ok I didn’t actually read Louise O’Shea’s article until just now
fucking hell, I thought it was just going to be like the talk she gave in branch but that talk was way, way less objectionable
I mean, I agree of course that right-wingers can jump on the bandwagon when there are crimes like this and use it to push their law-and-order agendas, not to mention maintain the narrative that women are helpless victims who are too vulnerable to navigate the streets alone, even though most violence against them takes place within the home.
So I acknowledge that, and I don’t really think it would be a worthwhile use of resources to try to get involved in these peace marches or whatever. However, this article still seems like a grand exercise in derailing and terrible arguments. Like, the implication of it is, “omg no, you can’t get angry about violence against women, because there’s also violence against indigenous people, and violence against workers, and violence against…!” and THIS ISN’T AN ARGUMENT. It’s not like I can only have so much anger and I used it all being angry about violence against workers and indigenous people so I don’t have any anger left for being angry about violence against women. Fuck’s sake, like I can see that we live in a shitty capitalist system that perpetuates all of these forms of violence, so being angry about all of them is pretty easy, really.
I don’t know, I don’t really support there being a hysteria about her death (I agree that hysteria about systematic police murders of indigenous people would be more progressive, for instance, and see what I said above about the right-wing narrative it can be used to perpetuate) but Louise O’Shea just always seems to make terrible arguments for everything.