Occupy Patriarchy

 
 April 2, 2012  Posted by  5 Responses »

Over the course of the last few weeks, I have had the opportunity to speak about Occupy Patriarchy and why feminism is so important to the success of the Occupy movement at the University of Pennsylvania, at a panel organized by the Lysistrata Gender Working Group at NYU and at a panel discussion at the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference.

One of the key things that I discussed is why the issues that feminists routinely prioritize are so important to the Occupy movement.  Those issues include:

  • Equal pay and ending other forms of economic discrimination
  • Childcare
  • Paid maternity and paternity leave
  • Zero tolerance of violence against women, sexism, sexual harassment and other misogynist behavior
  • Ending sexual exploitation and trafficking
  • Getting the Equal Rights Amendment ratified
  • Implementation of the National Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security
  • Funding the Violence Against Women Act
  • Ratification of CEDAW the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
  • Reproductive justice (including the right not to have a child, the right to have a child and the right to raise children
  • Zero tolerance on the assault on women’s reproductive health
  • Valuing unpaid work such as childcare, eldercare and housework

Nat'l Young Feminist Leadership Panel on Occupy and Feminism

For any real substantive change for the better to occur, it is critical that these issues be considered an integral part of the Occupy discussion because institutions such as Wall Street are manifestation of the far deeper and greater problem of patriarchy, which depends in large measure on the exploitation, dis-empowerment and subjugation of women.

As the Occupy movement continues, I think that there is a real opportunity to develop a broader commitment to addressing these issues. But that opportunity will not be easily realized and must be predicated on the understanding that Wall Street is a manifestation of the problems we face, not the root cause, and real change must also include confronting misogyny in the movement itself.

It is not sufficient to say that we have to come together as the 99% against the 1%.  The needs of the 99% are not homogenous and it is not acceptable to say that it is divisive when we point this out.

While the Occupy movement has been developing, the war on women has become a nightmare of hateful, ignorant, daily attacks on women’s human rights.  It is urgent that this be stopped and presents an opportunity for the Occupy movement as a whole to stand up for women’s lives and say that this war must stop.  On April 28th there will be rallies in all 50 states and in Washington, DC calling for an end to the war on women.

Occupy Patriarchy calls on the Occupy movement everywhere to support and attend these rallies because an attack on the 52% is an attack on the 99% and if we want to confront Wall Street, then we MUST confront patriarchy.

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
 
 March 15, 2012  Posted by  2 Responses »

Earlier today, I wrote a post about an Occupy poster that I felt was misguided, patriarchal and sexist. Occupy Posters which had posted the poster in the first place did not care for the criticism, and compared me to the GOP and then intimated that I was a movement infiltrator. Others chimed in to support my position and that proved too much for Occupy Posters which scrubbed the unfavorable comments and banned us from the discussion. But have no fear, I saved most of the conversation before it disappeared and you can see what it said before it got censored:

There were a few more comments that unfortunately got scrubbed before I saved them, but you get the idea.  Many thanks to those who chimed in so supportively.  This conversation has been a good reminder about why we indeed need to be discussing misogyny and patriarchy within the Occupy movement.

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
 
 March 15, 2012  Posted by  6 Responses »

According to Occupy Posters, there is a simple solution to the war on women–unmarried women have to get out and vote.

Phew glad we solved that.  Not.

Yes of course if unmarried women aren’t voting, they should if they believe in the electoral process. But hello?  First you call us whores and now you tell us it is on our backs to end this misogynist spew fest?  I don’t think so.  What about all the white married guys who voted for them in the first place?  Where is the poster about them?

And I don’t know how to break it to you, but the war on women was going on long before women got the vote. Why do you think we weren’t granted the right to vote in the Constitution?  What was that Declaration…we hold these truths…that all men are created equal well all white men, but that was assumed and never mind the women who are home tending the hearth and changing diapers while just us guys decide how to word this thing.  You get my drift.

