That Cross piece was an excellent article, thank you for the link. I tend not to be fond of articles that use too many academic words when they aren’t needed, but Cross was a joy to read in spite of that. I particularly liked her phrase “pointillist politics.”

On the substance, I agree with Cross. Murphy does not. Murphy, like a lot of radical feminists, is a bundle of passion and anger, which easily turns into hate. You might think you are being kind to her by assuming ignorance on her part. If you read her response to critiques in the comments, Murphy does not find that kind to her. She honestly believes what she wrote and defended it passionately.

I mostly agree with Cross, but I do disagree slightly one point: I don’t think Murphy is uniquely attacking trans women or women of color. She attacks a lot of women using almost the exact same arguments and terminology.

Here she is attacking Madonna, for example:

http://feministcurrent.com/11510/madonnas-sexuality-should-be-more-advanced-than-a-20-year-olds/

However, diving into the comments on the Cox piece I found many commenters (apparently regulars on the site) attacking trans women in every possible way, including denials that they were women at all. Not once did Murphy respond, which speaks volumes. So, perhaps Cross is correct.

In conclusion, Murphy does attack. A lot. It is kinda what radical feminists do.

Thanks again for a great piece!

While I can understand your perspective, Anonymous, I do actually disagree with it. I think that Katherine Cross’s recent post on “choice feminism” is a pretty good example of why Murphy isn’t actually spouting anything re: collective feminist liberation. She is still focused on the individual; in particular, in negating individuals who don’t perform gender in a way she approves of. Her only response to the systemic structural inequity we live in is to attack others. I’ve never been fond of Murphy for this reason (and her lack of self-awareness of the inherently performative nature of the society we live in, and willingness to ignore that to her own benefit).

And, to be clear, I’m being generous here: I think it’s better to believe that Murphy doesn’t understand what she’s trying to talk about than to draw the other conclusion, which is that she’s an intentionally hateful person. Your mileage may vary.

I largely agree with your critique of radical feminism as summarized in your quote:

> they’re drawing such a tiny, tight boundary around what it means to be feminist, that most people fail.

However, I think you are unfair to Meghan Murphy. You (and I) might disagree with her, but she does not speak from a lack of understanding. She has been thinking, writing, and debating “about bodies and empowerment” for a long time.

It isn’t that she doesn’t understand the feminist arguments surrounding choice and empowerment, it is that she disagrees with them. Her goal as a feminist is collective liberation, not individual empowerment, and she speaks from that perspective. She has been doing so for years. Her arguments are cohesive, clear, and powerful.

She believes that personal empowerment and choice are not the same thing as liberation, which she believes to be the goal of feminism.

I tend to err on the side of empathy, as opposed to judgement. Meghan errs on the side of judgement, but it isn’t because she doesn’t know what she is talking about. It is because she thinks the stakes are too high, collective liberation of women is too important, and she views objectification of women as devastating to the cause. Even if it the objectification is done with open eyes, agency, and the goal of empowerment.

You are free to disagree with her (and you do so eloquently in this post!) but you actually are a touch out of line to say “if you’re going to write critiques about bodies and empowerment, you’d best know what you’re talking about, first.”