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

Makes sense.  I've never understood why Rabble has a Sex Workers Rights forum while simultaneously publishing articles decrying such rights.

mark_alfred, the feminist movement is deeply divided on this issue, as you know well.

Unionist wrote:

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.

Me too.

Quote:

Despite endless attempts, Murphy has remained unwilling to evaluate her racism, transmisogyny and whorephobia.

These are lies repeated by people who cannot find any evidence for such. And what the hell is "whorephobia?"

It is a pretty solid analysis so far as I can see.

As a comparison I don't support campaigns against voting, but I think it is important to hear the voices of those who do promote that, as it makes us rethink that institution.

Same difference here. Most of us do support some form of decriminalization and harm reduction, but there is nothing that brings the abusive and destructive aspect of sexual exploitation into focus like an analysis which is uncompromisingly opposed to it. That is why I think it is important to hear those radical voices, especially if we are going to allow a range of other viewpoints.

And it is an entirely different thing to have that argument framed from a feminist perspective than from a conservative religious one, so I don't buy that comparison to Harper.

There's a claim being made that this represents a "no platform" action against Meghan Murphy. I don't know about the motivations of everybody behind this petition, but in and of itself, asking Rabble to drop Murphy is not a "no platform" action. It is not demanding that Murphy not be allowed to speak or publish anywhere, but merely not be given a platform by Rabble, because having her on Rabble's editorial board is a tacit endorsement of her ideas. Rabble is being asked to choose between a pro-trans, pro-sex worker feminism-from-below, and the dated authoritarian "radical feminism" of Meghan Murphy. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Murphy's stance can no longer be rationalized as "progressive" in any meaningful sense of the word, and no middle ground is possible on this here - Rabble and other progressive organizations need to take a stand.

Note that I'm about as close to a "free speech absolutist" as they come, and I'd be very against any attempt to either use state power to shut Murphy up (though that's highly unlikely, as Murphy if anything is if anything a mouthpiece for state feminism) or the privatized censorship of "no platforming", that is, demanding people lose the right to speak on college campuses, all media forums, etc. If that's what Murphy was facing, I'd actually support her in this, even as much as I despise her positions. But that is not what's going on here.

Rabble has as much right to choose representative writers as Feminist Current, which last I checked, doesn't have any pro-sex worker folks among its contributors, as is their right. I'll note too that Rabble also has the right to keep Murphy, but doing so would reflect badly on them as an organization, and they very much deserve to lose support if they go that route.

I also have followed the legislative battle in France. The sex worker rights movement there is not "right wing", and I defy you to show me examples of any notable figures in that movement that are. Thierry Schaffhauser, for example, is very much a left anarchist. He penned this several years back, which I think is very good retort to those like Murphy who claim the mantle of "anti-capitalism" for their anti-sex work politics:

https://thierryschaffauser.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/sex-work-and-anti-ca...

If anything, it's the sponsors of the French legislation, the French Socialist Party that, like many other social democratic parties in Europe, show a tendency toward neoliberalism in many of their policies.

I did not say that the sex worker movement was rightwing, rather that the traditional rightwing parties support the trade; some of their backers are closely tied to bigwigs in the trade. 

So, once again, vague accusations of a shadowy "pimp lobby" working against the anti-sex work movement. Do you have actual proof of any such thing? (I mean, actual proof, not just ludicrous claims that Douglas Fox is some all-powerful puppet master behind opposition to the Nordic Model.) I'm also not buying the idea that there's broad consensus on the French left for the legislation and against the stance of Thierry Schaffaser and other SW rights advocates - I know there were some left groups (especially the remnants of the various Leninist parties) that got behind the legislation, but I'd like to see proof there was anything approaching broad support of the French left for the "Nordic Model".

Also, if the reasons behind backing this legislation were to spite Strauss-Kahn and the like, then that's clearly an example of single-minded fight against an opponenent without regard to who is hurt in the process.

Quote:

So, once again, vague accusations of a shadowy "pimp lobby" working against the anti-sex work movement. Do you have actual proof of any such thing?

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

Meghan Murphy wrote:

Are we so 'supportive' of women's choices that we are incapable of understanding and being critical of the context of sexism and classism that might lead women to 'choose' to work in a strip club? And that, rather than critisizing 'women's choices' when we challenge the sex industry, we are actually challenging male power and men's choices to objectify and exploit women for their own pleasure/gain and an economy that fails to offer women opportunities to make a decent living that does not involve stripping, prostitution, or pornography.