As this unprecedented and increasingly insane war on women continues, lets be very clear:

  1. These attacks against women hurt everyone.
  2. How dare anyone say it is on the backs of women to end this frenzy of patriarchal hatred.  It is equally up to men to step up to the plate and say that this must stop.
  3. In promoting this poster, we once again see the Occupy movement completely missing the point when it comes to the empowerment and rights of women.

Occupy Patriarchy calls for the immediate removal of this poster.

 

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
 
 March 12, 2012  Posted by  No Responses »

Feminist Peace Network Director Lucinda Marshall will be speaking about Occupy Patriarchy in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, and New York City at the following upcoming events, the first 2 are open to the public, the conference requires registration.

Lecture: Confronting Patriarchy: The Occupy Movement From A Feminist Perspective
Thursday, March 22, 6pm
Benjamin Franklin Room
University of Pennsylvania
3417 Spruce St.
Philadelphia, PA

Panel: Occupy Gender: Patriarchy and Gender Experiences in the Occupy Movement
Tuesday, March 27th, 4-6p
NYU Center for Global Affairs
15 Barclay Street
(The NYU entrance to the Woolworth Building)
New York, NY 10010
Room: TBA
(note: this will probably be via Skype, but possibly in person)

Panel: Grassroots Uprising: Fueling the Revolution Against Gender Oppression and Economic Exploitation
National Young Feminist Leadership Conference
Saturday, March 31, 12:15-1:30 pm
Hilton Crystal City
Arlington, VA

 

 

 

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
Feb 202012
 
 February 20, 2012  Posted by  5 Responses »

Great thanks to Mimi Yahn for permission to reprint her excellent essay, Whose Occupy.

Whose Occupy?

January 11th was the 100th anniversary of the Bread & Roses Strike. It was more than a strike that successfully raised wages and improved working conditions for 250,000 textile workers throughout New England, more than a strike involving over 20,000 mostly immigrant workers speaking 45 different languages: it was a strike called by no one, led by no formal organization, but spontaneously initiated, organized, led and won by women. From the mass meetings—where the people’s mic consisted of continuous translations—to organizing actions that formed human chains around entire factory blocks; from organizing strikers’ welfare committees to going head-to-head with armed police and state militia called in to break the strike by any means; from organizing soup kitchens to ensuring the safety of their children by sending them to allies and supporters in other cities, it was the women who carried out most of the organizing and who consistently and persistently refused to let the men take over. It is the strike most famous for the banner carried by a group of women and young girls that read: “We Want Bread And Roses, Too.”

This understanding of the link between the personal and the political, between the human body and the human spirit, is what gives women our power and wisdom to lead. But you’d never know it from looking at the Occupy Movement.

Women have been pushed to the margins, just as they’ve been in every failed revolution and progressive movement throughout history and across the globe. Once again, women are being threatened, silenced and made irrelevant by those accustomed to writing the agendas, formulating ideology, setting policy and implementing practice.

The media—both mainstream and alternative—have played into this: The vast majority of images, interviews, videos and articles feature men as the dominant face and brains of the Occupy Movement, as if only the men’s opinions matter as the important experts and thinkers of Occupy. Worse yet, it is one race that predominates, even in the images of women: the white race. As if whites, and especially white men, represent the 99%.

But the images of Occupy presented both by the mainstream and the alternative media is an image that has more to do with image itself and far less to do with the realities of the 99%. The mainstream press mostly portrays the movement as a bunch of leaderless, unemployed (male) street kids and their female camp followers, while the alternative media present an idealized image of noble, brave, young men fighting in the trenches for the rights of the downtrodden, while their radicalized girlfriends stand bravely but quietly beside them, occasionally bearing the brunt of some out-of-control cop’s tear-gassing spree.

Neither present the women who are angry and in the trenches every day struggling against the same injustices taking place within the movement that they struggle against outside the movement. Neither present the deep analyses and outsider perspectives of women because our opinions don’t count. There’s no mention of the women who continue to be sexually harassed and assaulted, who continue to be pushed further to the margins to form their safe spaces and auxiliary caucuses in order to escape degrading and dismissive attacks, no discussion of how a movement can call itself progressive while its women cannot safely participate unless accompanied by a man.

