Occupy and rapes

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
History is Made...
Offline
Joined: 13-08-07
Oct 31 2011 18:07

Sadly rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse feature in all kinds of scenes and movements.

I recall that back in the 80s there were rapes in the peace camp at Molesworth. In another case a perpetrator in the Hackney squat scene was *allegedly* driven down to the west country and tied to a tree (he wasn't seriously hurt but a number of people were arrested). I know of people since who have been raped and/or beaten up by squatter activists, strike militants etc. It's not necessarily the obvious macho idiots who have to watched out for.

I don't think it's occurence is a particular reflection on the Occupy movement, but I would say that anybody involved in this kind of organising (camps, squats, social centres etc) needs to consider from day one that it is a risk and be up front about actively discouraging it, including strong feminist messages up front about no tolerance of male violence etc. And also having a culture that if it happens it will be properly responded to.

Marigold's picture
Marigold
Offline
Joined: 22-09-11
Nov 1 2011 00:07

Feminists occupy London

"We are feminists. We are against corporate greed. We are occupiers. Women and girls are subjected to major economical, social and political injustices in society and our oppression should be fundamental to the foundation of this movement's growth and progression.

We have noticed a lack of gender equality, lack of female representation and lack of women issues being discussed at Olsx, so we have decided to come together and propose ideas in a constructive manner and add our voice as feminists not only to this global movement against capitalist oppression, but also vital are our voices against patriarchal oppression - both of which two power structures are directly linked.

We would love you to influence the content of this page and tell us what you think feminism can and should bring to this movement.
This page, your voice and this movement is ours. Together, we must and will fight oppression in all its forms".

From feminists occupy london (facebook).

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Nov 2 2011 08:48

From Facebook

Quote:
Below is an open letter from Glasgow Women's Activist Forum to Occupy Glasgow. If your organisation would like to sign the letter, please email glasgowwomensactivistforum@gmail.com

"We, the undersigned, are writing to those involved in the Occupy Glasgow protest because our voices have hitherto been marginalised and our concerns systematically ignored in the days following the rape that occurred at the protest on Tuesday.

Our decision to write this letter is not based on political or ideological rejections of the Occupy movement, but is motivated by a very real concern for the physical and emotional well-being of all those involved in Occupy Glasgow, with specific concern for women and vulnerable people.

We believe that those involved in the protest failed to ensure the safety of its participants. The safety of the most vulnerable amongst us must be paramount in any organisation or movement, and a failure to construct and implement a system which ensures the safety of all its participants constitutes a failure of the movement as a whole.

In light of the gang rape that took place on Tuesday, we condemn the decision to continue with the occupation. Not only does the rape itself constitute reason enough to end the protest, but the reaction in the days which have followed has only convinced us further.

Allowing rape apology, victim blaming, and accusations of 'fabrication' or 'conspiracy to bring the occupation to and end' to be voiced in statements both on the official Occupy Glasgow facebook page and at General Assemblies without question demonstrates a complete failure of those involved to grasp the severity of the incident.

There has been insufficient effort to make necessary changes to the physical space or the safer spaces policy following the attack.

Women remain at high risk at Occupy Glasgow, and openly voiced this at the women's meeting on Friday 28th October. Prior to Tuesday, verbal and physical intimidation had been reported by occupiers to the group, yet these issues were not addressed.

Our decision to write an open letter followed attempts to reach out to Occupy Glasgow by attending General Assemblies. However, women who have attended meetings and facilitated workshops have experienced verbal and physical intimidation from occupiers, leaving us no option but to make this official appeal to the women of Occupy Glasgow to take our concerns seriously.

We consider this matter urgent, and cannot stress enough that this appeal is motivated purely by our desire to create safe spaces for women not just within activist movements, but everywhere in society.

Glasgow Women's Activist Forum"

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Nov 1 2011 20:02

Sorry for the late answer, but I haven't noticed for a while.

A) I have no idyllic view on either. I was implying that communes, politically motivated, conscious beings (and this consciousness means the abolition of any power relations), only can exist if they can rely on each other. I'm aware that the family isn't commune, neither friendship is. But the actual motivation will result a serious, political side of friendship, which also would be a good and natural way to re-order our sexual behaviour IMO. The emphasis here is on the commune, not the a semi-formality of the family or the friendship.