I think it might be good to have Murphy express her views here on a regular basis, all the better to be able to expose those views for what they are -- authoritarian, moralistic, and harm-inducing arguments gussied up in rigid "leftist" ideology.  For example in her latest piece about harm reduction in which she clarifies her opposition to, and limited understanding of, harm reduction. The similarities between drug prohibitionists and prostitution prohibitionists are thus made even clearer. Whether one's view of utopia is a Christian right-wing version or a feminist left-wing version, both radical agendas invariably legitimize ongoing harm -- infection and other causes of ill health, assault and abuse, and police terror.

Harm reduction, as it is well developed in regard to syringe exchange services and the health and basic needs services that surround them -- for a good example, see www.boomhealth.org in New York -- are low threshold entry points into comprehensive care that address an individual where they are. Where they are is a place that is largely the result of the entrenched structural issues around economic exploitation, racism, and patriarchy. Yet, that is where they are, and harm reduction seeks to improve their health and well-being in the context of that reality.  A fundamental aspect of doing so rejects judging and thereby alienating the people you seek to help, allowing people to arrive at a place where they are ready for drug treatment or, analogously, to leave sex work if they so choose. If Murphy's "radical" agenda discards these individuals because they are too far gone, lost to the destructive impact of the exploitative structures she is fighting against or, even worse, she exploits their suffering as evidence for the righteousness of her cause, then she is no different in effect from her right-wing Christian counterparts in the war on drugs and war on sex work. Prohibitionism of both types relies on the violence of the state to enforce its policies. How radical... to be unable or unwilling to see that as a major structural issue that causes harm.

But, just wondering, does rabble provide a regular platform for drug warriors/drug prohibitionists?

As an expert in harm reduction with respect to addiction treatment, I suggest that the analogy between drugs and prostitution is false.

I am a CAMH-trained addiction medicine pharmacist who has spent the last 18 years dispensing methadone and Suboxone to people with addictions both in and out of jail. I also train nurses in the ministry where I work how to treat alcohol and drug withdrawal. But enough about me. Harm reduction is a concept that grew out of the ineffectiveness of abstinence-based programs for treating addiction, and the reason for that is the pathophysiology of addiction, a chronic disorder characterized by relapses. Abstinence-based programs would kick people out of treatment for relapsing, thus punishing people for the very behaviour that motivated them to seek treatment in the first place. Harm reduction programs tolerate drug use for patients in treatment with the larger goal of helping them address all the problems in their lives, and eventually getting off drugs if they can, but if they don't, at least the programs we offer are minimizing their harmful behaviours like needle use and needle sharing. Studies have shown that harm reduction programs are more effective at getting people off drugs.

But though there may be people who are addicted to sex, nobody is addicted to prostitution. In addictions, harm reduction prevents people from harming themselves in the face of a disorder characterized by compulsive behaviour. In sex work, the harm comes from without, from male violence and the predatory behaviour that sex workers inspire in some men. If we accept some drug use in the context of harm reduction, then the "harm reduction" with respect to sex work means that we are in some measure accepting male violence, minimizing the assaults, rapes and murders of sex workers as some vague "harm" rather than challenging the sex industry, male access to female bodies, and the toxic worldwide culture of male violence against women.

As I have mentioned previously, I am not an abolishionist, but I don't know if legalizing sex work completely is also the answer. This is a big country with lots of remote spaces. If long distance truckers are picking up aboriginal sex workers by the side of remote highways in northern BC, are those woman any more protected by any legal framework? I am not convinced. And why would we try and silence those feminists who would critique the context in which women choose to sell their bodies? Such efforts strike me as misogynistic and protective of the rights of men to access women's bodies.

Unionist wrote:

Sineed - thanks for your insight. I hope it's clear, though, that I wasn't drawing any kind of analogy between drugs and sex work.

I know you aren't, u. But the "harm reduction" analogy applied to sex work is a particularly toxic idea that is making the rounds as part of the neoliberal apologists' strategy to attack feminist critique of the structural inequities that lead women to sex work.

This thread should be moved to rabble reactions. It's about whether rabble should fire Meghan Murphy. That's where it belongs - assuming it continues, that is.

Sineed wrote:

The harm that comes from the use of drugs (apart from cannabis; I'm speaking of heroin and cocaine, primarily) is compounded by legal sanctions, but drug use in itself is harmful. Drug users will compulsively keep hurting themselves to death in order to keep using. But sex workers are compelled by economic circumstances. Sex work in itself isn't something women need to keep doing in order to feel normal, the way it is with drugs. People are not physically and psychologically addicted to sex work; they just need the money.

