22

16 comments

[–] immersang 6 points (+6|-0)

She has seriously compared consuming a product that is made by raping women on camera to ordering something on Amazon or buying a pair of Nikes?

This is so sad at this point, it's almost funny.

[–] nemesis 19 points (+19|-0)

While she recognizes that “porn is a massive problem,” she observes that “many men think it’s harmless[…]”

Wild fact: studies show these men do know it's harmful. We need to cut the myth of men being oblivious to these things because it not only excuses their actions but places the blame on women for not "educating" them on it. Frankly, I don't understand why men themselves aren't peeved at these claims; it insinuates they're daft when it comes to basic cognition.

For example, a Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology study focused on claiming male insufficient knowledge of their own actions (i.e. in the case of rape) wrote:

In data reported briefly here, and more extensively elsewhere (see O’Byrne et al., 2006), we have shown that, as Kitzinger and Frith (1999) suggested, young men also can and do display a sophisticated understanding of subtle verbal and non-verbal means of communicating sexual refusal. However, despite the comprehensive ability that young men demonstrably have to ‘hear’ sexual refusals, which overwhelming include refusals that do not contain the word ‘no’, when the morally troublesome issue of accountability for rape arises, a rather different picture emerges. When asked to account for rape an interpretative repertoire reflecting the social structural explanation of rape was only once (and extremely tentatively) produced, and then immediately rejected. Instead, the miscommunication model of rape was overwhelmingly employed by young men in order to explain the occurrence of rape. Furthermore, the version negotiated did not reflect the different-but-equal stance that Tannen (1992) has proposed, but rather, in line with the concerns raised by Hare-Mustin and Maracek (1988), a ‘men-as-naive-and-confused-mis-hearers versus women-as-accountably-deficient-signallers’ model was evident. We suggest that the discrepancy between these young men’s showing of knowledge and their telling of ignorance lies in the need for them, as men, to accomplish the local management of (masculine) accountability for rape.

While explicit or implicit claims of insufficient knowledge may reveal unequivocally that speakers just do not know, a number of EM/CA studies (e.g. Beach & Metzger, 1997; Lynch & Bogen, 1996) have shown that such claims may often be strategically deployed to achieve specific rhetorical ends. For example in adversarial and hostile environments such as courtroom cross-examination or Prime Minister’s Questions, ‘not knowing’ works to preserve alternative and competing versions of (past) events by avoiding confirmation of information designed to challenge and discredit a speaker’s intentions, actions and reconstructed stories (Beach & Metzger, 1997). Here, the rhetorical effect of claiming insufficient knowledge of the subtle ways in which sexual refusals are normatively performed is to delete the accountability of men for rape. As such the data here suggest that, for these young men at least, the discursive resources of a rape-supportive culture (Doherty & Anderson, 1998) are readily available. Indeed, by maintaining the hegemonic repertoires of miscommunication and victim precipitation, the responsibility for rape that has long and widely been attributed to women is effectively sustained.

[–] AriadneOnNaxos 3 points (+10|-7)

I’m not interested in tearing women down over their failure to agree on one true and holy radical feminist doctrine. Maybe Murphy has a point, maybe she doesn’t. I certainly can’t tell from this. Even if she’s wrong - and all she seems to be saying is that we’d have a better chance of eliminating porn if we approached it’s users differently - all this piece seems to be interested in is monstering her.

I really don’t think purity politics is a way of advancing our goals, nor fellow women, never mind powerful feminist voices - a useful target for our anger.

[–] Lily251 [OP] 10 points (+10|-0)

The author is complaining that MM consistently misrepresents radical feminism; not calling for MM to adhere to some holy doctrine. Why do you think the article "monsters" MM?

[–] proudcatlady 10 points (+10|-0)

Sometimes people use “purity politics” the way others use “perfect.” There’s a WIDE margin between having a problem with someone saying “think of the poor men!” when discussing an industry based on the rape of women and girls and purity politics.

[–] visits_radio 14 points (+16|-2) Edited

Let's just ignore Meghan Murphy. Maybe, if she doesn't get a response, she'll stop bothering us.

[–] Lily251 [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

The author doesn't even mention her Rogan appearance. I understand that podcast has an audience in the millions. That's on top of all the posts and articles. MM has said quite a lot to quite a few people. I'm glad for this article in response.

[–] InfiniteGames 5 points (+6|-1)

She insisted that her position is not “pro porn;” that her “point was ONLY that it is fucking retarded… to treat every single man who uses porn as an abusive misogynist and to cut them out of your life.”

Maybe I'm late to the party, but I missed where anyone ever said women should cut porn watchers out of their lives?

I agree with many of the commentators, though. Ask any female rideshare driver, how many times they've picked up 3-5 men on a Saturday or Sunday morning, and one of them just had to make sure she knew they were at a strip club the previous night.

Makes me unhappy though that we can't cut all porn users out.

Cutting out all porn users would reduce the men in our lives to the very elderly, the extremely handicapped, maybe the totally homeless without internet access, a few religious authorities (a few, not all) and x-number of married men.

Isn't that sad. I mean I could end all relations with say, cigarette smokers, and still be able to get a plumber, an auto mechanic, someone to wait on me in a store, etc. because only x % are smokers. But porn users? That's like saying "I'm going to cut out every man who breathes oxygen."

Why are men so sick, and why must we accept it? Men just don't want to be better men.

[–] GCRadFem 3 points (+3|-0)

Why are men so sick, and why must we accept it? Men just don't want to be better men.

What is in it for them? They don’t have to do a single thing differently and they lose nothing.

[–] Triselly 15 points (+15|-0)

Don't accept it. The idea that 99.99% of men use porn is a lie.

Don't settle for anything less than a man who isn't addicted to mastubating to (often) violent misogyny.

[–] Hermione 6 points (+6|-0)

I hope she’s not too proud to think about whether she’s being true to herself by going in this new direction. If she wants to quit feminism that’s fine, but she worked so hard and went through a lot of harassment to just quit it now. I’d hate to see this be a case of an extraordinary woman sacrificing her career for a mediocre man, then later seeing what she threw away and seeing she made the wrong bet. I’ve seen enough of my friends do that, and I have to admit, might be a wee bit guilty of that myself.

[–] floreo 11 points (+11|-0)

This is just… such a mess. I can barely believe it. Meghan’s writings really helped me ground back into sanity during a rough separation. I can’t stand all the internet mudslinging, or this misrepresentation of women’s rights. I’m sure that fighting for common sense feminism takes a huge toll on any public figure, and maybe she needs a few years of sabbatical to recuperate. If that’s the case I hope she can really benefit from that.

[–] hmimperialtortie 20 points (+20|-0)

“Women’s upset”???

Men who consume porn may well be complex beings. Humans generally are. But worthy of respect? Nah.

[–] Lily251 [OP] 22 points (+22|-0)

Murphy, like all individuals, has the right to pursue new interests, to take her work in different directions, and, paraphrasing Sonia Johnson, to “keep her eyes on the guys,” if she chooses. (Feminists and other readers also have the right to critique her project.) But she does a disservice to her long-time readers and supporters, and the integrity of the feminist platform she worked so hard to create, when she grossly misrepresents radical feminism, and stereotypes the women who organize their activism around its principles, based on fractious interactions with anonymous internet posters.