Whose Occupy?
by progressiveinstincts
Whose Occupy?
by Mimi Yahn, ©2012
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.”
This year’s International Women’s Day has been declared by Codepink to be the day of Women’s Call to Action (see statement below). As part of the Occupy Movement and the role that women play in the global economy as the ultimate disposable worker, there are actions planned around the country, including shutting down banks, actions targeting corporations, yarn-bombing, mass marches, rallies and demonstrations.
Let’s join our sisters across the globe, and join in spirit our foremothers who rose up to fight for a better world for us, their daughters: On March 8th, let’s begin.
**************
“At the forefront of these global movements are countless dignified women whose ‘Enough!’ resounds in different colors, in different languages, across the lands. They are spearheading these movements, and battling injustice head-on and without compromise, often at enormous risk. Those from above attempt to repress them; those from ‘within’ attempt to disregard and silence them. But they are insurmountable, and with their dignified struggles, transform our world each day.”—Movement for Justice in El Barrio
************************
International Women’s Day 2012: Call to Action
Women make up 51% of the world’s population but 70% of the world’s poor.
We perform 66% of the world’s work, produce 50% of the food, but earn 10% of the income and own less than 1% of the world’s property.
While our work remains unpaid, underpaid and undervalued, making us invisible to economic indicators and ineligible for the rewards reaped by the most “productive” members of society, we have become the prime targets of predatory bank policies and economic collapse. Women are 32% more likely than men to receive sub-prime mortgages and Latina and African-American women borrowers are most likely to receive sub-prime loans at every income level.
It’s time we started targeting banks. On March 8th, we call on people across the globe to fight back against the patriarchal economic system. Show the banks what a REALLY free market looks like. Shut down a bank. Yarn-bomb an ATM. Move your money. Force a CEO to take a walk in the shoes of those hardest hit by the economy.
This International Women’s Day, our work will be visible.
We are the 51%.
Expect us.
**********************************
For more information about IWD events:
http://codepink.salsalabs.com/o/424/t/9750/p/salsa/event/common/public/search.sjs?distributed_event_KEY=590
https://www.facebook.com/events/312376845479656/
[…] The first post is dedicated to, and a response to Mimi Yahn’s post here: https://progressiveinstincts.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/whose-occupy/ […]
Thank you for writing this. I responded here:
Hey Sister! I’ve just replied to your terrific blog. Thank you! I’m sharing it on my FB page too. Let’s start talking & uniting!
Peace, Love & Sisterhood, Mimi
We are all aware of the draconian laws being introduced and often passed in many GOP run states. Now this war on women has reached our Congress. We represent the majority in this Country and need to make our voices heard.
Please join our page and get involved!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/300397393356744/301069699956180/?notif_t=group_activity
I keep saying that I’d love to hear you read this, out LOUD with drums behind you. Everyone I say that to agrees with me. Maybe you could oblige us. 🙂
LOL! I’d love to! Maybe we can collaborate on a song version! I’ve just finished a poster for a women’s general strike on International Women’s Day. Think it’s possible?
This insightful, resourceful article should be required reading for Activism 101
Thank you, brother!
“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. ”
Wait a minute, am I reading this right? The OP is actually *defending* a group that wants to exclude some women (ie, transgendered women)? Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.
The overall theme of this is against marginalization. So why would a group underrepresented at occupy want to further marginalise another group? It would be like an african-american group excluding people who had a caucasian ancestor at some point, silly, right?
While that may represent 1st wave feminism it certainly does not of a majority of younger feminists. Google mwmf and trans to see more of the debate on that, but it is not about including everyone. If a group says it is for women it should be for, well, women.
Two points you missed: One that rather than ask to open a dialogue to discuss the issue, the reaction to demand that the entire women’s group be disbanded is a typical, patriarchal action against women. It’s dismissive, disrespectful & is rooted in deep disregard for the right of women to be part of the public sphere.
Second point: This is a far more complicated issue than anyone wants to admit and it’s one that needs some serious thought & discussion. The issue of being a female is that we are marginalized from the moment we’re born & turned into 2nd class citizens for the rest of our lives. Those who identify as women later in life have a different experience and, in fact, may have learned first the privilege of being male. The only way I can graphically describe this to you is that if someone who was born & raised as a white person decides later on to change their race to black through medical & chemical methods, does that mean the person has lived through and truly understands racism? How would the black community react to a formerly white person now claiming solidarity & shared experience with this person? This is not the same as an African-American group excluding people with Caucasian ancestry (quite the opposite, in fact). There are a lot of ways that people are marginalized, but being marginalized as a female is not the same as the marginalization that is experienced by people who are lesbian, gay, transgender, etc. (Trust me, I know this first-hand: I’ve been physically assaulted for being female & barely escaped with my life for being lesbian/bi.)
I also know that at least several female-identified trans folks (including sex workers) were sexually harassed & molested at OWS in NY, so ignoring the reality of their lives — as people who present as women — is extremely crucial to this discussion. At the same time, there is a separate and deeply entrenched institutionalization of misogyny that molds & restricts the lives of every single person who is born & raised as female, as well as a deeply entrenched privilege afforded to every person born & raised as a male, so to see this critical issue devalued & pushed aside to make way for “bigger” issues is something I cannot remain silent about. We are, once again, being expected to put our lives and our oppression on the back burner; once again, we are less important, and forced into having to explain & justify who we are. We are women; we should be proud of that.
The Occupy Movement should never be about making any oppression more important or more worthy of eliminating than any other oppression nor should it back away from speaking truth to privilege.
I also have to say that I’m rather tired of women distancing ourselves from each other with the divisive labels of “first-wave” feminists, “new wave” feminists, etc. No other oppressed group does this. Either we’re fighting for the rights of women as feminists together or we’re not feminists and not fighting for the rights of women. Because of these divisions and because the culture of this country is to divide the generations by teaching the young to dismiss and “not trust” anyone over 30 & teaching the older generation to be afraid of the young, there is NO progressive tradition or wisdom passed on from generation to generation as there is in other countries. This is why millions turn out to protest oppression elsewhere, while here we’re lucky to get a few hundred out in the streets. What the younger feminists see as a different approach, we older feminists see as what we went through too until we finally learned to stop dismissing ourselves and our rights, and finally learned how to become allies to each other and how to begin building a community based on cooperation, co-governing & inclusion. But of course since we’re women & since we’re old, what we’ve learned is dismissed along with our presence & our ability to become the respected elders who should be helping to lead this movement with the wisdom, experience and deep knowledge that we hold. We’re not the enemy.
Yes, I realized after I read it that it was one of my typical early morning posts that I should have thought about a bit more.
I do agree dialogue is important. No disagreement there!
Different experiences … any two people, no matter how alike, will have different experiences. While comparing oppressions is not very useful it is hard to descibe what the reaction is like to ‘leave the boys club’ or what childhoods for trans people that risked exposing who they were early on in their life is like.
Sorry if saying 1st/2nd/3rd wave offends. I am just respecting the terms those subgroups have adopted for themselves.
Hmm… somehow my reply seems to have dissapeared (unless I am looking at the wrong post or something). It was much longer but since the OP changed the point of it I am guessing that is why.
“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.”
Those exact words have been used to marginalize the transgendered community by certain feminists so I am guessing they were not suggested by accident. Kudos to the potential caucus for standing their ground on refusing to add that to the document. In essence it would have been perpetuating a typically male hierarchical structure by marginalizing another community in the hopes of not to be excluded.
Hopefully the person who tried to make that ammendment eventually realized they were doing more harm than good. Starting with exclusion is not the way to go.
So now it appears again … an approval process maybe?
Just posted the reply. I’m not online as frequently as some; just logged on a short while ago.
I hope I didn’t misread/misunderstand your first post. I’m very glad you brought this up — as I mentioned, this is a complicated issue that is not being addressed except in terms of what is currently “politically correct” and in a way that places women on the defensive. I welcome more discussion of this.
(Note to those not used to treating women with respect: verbal assaults, hate speech, etc. won’t get posted — y’all have the whole rest of the web for that; this is one place where women will be safe from assault.)
Yes, it can be tricky when dealing with anything bordering on PC. In the case above though I think the person chose their words deliberately as that is a phrase (as well as ‘women born women’) used by the organizers of the MWMF. Insisting on it is a way to cause a tension that did not need to exist.
I hope my first post did not come across too badly … often I look at things I write that early and go ‘WHAT was I thinking?’ What is a frustrating fact though is the perpetuation of a hierarchy. If the goal is to reject the patriarchy why embrace its concepts?
Fortunately that is being realized as time goes on. For example, there are a higher percentage of 3rd wave feminists than 1st wavers who do not think twice about including all women. Regardless of race, transgender status, age, socioeconomic standing or any other factor.
LOL — I think I did misread your earlier post! Yes, undoing the perpetuation of patriarchal/hierarchal attitudes is the tricky part. What else/how else have we learned? I don’t really agree with the differences between the different waves — working class feminists, feminists of different races other than white, etc. have always been inclusive in practice & theoretical frameworks, across centuries and across the globe. None of this is really all that new, even the discussions of heterosexism. It is true that percentage-wise, there are far more younger feminists who don’t think twice about including all women, I continue to experience marginalization arising from elitism based on class & age from feminist women of all ages, including young women. And I continue to see women from all feminist waves too often more concerned with what the men will think than with being allies to their sisters. I really think this the root of it is what we’re taught in a society that devalues females. We internalize it in so many ways whether we realize it or not; and it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to root it out and replace it with inclusive, feminist ways of being & interacting with others, especially other women — that’s why what we older feminists have learned is so crucial to the strength and continuity of this movement! Without us, every generation starts all over again.
You are so right about those who create tension where it need not be — just another way of putting women on the defensive and undermining our strength & unity. It’s effective method of attack and thank goodness for women like you who recognize it immediately & call the attacker on it.
Experience is crucial, yes! It is why, in any population segment, later generations get things better than earlier ones. Sure they will make some mistakes too, anyone does that when they are young as some things are part of the group experience and others part of the individual experience.