As I have stated, I am not an abolitionist because I don't know what will keep women safer. I have read many compelling arguments that say it's the legal sanctions that result in harm to women. But we don't really know that's true. Are women protected from sexual predators if sex work becomes entirely legal? I'm not convinced. The radical feminists' critique, that imbalance of power and social inequities lead women to sex work is an important part of the discussion, and shouldn't be silenced.

Thank you for your well-reasoned statement.  I apologize if I was harsh in my earlier comment.

quizzical wrote:

where is the supporting petition?

Here:

https://www.change.org/p/rabble-ca-we-need-meghan-murphy-2

thank you unionist and sineed for bringing this forward.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

And what the hell is "whorephobia?"

Like Russophobia, but with sex workers.

ha, quite the insider-ish Babble retort, Magoo!

where's N.Beltov when you need him/her?

susan davis wrote:

are we...? murphy defenders have named maggies in support of child rape....

I think Sineed might have been referring to the discussion between her and me, not the broader disussion.  That broader discussion, I agree, is often off the rails.

susan davis wrote:

the subtle inuendo that once again we are part of the "pimp lobby" has occured in this thread too...not really in line with the purpose of this forum....which was for the sex workers and their allies to discuss these issues from a sex workers rights perspective...not from an accuse the sex workers of working for the rights of pimps perspective or the sex worke rights allies are the extreme right wing or any of the other discriminatory assumptions forming opinions here....

this discussion is happening in rabble reactions!!!!

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.

hookstrapped wrote:

For those willing to have their preconceptions messed with...

https://www.lensculture.com/peter-schafer?modal=true&modal_type=project&...

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-01/thai-woman-works-sex-industry-thai...

...or at least their idea of what policies should be pursued.

When I asked if she would support her baby daughter growing up and entering the sex industry one day like she had, she said no; that she doesn't want her to come anywhere near where she works. And then she said, "If you want to say it's bad for girls, yes it's bad. But as long as we have to make money for our families, I think it's OK for me."

Approximately 1% of American men per year access the services of a prostitute. I think it is safe to assume that Canadian figures are similar. That means much less than 1% of Canadian women choose sex work or prostitution.

Women in Canada don't have to resort to sex work to survive.

As has been pointed out here there are women who willingly choose sex work as their best or preferred option but there are also many women who end up in prostitution due to extreme circumstances and who don't want to be there. Of course our first responsibility as a country is to help women who want to exit to do so. It is still more than justified to try to prevent women from ending up in that circumstance to begin with.

It is true that our social safety net is frayed and has holes in it but the tiny percentage of women choosing prostitution illustrates that the grand majority of women, no matter how poverty stricken, still avoid it.

In Europe the countries that have some form of legitimization find the workforce is 75 to 90% migrant workers. Amsterdam is closing windows, they couldn't keep organized crime out. There is no moral imperative for Canada to open the doors to a similar experience here. There is no evidence, even in New Zealand, of a reduction in violence nor in underage prostitution.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-d...

Prostitution as an industry is not a human right. We are allowed to not want this for Canada. I don't believe the desire of the tiny percentage of women who choose prostitution over ride the cost to Canadians of the establishment of a prostitution industry in Canada.

From Feminist Current:

Quote:

Legalising prostitution turns it into a business, turns it into a career option and turns pimps and traffickers into legitimate businessmen overnight. Legalising prostitution removes any obligations to provide exit services from what becomes a profession like any other, it can give a green light to organised crime and it formally defines women as commodities, as objects of exchange for men’s presumed natural needs.

http://feministcurrent.com/7758/arguing-against-the-industry-of-prostitu...

I suggest that sex work is not just like other work.

Quote:

Prostitution is, fundamentally, submitting to unwanted sex in exchange for money or some other material return. There is a physical and psychological reality to submitting to unwanted sex, this is something sex industry advocates refuse to acknowledge. This is the classic bait-and-switch of sex industry advocates; ‘sex work is work’ so we can’t talk about what it is like to submit to unwanted sex ten times a day, but, at the same time, ‘sex work’ is sex, and to say anything critical about it makes you an anti-sex prude.....I also ask you to challenge the liberal idea that any choice made without a gun to your head is a free choice. The ‘choice’ of prostitution is to give up the right to say no to unwanted sex.

https://autonomousradicalfeminists.wordpress.com/