You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Meghan Murphy’ tag.

This folks, is a critique of the dominant strain of (neo) liberal thought in our society when it comes to the class of women selling themselves to men for sex.  This is not a individual critique, but rather an indictment of the <em>system</em> that allows the horror of prostitution to exist in the first place.  (There.  I’ve stated it first thing, but I still don’t hold much hope for the lib-fem handmaidens not to somehow turn this into ‘slut-shaming’ *smh*)

The below quote is from Meghan Murphy writing at the Feminist current and essentially says that what we have now (disregard for women as people, incels etc) stems directly from the lib-fem backed notions of ‘sexual-liberation’ and ‘female-empowerment’.  This is her response to a NYT opinion article that has set the liberal feminist twittersphere afire as the grizzly endpoint of their foolishness has become a reality – and that reality is far from good if you happen to be female.

 

“Douthat doesn’t advocate for a dehumanized and commodified “redistribution of sex,” he just says this is what liberals like Penny and Friedman have fought for and won. Douthat writes:

“… As offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies”

He also rightly points out that our understanding of sex and sexual liberation has been very much shaped by Hugh Hefner — meaning that we have adopted a social value that says men should have access to a wide variety of young, sexualized, one-dimensional women who are always “up for it.”

I suspect part of the problem, beyond their inability to think their way out of a paper bag, is that Douthat called out the zealous efforts of these liberals and leftists to “transform prostitution into legalized and regulated ‘sex work,’” thereby encouraging nouveau-porn technologies like sex robots and the broader notion that men have a right to sex. And beyond that, they did so without “formally debating the idea of a right to sex” or, I’d argue, listening to the masses of feminists who have, over decades, been pointing out that if you want actual sexual liberation for women, you can’t achieve it while simultaneously commodifying sex and saying that it’s acceptable for some women to be treated as sex objects, so long as they are compensated.

Friedman told Vice that “she finds it ‘profoundly appalling’ that The New York Times’ opinion pages would legitimize incel culture under the guise of a debate,” making it clear that she (whether intentionally or unintentionally) missed the point entirely. In fact, it is Friedman and her gaggle of desperate-to-be-cool liberal cronies who focused their careers on trying to legitimize exactly the mindset incels have internalized, and who then lashed out in anger (too-often violently) at the discovery that their fantasy was just that.

I wonder what they thought the end result of fighting for a porn industry and sex trade would be? That men would think, “Gosh, the best way to build relationships with women is through respect and by getting to know them as the humans they clearly are”? Or, rather, would they come to the conclusion that women’s bodies are things that exist to be fucked, and that at any given moment, they should be able to get off, in whatever way they like, regardless of how the woman on the other side of their laptop screen feels about it?”

Bolding mine.  I’m curious my lib-fem friends, what’s your next empowerful move going to be?  Perhaps not catering to men should start to wiggle up the priority list, no?

 

 

The status quo is a nasty piece of work.  It has a multiplicity of tools and avenues of attack and repression available to keep the current equilibrium and quell dissenting voices that threaten the norm.  Tolerance, is considered to be a ‘good’ liberal value.  Yet, in context of female struggle in society it is used to keep discipline female thought and action.  Meghan Murphy examines the role ‘tolerance’ plays in the patriarchal suppression of female activity.

 

“The word, “toleration” is derived from the Latin tolerare, meaning “to endure, sustain, suffer” and, quite literally, “to bear.” In patriarchy, women have been groomed into a perpetual state of tolerance. The toleration of male customs, cultures, behaviour, and sexuality has historically been enforced onto women by the laws of male gods, male states, and male family members. From the “witch craze,” where hundreds of thousands of women were publicly tortured and killed for refusing to defer to the authority of the Church, to the often brutal forms of anti-lesbianism directed towards women who choose to have sexual relationships with women rather than with men, persecution is seemingly inevitable for the women who refuse to be tolerant of male rule. Today, tolerance training starts early — young girls are taught to endure the boys who humiliate them in the playground, to turn their gaze away from the online pornography, to close their ears to the misogyny they hear all around them.

Raymond describes tolerance as a passive position. It creates non-action, apathy, and a repressed sensitivity to the injustices done by men to women. In other words, conditioning women and girls to be “tolerant” is not unintentional.

It is not completely surprising, therefore, that women — particularly young women — are reluctant to form their own sense of right and wrong; of discerning what values can be considered feminist and what can not; and of articulating what needs to change, if women are ever to be free from male domination.