B) The fact, that people know the rapist, doesn't impy that community can not protect them if the community isn't a set of random individuals, but actually come together to form a liberating space for themselves, and for each other. Also, as we are supposed to be a movement, our groups, communes whatever you like isn't there for put people in their boxes. It is dynamic, and highly critical. If it comes to that, also should present a big pressure and force above those who destroy this confidence from within. Intentions aside, that means a rapist would actually do the same effect as a police spy. And we all know what that means... (assuming a revolutionary organisation)

C) For clarity, my, perhaps vague proposal was addressed specifically to the occupations where relatively large amount of strangers are together for longer period of time. I suggested it because looking at the particular case of Glasgow, and try to figure out how can you restrict such attacks happening by imposing similar rules as the booze ban. But, perhaps it's my fault, you failed to understand my proposal completely. I don't think that "being a relationship" (that is, boxed in to a patriarchal isolation painted to pink) is safe. Not by any chance. In my understanding, the mono/polygamy or "singleness" and patriarchal violence is inherently linked closely together. Sexuality isn't a separate, private business. But all in all, we have a very different view on trust... I'm talking about very specific people with very specific goals such as abolition patriarchy. If someone doesn't actively promote and behave in this manner, I can't trust, right? That's what all men and women or others have to learn. "It is essentially saying rape only happens because women don't trust men." Nope, it's nothing like that at all. Not sure what sort of logic would imply that. Women and men will learn to trust each other only if they are worthy for that trust... that is, no gender domination occur in any form.

D) Blaming on organisational faults... yes I am. Because it does motivate people for doing better job on how do they relate to each other. To scream, that don't be a rapist, doesn't help. I have no psychic power I can't change how people behave... however, organisation of the society involves how you teach children, what sort of roles do you offer them, and at last, how successful they are in a patriarchal society.

Just for the record: I try to reason, and I accept if there is clumsiness in my arguments. But you go further than that. It seems to me that you have already decided that I'm a victim blamer, macho bastard, with such nicities as this: "this is untrue and victim blaming and shit and I can't BELIEVE no-one has picked you up on this". This is for me a strawman argument without an actual chance for me to learn anything from what you saying. I accept the logical criticism so please, stick to that.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Nov 2 2011 15:50
sawa wrote:
=
I'm not sure where this fear of the right bringing up this issue is rooted in, what are the bad consequences of this. I dunno how the right can make this appear worse than it actually is either, it is more than pretty bad certainly in Glasgow. Obv the right don't sincerely give a fuck about women's safety and feminism but so what? :s

I'm not "afraid" of the right bringing it up. I just know, like you said, that they are not bringing it up out of a general concern about rape culture and rape victims. We should certainly not hesitate to criticize #Occupy for failing to provide a safe environment out of a concern for giving them bad publicity, but in fact the Right is going to use this as propaganda to smear the movement and are going to draw a contrast between the "degenerate, anarchic" spaces of the #Occupy encampments (which they will say are unsafe because of the lack of police/family structures/"protective" males) and the "safe", "policed" space of the rest of society. It's not that I don't want anyone to sully #Occupy's good name, but rather that we should critique #Occupy out of a real concern about rape culture as opposed to crassly using it as an opportunity for political mudslinging. And these sort of right-wing people couldn't give a fuck about rape in general and have no understanding of rape culture as it operates in society in general, so their criticism isn't meant to lead to a safer environment but to score cheap political points. In fact their pathologizing of the #Occupy encampments will draw a false dichotomy between the "lawless" encampments and the "safe" larger society, which we both know is bullshit, which means a trivialization and brushing aside of rape culture generally.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Nov 2 2011 17:44
Glasgow-Womens-Activist-Forum[/url wrote:
In light of the gang rape that took place on Tuesday, we condemn the decision to continue with the occupation. Not only does the rape itself constitute reason enough to end the protest, but the reaction in the days which have followed has only convinced us further.

I was wondering about this part of the statement. If I understand it correctly it means that after the rape occured the only correct response would have been to end the occupation. Is that right? If it is, is the view of the signatories that the rape showed that the space was irredemably unsafe for whatever reason? Or should I understand the point as being that the response of the group to the rape has shown that they are unwilling and/or unable to re-organise the space to make it safer, and that this is why the occupation should end rather than because of the fact that a rape occured in and of itself?

Thanks to anyone who can clear up the meaning. I would also be interested to hear thoughts about which of the two possibilities represents the preferable approach (i.e. shutting down because of the rape itself or shutting down because of the failure of group to respond to the rape in anything like a constructive fasion). Hope that all makes sense.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 2 2011 23:21
tastybrain wrote:
sawa wrote:
=
I'm not sure where this fear of the right bringing up this issue is rooted in, what are the bad consequences of this. I dunno how the right can make this appear worse than it actually is either, it is more than pretty bad certainly in Glasgow. Obv the right don't sincerely give a fuck about women's safety and feminism but so what? :s

I'm not "afraid" of the right bringing it up. I just know, like you said, that they are not bringing it up out of a general concern about rape culture and rape victims. We should certainly not hesitate to criticize #Occupy for failing to provide a safe environment out of a concern for giving them bad publicity, but in fact the Right is going to use this as propaganda to smear the movement and are going to draw a contrast between the "degenerate, anarchic" spaces of the #Occupy encampments (which they will say are unsafe because of the lack of police/family structures/"protective" males) and the "safe", "policed" space of the rest of society. It's not that I don't want anyone to sully #Occupy's good name, but rather that we should critique #Occupy out of a real concern about rape culture as opposed to crassly using it as an opportunity for political mudslinging. And these sort of right-wing people couldn't give a fuck about rape in general and have no understanding of rape culture as it operates in society in general, so their criticism isn't meant to lead to a safer environment but to score cheap political points. In fact their pathologizing of the #Occupy encampments will draw a false dichotomy between the "lawless" encampments and the "safe" larger society, which we both know is bullshit, which means a trivialization and brushing aside of rape culture generally.

Good post.

orderfromchaos's picture
orderfromchaos
Offline
Joined: 17-10-11
Nov 3 2011 14:11

This thread has dredged up some pretty shitty attitudes in people regarding rape, largely apparently out of ignorance of the necessary role of feminism in successful activist circles. There needs to be more discussion of rape culture and sexism in activist movements here as well as in our various organisations.

As someone who has been lightly involved in Occupy Edinburgh over the past couple of weeks, I noticed at the general assemblies that rape culture and the responsibility of men not to be rapists has been brought up.

However, at Occupy Edinburgh, there needs to be a serious discussion of what a safe spaces policy is and how to enforce it for it to be safe for it to continue. It is attracting some people who need help, which I am not sure that Occupy Edinburgh can provide. Until they get that help they pose a threat to vulnerable members of the community at St Andrew's Square.

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Nov 3 2011 14:35
RedEd wrote:
I was wondering about this part of the statement. If I understand it correctly it means that after the rape occured the only correct response would have been to end the occupation. Is that right? If it is, is the view of the signatories that the rape showed that the space was irredemably unsafe for whatever reason? Or should I understand the point as being that the response of the group to the rape has shown that they are unwilling and/or unable to re-organise the space to make it safer, and that this is why the occupation should end rather than because of the fact that a rape occured in and of itself?

Thanks to anyone who can clear up the meaning. I would also be interested to hear thoughts about which of the two possibilities represents the preferable approach (i.e. shutting down because of the rape itself or shutting down because of the failure of group to respond to the rape in anything like a constructive fasion). Hope that all makes sense.

I can't clear up the meaning, but personally I'd be in favour of the latter, and would agree (from everything I've heard at least) that shutting down the occupation due to failure of the group to respond to the rape would be a sensible way to go. I think. Although I'm happy to be convinced otherwise cos I'm really not so sure what's best. I know right now I wouldn't want to be there.

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Nov 3 2011 15:03
RedEd wrote:
Glasgow-Womens-Activist-Forum[/url wrote:
In light of the gang rape that took place on Tuesday, we condemn the decision to continue with the occupation. Not only does the rape itself constitute reason enough to end the protest, but the reaction in the days which have followed has only convinced us further.