None of the white media talk about the hard decisions that people need to make about whether or not to involve themselves and their own communities in a movement that is so clearly dominated by whites who so clearly hold onto their privilege by behaving as if the rest of the world’s populations are merely guests and bystanders rather than participants and co-creators of this movement. Do people really want to ask their families and friends to willingly put themselves into yet another racist situation, where their minority presence guarantees no allies?

Already, the dominance of men has been established and the exclusionary agendas they consider important implemented. Though attempts to introduce “fetal rights” have so far been blocked around the country, Occupy Austin decided that since abortion is a “divisive” issue, it will not be part of any Statement of Principles or official action plans. Of course, no progressive woman would ever agree to that since reproductive rights are absolutely fundamental to our most basic human rights. But the men who have taken over the thinking, policy-making and agenda of the Occupy Movement have decided that, since reproductive rights don’t concern them, it’s a minor issue. More than that, their lifelong privilege as men gives them the certitude that they have the right to make decisions for those they consider less relevant, less valued to the Movement and the human race.

For women, whose marginalization always includes terrorized silencing through physical and sexual violence, and who have almost no training in fighting back, the choice is no choice at all: Either remain silent and remain with us or go off and do your own “little” thing far from the main movement. For women, whose dehumanization and objectification has always included being reduced to her reproductive body parts—body parts which she doesn’t even have the right to own, control or protect from assault—the choice is never hers. The decision as to whether the basic human rights unique only to women should even be on the agenda is left up to those whose privileged body parts make them uniquely protected from those human rights abuses.

These are the choices we’ve been given for thousands of years: Put our own rights aside for the “greater good,” choose between your race or your gender, your religion or your gender, support your man or be a traitor to the cause. Even sexual orientation has been disconnected from gender oppression—as if only straight women experience misogyny and lesbians only experience homophobia the way gay men experience it—leaving lesbians to choose between the struggle that most oppresses them.

The principles of the early days of the Occupy Movement included recognition of privilege and a commitment to addressing and undoing the destructive, counter-productive and regressive behaviors that arise from privilege. Step back/Step up was immediately instituted at General Assemblies: This meant that those traditionally holding privilege—those who were accustomed to being the first to speak, the ones accustomed to dominating the room and the agenda—would step back, remain quiet, while those whose voices, ideas and perspectives were rarely heard would step forward. White men were to listen for a change and begin understanding that their ideas and voices weren’t the only ones that mattered. Women and people of all other races were to be given priority for speaking, setting the agenda and leading this movement to a new paradigm.

It didn’t work. Just as governments and corporations won’t stand idly by while citizens take power into their own hands, within a few weeks the entitled men who had come to Occupy in order to have their voices and ideas listened to and heeded began lashing back to retake their privilege.

In Occupys across the country, similar stories have been emerging: When people bring up the subjects of misogyny and racism, they hit back with proposals to ban those words from all public Occupy discussions permanently because they’re “divisive.” In Oakland one woman was told that including discussions about how “Blacks, Indigenous People, and Asians have been colonized in this country was a distraction,” while in Nashville, an attempt to form a women’s caucus was labeled “divisive.” In Boston, a proposal was presented to allow rapists to return after a specified period to present their case for remaining in Occupy. In New York, an angry demand was made that a women’s caucus be summarily disbanded because the women failed to include the words “female-assigned, female-identified” in a draft statement. In Nashville, women who raise the issue of the rampant misogyny—which includes cutting off live feeds when women begin speaking, refusing to allow women to create their own caucus and using social media to slander women who speak out—are being called “bullies” and labeled as “trouble-makers” and “man-haters” with an “agenda.” The Nashville men are also using the centuries-old tactic of labeling women as emotionally unstable and hysterical. As Norma Jones points out on Nashville’s Occupy Patriarchy blog, “Email after email uses language like ‘going off the deep end,’ ‘tantrum,’ ‘chaos,’ ‘severe malfunction.’ And, as elsewhere across the country, men’s postings to blogs, live streams, Facebook pages and the Occupy sites are filled with ugly, dehumanizing comments about women, ranging from crude sexual remarks to suggestions that women “deserve to be beat.”

Meanwhile, where are the men calling for change in misogynist attempts to marginalize women? Before men started becoming defensive, nearly every casual conversation I had with men regarding gender issues resulted in them telling me about the women’s area and the women’s daily meetings, as if that addressed any grievance the “feminists” might have and absolved them from any concern or need to educate themselves about “women’s issues.” More recently in New York, a man sent a request to one of the women’s caucuses for the group to intervene in what he characterized as an inappropriate, exploitative relationship developing between a man in his 30s and a 16-year-old girl. His comment was, “Who will look out for women in this movement if not your group?” But what makes this man who considers himself a member of the Occupy Movement incapable of intervening himself? Does he realize how insulting and dismissive it is to see, once again, a man treat injustice toward a woman as less important than other injustices, less morally imperative that he also “look out for” someone being exploited because of her gender? Instead, once again, sexual harassment and exploitation is disconnected from issues of injustice, oppression and abusive privilege. It’s just a women’s problem, a personal issue; so let the “girls” handle their own separate problems in their own separate safety zones and caucuses. Ironically, earlier that day, a friend posted to Facebook an appropriate quote by Desmond Tutu: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

One of the worst and most insidious tactics I’ve seen yet is being implemented in New York’s Occupy. A group of white men are now claiming that they are being marginalized because they are losing their prerogative to speak whenever, wherever and for however long they want.

Let’s be clear about this: marginalization is oppression, and there is real violence, real blood, and real dehumanizing, objectifying, terrorizing physical and sexual assaults in those words and the lived experiences that inhabit those words.

Marginalization is not getting nervous and uncomfortable because you may no longer be masters of the universe. To use that word to describe what the 1% is feeling right now is an affront and utter dismissal of the human injustices done daily to the 99% who have been silenced, enslaved, impoverished, deprived of basic human rights, and yes, marginalized for too many thousands of years. And it is an inappropriate and outrageous insult to the dignity and very existence of every person who endures real marginalization and oppression every single fucking day.

There will be many women in the Occupy Movement who will be angry with me for airing the dirty laundry, but they’ll be even angrier at me for the loud, aggressive and combative tone of this article. These men are part of the movement—they’re crucial to the movement—we should not be antagonizing them or creating divisions.

Sisters, the divisions were created the day you were born. If my tone is unladylike, it’s because I’m fucking angry and, as a woman and a human being, I have every right to be angry. These men, who use their privilege as a weapon against us in order to occupy what belongs to us all, are not as important to the movement as we are. It is not up to us to be conciliatory, to attempt to adapt to their privilege. It is their privilege and arrogance that divides and weakens the movement. Women—as the ultimate working class, as the class that is at the bottom of every culture, nation, race, and society across the globe and across history—are the Occupy Movement.

Either you’re part of this movement that is all about egalitarianism, co-governing, and a cooperative sharing of life’s bread and roses, or you are not. If you are more concerned with hearing your voice heard above all others, imposing your vision of a revolution—without input, creative development and consensual process by others who do not share your gender, race or privilege—and maintaining your position above all others at all costs to everyone but you, then this is not the movement for you.

If ever there was a movement that needed to be led by people who understand the connection between heart and mind, between the personal and the political, it is the Occupy Movement. If ever there was a people whose past history proves extraordinary power, strength and leadership in the face of crushing odds, it is women.

I ask sisters everywhere to recognize, cherish and activate your innate abilities to take charge of our world too long run by those with none of the skills, wisdom, heart or strength that we have. We may be marginalized by men, we may be assaulted, deprived of basic human and civil rights, paid less, impoverished more and universally despised, but ultimately it is we who make the decision whether or not to rise up and create the world we want for ourselves and our children.

One hundred years ago, immigrant women and girls who were at the bottom of society, who were paid less than $7.00 for a 56-hour work week, who spoke little or no English, whose lives were enslaved to poverty, stood up from their machines and said, “Enough.” On the hundredth anniversary of their historic and successful uprising, we can honor and carry on their spirit on International Women’s Day.

International Women’s Day, March 8, 2012, holds more meaning than ever before. If ever there was a time for women to rise up in one united, global general strike, this March 8th is the time. Women have borne the brunt of the global economic disaster, and women are continuing to bear the brunt of the political, economic, religious, social, and cultural wars. Across the globe, women are still at the bottom of society. As the New York-based Movement for Justice in El Barrio says, “Women around the world are rising up and saying, “Enough!” Their event will honor the women who “are organizing new movements from Chiapas to Egypt, from Greece to Spain, from South Africa to New York…They are ’indignadas,’ outraged by the staggering inequalities, the violence and deceit, the hatred of democracy, the flagrant corruption and utter disregard for life on this planet that characterize our society, our economy, our governments. They are struggling against this nightmarish status quo, and laying seeds for a new world in the process.”

Click here to continue reading.

———-

Mimi Yahn is a longtime feminist social justice activist, writer, social scientist, artist and musician

 

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
 
 February 10, 2012  Posted by  1 Response »

Several days ago I received an email from the Women’s Caucus of Occupy Montreal regarding their experience with misogyny at Occupy Montreal.  With their kind permission I am reprinting it here because I think it will resonate with many others in different locations.  No one is sadder than I am regarding the  news in their opening paragraph that patriarchy has not yet been occupied, here I thought maybe I might just be able to retire and move to the beach.  But as I pointed out to them, the good news is that we are now just that much stronger because they reached out to share their experiences.

Hi Occupy Patriarchy / FPN! Greetings from Occupy Montreal!

I wish this email came bearing news of an occupied patriarchy and much non-violent, anti-oppressive rejoicing in the snowy streets. Alas, things are looking pretty grim for the Women’s Caucus of Occupy Montreal.

About two weeks ago, a courageous caucus member presented the GA with a fairly basic proposition for progressive stack. While we expected the customary objections and background murmurs, we were in no way prepared for what actually happened. You see, not only was there a fair bit of opposition to the idea (including a “maybe” and a “no”), a white male blocked progressive stack–you heard right: he blocked it.

In the days following this event, submerged in controversy, we caucused it up and evaluated our options: should we back down completely, compromise, or step up? In good “Occupy Patriarchy” form, we opted for the latter. About 48 hours later, we had a document and made it public; clearly, this would justify our position and pave the way for a mature movement-wide dialogue.

Well, the document was largely ignored. And then the “blocker” publicly advised the caucus that the women “shouldn’t have done that” and tacked on something about “the kitchen”. Actually, the comment is so unbelievable that in spite of our desire to limit the exposure this individual’s action may afford him, the caucus feels the comment in its (unfortunate) entirety should be reproduced right here:

“When made aware of [this document] I thought ‘Who gives a flying fuck’ but than I noticed that the 3 first point are directed at me, yes I am the one who blocked… You shouldn’t have done that! Looks like it’s time to guide the woman back to the kitchen!

Exceptionally I will be at the next Occupons Montreal GA to remind some people that getting laid once in a while is recommended by 9 out of 10 doctor.

Not to mention that there was less than 15 ppl present at that “GA” or that that proposition was made on the fly.”

We appreciate our allies (and we do have quite a few!), but it’s getting increasingly difficult to hear them (and ourselves) over the incessant chatter of good ol’ misogyny.

Sincerely,

The W.C. :)

The following is excerpted from their website and provides some very solid ideas of how to make the progressive stack really work.  The full recommendation can be read here.

