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.”
Occupy Nashville protests the idea that “tents are not free speech”, while corporate money continues to be viewed as free speech, by decorating their tents with dollar bills.
Occupy Nashville is facing eviction on Thursday, Feb. 23, as the Tennessee legislature pushes a bill through that makes camping on public property illegal and punishable by up to 11 months, 29 days in jail, and/or $2,500 in fines — a Class A misdemeanor, just below a felony.
downside of being in an autonomous, leaderless, and horizontal movement:
sometimes they do shit that only makes you want to headdesk and then hide for a few weeks.
i mean, damn, i love y’all but stop making me look racist, juvenile, and ignorant, Occupy Nashville :/
An occupier at Occupy Nashville was told that tonight, a Tennessee representative said that people “choose to be homeless” while he was defending his support of HB 2638 (which will criminalize the homeless). This is the letter that she sent him:
Dear Representative Faison,
I was at Legislative Plaza tonight and I unfortunately had to leave around 9:30 p.m. I heard that just after I left, you made the statement that people “choose to be homeless or not.” I sincerely hope that I’m mistaken and that you did not make such a statement.
But in the case that I am not mistaken, I wonder if you would say that the young constituent with cerebral palsy that you spoke of also choose to have cerebral palsy? Now before you say that a physical ailment is different from the socio-economic realities of homelessness, allow me explain. Let me tell you about my friend “Mark” who I’ve known for three years. Mark is un-housed and currently lives on Legislative Plaza. He has been an active member of Occupy Nashville and he carries signs, joins us on marches, has been quoted in The Tennessean, comes to our meetings, and picks up trash on the plaza. Mark did not choose to grow up in an abusive foster home. He did not choose to be verbally, physically, and sexually abused for over 10 years. He did not choose to live with such trauma and then to develop severe and persistent mental health problems. He does not choose to shake and have his body go into shock when he tries to stay indoors because he was gang raped by people in shelters. He does not choose to have flashbacks of the horrors he has lived through. Mark did NOT choose to be homeless just like my friend “Teresa” who fled a domestic violence situation did not choose to be homeless, just like my friend “Bill” who also grew up in poverty and in an abusive home did not choose to develop schizophrenia and find himself on the streets without insurance and without a support system.
I have attached a photo to this email. It was a photo taken this past Saturday night when an outreach group I work with (Open Table Nashville) opened up emergency warming shelters because there are not enough shelter and transitional housing beds in Nashville to accommodate all of the men, women, and children who are homeless. This photo is of “Gary’s” feet after we washed and bandaged them. Gary is a 61 year old man. When I found him on Legislative Plaza, he had been wearing the same clothes for multiple weeks. His clothes were stained with urine and feces, and in 20 degree weather he wasn’t wearing socks and was covering himself with a wet, stained sleeping bag. Gary is psychiatrically disabled and mentally impaired. He had second degree frostbite on his feet and sores all over his body from sitting in his own excrement. We took him in, cleaned him up, dressed his wounds, and he has been recovering in the hospital since Saturday night. You cannot tell me that Gary, Bill, Teresa, and Mark choose to be homeless. Don’t even try. If HB 2638/SB 2508 passes, it will make people like Gary—people who DO NOT choose to be homeless, but because of devastating circumstances are cast out from our society—a criminal.
I am a Christian (like you), a student at Vanderbilt Divinity School, and I have been a homeless outreach worker in Nashville for several years. Do not tell me that your duty is to the “laws of Tennessee” over the laws of God that command us to love our God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. To pass this law is NOT to love your neighbors like Gary, Bill, Teresa, and Mark. To pass this law is to criminalize your un-housed neighbors. To pass this law is to turn away from and deny the image of God that is in every one of our un-housed neighbors. But I guess Jesus was criminalized by his state, too—the Roman Empire—so this is nothing new. As my personal hero Dorothy Day once said, “Those who cannot see Christ in the poor are atheists indeed.”
With grave sincerity,
Lindsey
Nashville, TN
A committee of the state House of Representative sent a bill to remove Occupy Nashville protesters from the state Capitol to the House floor after increasing the bill’s penalty to nearly a year in jail or a $2,500 fine.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 14-2 to approve a ban on unauthorized camping on public grounds, in a bid to force the four-month-old Occupy encampment from War Memorial Plaza. The committee also approved an amendment that raised violations to a Class A misdemeanor, the highest class of penalties short of a felony.
Occupy Nashville protesters argued at Tuesday’s hearing that the bill – which specifically bans the use of items such as tents, tarps, sleeping bags and camp stoves – would criminalize homelessness. They also said the tents they have set up on the plaza are a form of protest that should be protected by the First Amendment.
“Corporations can by television and billboards,” said protester Michael Custer. “We are not wealthy. … Those tents? They are our billboard.”
But supporters of the bill said the protest has fostered fights, drug use and lewd behavior, including at least one instance each of a public sex act and urination.
“If you approve of that – you think that’s peaceable assembly – you need to be peed on,” said state Rep. Eric Watson, the bill’s sponsor. “See how you like it.”
The vote by the House Judiciary Committee means the bill could be voted on by the full House within days. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up a companion measure later this afternoon.
House judiciary committee passes anti-occupy bill on to full house and amended to make the crime of having a tent punishable by 11 months, 29 days in jail. Vote was 14 yea and 2 nay.
While Chase misappropriates the memory and image of Martin Luther King this Black History Month, the bank is still going forward with its plans to foreclose on Helen Bailey on Feb. 15.
Helen Bailey is a 78-year-old grandmother who participated in the civil rights movement, worked as a childcare provider for autistic children, and was a community volunteer. She has paid her mortgage since 1999, but now she can’t keep up the payments. All she wants is to stay in her home until she dies, in the neighborhood where she feels safe and has lived for nearly quarter of a century. She could have refinanced with a company willing to let her live in the house for free until her death, but Chase Bank would not reduce her principal by $9,000. She’s been paying 7% interest, well above most rates, so Chase could have decided they had made enough. Instead, they have started foreclosure and Ms Bailey could end on the street.
Since then, Ms Bailey’s lawyer has found an alternate buyer for her home. This sale would provide Ms Bailey with an exit from her current mortgage and allow her to pursue other options for housing. We request that Chase:
· accept the offer of $85,000
· write off any deficiency between the loan balance and the offer
· waive all interest, legal fees and penalties accrued since the initial refinance offer
· cancel any foreclosure auction scheduled
It has been estimated that at foreclosure, Chase may lose over $30,000 compared to this settlement offer. Therefore this option makes the most sense financially for Chase and given Ms Bailey’s specific circumstances, there is little moral hazard in this solution.Tell Chase that in Nashville, in America, we don’t throw elderly ladies out on the street. In Nashville, in America, we fight for what’s right. Helen Bailey marched for civil rights. It’s our turn to march for Helen Bailey.
__
To mark Martin Luther King Day and Black History Month, Chase gave us all a new website saying that the company gives back to communities.
On the website, Chase says, “The values exhibited by Dr. King and embodied in his lifelong struggle for social change align with those that shape JPMorgan Chase’s approach to giving in the communities in which it operates.”
But King’s legacy is not for Chase to use to cover up their own special brand of callousness.
While Chase tries to tie itself to the incredible legacy of Martin Luther King, who really did believe in communities, Chase tries to throw a grandmother who marched for civil rights out onto the street.
PLEASE reblog… this is vital!
Dear Governor Haslam (bill.haslam@tn.gov.) OR Representative Watson (rep.eric.watson@capitol.tn.gov) OR Senator Gresham (sen.dolores.gresham@capitol.tn.gov),
I know that you, as a civil servant, an elected official, and a person of faith, are committed to defending the Constitutional rights of all Tennesseans and in helping those who live without the stability of a home. For this reason, I am writing to ask you to halt HB 2638/SB 2508. This bill imperils our freedoms and also threatens Tennessee’s most vulnerable citizens.
I am concerned that this bill exists in order to criminalize one specific social movement: Occupy Nashville, located at Legislative Plaza. While major corporations are allowed to “live” near elected officials through constant campaign contributions and lobbyist activity, this bill limits the presence of real, human constituents who are petitioning their government for a redress of grievances on behalf of the 99%. Furthermore, this bill seeks to remove and label law-abiding, concerned, tax-paying citizens as “threats to public health, safety, and/or welfare.”
On the contrary, we believe the true health of the Public—the health of our democracy—is contingent upon the continued activity of social movements like Occupy Nashville. I am sure you are aware that permanent vigils near decision-makers is a time-honored method of non-violent change-making, from Tiananmen Square to Tahrir Square.
But beyond limiting the free speech rights of Occupy Nashville and all Tennesseans, this bill would also criminalize our homeless friends across Tennessee who cannot live in traditional shelters. The available homeless shelters in Nashville do not accept individuals who wish to stay with their spouses and families, who are pet-owners, or who work non-traditional work hours. It would be hypocritical to promote family values and then further criminalize poor people who are working to keep their families together by outlawing their presence on remaining public land.
While it is certain that the bill is written to address the existence of Occupy Nashville on Legislative plaza, this bill would not only inhibit first amendment rights to those petitioning for a redress of grievances and criminalize the urban homeless, but would also apply undue restrictions to all parks across the great state of Tennessee. Assembling in Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park in Memphis or Victor Ashe Park in Knoxville could potentially be criminalized if this bill is to pass.
Occupy Nashville has worked with the Metro Public Health Department in the past to address any potential health concerns, and we are happy to continue this relationship. We are committed to working with you and other officials to address any future concerns that may arise during the course of this historic campaign.
However, should HB 2638/SB 2508 be passed, and be used to evict Occupy Nashville, I will once again be at the Plaza, willing to risk arrest on behalf of our First Amendment rights.
Sincerely,
(Name, address, #)
This is in regards to a bill that is being shoved through Tennessee’s legislature. I think it’s a very important bill to stop, not just because it affects Occupy Nashville, but because it potentially and unduly limits access to state parks all across Tennessee. This is a big deal, y’all. If you live in Tennessee (and even if you don’t) please take a second to copy and paste this (and maybe remove or edit the last paragraph) and send it to Gov. Haslam, Rep. Watson, and/or Sen. Gresham.
Again: THIS APPLIES NOT JUST TO NASHVILLE, BUT TO MEMPHIS, CHATTANOOGA, KNOXVILLE, ETC. All of Tennessee would feel the repercussions of this bill, as per Occupy Nashville’s lawyers.
“Occupy Nashville’s problem has not just been that women get abused there. More broadly, our problem is that when men and women call out that abuse, they are told that ‘that’s not what this movement is about’ and that feminism is a distraction from our larger goals, the goals that supposedly unify all of the 99%. While this kind of dodging doesn’t always fly, it works surprisingly often. When it does, the supposed nobility of the larger movement-at-hand acts as a free license for us to act out our internalized misogyny unchecked. That’s when, for all its sometimes-utility as a combative slogan, “we are the 99 percent” backfires. In those moments it becomes a tool used against women rather than a tool for inspiring democratic experiments. On the many contentious email threads of Occupy Nashville, we are often admonished to ‘leave feminism out of this’; or, if the author doesn’t want the liability of being specific, just to ‘leave our agendas at the door’ and (it always seems to be white men saying this) ‘focus on our core issues’ – presumably, the twin goals of getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood, rather than the issues of ending identity- or body-specific violence, like that against women, people of color, or people overseas. [I assume that other activists are familiar with these online flame-wars, but if you’re not, thank your luck and read on.] While few if any of those people calling for feminism to be ‘left out of this’ in Nashville are anarchists, this is something in anti-authoritarian circles that we refer to as “manarchism” – essentially, the idea that your anticapitalist militancy is so badass that you don’t have to treat others with kindness or take feminism seriously.” I am taking the liberty of posting this, as a feminist occupier in Nashville. Feminism IS a core issue. But even beyond Nashville, there have been women reacting positively to this piece, upset that misogyny is alive and well in many encampments across the nation, women who are actively trying to dismantle the hegemony of patriarchy in their attempt to imagine and create a better society, a better world. I highly recommend this piece to any occupier concerned with the issue of feminism. 