I was wondering about this part of the statement. If I understand it correctly it means that after the rape occured the only correct response would have been to end the occupation. Is that right? If it is, is the view of the signatories that the rape showed that the space was irredemably unsafe for whatever reason? Or should I understand the point as being that the response of the group to the rape has shown that they are unwilling and/or unable to re-organise the space to make it safer, and that this is why the occupation should end rather than because of the fact that a rape occured in and of itself?

Thanks to anyone who can clear up the meaning. I would also be interested to hear thoughts about which of the two possibilities represents the preferable approach (i.e. shutting down because of the rape itself or shutting down because of the failure of group to respond to the rape in anything like a constructive fasion). Hope that all makes sense.

TBh I think there are different viewpoints that vary between the two positions.
Myself i more agree with Ramona, it is about a lack of capacity of the camp to respond as well as the severity of the initial tragic incident. It is that this happened in a certain culture at the camp and this is fucking terrible as well as there seems little possibility to make the space safe(er).

Blog again by Mhairi, is interesting.
The Problem with Occupy

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Nov 3 2011 15:23

Dunno who wrote it, but this article seems to be a good summery and decent analysis too :]
Occupy Patriarchy! A feminist critique of the protests

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 3 2011 19:13
sawa wrote:
Dunno who wrote it, but this article seems to be a good summery and decent analysis too :]
Occupy Patriarchy! A feminist critique of the protests

that article is about some very important stuff. It's appalling that these attacks have happened, and to my knowledge seems pretty unprecedented. At least I'm not aware of any other protest movements where this sort of thing has happened in such a big way (such as the antiwar movement).

Now, this may be just due to the practicalities of it - these are static occupations where people are living in tents, and so people are in insecure dwellings. So maybe the number of occurrences is comparable to people going to music festivals.

And some of the responses to these attacks from the occupiers seem inadequate, to say the least. However, I don't think that is a great article. For starters it has a go at Occupy Baltimore for discouraging people going to the police. This is no bad thing in itself.

Secondly, you can get a bit of a view of what perspective the authors are coming from from this diagram:

Now this is a ridiculously stupid diagram, whichever way you look at it, and I think it shows the flaws in the world view of the authors.

Its conclusions are pretty sound, however, in saying that the occupy movement shouldn't deny racism or sexism, that's totally right, and it's good that some people are trying to address this.

durruti02
Offline
Joined: 28-10-05
Nov 3 2011 22:42

I have been concerned from the off about issues around gender at OLSX (as well as conspiracy theory) and the replication of all the problems that were at Democracy Village.
But I think the tyranny of structurelessness is as relevant though as patriarchy. And this was written as a critique of the womens movement, as it was/is as beset with issues of hierachy, abuse of power and cliques as any other movement.
And I disagree with the 'rape culture' article and it's relevance on many levels. I don't deny in anyway the level of sexual/gender dominance, intimidation and violence in society and 'the movement' but an analysis of rape without acknowledging the basic class and power structures, and the general level of violence outside of sexual relations, in society is simply negligent.
p.s i was one of the few who booed Assange, for being a rapist, in denial, at OLSX amidst an adoring crowd of equally numbered men and women.

durruti02
Offline
Joined: 28-10-05
Nov 3 2011 22:43

and yes that inverted pyramid is just daft

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Nov 4 2011 12:13
Steven. wrote:
For starters it has a go at Occupy Baltimore for discouraging people going to the police. This is no bad thing in itself.

Just quickly, and I've not had time to read the article properly yet.. I'd say it is a bad thing in and of itself - no one should be encouraging or discouraging victims of sexual assault and rape to go to the police, it's not anyone else's decision. Obv the police are SHIT at this sort of stuff at the best of times and I can imagine would only be worse than normal if the attack occurs in the context of a protest, but still, far better to support victims to make their own decisions and prepare them for the shitty attitudes they'll no doubt get from the cops rather than actively discouraging them.

I know that's totally un-anarchist or whatever, but dealing with sexual assaults is a fucking minefield - going to the police can be useful if you need to make a record of a complaitn for whatever reason, or if you think the person is a danger and needs dealt with - I am well aware that warnings/fines/probation/prison are shit and flawed and not tackling the route problems in any way, but since we've not yet had a revolution and can't just send people to the salt mines for re-education* it can be really hard to know what else to do.