Recommendations of the Women’s Caucus on the Subject of Progressive Stack

  1. The (measurable) lack of diversity within OM is casually remarked upon but rarely discussed; a movement having difficulty recruiting outside the dominant/majority culture should at the very least implement minor logistical measures–progressive stack, for example–to actualize our supposed ideals, as well as to acknowledge privilege and power within our own spaces.
  2. The Caucus insists that any “stack” devised on the basis of criteria that doesn’t consider marginalised voices not be called “progressive”. OM’s resistance to progressive stack is symptomatic of a broader refusal to acknowledge the dynamics of privilege. To devise a methodology that addresses the problems of disproportional expression without naming or exploring that imbalance is somewhat disingenuous, and goes against the purported non-oppressive character of our movement. While implementation of logistical changes that will ultimately yield similar results to those we have proposed demonstrates a relative willingness to cooperate, the movement’s refusal to verbally recognize the struggle behind such modifications leaves us at some kind of semantic and/or ideological impasse.
  3. “Artificial” (simulated) modes of promoting equality are to be employed as placeholders or gentle reminders until equality arises organically. A useful metaphor is a set of scales that have been imbalanced for centuries, favouring one side. Measures like progressive stack add a counterweight to the other side, balancing the scales. Once the original cause for the imbalance is gone, we can remove the counterweight.
  4. Solidarity means offering support, acknowledgement and active listening, even with regard to struggles we may not have experienced and don’t completely understand.
  5. It has been implied (and even, in fact, stated) that the “beneficiaries” of progressive stack will abuse identity politics in order to bypass process. This is not only offensive in the extreme, but also goes against the unspoken community agreement whereby we assume that an individual is acting in “good faith”, unless we find irrefutable proof to the contrary. How can we, on one hand, decry injustice, and on the other accuse marginalised voices of abusing the “power” of their own identities? Let us remember that disenfranchised communities experience various degrees/forms of oppression every day, in nearly all social situations (even from within, as oppression is internalised); a short reprieve from persistent injustice in the form of progressive stack is nothing to be envied. Furthermore, as with all stacks, progressive stack preserves the right of everyone to speak–no voice is silenced, only ones that have been long unheard are amplified.
  6. Women have objected to the idea of being considered on the basis of their sex. This is actually a sound argument. However, because power dynamics are internalised through early conditioning and promoted in slippery and subtle ways, this line of argumentation disregards the way in which a woman is always considered on the basis of her sex. Though it may seem like people who “benefit” from progressive stack are being differentiated or “singled out”, the truth is far more complex. Regardless of one’s subjective analysis of the situation, the fact is, in mixed gender groups, men tend to speak first, more often, and for longer periods. This dynamic appears in early childhood conditioning and is sustained by (and useful to) patriarchal capitalist culture; it also happens to be invisible and odorless. Studies on this stretch back to the 50s (the 50s!) and are conducted today with similar results.
  7. We urge that the Assembly recognize the concept of stepping back: that dominant voices and identities recognise privilege and power in the room and in themselves, and ‘step back’ from monopolising a conversation in the interest of hearing a diversity of voices and experiences on the topic. We are not here to reproduce the same monopolisation of voice and power as the ‘1%’, we are here to diversify spaces for radical inclusion, and to name centuries of privilege and exploitation of particular demographics of the population, including but not limited to: women, people of colour, members of the LGBTQ populations, non-status individuals, differently-abled persons, the very young and the very old…all these voices are regularly marginalised in our societies. In devising alternate modes of being and redistribution of power in the world, it is our duty and responsibility to listen and learn from prioritising these voices that are traditionally and systemically silenced in our dominant culture. Let us be accountable to our own declarations of values – let us put these principles into practice in order to devise alternate ways of being in the world.
DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
Jan 312012
 
 January 31, 2012  Posted by  10 Responses »

Since the Occupy movement began, women in numerous Occupy locations have reported experiencing blatant misogynist behavior.  The following piece by Norma (Jinx) Jones about misogyny at Occupy Nashville was first published on her blog, Occupy Dixie.  We are grateful for permission to cross-post this excellent piece because Jones’ eloquent explanation about why women’s needs and voices are not trivial, and nor is the misogynist behavior that is taking place at Occupy Nashville, will resonate across the Occupy movement, regardless of location.

On the evening of October 31, 2011, I watched as a woman presented a proposal in Occupy Nashville’s General Assembly to form a women’s caucus. Her proposal was met with charges of being divisive. I was dismayed to see that, in spite of her thoughtful and apparently well considered explanation of why she was making the suggestion, it was met with such hostility. In response, I set up the Women Occupy Nashville page on facebook that very night so there would be a space designated somewhere as a forum to address women’s issues.

In the almost three months since then, I’ve seen repeated incidents of women within ON being discounted, harassed, threatened, marginalized, and their voices silenced. One after another, women have come to ON on fire to participate in this movement, only to leave in frustration after repeated unsuccessful attempts to assert their right to be a part of the process without harassment.

I’ve seen ON stream team cut the live feed when a woman began to speak in GA, only to “explain” to those watching that the woman was a “trouble maker.” I’ve watched in dismay as a male occupier repeatedly acted inappropriately with female occupiers while the other men excused his behavior by discounting the women’s concerns. I’ve listened to snark from the stream team with comments like, “Be careful, we’ve already pissed off the feminists.” And I’ve seen words like femi-Nazi thrown around. I’ve seen myself and at least one other woman banned from posting on ON sites when rules were not broken and I’ve had posts removed when I posted links to the ON facebook page as admin of the Women Occupy Nashville fb page.

The theme of “trouble maker” has been the primary weapon in efforts to silence women within ON. In my own instance, the label was quickly applied when I objected to a group of men publicly trashing a woman member of ON in the live stream chat. A narrative that lied to indicate I had “stalked” and “harassed” someone who had been a party to the incident was created and repeated ad infinitum, in chat, on the ON forum, the ON fb page, and in several emails that went out to as many as 40+ recipients at a time. I (and a number of other women who are part of ON) were all “man haters” with “an agenda,” a “vendetta,” even, at one point.

When it wasn’t enough to simply label us as trouble makers, the tack taken was to cast us as emotionally unstable. Email after email uses language like “going off the deep end,” “tantrum,” “chaos,” “severe malfunction.” One line from one email read, “I don’t know what spaceship she got a ride on…but she’s waaaaaaay out there.”

Three weeks ago, when I blogged here about an upcoming interview ON citizen journalist Matt Hamill was going to do with a man convicted of multiple charges involving two incidents with two different women in two different states, the narrative continued, as evidenced in some of the anonymous comments left on this blog, on facebook, and the ON forum. Perhaps the nadir of what happened there was the suggestion that some women deserve to be beat.

Earlier this week, ON participant Tristan Call published an excellent article in which he included a section called The Politics of Gender in Occupy Nashville. This article became the subject of discussion in more than one place online, but nowhere more than on a group page on fb started by a member of the ON stream team. Once again, the attack dogs went into action.

I’ve mentioned the marginalizing that’s continued unrelenting with charges that we’re trouble makers and crazy; there’s a new one now. Bullies. Now, we’re bullies. This came after the chortles all around over the clever comments that talk about us as if we’re bugs (really, read it for yourself.) This is all just more of the dehumanizing of your enemies that’s the usual process for those who can’t address your issues, so they go after you…again. Say and do anything that will make the conversation about the messenger, not the message or problem at hand. It’s precisely the same thing we’ve seen the media and some in political office, dare I say, even the state of Tennessee, take when dehumanizing the occupiers on the plaza with their wild charges of nonsense in the bushes and tents.

But, there’s no misogyny in ON, right? Apparently not, if you were to listen to the Soapbox after GA last night. It seems women have “run away” from ON because of “silly shit.” Or, maybe it was really just “bull shit,” as suggested by another. Or, was it the one who labeled it all as “trivial issues” that got it right? Because, don’t you see we have more pressing issues here than the concerns of some women? Again, it’s divisive to speak of such things because we have a “real” problem to deal with if the state moves to evict the occupation from the plaza, right? The message repeated clearly was that if you put energy into addressing misogyny and gender bias within ON, you’re not part of the team and not in support of the movement.