This tyranny of tolerance is most evident in what is today referred as “intersectional feminism,” and dominates in many a Western university. Misuse of Crenshaw’s original theory means that this brand of “feminism” more closely reflects a certain type of liberal individualism, which adheres to male dogma under the guise of progressivity and social justice. It is not coincidental that the choices this ideology frames as “feminist” represent, down to the very last stroke of mascara, the tools used by men to colonize women.

Prostitution, now aptly named “sex work” by many student activists and academics, is defiantly presented in this framework as the result of a woman’s personal, empowered choice, despite the reality that most women in prostitution are there through lack of choice. The multi-billion dollar pornography industry records and distributes sadistic acts of misogyny, as well as pedophilia, homophobia, and racism, to millions of men and boys across the world — and yet using the guise of “sex-positivity,” these showreels of abuse are marketed as “feminist” by some, while women who criticize the industry are branded “anti-sex” or “whorephobic.”

It is clear that in order to be accepted into the new feminist gang, one must be tolerant of all systems in which women can (hypothetically) exhibit choice, regardless of the system’s intended purpose. The promotion in some contemporary feminist circles of what Raymond describes as “value freedom” — or as Hein puts it, “doing your own thing” — makes it near impossible to define a set of collective values or assert shared goals due to the desire to appear sensitive to and “respectful” of the opinions of every woman in the group. Maintaining respect towards other women is, of course, important, yet surely this should not come at the cost of being entirely unable to express disagreement about a particular point of view or political stance. Moreover, while it may be relatively easy to oppose values which are obviously patriarchal, the difficulty lies in speaking out against those which are more covert.

Under the popular understanding of “intersectional feminism,” women are told that they have sinned by having “cisgender” privilege, which positions being born female and continuing to call oneself a woman as a privileged position to be in. Crucially, females who hold “cisgender privilege” are said to have the ability to oppress males, if those males have decided that they would prefer not to be identified as such.

The idolized image of the “trans inclusive” feminist in Western identity politics has become a marker for whether a woman is truly apologetic for her female body — apologetic enough to render it meaningless and, in spite of its historical exploitation, objectification, and domination by men, come to view it as a sign of privilege instead. To be a tolerant feminist today is to publicly and endlessly repent for one’s supposed sins — the greatest sin of all being, according to some, in possession of a female body.”

It is the corrosive neo-liberal ideology at work – promoting individual choices as the only (obeisant) method of empowerment – while systematically neutering group cohesion and solidarity, the later being the actual threat to status-quo.

A good test to see the difference between the neo liberal standard and effective feminism is to watch and see if males use the action or act in question to get ahead in society.  For instance, take pole dancing.  Speaking to liberal feminists one can get the impression that pole dancing is just an amazing route to gaining self confidence and empowerment in society.  Apply the test though – do men pole dance to get ahead in society? – the answer is, obviously, no.  Therefore the activity in question, may indeed be a good experience on the personal level, but societally speaking, is not threatening to the status quo.  A very important distinction if your goal happens to be changing society for the better.

 

 

   Wow.  You go to Banff for a choral workshop for one weekend and it seems like ‘all the news’ happens while you are away.  Meghan Murphy has been busy on the Feminist Current detailing the latest assault on Feminism led by – completely shocked here – Transactivists (read Male Rights Activists).    Munroe Bergdorf, the latest dude who thinks its his god-given role to tell females how to act and speak – demonstrates how to incorrectly use feminist terminology on a veritable bevy of levels.  

I cannot stress this enough – intersectionality – is the idea that oppression can (and most often does) occur along multiple axis.  What dudes in skirts and their handmaidens always conveniently forget is that one of the major axis of oppression is biological sex (you know, that thing you can’t change even if you try super real hard).  Females are oppressed because they are born with the female reproductive anatomy the marks them as the sex class, and thus second class human beings.  Not acknowledging this basic and grim feature of our society tends to make one’s analysis shit (see most of ‘queer’ theory) .

Anyhow, here is the juicy bits from the FC article and a nice comment from the comment section as the actual feminists were schooling a dude on what feminism is and how basic biology works.

 

“Trans model and recently appointed member of the LGBT+ advisory board for the Labour Party, Munroe Bergdorf, recently demonstrated his allegiance to New Feminism by demanding those formerly known as women stop talking about our bodies at our feminist marches, lest we alienate mankind by acknowledging the fact that all of mankind comes out of our vaginas (also by advocating empowerment through cutting up your face in order to appear more feminine and buying makeup).

     “I also want to stress that if you do attend, it is CRUICIAL that you do with an INTERSECTIONAL mindset. Centering reproductive systems at the heart of these demonstrations is reductive and exclusionary.

     — Munroe Bergdorf 🌹🌹 (@MunroeBergdorf) January 20, 2018}

Today, he has further demonstrated his generosity towards ex-women, gifting us his feminist leadership via an article for Grazia about how the vagina’d are getting vagina all over his feminism.

“Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes. A simple enough concept, right? Wrong!”, Bergdorf writes. “This is 2018 and if the past two years have taught us anything, it’s that feminism isn’t for women, it’s for everyone except women, and it’s particularly not for women who have human female bodies, which came out of the box defective, full of holes and with missing parts.” Perhaps not a direct quote, but my ovaries are really a pair of extra eyes that allow me to read between the lines. Neat!

Bergdorf goes on to explain that “woman” no longer means anything, and that no one really knows what one is anymore; maybe it is your mom, but also maybe it is that old banana you bought thinking maybe you would start eating fruit in the New Year but that now has become a part of the basket on top of your microwave.

It is specifically because “woman” is now everything from an old banana to the collection of hair behind your bathroom door, and also possibly your mom, though we will never know for certain, that feminism must serve as an inclusive tool of liberation for all old bananas and other feminine-type experiences (that means you, no-elastic leopard print thong from 2005!), not just some (#notallwomensavealltheir2005leopardprintthongs). “This is where so many women are still getting it wrong,” Bergdorf explains.

Lest you get stuck here, wondering, “If an old banana can be a woman, why can’t I, with my woolen pink vagina that also has cat ears?”, Bergdorf would like you to know that that the hot pink vagina that allows babies to emerge from your skull drives woman-types things apart. Our attempt at uniting females failed, he argues, explicitly because we acknowledged females share something in common, causing them to be an oppressed class of people under patriarchy. It’s impossible to know what the thing we share in common that leads us to be oppressed is, of course, but it’s probably the fact that men hate old bananas, don’t have hair collections behind their bathroom doors, and hardly ever give birth via pink cat ear hats.”

Thank you, the ever facetious Meghan Murphy… :)  Now to the nice comment I found.  Mind the argument from authority though…

The pull quote I like is this: “Trans ideology is castles in the sand, abusive nonsense that is ushering in totalitarianism and doublethink into our world.  It is based on [a] conflation of sex and gender in the English language, and deep-seated misogyny and homophobia.”

If there is anything that will enrage men more is women speaking out against their view of the world. The first class citizens get mighty mad when the second class start challenging their assertions and interpretations of the world.

This post delves into the war of words that is currently raging between transactivists and radical feminists in the wake of the Vancouver Women’s March.

It starts with one courageous individual at the Women’s march who expressed herself via a sign which, of course, was immediately labelled ‘transphobic’ and caused much consternation for certain trans identified males involved with the march.

Keep in mind the woman’s only ‘crime’ is expressing her opinion while at a Women’s march.

So then this happened. One fine TIM (trans identified male) decided he wanted to go after this woman carrying a sign at the protest.  This next screen shot is from The Feminist Current.

We pick up the conversation on twitter between Meghan Murphy and Morgane Oger.

The battle against transactivism is being fought now. Patriarchy 2.0 is happening and Meghan Murphy along with other feminists are on the front lines defending women and the right to speak the truth about their bodies and experiences.

Oh, just shaking my head at this one.  Watch the trans identified male dig a nice hole for himself as he debates with Meghan Murphy and other gender critical feminists.

I have laws enshrined in society now that protects my male delusions of gender, fear me female!  Of course, cue the defence against the world of facts and reality.

Julie Rei makes assertions that are not based in fact.  Watch how quickly Julie gets shut down.

Whoo-whee!  Now there is some goal-post shifting at its finest.  Shift away Julie, I’m pretty sure Gender Rebel is not going to brook any of your shit.

Lol-cakes!  The idea that you can adopt the patriarchally approved gender stereotypes and that somehow makes you a woman is not only foolish, it is appalling.  Bullshit patriarchal expectations are what radical feminists fight against because, you guessed it, they hurt women (and men).

In the last panel Scott rightly points out the irony of Morgane’s position and PinkPussyHatRadFemTERF delivers the Coup de grâce doing what radfems do best naming the problem and identifying how to counter it.

 

This BS sadly is happening in my country.  I’m so very glad that we have people who are standing up to the trans-cult when they make assertions contrary to reality.   Oh hey, let me get that definition mentioned in the twitter stream.

Pluralistic Ignorance – “In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it.[1] This is also described as “no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes”. In short, pluralistic ignorance is a bias about a social group, held by that social group.[2][3]

Pluralistic ignorance may help to explain the bystander effect.[4] If no-one acts, onlookers may believe others believe action is incorrect, and may therefore themselves refrain from acting.”

Men really need to stop trying to make feminism about them.