Like, seriously, what is a better way of dealing with people who rape and sexually assault right now? I ask this in good faith, because obv going to the police is shite and they rarely deal with this well, conviction rates really low, all these things. I know AF dealt with this some time ago and released a public statement about Sam, and Asher posted this open letter about a similar case in NZ. But in both cases, the guy has gone relatively unchallenged, is free to carry out attacks in other groups or outside of the lefty milieu. It's just massively frustrating how few options there are for dealing with perpetrators of assaults other than going to the police, but what happens when the police are shit? Or if you can't go to the police? In my old job I supported clients who were homeless substance using sex workers to report sexual assualts, you can imagine how sensitively they were dealt with by the Met...

And yeah sorry if this is a derail/dealt with in the article I've been too lazy to read wink

Questioning
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 6 2011 10:23

I've been involved in Occupy London, primarily at Finsbury Square since the beginning (although I live nearby and have chosen not to sleep there). Even before these horrific incidents were reported, I have had serious concerns about the camp's safety and it's ability to self-police.

At FS, we have adopted a safer spaces policy, which includes an outright ban on the use of drugs and alcohol. In terms of substance use, it was from the offset assumed that people would ignore the rules and the decision was then made that people just couldn't drink conspicuously (ie put your booze in a mug if you are going to get pissed). If such a lax view is taken from the beginning about something where consensus was reached, I couldn't imagine how a safer space could genuinely be created. Also, I don't see how the viewpoints of those who felt threatened by the mostly male use of alcohol and drugs were actually being respected within the consensus decision making process.

As a movement and a physical space, we are in some ways making it up as we go along. In some respects, that has been positive. For instance, we have been able to offer food and shelter to folks who are street homeless and professionals who work with vulnerable people are coming to the camp to provide help and support. On the other hand, most attempts at self-policing have only been aimed at tackling problems once they arise rather than dealing with the causes or finding ways of preventing them.

I still have hope that the occupy movement can at least have an influence on the dialogue about wealth disparity and financial and political corruption, and I will continue to be involved on that basis. I don't however believe that we are providing a genuinely viable alternative to the current system when we are doing fuck all to challenge or address the numerous inequalities that exist within our own camps.

Virindi
Offline
Joined: 4-04-08
Nov 7 2011 02:32

At Occupy Oakland I almost got my ass kicked by a guy on crack with nunchucks, another guy on crack, and a straight girl who was a medic. They said black bloc anarchists are going to get the shit kicked out of them if they ever damage property again because the movement is peaceful. (Hypocrisy has its own elegant symmetry)

I calmed the situation for the most part because I kept my cool, but could easily see that escalating had another personality type been in my place.

I recommend handing out whistles all over every Occupy camp and tell people that if some shit like that goes down to blow it and run.

yeahwhat
Offline
Joined: 18-09-11
Nov 7 2011 13:05
sawa wrote:
tastybrain wrote:
Back to the topic at hand...

Maybe someone could write up some kind of text to distribute to the #Occupy movements outlining the need to challenge rape culture and take other preventative measures. I don't doubt that some on the Right will try to make the phenomenon seem more prevalent than it is, but it has happened and should be addressed.

I think some of us in Glasgow are hoping to write some sort of thing on how to make occupations etc safe for women, what a minimum standard is for our participation, so would be useful to hear others ideas, read what others have written.

That would be really interesting to read, and a useful resource for future. If something is drafted, could you possibly post it here please? I'd really like to read it smile

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 8 2011 11:09
lzbl wrote:
soc wrote:
Difficult question for sure.

I bring something in that perhaps not exactly related to the matter, but just for demonstration. I always imagined the revolutionary organisation as a organically connected network of communes. And communes would form out of family and friendship relations and also the other way around simultaneously. Communes therefore would provide the safest community that one could wish for. I know, I know, this is kind of an idea for a communist society, but...

Any protest, occupation or even strike is mostly growing out of groups of people who aren't connected in any other terms than their issue which they are fighting for or against. This doesn't provide enough basis to suppose that all other people participating in the action are reliable in other matters, such as sexuality or drunken behaviour. If otherwise alienated people get together, there's always a gamble how you can cope with them on a personal level, especially if it comes to long-term camping. To avoid the trap of setting up a kind of activist police or security force, one must look in to the organisation itself of the encampment. If there's a need, and there are lot of loosely connected people who don't know each other for long time, perhaps there's a need for separation of sexes, where women can maintain their own safety and slowly progressing to understand, get know each other during the public hours and deepen the personal relationships. Rape isn't just simply an inherent behaviour, it is closely related to the phenomena, where men doesn't feel responsible for the safety of the women around. As the personal relationship will form to a more deeper level, commune-like groups will form, and find their way of safe accommodation and harmonic sexual behaviour.

Fucking hell, I don't even know where to start. I'll address the ideas thrown up here.

A) The idea that 'family and friends' create a revolutionary organisation is just...wrong. You know sexual violence happens in activist groups, in communes, in all the places that resemble the things you seem to think idyllic, right?

B) The idea that family and friendship groups protect against rape. What? You do know that most sexual violence is perpetrated by someone known to the victim/survivor, right? Assuming that people will be protected by being in these groups is a massive fucking abdication of responsibility.

C) The idea that we should separate the sexes so that women can learn to trust men and form deeper personal relationships...because rape never happens when you have a relationship and if you trust someone that stops them being a rapist. It is essentially saying rape only happens because women don't trust men. This is untrue and victim blaming and shit and I can't BELIEVE no-one has picked you up on this.

(NB, I think that women and men should both have recourse to areas they feel safe, and if that means creating single-gender areas within a camp then obviously that's cool. The reasons given above are rubbish though, and the idea that a whole camp should be separated is basically mental)

D) The idea that rape happens when 'men doesn't feel responsible for the safety of the women around'? No. NO NO NO NO. The RESPONSIBILITY is not for OUR FUCKING SAFETY, it is NOT TO BE A RAPIST. We do not need you to 'protect' us, we need you NOT TO BE THE THREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I think you have TOTALLY failed to understand the root cause of rape culture, ie patriarchy, and have instead concentrated on blaming organisational failings.

Oh, and the assumption that all rapists are men and survivors women sucks too.

I would just like to add to this point.

Being sdrunk does not increase the chances of me becoming a rapist, rapists are scum and predators and to say banning alcohol is ok is not ok and to think doing so and organising the men of camp to defend the women of camp is offensive but also pointless.

The point is not to defend and monitor people to prevent rape, but to stop people viewing women as obliged to fuck them and stop the patriachal relations in society that create a culture of violence and abuse against women.

Women in the mean time need to organise themselves on the issue of womens defence while joining the larger class struggle, like the black panthers defended black communities from white/state violence but also entered coalitions with variousmarxist groups.

thats my view on it ayway.

Also from experience, a single woman in a tent at a occupation brings many sexual advances, which led me to kicking a pervert out of his own tent and snuggling (non sexually, it was just fucking freezing) with her and my maoist friend. After I left she told me the guy came back after me and my mate left and got quite aggressive, which led to another anarchist threatening to kick his teeth in.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 8 2011 13:18

BJJ, drunkenness tends to make people more likely to do stupid things and less able to responding to any issues that come up, so its generally a bad idea at any political action.

Your right that we need to change social relations.

I'm sure what you mean when you suggest that women organise themselves like black panthers, there are no separate women communities to defend, and this rather places the emphasis for women's safety on women, rather than society as a whole. not that people shouldn't learn to defend them selves.

Not sure if there is anything to say about your tent story, but it suggests the need to have an organised system to determining who sleeps where

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 8 2011 14:13
radicalgraffiti wrote:
BJJ, drunkenness tends to make people more likely to do stupid things and less able to responding to any issues that come up, so its generally a bad idea at any political action.

Your right that we need to change social relations.

I'm sure what you mean when you suggest that women organise themselves like black panthers, there are no separate women communities to defend, and this rather places the emphasis for women's safety on women, rather than society as a whole. not that people shouldn't learn to defend them selves.

Not sure if there is anything to say about your tent story, but it suggests the need to have an organised system to determining who sleeps where

The proletariat can only liberate themselves, stands to reason women can only liberate themselves. the proletariat can only bring liberation through the means of production, women can only gain equalkity by demanding it and through the organisation of woman to end violence and predjudice against women, not some white males from the local political group.

Again I am not saying women should not form/join anarchist class struggle groups I am saying they can do that aswell as organise to end the opress that they face that we don't, not just the class oppression we all face.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 8 2011 14:18
Quote:
The proletariat can only liberate themselves, stands to reason women can only liberate themselves.

True, in the final analysis - doesn't mean white males from the local political group can't do their damndest to help and facilitate such a thing though!

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 8 2011 14:23
Rob Ray wrote:
Quote:
The proletariat can only liberate themselves, stands to reason women can only liberate themselves.

True, in the final analysis - doesn't mean white males from the local political group can't do their damndest to help and facilitate such a thing though!

Of course, as many white people joined the black power movement to fight racism, this however does not mean that women should not be the main force to liberte themselves, which they need to be, the power to determine their destiny is something eery oppressed group should have.

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Nov 8 2011 16:45

Patriarchy isn't exactly analogous to capitalism and class relations though BJJ. Whilst I agree that women should lead the fight against patriarchy and we should be able to have our own separate organisations it is really a different form of oppression. Men should be challenging their own privilege and fighting all the manifestations of patriarchy along side us. The reason for separate organisations is essentially a reactive thing, it is the only way women feel comfortable enough sometimes, without being asked the same stupid questions, organisations being male dominated and having to put up with predatory behaviour to what ever large or lesser degree. I do think these organisations are different in nature to economic organisations on class lines.
It is not however or at least it shouldn't be emphasised that women should have to defend themselves(although anyone learning self defence is useful) the emphasis should be on teaching men not to rape people. Men need to challenge themselves, their behaviour and that of their friends and acquaintances, not leave it just up to women even if they must listen to us.
Although to be fair I am not sure we actually disagree. :]

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Nov 8 2011 22:40

I just want raise for discussion the point that its not so simple as women organising with other women. My own experience of this recently has been that I was marginally involved in producing this open letter warning other comrades of a known sexual predator earlier this year. Recently, after discovering that this guy might be involved with a national coalition of anti-cuts student groups, I raised the subject for discussion amongst my own local group. For doing so I came under attack from not only men but also women, so its kind of more complicated than just the men sheltering someone we know to be abusive, although of course that is a major dynamic. However everyone can play a role in creating and reproducing that kind of shitty culture where abusive men can do what they like when they shoot the messenger and discredit the stories of the victims.

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Nov 8 2011 23:03
bootsy wrote:
I just want raise for discussion the point that its not so simple as women organising with other women. My own experience of this recently has been that I was marginally involved in producing this open letter warning other comrades of a known sexual predator earlier this year. Recently, after discovering that this guy might be involved with a national coalition of anti-cuts student groups, I raised the subject for discussion amongst my own local group. For doing so I came under attack from not only men but also women, so its kind of more complicated than just the men sheltering someone we know to be abusive, although of course that is a major dynamic. However everyone can play a role in creating and reproducing that kind of shitty culture where abusive men can do what they like when they shoot the messenger and discredit the stories of the victims.

Aye yeah and I'm sorry that sounds a really fucking shit situation, solidarity. Fucking bastards. :[
It is really difficult to know what to do in these sort of situations.

Although it is often easier to bring up men being sexually predatory especially initially in say a women's caucus even though some women have internalised sexism and are fucking bastards that recreate rape culture too, it is a sort of different dynamic than with men.

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 8 2011 23:05
sawa wrote:
Patriarchy isn't exactly analogous to capitalism and class relations though BJJ. Whilst I agree that women should lead the fight against patriarchy and we should be able to have our own separate organisations it is really a different form of oppression. Men should be challenging their own privilege and fighting all the manifestations of patriarchy along side us. The reason for separate organisations is essentially a reactive thing, it is the only way women feel comfortable enough sometimes, without being asked the same stupid questions, organisations being male dominated and having to put up with predatory behaviour to what ever large or lesser degree. I do think these organisations are different in nature to economic organisations on class lines.
It is not however or at least it shouldn't be emphasised that women should have to defend themselves(although anyone learning self defence is useful) the emphasis should be on teaching men not to rape people. Men need to challenge themselves, their behaviour and that of their friends and acquaintances, not leave it just up to women even if they must listen to us.
Although to be fair I am not sure we actually disagree. :]

Sorry, not trying to be a dick here, but can you please stop calling working class men privillaged, I work two shit jobs and have no money I am not fucking privillaged and there are lots of women far more privillaged than me who I would trade places with in a heartbeat.

I agree with your above post though, however maybe I am wrong but you seem to think a majority of men are ok with sexual violence,which seems pretty absurd as where I am from the worst things you can be in the eyes of most is a wife beater, a rapist and a peadophile.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Nov 8 2011 23:08
Marigold wrote:
Feminists occupy London

"We are feminists. We are against corporate greed. We are occupiers. Women and girls are subjected to major economical, social and political injustices in society and our oppression should be fundamental to the foundation of this movement's growth and progression.

We have noticed a lack of gender equality, lack of female representation and lack of women issues being discussed at Olsx, so we have decided to come together and propose ideas in a constructive manner and add our voice as feminists not only to this global movement against capitalist oppression, but also vital are our voices against patriarchal oppression - both of which two power structures are directly linked.

We would love you to influence the content of this page and tell us what you think feminism can and should bring to this movement.
This page, your voice and this movement is ours. Together, we must and will fight oppression in all its forms".

From feminists occupy london (facebook).

Reform capitalism to make it better for women!!!!!

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Nov 9 2011 00:32
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
sawa wrote:
Patriarchy isn't exactly analogous to capitalism and class relations though BJJ. Whilst I agree that women should lead the fight against patriarchy and we should be able to have our own separate organisations it is really a different form of oppression. Men should be challenging their own privilege and fighting all the manifestations of patriarchy along side us. The reason for separate organisations is essentially a reactive thing, it is the only way women feel comfortable enough sometimes, without being asked the same stupid questions, organisations being male dominated and having to put up with predatory behaviour to what ever large or lesser degree. I do think these organisations are different in nature to economic organisations on class lines.
It is not however or at least it shouldn't be emphasised that women should have to defend themselves(although anyone learning self defence is useful) the emphasis should be on teaching men not to rape people. Men need to challenge themselves, their behaviour and that of their friends and acquaintances, not leave it just up to women even if they must listen to us.
Although to be fair I am not sure we actually disagree. :]

Sorry, not trying to be a dick here, but can you please stop calling working class men privillaged, I work two shit jobs and have no money I am not fucking privillaged and there are lots of women far more privillaged than me who I would trade places with in a heartbeat.

I agree with your above post though, however maybe I am wrong but you seem to think a majority of men are ok with sexual violence,which seems pretty absurd as where I am from the worst things you can be in the eyes of most is a wife beater, a rapist and a peadophile.

By privilege I mean this, it doesn't mean ya life isn't shit just that it isn't shit in certain regards because you are gendered as male and you see male as the norm. I am white just because some things may be shit in my life even because I am female etc it doesn't mean that I don't have white privilege eg i am not going to get stoop and searched because of the colour of my skin. If ya wanna discuss stuff more start a new thread as i've already been told before not to start discussions on privilege. :]]

While most people hate the "stranger" rapist they may not be so clear when it comes to someone the woman knows. Frequent assertions are that women shouldn't drink so much, walk home, flirt with said assailant, wear revealing clothing, that the woman is partially to blame. Ideas that women lie about rape to ruin men's lives when this isn't true in all but a minuscule percentage of cases. See Amnesty study I'm sure there was a study taken saying a significant proportion of men surveyed would have non consensual sex if they could get away with it(sorry can't remember the details) With a 3% conviction rate for rape in this country this says something about the culture we live in and thus the attitudes of men.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 9 2011 00:01

How on earth is swapping 'this girl lied about being raped' anecdotes helpful or constructive to this thread, particularly given the fact that much of the conversation has centred around this kind of attitude.

Seriously, fuck you guys. I was really pleased with some of the stuff that has come out of recent gender threads but the past 48 hours has just made me want to grind my face in to a wall.