We need to get a few things straight here. Women make up over half the population. When you’re talking about representing the 99%, we are who you are talking about, like it or not. While we make up 51% of the population, we’re doing 2/3 of the labor around the globe and still being paid only a percentage for our labor what the men are being paid for the same work. 70% of those living in poverty around the globe are women and, in our own country, women over 65 are twice as likely to be living in poverty as are men of the same age. In 2012, women are still the primary care givers for children, the elderly, and the disabled. When you look at who is most impacted by the violence against people as a result of corporate controlled politics and public policy, you are looking at women and you cannot avoid that.

Women are not only what this movement is about, we’ve been at the forefront of every movement that ever wrought social change throughout the history of civilization. This is our movement. We will be a part of it because we are unavoidably so. You will learn to adjust to that appropriately, or this movement will fail. That’s a stone cold fact that should sober any of you willing or able to contemplate it with even a modicum of honesty.

Norma (Jinx) Jones is an activist with  Women Occupy Nashville.  Before retiring, she worked in the area of women’s issues focusing on domestic violence and substance abuse many years.  Jones is currently a freelance photographer and ardent supporter of the Occupy movement.  When I contacted her about reprinting her  post, she told me, “You might also note that I’m just “crazy” enough to be a “trouble maker” wherever I see a need for one”.  As they say in the south (I know because I lived there for 24 years), bless your heart Norma, we need more trouble makers like you!

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
 
 January 30, 2012  Posted by  2 Responses »

Feminist activists are making their presence known in the Occupy movement in many locations, in the U.S. and throughout the world:

Occupying Patriarchy in Rome


The Occupy Albany Women’s Caucus takes on the Department of Social Services

In San Francisco

Creating a safe place in New York

The OccupyDC Gender Equality Committee mic checks the anti-abortion March for Life

This says it all.

The Ukrainian group Femen protests at Davos (warning–nudity)

Wonderful graphic by Liza Cowan

Special note–I thought Liza’s graphics rocked so much I hired her to design a new logo for the Feminist Peace Network website.  Also check out her other work here.

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
 
 January 23, 2012  Posted by  1 Response »

At the age of 55 and counting, I am honored by the intimation that I am a young blogger (although dammit, lets keep listening to the elders among us) and honored to the point of happy tears that Gloria Steinem singled out the Occupy Patriarchy blog according to this piece from the Stanford University News:

“A panel discussion at Stanford this week about the history of Ms. will feature former editors from the land of paper and current young feminist bloggers. Websites that (Gloria) Steinem particularly likes include those of Occupy Patriarchy and the Women’s Media Center, the latter co-founded by former Ms. editor and well-known feminist Robin Morgan.”

Thank you Gloria for helping pave the way!

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
 
 January 19, 2012  Posted by  5 Responses »

The following is the text from a petition regarding sexual assault at Occupy BostonIf you want to sign the petition, please click this link to go to the petition site.

Issues of sexual misconduct have been present in Occupy Boston, including sexual assault of Occupy Boston members and the presence of persons with a documented history of serious sexual crimes. Individuals active in the Occupy Boston community attempted to address some of these concerns with the Sexual Assault Awareness proposal– which, after four, long contentious General Assemblies, on January 8, 2012 was blocked without reaching a vote.

This block was a culmination of actions and events at Occupy Boston that have made women in particular and marginalized groups in general feel progressively less and less welcome. We the undersigned, while supporting the stated goals of Occupy Boston and the larger Occupy movement, strongly condemn the actions of Occupy Boston’s General Assembly (GA) on Sunday, January 8, 2012 and ask that Occupy Boston take immediate steps to address those actions and prevent further damage to our community.

DeliciousFacebookEmailEvernoteGoogle+StumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterPrintFriendlyShare
© 2011 Occupy Patriarchy Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha