alfred had a point with his previous position. Choose one or the other, or try and corral the two discussions into separate camps and everyone would probably unite long enough to jump all over the moderators expected to enforce such a decision.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

mark_alfred wrote:
It is true that no such equal petition has been circulated from abolitioners against Rabble bloggers like Joyce Arthur, who occasionally writes articles in favour of sex-workers' rights here at Rabble (though the most recent I've seen was published Nov 2014, whereas Murphy is a paid staff who is published by Rabble far more regularly).

Joyce Arthur is a paid columnist at rabble.ca. Meghan Murphy is not paid to write. She is paid for four hours a week to proofread blog posts. I continue to be astonished at how much people equate her writing with rabble's editorial policy. Meghan Murphy is also the only person to write in favour of the Nordic model on rabble.ca -- compare that with countless others who favour decriminalization.

Also, many of us at rabble have "made up our minds" over where we stand on the sex work question -- with allowances that we may not be 100% right. That doesn't mean that rabble.ca as a reader-funded organization with countless contributors, volunteers, board memebers, staff and readers needs to declaratively state what the best policy is to protect sex workers. We prefer to let people on the ground and those with experience and research in the areas tell the story for us.

mark_alfred

Thanks for the information, Catchfire.  I'll remove the erroneous bracketed text from my post.

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think Rabble is at a crossroads, it can support sex workers or it can support abolionists, it can't support both

Why is it necessary for rabble to bless either position?

I had earlier argued for Rabble to make up its mind given the mutual incompatibility of the two positions (see post #s 49 & 74).  I argued that the current indecisiveness of Rabble would simply lead to fruitless discussion.  I stated, "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."

Antonia Zerbisias argued that discussion is important, and the ideas should be debated.  Zerbisias was a feminist blogger for the Toronto Star, and co-created the Twitter hashtag #beenrapedneverreported (link), and favours a New Zealand-like decrim approach.

I still would prefer Rabble to make up its mind, but I also feel that open discussion of ideas is good.  So, I'm a tad less convinced than I was before.

It is true that no such equal petition has been circulated from abolitioners against Rabble bloggers like Joyce Arthur, who occasionally writes articles in favour of sex-workers' rights here at Rabble (IE, Nov 2014)*.

As is often the case for disempowered groups, I suspect the question of sex workers' rights here in Canada will need to be resolved after many more years of court battles, rather than through any united activist approach to the question.

*edited based upon information Catchfire shared below in post 476.

6079_Smith_W

Quote:

"No matter whether one feels one’s gendered and sexed reality to be firmly fixed or less so, every person should have the right to determine the legal and linguistic terms of their embodied lives. So whether one wants to be free to live out a “hard-wired” sense of sex or a more fluid sense of gender, is less important than the right to be free to live it out, without discrimination, harassment, injury, pathologization or criminalization – and with full institutional and community support. That is most important in my view."
"My sense is that we may not need the language of innateness or genetics to understand that we are all ethically bound to recognize another person’s declared or enacted sense of sex and/or gender. We do not have to agree upon the “origins” of that sense of self to agree that it is ethically obligatory to support and recognize sexed and gendered modes of being that are crucial to a person’s well-being." - Judith Butler

http://theterfs.com/2014/05/01/judith-butler-addresses-terfs-and-the-wor...

My bold. One would think that in the interests of that last bit there might be some way to call a cease fire on this.

 

 

MegB

Closing for length. Feel free to browse the other threads on this topic.

Pages

Topic locked