Thank you for your post. If this and what I am seeing on the OccupyDC list are any indication I think Occupy is on the cusp of taking a more in-depth look at these issues.
I have a feeling things are going to start getting interesting all over soon. Before a lot of what the previous generation went through was directly applicable to the next, leading to a mentor/newbie or big/little sibling arrangement. Now though what two generations in a row are doing could be wildly divergent on the individual level. Yet, paradoxically on a group level they can draw together.
I can see this in the transgendered community. My big sister learned things from her big sister and then taught those lessons to me. Meanwhile I are often on a completely different path (but not always) with the gen Yers I set out helping. I say set out because they teach me as much as I teach them.
Or maybe those last two paragraphs were all just a bunch of random theory and I am only a big kid. 🙂
Let’s keep up this discussion! How do we eliminate the artificial divisions of generations? I always laugh about all the lovely sayings about wise, elder women, only nobody actually takes any of it seriously! And you’re absolutely right: I’ve been delighted at how much the older generation does learn from the younger generation, but the differences often look more to me like the enculturation of a meaner, more misogynist society than when I grew up. Much more pressure for young women to behave like men in order to be “accepted” as equals, which of course, doesn’t give women equality at all: it only entrenches the disrespect towards women even further. But I have hope we’re slowly pulling out of it & seeing each other as allies at last!
I would say that both sides need to learn that they have something of worth to learn from the other. It may not be in the same topic, but one is no less valuable than the other. Whereas in the past you would mostly be talking about one topic there was always someone who knew more (typically the person with more experience).
I find myself having to do a mental ‘oh yeah’ when a gen Yer reminds me I am 20 years older than them. When you start talking about two topics (whether they are related or not) both learn from each other so instead of a mentoring paradigm you have friends.
There are two ways that people can learn from each other. One is on two completely different topics. The other is different ways of looking at the same topic.
“There are two ways that people can learn from each other. One is on two completely different topics. The other is different ways of looking at the same topic.”
Beautifully said! And so true about the difference between a mentoring paradigm and being friends. Friends learn from each other and on a more equal level. At the same time, mentoring is crucial for the growth of human endeavors; otherwise, the knowledge and growth dies off with each generation. We can either cultivate short-term annuals that require replanting every year or long-term perennials that reach greater heights and strengthen their roots every year.
Thank you so much for joining this discussion!
Exactly, the information is still passed on whether the structure is mentoring or friendship but with friendship both are in the role of teacher and student at the same time. It is a balanced dynamic rather than a hierarchical one.
You’re right — it is a more beautiful & productive relationship! Thank you for your wisdom!
[…] more at Progressiveinstincts This entry was posted in Essays, The 99% and tagged Economics, Income Inequality, Protesting, […]
When we spent time in Liberty Park in October my husband, a white, bearded 60+ guy, was interviewed over and over and over by the mainstream and alternative media. I reminded him of “step up, step back”. He agreed sheepishly but the next time I looked, there he was in front of another mike.
On to the NH primary and our Occupy rally outside one of the debates. Again a microphone held up to my husband. I suggested to the reporter from an alternative outlet through clenched teeth that he of all people should be interviewing women and people of color. I even pointed out several not ten feet away. (So not my job!) He looked confused, chagrined and agreed with me. And stumbled off in the opposite direction…
(I know I could have spoken but every time I face a mike I say something like “I think the Occupy movement is really cool.” Obviously, my skills lie elsewhere.)
Dianne
Maine
So glad you kept speaking up! Most of them don’t even realize what they’re doing; even women reporters do it. As Cornel West said, they’re too “accustomed to the injustice” to recognize it as anything out of the ordinary. I did the same thing as you at Liberty Park — kept asking reporters why they only interviewed men. At one point, I got so pissed I completely disrupted an interview in progress by standing behind the reporter while loudly and rudely exclaiming “How come you people only interview men? What’s up with that!?!” I think I might’ve also said WTF.
Hey, don’t think your skills lie elsewhere. Just like your husband needs to unlearn being taught to take over, you just need to unlearn being taught to say little or nothing. Start practicing what you really want to say. You obviously have the ability to step forward with a tremendous amount of courage (and your husband needs to start learning how to be an ally!) — just combine that with practicing what you know needs to be said and you’ll be an extraordinary & powerful spokesperson! You’re the kind of women we need to move forward! And definitely watch this video for incredible inspiration:
Happy International Women’s Day, Sister!
Argh! Even my post had his name on it!! Ignore that!
LOL & OMG! I wondered about that. Guess it’s time to set up an account of your own.
[…] good resources come from Sady Doyle, Mimi Yahn, and AmberAntGad on […]
[…] Whose Occupy? by progressiveinstincts […]
[…] http://www.amorusophotography.com/ https://progressiveinstincts.wordpress.com/ https://progressiveinstincts.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/whose-occupy/ http://www.codepink.org/section.php?id=464 […]
[…] support roles, but are their issues valued? Are the disabled anything more than mascots? In “Whose Occupy? ”, Mimi Yahn had this to […]
[…] support roles, but are their issues valued? Are the disabled anything more than mascots? In “Whose Occupy? ”, Mimi Yahn had this to […]