   Meghan Murphy is one of Canada’s leading Feminists.  This quote is from her article – “Thanks to trans activism, 2017 saw a return to old-school, sexist dismissals of women and women’s rights.”  Definitely worth your time to go and peruse the entire article.  What I would like to focus on is how well this quote highlights one aspect of the feminist struggle against the various incarnations of patriarchy and men’s rights activism.

Feminists (those who struggle for the emancipation of women from patriarchy) are being attacked for merely naming the problem that they face.  Gender is a problem, it is a toxic hierarchy that hurts both women and men.  The liberal mainstream won’t have any of it though (quelle suprise~!~).  Instead, the notion of gender identity is being enshrined in law and shoehorned into society which of course is good for men, but bad for women.  Women brave enough to challenge the ideology of ‘gender identity’ are are routinely misconstrued, harassed, and marginalized.  Why?

Questioning the dominant patriarchal narrative – and yes the transactivist narrative is inherently patriarchal – is challenging male dominance in society, and  will always be vilified and marginalized.

The good news is that the dictates of reality defying ‘gender-identity’ platform, even if just superficially examined, are unpalatable to not only to the so-called ‘mainstream sensibilities’, but also to those who value rational arguments based on material reality and fact.

Feminists have known this pretty much since the beginning and the radical vanguard are now slowly being joined by those who appreciate the strength of radical feminist arguments and analysis.

Let us hope this trend continues and intensifies, because Patriarchy 2.0 is in dire need of a serious blaming.

 

“The notion that “gender identity” exists at all flies in the face of feminist analysis, which says being born female is what forces women into an oppressed class of people, regardless of whether or not they identify with that position. But this point, as well as the concerns women have expressed around the impact of writing something as vague and as regressive as “gender identity” into legislation, including questions around whether males should be permitted in female prisons, change rooms, and transition houses, go unacknowledged and unaddressed by trans activists and queer theorists like Barker. Instead, she paints challenges to this ideology as nothing more than a hateful, unfounded, irrational attack on trans-identified individuals, writing:

“A moral panic is the process of arousing social concern over an issue. Moral panics often involve scapegoating a particular group as the ‘evil’ responsible for a range of societal ills.”

Indeed, Barker sounds no different than the anti-feminists over at Spiked, who claim the #MeToo campaign is a “harassment panic” that demonizes men unfairly. She claims trans-identified people are vilified by challenges to and questions about transgenderism, trans activism, and policies that allow men to enter into women-only spaces, simply based on self-identification, intentionally declining to acknowledge that what women fear is not an abstract trans-identified person, but men, specifically. No one has argued, as Barker claims, that trans-identified people are specifically dangerous or violent. What has been argued is that males are a threat to females, regardless of how they identify. If this fact is indeed considered a “moral panic” in the eyes of people like Jones and Barker, then they are better suited for the alt-right crowd than they are among progressives.

Barker says that this kind of “moral panic” (commonly known as “feminism”) exists to “enable us to attack a specific group for problems we’re all implicated in”… As though we have no idea who is doing all the raping and beating in this world and as though women are equally as culpable…”

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Like Privacy?

Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 382 other followers

Progressive Bloggers

Categories

October 2018
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

REAL for women

Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

trionascully.com

Author. Humourist. Entertaining Dinner Guest.

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Mars Caulton

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator

liberated558

Still she persisted

Old Wives' Tales

feminism, motherhood, writing

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Not The News in Briefs

A blog by Helen Saxby

SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL

A blog in support of Helen Steel

thenationalsentinel.wordpress.com/

Where media credibility made a comeback.

BigBooButch

Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian

RadFemSpiraling

Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy

Emma

Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

Nordic Model Now!

Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

The WordPress C(h)ronicle

These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress

HANDS ACROSS THE AISLE

Biology, Not Bigotry

fmnst

Peak Trans and other feminist topics

There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

if you don't like the news, make some of your own

Gentle Curiosity

Musing over important things. More questions than answers.

ANTHRO FEMINISM

A place for thoughtful, truly intersectional Feminist discussion.

violetwisp

short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

Revive the Second Wave

gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism

Trans Animal Farm

The Trans Trend is Orwellian

Princess Henry of Wales

Priestess Belisama

miss guts.

just a girl on a journey

writing by renee

Trigger warning: feminism, women's rights

RANCOM!

Happily Retired

twanzphobic since forever

• • • • it's mocktacular! • • • •

freer lives

A socialist critique of gender ideology

Centering Women

A radical feminist page made for women only

radicalkitten

radical Elemental feminism

yumicpcake

A fine WordPress.com site

Feminist Twitches

Gender, Culture, Food, and Travel

%d bloggers like this: