Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

Everyone has the Right to Occupy Space, Safely

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 4:07 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

safer space

For as long as public space has existed, women and LGBTQ people have been trying to “occupy” it safely -- with distressingly little success. Harassing comments, groping, flashing and assault are a daily, global reality for women and LGBTQ individuals. Too often, these injustices are met with little or no response, regarded simply as “the price you pay” for being female, trans, or gay in public. As supporters of the Occupy movement, we believe that a world where everyone has the right to occupy public space safely is not only possible - it is essential to building a strong and lasting movement.

It’s no secret that the Wall Street 1% who wrecked our economy are disproportionately straight and male, despite countless studies showing the less organizations look like the 99%, the less effective they are. As we quicken the pace of social change, we must be careful not to replicate Wall Street’s mistakes. The message is clear: equality means impact.

But for women and LGBTQ people to participate equally in the Occupy movement, we must be safe in occupied spaces. We know that harassment and assault happens everywhere --- and that the Occupy movement is no more immune to it than our nation’s parks and parking lots --- but we also know that a movement where women and LGBTQ individuals are not safe is not a movement that serves the interests of the 99%.

In solidarity with those who are already working on the ground to make safer spaces, we call on all General Assemblies of the Occupy movement to adopt anti-harassment and anti-assault as core principles of solidarity. To realize these principles within the movement, we call on General Assemblies in every city to empower women and LGBTQ occupiers with the time, space, and resources necessary to ensure that every occupied space is a safe space.

Co-signed by:

The Occupied Wall Street Journal
Bitch media
DC Rape Crisis Center
Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault
National Organization for Men Against Sexism
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
The Feminist Wire
Barrier Free Living
Crisis Intervention Services, Oskaloosa, IA
Women, Action & the Media
Occupy Patriarchy
Marriage Equality NY
Safe Slope
Joy of Resistance: Multicultural Feminist Radio @ WBAI
Feminist Peace Network
Women In Media & News
Talkin' Reckless
The Organization for a Free Society
Women's Media Center
SisterSong NYC
Veterans News Now
Holla Back DC
Occupy Gloucester
Occupy Vermont
National Organization of Asian Pacific Islanders Ending Sexual Violence
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA)
Spinifex Press, Australia
Radical Feminists
Stop Street Harassment
Marlboro College Women's Resource Center
Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
Women Occupy
Bitch Flicks
Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
Ms. Magazine
Philadelphia NOW
Students Active for Ending Rape
Brooke Elise Axtell, founder of SHE: Survivor Healing and Empowerment
Occupy Los Angeles, Queer Affinity Group
Anti-State STL
AIDS Action, Baltimore
Tampa Anarchist Collective
World Can't Wait
Occupy Houston Occupy Los Angeles
Old Lesbians Organizing for Change

If your organization supports this call for safer spaces, please email or to be added to the list of co-signers. If you know other groups that have not yet joined this call to action, please contact them and ask them to stand with us! Let's work together to make a safer world for everyone!



Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The more I see of the real and hard problems OW confronts the more I admire those who stay the course and try to solve the problems inherent in such an undertaking.

[-] 6 points by PetadeAztlan (113) from Sacramento, CA 12 years ago

It is the responsibility of all of us as humane beings ~meaning having care, concern and compassion for all living beings ~to be able to give supporters safety from any harm when participating in any or our activities. Especially it is the responsibility for anyone in any kind of leadership position. We must heal ourselves in the process of healing society. Venceremos! @Peta_de_Aztlan

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] -1 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

Lollers, "Especially it is the responsibility for anyone in any kind of leadership position." OWS has no leaders, it's like a chicken running around after its head has been chopped off! Remember now, more diversity is needed! More leaderless leaders please, whatever that means!

[-] 1 points by PetadeAztlan (113) from Sacramento, CA 12 years ago

Leaders or coordinators or whatever label you wish to use. There is still a need for collective guidance and consensus building. We all have the same basic survival needs and basic humane rights. Seek unity, not having to get the last word. @Peta_de_Aztlan

[-] 1 points by grimwomyn (35) from New York, NY 12 years ago

We are a moment of leaders.

[-] 5 points by Jester (30) 12 years ago

I think I wish this posting was rewritten in a less schismatic voice, it reads intellectually dishonest to me. Harassment and assault are always intolerable within or without the parks. They are also always unlawful. Safety for all is democratic and in keeping with the movement tenets. Put another way; I, a straight white male, have been assaulted by both "female bodied persons" and LGBTQ. I have a right to my personal safety as does everyone, regardless of the ruling elite, the movement, or whose interests it serves. Emphasize collective safety, deemphasize the feminist politicking IMO. Perhaps this is more a political rebuttal than I first imagined. The movement has been attacked by those wishing to see it fail and the stigma of rape from within is also more fodder for critiques. I don't know... I just wish it was rewritten. I also think you should reconsider using a term other than occupy. "Occupy safely?" Illusion. This will require risk and courage.

[-] 3 points by Archaevist (15) 12 years ago

I agree 100% jester. I personally find hard line feminists to be a turn off. What's the one quality of the ruling elite that matters? They have more money than us. We, as white males, shouldn't be demonized; The general theme and tone of this post is a dangerous trend.

[-] 0 points by QuietDay (59) 12 years ago

It's not a coincidence that the ruling elite consists mostly of white males.

[-] 2 points by Archaevist (15) 12 years ago

I mean, i guess that's technically accurate. However, the reason that things like Bolshevism and Nazism went TOO FAR was because they hated on SPECIFIC GROUPS OF PEOPLE rather than the PEOPLE CAUSING THE PROBLEM.

Not all Wall street people are causing these problems. Not All Congressmen are in the pockets of the banks. Not all of the White Males are "the Elites." Oftentimes we have just as much problem finding jobs, since companies aren't incentivized to hire us and would rather fill the space with a disabled black woman. Don't Demonize groups. Don't demonize at all, in fact.

[-] 5 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 12 years ago

Reaching out to other groups and obtaining widespread endorsements is one of the most powerful ways of building the movement. It's especially moving that OWS openly celebrates and champions LGBTQ persons, who are some of the most oppressed and still subject to physical violence and even murder in our society. This support is especially important for LGBTQ youth, who frequently suffer from merciless teasing in school and social media, which in some tragic cases has led to suicide.

I don't think it's a stretch to state that for LBGTQ kids, seeing the rising power of a movement that's led in large part by vibrant young adults they can identify with will inspire hope and may in fact save lives in an age-group who are already at high risk for suicide.

Thanks again for everything you're doing.

[-] 4 points by annoybot (38) 12 years ago

I admire the intent behind the gesture but sometimes I'm afraid the movement will get bogged down in identity politics like the protest movements in the 90s did.

[-] 3 points by derek (302) 12 years ago

How about calling for a strict commitment to nonviolence by everyone associating themselves with OWS? See: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html

Condoning violence against others as a means of social change and then seeing violence against women or anyone who is "different" seem very much connected. Violence is a certain way of being that strikes out at difference rather than seeking to understand it and engage it.

As it is right now, on this site's main page, it just talks about "encouraging" non-violence, not insisting on non-violence. What message does that send to the world and within OWS camps? GAs should vote on changing that statement to a solid commitment by all who want to claim connection to OWS.

As Domhoff says: "In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals."

OWS needs to be the change it wants to see in the world.

[-] 3 points by Thinkdeer (250) 12 years ago

good idea, impossible to do. Anyone can label themselves part of the group and behave in any way they choose. That is true whether you are a shuffle board club or a widespread organization for change. The difference is that if you are trying to make change in the world, people who don't want to see that change will get involved and try to make you look bad. They will troll on your websites, talk shit to their friends, and may even show up to 'start trouble' at events. You can do your best to try to curtail it, but with out using the same force you wish to end to stop them, they will always be there.

know also the playing field has changed, where once the media was more open and democratic, it is now ever increasingly a part of the machine. This means that any small amounts of negative behavior will be blown up out of proportion. Not just because some may want to discredit a given movement, but also because train wrecks sell.

For example, did you know that a town in palistine successfully had a long term peaceful counter protest to the israeli army and eventually got them to back down? Probably not, most of the world never heard about it. But I bet sure as fuck you have heard of stones being thrown at soldiers, armies shooting missiles, suicide bombings, schools being blown up, civilians shot.

You see it is no longer enough for US TO BE THE CHANGE, it is up to everyone to ATTEND to the change. No matter what scum or genuinely good person run the media feeds, they are still capitalists, this means it is all about the dollar dollar bills y'all. You want us to BE the change, demand that your media feeds let you the customer SEE the change.

Peace always.

[-] 2 points by aaronparr (597) 12 years ago

I agree. OWS should be about Non-violence at all levels. Dividing ourselves up as subgroups with special issues is absurd and self-defeating. While we do need to recognize that sexual assault is more of a problem for women than men and that LGBT are often targets as well, protecting women and LGBT is not going to move us forward nor will it solve the problem.

Non-violence should absolutely be a requirement of everyone in the camps, and spread wider as a goal for those participating in public actions. Train all occupiers and protesters in non-violence, conflict resolution, and raise awareness of the special problems of sexual assault (since it typically happens in private unless a whole platoon of soldiers or gang is involved).

[-] 3 points by knigitz (13) 12 years ago

Previous elections nationwide have been met with weak turnouts for years. With almost half of the voting-age population not even voting as such was the turnout in the 2008 presidential election.

I challenge you, the 99%, to Occupy Voting Booths.

If your goal is "returning the US back into the hands of its individual citizens", make sure the people that the 99% is voting into office isn't against those things. Otherwise, things get kind of counter-productive.

Occupy Voting Booths! Get organized and get the right people into office.

Please see mytimetovote.com for a breakdown of important election dates and other important information.

If you want to take back our country, take back our government!

[-] 3 points by airplaneradio (50) 12 years ago

I am sick of the liberals speaking for me and talking about me like I'm a lost clueless dog who need an owner. Any of the 'oppressed' women/gay/trans/color/whatever you are should be offended by this madness. I'm glad there are people on here speaking up about the hypocritical 'helping hand' crap this has. I am both black and gay and I tired of being spoken about like I'm some victim who can't help himself and need 'white liberals' (this is not a comment of racism, but I'm merely throwing the same charge you do on white heteros essentially) to speak for me and build spaces. These are the people Malcolm X warned us about.

[-] 1 points by raines (699) 12 years ago

The dems/ libs/progressives need you to be a victim so that they can be your savior. The more you depend them the more control they have over you.

[-] -1 points by sgcase (8) from Carson City, NV 12 years ago

No one is saying you can't take care of yourself. No one is calling you a victim. This is a safe place for those who want to focus on the movement and not their own personal safety. I assume all women and lgbtq people are not "forced" to occupy this safe space.

[-] 1 points by watson21 (5) 12 years ago

Everyone, everywhere need to "focus on their own personal safety" recardless of what "movement" you are playing with.

[-] 2 points by MoriahConqueringWind (2) from San Francisco, CA 12 years ago

Well this shit even happens in Occupy camps. I can't begin to count all the times I've been greeted by complete strangers who hold no personal (i.e. sexual or romantic) attraction for ME whatsoever, with "Hey Baby" or "Hey Gorgeous" or some other thing that lets me know right away I don't want to be in conversation with them. And then when I smile and say hello, but continue walking toward wherever I was headed, I have to listen to five full minutes of abuse being hollered at my back because I didn't fall over and melt into a puddle of goo at the prospect of being fed a "pick up line" by some toothless guy in rags who clearly hasn't washed in two weeks. I'm fucking sick of it. I'm not a bitch or a prude -- I enjoy flirting and sexual banter as much as the next girl -- key point, with people I know and am comfortable with (and attracted to myself) -- it's the axiomatic assumption that because I'm female I somehow "owe" it to males to put up with this insulting bullshit (which tacitly assumes my IQ to be at least 100 points lower than it actually is, on top of it all) that really pisses me off.

To top it all off, I'm not some cute skinny college student. I'm a grown woman in my 40s, so above everything else it's the implied insult to my intelligence and dignity as a human being. The only one I want treating me like a "sex object" is the one I decide to share my bed with -- and it sure as hell isn't going to be someone who assumes my inability to stop being female in public somehow means I "owe" them something.

[-] 2 points by justsayin (3) 12 years ago

The appearance of this statement tells me that there are political factions jockeying within the movement. Making distinctions of gender and sexual orientation presupposes a hierarchy, and as Julia Kristeva tells us, politics of difference is totalitarian politics. This was the tragic blind spot of the feminist movement in the 1980's, and has resurfaced here. This is the mistake that you should not replicate.

The most radical, the most nonhierarchical and most inclusive position to take against sexual violence is that it is absolutely intolerable no matter what the gender, sexual orientation, race of the perpetrator (or the victim) may be.

I also note the call for organizations, rather than individuals, to cosign this statement. This amplifies the political and institutional aims of this statement, and the chilling, exclusionary effect it aspires to.

What I see here is an opportunist and proto-totalitarian political response to what is essentially a social problem (dealing with violent sociopaths.)

This is systemic. After sociopathy, political opportunism is problem number two for the movement. Money and power is accruing, transparency has been jettisoned, now political factions are moving in for the grab. It seems like Wall Street is occupying the movement, not the other way around.

To the opportunists: the whole world is watching you, too, you know. Shouldn't you act towards others as you demand they act towards you?

[-] 2 points by crowseye (3) 12 years ago

It warms my heart that men who have been verbally and physically abused by women and people in the LBGT communities are now speaking out. Even more to hear other white men point out that we are all equal and how concepts such as sexism and "difference" are counter productive, divisive and even hurtful. As a member of the 1% I have felt this kind of hurtful and abusive discrimination directed at those of us who, through our hard work and long hours have struggled to amass fortunes. Have any of you really thought about how hurtful and counter productive it is for some "poor person" to call me greedy, just because I own a few large houses and possess a few dozen cars? You think it's only the rich hurting the poor? Why, rich people get hurt by poor people too. I have friend who got their Lamburgini broken into only two weeks ago. By a poor person, no less. So, thank you for those straight, white men (like myself) who have rightly pointed out the discrimination they've experienced from women, gays, transgendered. Lets expand this notion of equal treatment to those of us who, through no fault of our own, are simply rich (some of my best friends were born rich. Is that their fault too?). Lets end this hateful, discriminatory rhetoric and abuse. Take down those pro-99% safe places you Occupiers have set up and stop your hurtful, descriminatory anti-1% rhetoric. Your rhetoric is divisive. We are all the same aren't we? We are all free (to make money), equal (in an abstract, theoretical kind of way) and happy (I'm sure I've seen homeless people smiling).

[-] 1 points by Oldcrone (5) from Missoula, Mt 12 years ago

I love good irony...

[-] 2 points by foundingbaby (15) 12 years ago

Supply women with cans of pink spraypaint. If harrased she can simply spray his clothes. Some guy with a pink spray mark on his jacket/coat is quickly going to leave.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

And they would be able to be identified easier to know they were the attacker.

[-] 2 points by yarichin (269) 12 years ago

I tweeted this to the mayor. He will probably not read it. The mayors website does not even mention OWS. @NYCMayorsOffice Police in different uniforms should patrol inside the OWS protests and protect them. They shouldn't take sides.

[-] 1 points by watson21 (5) 12 years ago

Is OWS going to supply those uniforms and pay for the private security?

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 12 years ago

OWS is made up of tax payers and they have a right under the 14th amendment to equal protection under the law. They are not being protected by any segment of the NYPD. They are paying for the uniforms when they buy a product like a pizza and that pizza is taxed. Many of them are residents of the city and pay property taxes there. Neutral police not involved in quelling the protest need to be assigned inside the crowd and wear something to distinguish them from the other police. OWS is a large diverse group an occasional fight or theft will happen. the presence of neutral police in the crowd could prevent some of it.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

Hi everyone. I apologize for being off-topic, but I just want to say that I have written an article on how the trasition phase from today´s society to freedom and democracy should be handled. Please look for it in a few days. In the mean time please read my submissions so far: The ”Free Ride” Society, Replace Capitalism with Democracy, Strategies and Expectations, The Society We Should Strive For

Thanks Greetings and solidarity sff

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 12 years ago

For Those Who Think This Is Discriminatory Against Straight White Males:

When a straight male is assaulted, the question is usually 'Well, did you kick his ass?' and not:

Why were you there?

How well did you know this person?

What were you wearing?

What were you doing out at this hour?

Have you been drinking?

What did you to do lead this person to believe this assault would be welcomed?

It's just a fact of our society that the authorities in charge of enforcing the rules tend to attempt to justify the conduct of the predator in assaults against women and GLBT people. It is my understanding that these spaces are created to allow for the most commonly, frequently victimized segments of society to feel that they can have a voice in the protest without giving up their personal safety in a (still) primarily white, primarily male gathering.

If you look at the numbers of the people in these protests, you'll find that the same thing that is true on the streets is true in the occupied spaces - women and GLBT people have to consider every decision against the backdrop of 'Will I be hurt? Should I be scared? If I get attacked, where can I go and who will believe me?'. I understand that white men are not completely immune to sexual assault, but the simple fact is that their lives aren't lived under the societal expectation that they are victims waiting to happen, and when they finally do get assaulted, they should have done something more to prevent it.

A movement of the 99% needs to include the traditionally victimized segments of society. Saying that you can have a voice in the protest if you feel comfortable in a public park surrounded by strangers that may or may not want to hurt you is like saying your vote will only be counted if you pay a $5000 filing fee. It's not the type of elitism and discrimination you're used to, but your inability to recognize it doesn't change what it is. These spaces provide an area within the protest for women and GLBT folks to go and know that inside that space, they have the right to feel how your average white male feels every single day... safe.

[-] 7 points by hmmm (52) 12 years ago

Just a note: I (white male) was assaulted once. I was asked: Did you owe him money? Did he have a reason for assaulting you? What were you doing on the street at night? Have you been drinking?

The answers were no, no, going home from work, no. The cops sort of lost interest after that.

Just saying, let's not play "i have it worse". Violence against anyone is abhorrent.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I agree, but I'd bet that women get assaulted at a much higher rate than men do. I'm not saying women are more deserving because of this, but the issue for women is worse.

[-] 2 points by TheIronFistOfDeath (6) 12 years ago

You would be incorrect in that assumption. Men are assaulted at much higher rates than women, and if NCR data included prison rape, men would also be sexually assaulted at much higher rates. The problem is that women fear assault more than men because it is so commonplace for males to be assaulted we've come to accept it as a possibility and live with it.

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

I wish I could 'like' your comment twice, IronFist.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

Including, or even just considering rape camp (prison) stats is pretty humane. Not something one hears very often. Keep typing!

Oh, and don't forget the 'piracy' bill in congress right this minute will made felons of our children! Now, I don't have any kids but I do NOT want my country locking up ANY kids for profit.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I don't think it's fair to include prison data. Prison is a whole different circumstance than living in society among everyone (not saying I condone it there, either.... but let's face it, prison is much different than areas outside of prison). And women who are in women's prisons get sexually assaulted, too.

[-] 0 points by hugpug (1) from Warren, IN 12 years ago

According to the U.S. Department of Justice 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey, 9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.

It's just amazing what some people write on here. And who are those men assaulted by that so bravely face assault in their everyday lives, men or women?

[-] 2 points by hmmm (52) 12 years ago

Just a note: Mr (or Mrs) Iron Fist was talking about assault, not sexual assault. They even conceded that sexual assault numbers (not including prison) are much heavier on the female side.

Some people do write a lot of garbage on here, but please check that you've read something properly before rebutting it.


[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"skewed definition of sexual assault we currently use in this society"

Can you give examples of what you're talking about? Perhaps you are saying that it's not sexual assault against women if she is in a crowd where she's the only woman. Or if she dressed provocatively, then she's asking for it.

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

No, I'm not.

I'm talking about if a girl pokes holes in a condom and gets herself pregnant without the father's consent - forcing him to share his fertility with her against his will: that's sexual assault. If the girl repeatedly demands sex after you've told her no...so she starts taking off her clothes and fondling you and bla bla bla while you're quite seriously saying 'no, stop touching me' to her face (one thing I've faced). That's sexual assault too.

You do know the definition of chauvinism, right?

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

" if a girl pokes holes in a condom and gets herself pregnant without the father's consent - forcing him to share his fertility with her against his will: that's sexual assault"

And how often does that happen? I agree that it's wrong, but I highly doubt a ton of women are doing that.

"If the girl repeatedly demands sex after you've told her no...so she starts taking off her clothes and fondling you and bla bla bla while you're quite seriously saying 'no' to her face (one thing I've faced). That's sexual assault too."

I agree that that is sexual assault, but that happens BOTH WAYS. Saying it happens more to men is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT. I can tell you shit about men that pisses me off.... things that men expect and feel is their right just because they are males, because most are fucking selfish when it comes to sex.

The fact that those things may have happened to you doesn't mean men are sexually assaulted at a higher rate. Men are focused on sex WAY MORE than women are, and they make bullshit excuses for their actions when they try to dominate a woman sexually. They feel it's their natural born right and that's "how men are programmed".... complete fucking bullshit.

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

Unfortunately, I can't reply to the following message directly due to limitations, so I'll do so here: (from http://occupywallst.org/article/everyone-has-right-occupy-space-safely/#comment-334447 )

"Did I say I didn't care? I said I bet it doesn't happen that often. That doesn't mean I don't care. I'd bet you that men ripping off condoms during sex.... not to get a girl pregnant but simply because they don't like how condoms feel and think they have a right to do so.... happens WAY MORE than girls poking holes in condoms. Most men are completely selfish when it comes to sex, as I've already stated.

Maybe you don't give a shit about what happens to women when men think they have a right to do whatever they want."

Actually, I think the things that happen to women in cases like that are terrible. They shouldn't happen to anyone. Condoms do suck, but they're a necessary evil in this world of STD's. If the agreement is to use one, you should only stop using one if another agreement is reached. You are supposing a lot about my positions.

And you made it pretty clear that you are unsympathetic, when you instantly jumped to attacking me earlier. I believe you said, "Can you give examples of what you're talking about? Perhaps you are saying that it's not sexual assault against women if she is in a crowd where she's the only woman. Or if she dressed provocatively, then she's asking for it."

You are also making generalizations about an entire gender - whereas I am taking the position that both genders are just as cruel to each other in different ways, and that women get away with it more often. The funny thing is that my position is not sexist, because I am blaming society (which is comprised of everybody) whereas you are blaming men.

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

Actually, it happens enough that I know an individual who was conceived that way - and, as a teenager, my mother took it upon herself to warn me about the girls in her high school who used to do it 'when she was my age'. None of these perpetrators ever got in any trouble. The mother of the friend of mine even received child support payments.

Furthermore, I didn't say it happened to men more often than women. I said it happens just as often. What I will say is that, when it happens, people usually don't care. You are only proving my point.

And no, the fact that I've experienced these things does not mean it happens at a higher rate. What it does mean is that it happens. The fact that nobody cares about these things, and many of the statistics are inaccessible, combined mean that we cannot be certain that it happens any less. You would have me believe that it's not a problem. I am here to tell you: females are just as cruel and messed up as males. Our penises do not make us evil.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Did I say I didn't care? I said I bet it doesn't happen that often. That doesn't mean I don't care. I'd bet you that men ripping off condoms during sex.... not to get a girl pregnant but simply because they don't like how condoms feel and think they have a right to do so.... happens WAY MORE than girls poking holes in condoms. Most men are completely selfish when it comes to sex, as I've already stated.

Maybe you don't give a shit about what happens to women when men think they have a right to do whatever they want.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Dear SwissMiss, dear dear dear.

Let's not let this whole thing turn into an orgy right here in front of everyone. We'll just met at the house of _ _ at 5:00 pm today.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

In my opinion, the posts below belong to some people that have either had a way too much experience or none at all.

I really don't want to read any more about your personal sexual lives.

See you all later - actually, I hope I don't see you all later.

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

What did you expect, exactly, in a comments thread for this topic? "Yay happy-safe-tent!"?

[-] 0 points by QuietDay (59) 12 years ago

Men are victims of physical violence more often than women. Women are victims of sexual violence more often than men. The common denominator is that it's most often men who commit both types of violence. Clearly, we have a significant problem with male violence that needs to be addressed.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

I was threatened with arrest by the LAPD if I pressed charges against my Hispanic assailant.

[-] 2 points by hmmm (52) 12 years ago

I was pulled into an alley by someone, so i swung around blindly with my fist, then was hit back.

Cops said that i threw the first punch, and it wouldn't be considered appropriate force (for being dragged into a dark place at night?!), and i'd probably face assault charges if i wanted to press charges myself.

But you know, men brawl all the time right? Boys will be boys? (sarcasm)

By the way: ladies and LGBT folks, please don't feel like we're trying to undermine your position. I think the point is that some of us out here understand what facing violence is like, more than you think we do. It's a good thing.

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

I think the point is more along the lines of: if you care this much about one kind of assault, you are a hypocrite if you don't care about the other kinds.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

Wow, well typed! Excellent point that I didn't even put together.

These types of "hiding statistics" contribute greatly to today's mistrust of police in general and the offending precinct. And once one starts down the path of mistrust you start to read and see more and more bs.

Yea, it's like the volume has been turned up to 11 for very little reason. The whole cop/citizen relationship is over the top. Too many steroid-ed cops shooting and home invading for what? Pot is no excuse anymore. Stop cop home invasions, stop cop shootings of the innocents.

Stop the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on people. Just turn down the volume already, this is America!!!

If human life is worth less than your safety then don't become a cop.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 12 years ago

This reminds me of some practices I mentioned at http://occupywallst.org/article/stop-frisk-has-got-go-solidarity-occupyharlem/#comment-207420 . We need to ensure that police are evaluated fairly so that they will not be coerced into such things.

Though to be fair to the police, in this case, if it's your word against his about what happened, I see how it would be very hard to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he started the fight.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 12 years ago

This sounds all too interesting - have you posted the details of this somewhere?

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

I haven't, just because I was so stunned and angry and disappointed and frankly scared. My family knows of course but this was the first I've typed about it. I have a disability as well so I tend to shy away from conflict if I can. Thanks for asking. Peace :)

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

We all tend to wear (names on our shirts), sometimes for reason and sometimes for no reason.

Would you build me a safe place if I came to OWS with "CHRISTIAN" printed on my arms, and scripture or calls to repent, or other things that might be offensive to some of you, printed all over my shirt? How about if I am reading aloud from the Bible or preaching from the corner??

This would, in my case, be a very threatening environment to be in.

[-] 3 points by TheIronFistOfDeath (6) 12 years ago

If you think that every straight white male feels safe every day simply because they are a straight white male, you are obviously not a straight white male and have been completely deluded with insane paranoid theory from special interest groups. I challenge you to see clearer and think more independently.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Hear, hear!!!


[-] 0 points by reallycold (34) 12 years ago

It's just Affirmative Action what you are saying. Special treatment for your group. You are represented there. But you want special treatment while you're there. It's just not fair, and smells of the old democracy that we are trying to reinterpret. Everyone understands safety, but if you are too afraid to sleep there, and are afraid of being assaulted, I would question your trusting the movement. Some things are worth standing up for, and not demanding special treatment while your doing it.





[-] 0 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

This is pure bunk. The reason they are victimized, is because they are allowed to remain victims. Teach them martial arts, teach them to regain their self-confidence, that will do MORE than any ol'safe place.

Sorry but I cannot agree with this. I heard that excuse too many times and I am no longer buying it.

[-] 6 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 12 years ago

Frankly, I don't care what you're buying, I'm not selling anything. I have 2 black belts and carry a knife wherever I go. When a man tried to assault me at knifepoint 3 blocks from my home and I pulled my knife and chased him for a block and a half, the police officers who responded to my 911 call refused to take my statement because I was armed and angry rather than being a bleeding, weeping, purseless puddle on the sidewalk. They asked if I had been drinking. They asked what I was doing in my own neighborhood at that hour. They even asked my neighbor if I was on medication for a mental disorder because it was completely unfathomable to them that I had defended myself, got a good description of my attacker, knew roughly where he was going, and expected them to go catch him. They made me wait until the next day to file a police report. Shockingly, the guy has never been caught.

I was not ALLOWED TO REMAIN A VICTIM. I refused to be a victim, and had that refusal held up as some kind of evidence that I must have mental problems. I know martial arts. I have self confidence. That, and a knife, and I still can't prevent men from attacking me, and I still can't force law enforcement to do anything about it.

You are obviously content living in your ignorance, but out here in reality, I know for a fact that safe places will do more to protect potential victims and prevent crime than any amount of your boy's club good ol'fashioned know-how on how to fix us little ladies up right.


[-] 0 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 12 years ago

Just being an average sized male makes you safer than an average sized female would be in almost any situation.

Was this the first time where your ex expressed that she was willing to disregard your boundaries and use physical force to violate your will? What she did was absolutely wrong, and I congratulate you on getting out of the situation and the relationship without physical harm or legal issues. It's true in this country that police rarely believe that the woman in a domestic dispute is the aggressor. This is partly because it's so rarely the case, but that doesn't make it okay for women to beat up on men when there aren't any witnesses.

Let's talk about the first time she put a hand over your mouth to stop you from talking, or grabbed your clothing or body to keep you from walking away, or shoved you to express an emphatic point... Did you feel shocked and scared? Did you instantly think 'Oh my lord... this person has the potential to hurt or kill me! I'm in real trouble here and I need to get out of this situation and find safety!' Privilege is the ability to assume that even though this person clearly has no problem trying to violate your will and overpower you, they don't pose any real danger. The fact that your partner pulled a knife on you and you were still in a position of telling her what to do is a privilege. Think about it in the reverse:

"I had an ex pull a knife on me once during an entirely verbal altercation. Told me he was going to kill me. I said I'd just run unless he put the knife down."

Do you really think that when a man pulls a knife on a woman, she can just threaten to run away? Wouldn't you have been a little bit more frightened if you knew that she would have no problem keeping you from running? Arguing that one good guy has had a knife pulled on him by one violent, angry woman and this means women should just shut up because we're all in equal danger is a ludicrous assertion. 'I'll just run away' is a privilege you have, whether you recognize it or not.

In answer to your question of what you should have done, I'll tell you the same thing I told every person that passed through the self defense classes I used to teach:

  1. Never stay in a relationship (friendship, partnership, familial household) with someone that is willing to physically overpower you against your will. At the first sign of this willingness, get yourself out of any situation where you might be alone with this person or in a public but unsafe location.

  2. As soon as the threat of violence is made, LEAVE. IMMEDIATELY. Do whatever you have to do to get out of the situation. If you are physically prevented from leaving the situation, put as much space (and preferably a door) between you and your attacker.

  3. CALL 911. Inform them that you are being held against your will and fear for your life. Keep the line open if possible, but never lose track of your attacker. If the attacker is saying that he/she is going to harm him/herself, tell the operator this. If the attacker has a weapon, tell the 911 operator exactly what it is.

  4. If you have failed to escape the situation and failed to barricade yourself into a safe place to wait for the police to arrive, and your attacker attempts to use direct force upon you, leave the phone line open and defend yourself with every available asset. Physical strength, cunning, even a weapon. If you're barricaded in a closet, look around for firearms or knives. Even a steel toed boot or a baseball can be thrown at an attacker. If you find a gun, check to make sure it is loaded and the safety is off. If you aren't willing to put a bullet into your attacker, either unload the gun or at least hide it.

  5. At this point it comes down to physical strength, speed, fighting ability and weapons. If at any point you manage to stun or subdue your attacker, get as far away from them as possible. If at any point they are no longer a threat to you, but you continue to pursue the fight, you are now mutual combatants, or you are assaulting them.

Now think about your statement... 'I said I'd just run unless she put the knife down.' The fact that you felt you were easily capable of leaving the situation, but were willing to stand and negotiate, is emblematic of the privilege you have as a man.

None of this, however, is in any way relevant to the safe space being put up in Zucotti Park. It doesn't exist to protect women from domestic battery, it exists to provide them a retreat when and if they don't feel safe surrounded by hundreds or thousands of men who can (and might) overpower and victimize them at any time.

My claim that white males get to feel safe all the time has never rang more true than with your story. Even when your partner pulled a knife and declared an intent to kill you, you still felt you were in a position of power. If you ever really felt the abject terror that comes with knowing that your partner has passed a tipping point mentally, and is willing to end your life, the threat that she would cut herself if you left would have had less than no meaning.

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

1) You are 'blaming the victim'. I trust you know what that is. Your little rant is the equivalent of 'why didn't you just scream for help?'

2) Actually, I wasn't able to 'just run'. It was a bluff that I felt comfortable making because she was a fool. This occurred inside. You tell me, miss internet-tough-girl, what are the odds of me making it to the door, getting the three locks undone, opening it, and getting outside before I get sliced to ribbons?

3) The fact that you felt comfortable chasing your attacker down with a deadly weapon and didn't face criminal charges is emblematic of the privilege you have as a woman. See what I did there? You are wrong.

4) It is relevant. The safe place only excludes heterosexual males. They are the only minority (created when you lumped together every group BUT them) that is neglected by this.

5) And no, oftentimes people feel very strongly for their abusers. "Why did you stay in that relationship so long if he treated you like that?" "Because I loved him." etc, etc. Furthermore, her actual threat was to cut herself up and then claim I had attacked her with the knife. To lie to the police. If people like YOU were on the jury, I could have wound up in prison.

6) Felt I was capable of leaving the situation? Position of power? You must have missed this: "Even my therapist didn't have good answers to those questions." READING. COMPREHENSION. It helps.

Don't spit venom unless your position is airtight, you sexist jerk.

Or how about the times she would seduce me, and then randomly attack? Catch my eye from across the room while I'm doing something else, sway her hips, approach me, pull me into a kiss, and then knee me in the crotch while I was distracted and laugh about it? She was a damn psychopath. You don't need to be big and strong if you're cruel. Or if you have a knife. But I thought you knew that, from your story?

Oh, and yes: I do think women are about equally capable of running. The subtle differences in the speed-records held by each sex are relatively miniscule compared to the massive boost adrenaline gives you if you are running for your life. Been there too.

[-] 1 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 12 years ago

Blaming the victim is when you put the responsibility for the assault on the victim. That's not what I was doing. I never questioned your handling of the situation, whatsoever. Now that you've opened the door, however, I question the fact that you stayed in a relationship with someone who was violent towards you... The same thing goes for men as for women. If you stay in an abusive relationship after the first incident of abuse, you become complicit in your own abuse. Most women who stay in these relationships do so out of fear, which is justifiable considering the vast majority of women killed by their partners are murdered either in the act of leaving, or after they have left. Sometimes running, while it is the only way to make the problem stop for good, is also the most dangerous course of action.

So back to you - I absolutely feel like you were capable of leaving an abusive situation. How about the times she would seduce you, then randomly attack? Well, there's a pretty big leap you're making there. 'I'm powerless to leave a situation where a violent and mentally unstable person is going to hunt me down and end my life' is a far cry from 'I'm powerless to resist the charms of a woman'. If a woman hits you, stop kissing her. Stop being within hitting range whatsoever. I go back to Rule #1 of the 5 rules to keep from being a domestic violence statistic... At the first sign of violence, leave. Don't look back. Your 'but what if your abuser is totally sexy' logic is going to fall on deaf ears compared with the women who stay out of fear for their lives, fear for their children, fear that this time he won't just break an arm or dislocate a shoulder.

You asked: "Okay - so what are male-bodied victims like me, who get victimized by a girl, supposed to do? Hit her back? Pull out our knife and fight for our lives with the bit of martial arts we know, like you did?"

I answered your questions with the exact procedure that any man, woman or child should follow in this situation, designed not only to maximize your chance to escape unharmed, but also to eliminate legal issues should you injure or kill your attacker. If even your therapist doesn't know how to answer those questions, feel free to print my response out and hand it to him/her. It might come in handy.

Reading comprehension what?

[-] 0 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

Lol, it has nothing to do with 'she was sexy'. It has to do with the honeymoon periods that regularly occur during abuse cycles. You have no idea what kind of psychological torment she was generating, and you never will because you've made it clear that you are obsessed with 'man bad - woman good'.

Besides, even if you weren't before (doubtful), you are definitely blaming the victim now. "If you stay in an abusive relationship after the first incident of abuse, you become complicit in your own abuse." From the horse's mouth.

And, actually, if I took your advice? The cops would do approximately what they did to you: label me crazy. Of course, in your case...

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

My only response to you is this person's life.


Now quit your belly-aching.

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 12 years ago

Yes, the answer to all the problems of a violent patriarchy probably could be solved by a ladyboy Muy Thai champ...

She's lovely. I'm a little confused as to what your point is. Perhaps that women wouldn't be such easy victims if we were all born male and were kickboxing champs? I agree completely. But until we can get that plan working on a somewhat larger scale, having a safe place where people aren't threatened with assault and victimization seems like a decent interim solution.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Yes, the male chauvinists out there will continue to make excuses for their bullshit actions, instead of taking responsibility for those actions. If a guy ever tries to assault me, he will be one sorry ass fucker, if I can help it.... that's all I can say. If I'm lucky, I will beat the shit out of him until he can move no longer.


[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Same thing.... but what do you define as female chauvinists? Chauvinists of any kind are guilty. If you are referring to women who stand up for their equal rights and safety and all that as chauvinists, then you are wrong.... because that's what most men think.... that women who stand up for themselves and other women are chauvinists and are a problem. A feminist is someone who stands up for equal rights and treatment of women, but men love to construe it into it meaning that women want more rights than men do. A lot of men see feminism as being something evil. I guess they are threatened by it, because they hold the belief that men are superior and deserve more than women do.

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights."

[-] 1 points by Touche (15) 12 years ago

Actually, an egalitarian is someone who stands up for equal rights and treatment of everybody. A feminist is somebody who believes that women have a rights/treatment deficit that needs to be corrected. I, myself, am a post-feminist: in other words, feminism was good and important until it started going too far and becoming misandric.

And I do think you're a female chauvinist, but not because you 'stand up for equal rights for women'. You are pretty clearly proving that you don't want equal rights, you want greater rights - you want special protections and safe places and bla bla bla.

Okay. But what about the guys who experience the abuse? Don't they deserve any kind of safe places or special protections? By claiming that women deserve these things more: you are an example of a female chauvinist.

You are exhibiting blind, prejudiced loyalty to your gender. Maybe this 'safe place' should be universal, instead of only excluding heterosexual males?

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

I was kinda hoping you'd take the time to read the article and her life struggle and to see the lessons you could learn from it. I guess I asked too much out of you.

[-] 1 points by ssassy (83) 12 years ago

There are always exceptions to the rule. As a woman, I can assure you that the reality of victimization is alive and well. When women are actually assaulted they are often blamed for it. When new initiatives need support they climb on our backs and hold up our perceived inability to be independent and strong. Look at what they are trying to do to OWS through women: the camps are not safe, the women are being violated!

We are used as pawns for the purpose of others. Sexual harassment, assault, and marginalization are realities that women live with.

I agree, one has to choose to remain a victim, but for millions of women, they will become victims by no choice or fault of their own.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

And in case of a full scale assault by law enforcement, that "safe place" would only become a target. It's a liability.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

You're a fool.

[-] 0 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

No, I am being realistic. You need to wake up and realize that it's not a game.

[-] -1 points by yarichin (269) 12 years ago

This issue is not about race or gender. I was in a tent in Afghanistan and all females were in a different tent. one nite a (black) man entered the female tent touched a womans' leg and left. A few minutes later he re-entered the tent and stood over a different woman and masturbated. The women in this tent were Army Soldiers and were armed with M-16s and 9mm pistols. They chased him out but did not catch him or shoot him. So tell me how a military uniform is sexually provocative? Some people are just sick. I know men that were molested by their mothers. Most men that get raped will not tell anyone. Women are generally physically weaker than men, no one says to a woman "You are a weak ass punk." when they get raped.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

It's wrong regardless of who does it.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 12 years ago

If it's not about race or gender,then WHY in your post was it necessary for you to state the race of the man in the tent with the woman??

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 12 years ago

Due to the fact that the original post was specifically targeting WHITE male heterosexuals. I was simply attempting to illustrate that there are sick people in all races.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] -2 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

All those examples are asked when White men are attacked. However, White men have to take responsibility for their actions as no one has EVER and will EVER come to their defense. Thus, they are victims but have to move on with their lives as no one likes to hear their sob stories. White men have no reason to protect others anymore, it's quite clear, it's everyone against poor Whitey. Whitey is evil, Whitey beez the devil!

When White men are blamed for everything, including a women being raped in Haiti, then that is truly being victimised. White men have brought lots to this world but they are never thanked, only hated and then you wonder why White men are leaving the system to fail. The system is truly Anti-White and majorly Anti-White Male, Affirmative Action and quotas being prime examples and REAL institutionised RACISM promoted as being "inclusive" aslong as, you guessed it, you're not White and male!

Women wanted equality and now they have it and all they can do is "nag nag nag".

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

You are so dramatic.

[-] 1 points by GringoFrijolero (38) 11 years ago

A bunch of chickens flopping around with their heads cut off I would say. I read the list of gripes posted on the Occupy Wall Street web site, and I am in general agreement, more or less with them; but what I do not find is any plan or strategy to accomplish reform. It is not enough to assemble for the purpose of petitioning for the redress of grievances. Nobody is going to redress these grievances without some political force that can overwhelm the two party tyranny that protects the status quo. Having more and bigger "occupations" accomplishes nothing. Over 50% of working age Americans do not make enough money to afford food, clothing, shelter, health care, child care and education, much less any thing else. These people need to be mobilized to elect enough office holders to guarantee these things, enough to call for and populate a constitutional convention to over ride any Supreme Court opposition. This seems to me the over riding concern. Once we have that, the streets will be safe.

[-] 1 points by jaypluto (1) 12 years ago

and the struggle is ongoing. as is the resistance. so what will prevail? moreover, will prevailing change the sentiment of those that resist now?

[-] 1 points by Mjclemm (3) 12 years ago

Om my... I'm a L.O.S.E.R. "Occuping Wallstreet" yea stay united...lol.. Shitheads...lol

[-] 1 points by Mjclemm (3) 12 years ago

Now it's all because "White males" or mostly are in control of the business's you ALL should be working at. If not start your own company , wait, you can't.. You got no money because your out there picketing instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING !

[-] 1 points by Mjclemm (3) 12 years ago

You know what i see? I see THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of EXTREAMLY LAZY son of a bitches that want something for nothing. It's not the rich people fault you are losers, it's your fault. Go get a job or INVENT something people will buy. Why prosecute a person that has had the American dream come true. Isn't that WHAAT it's all about? Personal success, right? You are all scum, don't want to work and want to just make a scene, you don't really care about what your fighting for, you just want to fight( by saying fight, I'm saying all you want to do is either cause trouble, or just gather in masses to make a mute point) you all are NOTHING. hopefully a hurricane or snowstorm will weed the heard out of the gene pool. Let's thin it out as much as we can. Stay out in the cold, catch pneumonia and , well ...haha...lol... Oh well another one gone ! Let's go mother nature weed these SOBs out ASAP..... LOSERS !

[-] 1 points by Oldcrone (5) from Missoula, Mt 12 years ago

It would be nice if those who benefited from male privilege, i.e. white heterosexual males, could really listen, without becoming immediately defensive. While sexual assault of males does occur, it is rare. I've worked in the field of violence against women for over 20 years and have worked with thousands of victims, a few of whom who have been male. 1 out of 3 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, 1 out of 4 by age of 18. 1 out of 7 males will be sexually assaulted, typically as an adolescent or younger. It is very rare for an adult male to be raped (unless within a prison environment which as its own set of issues). The typical rapist, is a white, heterosexual male - even when the victim is also male. This is why there is a need for a separate safe space.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 12 years ago

If anything this movement can keep on reminding the masses of all the problems we face instead of pulling the blind folders on and pretend everything is ok.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 12 years ago

Once again an example of the failure of OWS to do anything to truly progress the movement to the source in DC. These foolish assemblies in NYC have done nothing but taint you position and rapidly lose support. Nov 6th, you had the opportunity to promote "Occupy the White House" but chose to secretly support "stop the pipeline while working with the DNC and (I've since discovered) the National Democractic Socilist Party. This is why you are falling apart at the General Assembly level, and continue to attract the Black Bloc Anarchists.. Stop this foolishness in NYC now, and Amass at the White House to Occupy the White House..Occupy the peoples house and Congress. OWH. That is what the majority of the Occupy movement is calling for, and now seems to be landing on "deaf ears" as this Nov. 17th operation will prove. This is your end..Your self-destruction. GO TO WASHINGTON..The Capitol Police will not steal your tents and Generators. OWH..Take your demands to the source. The President supports you and wants you there now. OWH Now!!!

[-] 1 points by whathefu (-1) 12 years ago

what is being done to address this issue besides cordoning off space within a movement that has prided itself on protest grounded in mutual respect? it seems the oppressive white male heteronormative institution applies even to this movement? pls stop removing my posts - answer my concerned questions about a problematized issue that is being swept under the carpet by responses that perpetuate the status quo!

[-] 1 points by methinkthis (2) 12 years ago

You started with a list of demands, some of which had general applicability. You claim to represent the 99%. I am part of the 99%. You do not represent me when: you demand that you be freed from college loans YOU committed to pay back, when you allow radical fringe groups to ally with you, when you participate in violence and non-passive disobedience to authorities. As it stands now, we, the members of the 99%, demand that you stop occupying public property causing expenditure of public (paid by the 99%) funds for sanitation, police and medical support, inconveniencing the 99%, allowing drugs within your occupied territory, etc. At this time you should use social media to advocate and the political process. The 99% is tired of your violent, non-passive behavior and the chaotic and unhealthy conditions in your tent communities. You no longer represent us and the movement of those claiming no representation is increasing with each violent confrontation. When asked to leave, if you have any credibility, you will leave. You will take your mess with you. You will do it peacefully. You will purify your 'membership' by ridding it of fringe groups with radical agendas not compatible with democratic and capitalism. You will not effect corporate rehabilitation when the majority of the public does not support you because of these issues.

[-] 1 points by whathefu (-1) 12 years ago

wanted to bump this issue up. its really important and want more discussion...

[-] 1 points by OccupyEquality (8) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

get the FUCKING rapists ARRESTED and kick them out of Zuccotti Park and btw gay bashing on this "Safe Space" page is bullshit - and inciting violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is NOT free speech http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/11/09/Some_Transgender_Protesters_Leave_Occupy_Wall_Street_Over_Safety_Concerns/

[-] 1 points by OccupyEquality (8) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by kittybumble (1) 12 years ago

I have to at least somewhat disagree with the argument of this article. I don't disagree that women are assaulted and they often don't come forward about it. But when they do, the laws seem to take it pretty seriously. I mean, I think you used to get the death penalty in VA back in the day for raping a woman. I'm a woman and don't fear for my life on a daily basis walking down the street. Most men seems pretty decent, just like women. I haven't looked into it or anything though. This just seems like a huge exaggeration to me, speaking as a woman. Plus I don't really appreciate being labeled as a victim just b/c I have a vagina.

[-] 1 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 12 years ago

This is another fine example of The People's Unity; well done. The war by the 1% on us all is just as insulting to my young child as it is any person. It doesn't matter of an attack is from the 1% or the 99%, when someone attacks you, they attack me... they attack us all... because it divides PEOPLE. Keep OUR united front strong. It is unfortunate there are bad people and not to excuse such behavior, but the globalist remain in power because they divide the People... on issues, race, sex, religion and sexual orientation. They have done this for so long that the bigotry is still around but that is changing and will improve through movements like OCCUPY. People growing better through UNITY.

The globalist-media's misrepresentation of OWS will happen but it will not work unless we allow it. Just be cool and remember, we are in control of our actions. If they want to elicit a response it only favors them so we should all be careful not to give the globalist-media any fuel or the police-state any reason.
Thank you OWS! 'The War on People is a War on You' http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/11/war-on-people-is-war-on-you.html

[-] 1 points by Feminist81 (10) from Washington, NJ 12 years ago

Also, why are we not allowed to name who is doing what to whom? Are we just supposed to sit back and let the rape count pile up, without noticing the gender of those being assaulted?

[-] 1 points by Feminist81 (10) from Washington, NJ 12 years ago

as well as the gender of those doing the assaulting. We're not supposed to notice any patterns, no matter how blatant, eh?

[-] 1 points by Feminist81 (10) from Washington, NJ 12 years ago

Wow, I'm absolutely horrified by many of the comments to this post.

Women are not the ones being divisive. Without perpetrators, there would be no need for safe space.

Safe spaces are a type of harm reduction until everywhere is actually safe. They're very practical, as in, how am I going to sleep tonight with as little possibility of sexual assault as possible?

Occupy and all radical movements need to have a zero tolerance policy for sexual predators. This can be something we become quite proud of. Let's make it a priority.

[-] 1 points by TheIronFistOfDeath (6) 12 years ago

Up until this point I've agreed with most of what OWS has stood for, but this is something that is, not only completely misguided, but absolutely abhorrent. You've effectively just made it the 49.5%.

[-] 1 points by Gabbles (18) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

I am a single female, with few friends in my local area, portland, and wanted to occupy. I have made visits, and went to go stay tonight but didnt feel safe.

I spent hours having conversations with campers, trying to find people i felt confident to stay with. One guy that I felt was not being a predator showed me around and introduced me to faces, some he was very familiar with, others he was not so familiar with. We did a bit of a tour together. Id get into a conversation with someone else, and he was just close by and wed move on once my conversation was done, even if that was after a couple hours.

This guy was really rad, I liked his vibes. But then, at the end of the night he gave me a hug followed by an inappropriate, and slow kiss on my neck. Ruined the whole day.

When this fine guy wasn't around, I had multiple strangers saying, "hey I've never seen you here before" and they've invited me to their camps, every one stressing how this camp was the best camp.

I appreciated this welcome, that people were reaching out, but I felt unsure of people's motivations and willingness, especially being a small woman on her own.

In some cases I had to excuse myself if there was any drug use or anyone seemed to be drunk, because I don't support the recreational use of these things within the occupation. I didn't try to preach to anyone about my feelings, I just excused myself with a smile.

My feelings are this, I am a young, somewhat attractive woman with a kind, warm, open face and a willingness to talk to anyone. I think that this draws people to me, they feel safe inviting me into their private camping areas with complete ease. I can't help but think there is an underlying intention, however, and so far evidence has supported my feelings.

I should also like to add that I am not a weak, defenseless creature and I take risks in life, which has exposed me to many awesome experiences that I wouldn't trade for the world. I have lived in Chicago and walked around the streets many a night all on my lonesome, feeling safe and without any problem. I also know that this same approach to life has brought me to my experiences of domestic abuse (one time, and I was out, thank you), and when I violently mugged in Seattle a few years back. I am not so naive to think that I could protect myself on my own.

As things currently stand I would only Occupy if there was a safe space for me to do so. I am working on getting to know more people, finding the right people. My family and friends would be grateful to know that I am safe down there.

[-] 1 points by pieman (23) from New York, NY 12 years ago

i definitely believe in safer spaces for wimmen, lgbt and children!!!! we need that in order to win!!! we also need wimmen's anti-rape patrols to deter the asshole rapists ahose balls seem to be size of bird seed aron pieman kay rainbow affinity tribe/yippies

[-] 1 points by hortense (3) 12 years ago

Having been groped by complete strangers and also having to fight off unwanted sexual advances to the point that I have been left with bruises and ripped clothing, I think having a safe area for women is a great idea.

[-] 1 points by hortense (3) 12 years ago

Fabulous idea!

[-] 1 points by marquinhus (1) from Maceió, AL 12 years ago

It's a pretty good iniciative, I've to say, congratulations, people!

My name is Marcus Vinicius, I'm brazilian and I belong to a research group that discuss the question of gender, in UFAL. I was thinking, when I read the text: wouldn't it be important to bring opression's debates (women, LGBTQ, ethnic's and nacional's minorities, etc.) to the Occupy Wall Street - including these claims in movement principles -, as we know how fundamental the movement is having to the people's day-to-day education who participate of it.

Patriarchal ideology - I'm refering to the group of ideas that naturalizes the submission of the women by the men, and that explain the housework as women major paper in society - dominates 1% as the 99% vision of world. But I have no doubt that only the 99% fighting organized has intentions of finishing with all the human domination.

Sorry for my english and confusion of ideas, I just liked to express my opinion about it.

Thanks for reading! Keep on fighting, keep on occupying! Strong hugs here from Brazil!

[-] 1 points by PhillyCommonSense (1) 12 years ago

I love the irony in so many of these comments designed to attempt to recenter the focus on the actions themselves as despicable rather than upon whom they are perpetrated, when the whole intent of the article is to point out how whenever such acts of violence occur in the LBGTQ community they are disproportionately downplayed... Which is exactly what comments seeking to point out how everyone gets attacked sometimes does.

Yes, everyone does get attacked on occasion, and white straight males can be victims of sex crimes and blah blah blah, but when it does make it into the news there aren't a whole lot of people babbling on about "don't make a big deal of it because it happens to everyone." ... Prove me wrong... Because right now all your comments are doing is proving their point.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (597) 12 years ago

For this movement to be successful it is absolutely clear that we need to carry ourselves with dignity and respect. This means that physical violence is unacceptable whether that be sexual assault or any other kind of assault. And it doesn't matter who is the victim, nor who is lashing out violently. Dividing ourselves up according to sexual orientation and gender and only protecting certain people and not others IS an expression of the social conditioning that has made it so hard for the 99% to unite in the first place.

Only protecting certain people is absurd, and only focusing on making safe spaces is also absurd. The problem must be tackled from both sides: Prevent those around us from committing violence, and protect all from acts of violence. And do it all the time. Handle this in the same way that protestors train each other to act in non-violence even when being tear gassed and shot at.

Train self-discipline, and self-awareness for all. Teach all active participants how to recognize potentially violent situations and how to defuse them. Demand respect of each other. Do not tolerate presentation of chauvinism and bigotry. (And this doesn't just mean to target white males as male chauvinists - I've seen plenty of similar superiority issues with gay men, and lesbian women. Race doesn't enter into this much if at all.) There are many ways to train this better behavior. And since the movement presently has training for how to handle protests and violence, I don't see why it can't be applied more widely to combat sexual assaults and any other kind of violence.

Anytime someone mentions the need to address the special needs of a sub-group you should be skeptical. Most of the time you can't divide people along such lines - even if in specific cases the distinction appears to be useful. Sexuality is a continuum not a set of boxes that people get sorted into. Educate others about this, and you will reduce the widescale violence targeting people seen as different.

Give men and women social equity and the equal right of self-assertion and many of the issues of women's rape will begin to be addressed. BUT you continue to enforce the same old roles - women are to be sheltered and protected - men are to be their protectors - and you simply reinforce the problem.

Make this about protecting each other and shedding the poison of a divisive culture and you'll do much better. If in the short run safe-spaces is the solution well that may have to be - BUT you need to understand that treating symptoms of the problem will not solve the problem. And the amount of sexual violence in OWS is not nearly on the level it has been in say the congolese civil war. So I would think twice about approaching the problem in the same way.

[-] 1 points by l31sh0p (279) from Sand Fork, WV 12 years ago

If it's all about equality, where is the safe space for men?

[-] 1 points by OccupyEquality (8) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

men raping women have a safe space - it's called Zuccotti Park

[-] 1 points by angryoccupant (1) 12 years ago

Wow when did you first start hating your mother??? Women are usually physically smaller than men so deserve protection under the law from larger male aggressors. My friend is a 3rd degree martial artist and was protected by the police from his aggressive violent wife. Cops gave him the baby hauled her off. I got my son the house and child support in my divorce. Where have you been living, under a rock? Why do you hate women? Repressed Homosexual ?

[-] 1 points by andreadealmagro (4) 12 years ago

Making Occupy WS safe for women and LGTBQ must be a priority if the OWS movement is going to survive. They are all vital. The last resort would be changing tactics; from static occupation to mobile coordination, pickets and marches.

Such a change would leave the predators behind and disconnected. It would also spare your core membership the rigors of winter.

Andrea Dealmagro Independent 4 governor of NJ 2013 http://newjersey2013.wordpress.com/

[-] 1 points by andreadealmagro (4) 12 years ago

OWS, like any other revolutionary movement, must be ready to change tactics as conditions change. At some point, it may be a good tactic to abandon the park.

[-] 1 points by LizTaylorsGhost (3) 12 years ago

Dear 99%,

We, the 1%, would like to thank you from the bottoms of our hearts. You see for the past few months we've been trying to figure out a way to discredit and ridicule you publicly. At first we thought this meant denying you any and all media access and coverage and hoping that you would just wither up and die. That approach failed.

Our next attempt was to paint you as hipsters, spoiled wealthy middle class children, who got bored one day and went out into the streets of New York to tweet revolution. For a while this actually worked however eventually online coverage surpassed our own and the message fell apart. Again we failed.

But today, well today is a new day and we seem to finally have our answer. In the end it appears we went about it all wrong. We didn't have to humiliate or belittle you. You can do that to yourselves.

When OWS first started it was seen as a mass movement, comprised by multiple groups of people yet shaped by none of them. A true voice of the people and that's what scared us. As long as that voice was a choir, as long as it was undefined it could appeal to anyone and was a threat to everyone.

Yet you yourselves have chosen to shape it, to define it, and thus diminish it and we thank you for that. Instead of having a movement of the masses you now are creating a movement of cliches. One in which statements such as "Women and the homosexual community need to be protected but not straight men" are the currency of the realm. With each and every approach such as this you show the country that you are most certainly not the 99% but just a very loud segment of a few percent.

Allowing yourselves to be coopted by other movements has exposed your Achilles heel and will prove to be your death knell. So once again thank you for being exclusionary and for taking away the power you once had from yourselves. We sincerely appreciate it.

With Love, The 1%

[-] -1 points by Dio1313 (69) 12 years ago

That was great, thank you.

[-] 1 points by foundingbaby (15) 12 years ago

How many men have gotten raped or sexually harrased at OWS? Eh?

[-] 1 points by Alliandrina (40) 12 years ago

Overall I agree with the notion. Everyone deserves a space in which they can feel safe. I disagree with how the OWS movement is going about promoting 'safe spaces' If the movement is about equality than shouldn't the whole Occupy site be a safe space? I guess in my twisted mind if we say we want equality that doesn't mean we give the people who have traditionally oppressed and marginalized more of a say or special protections unless we want to fall back into the same pattern that we want to change. If the OWS is not about equality than what is it about? Recompensation those who have been hurt and marginalized? Giving power to those whom haven't had to wield over those who had?

[-] 1 points by dqhx (1) 12 years ago

Occupy Wall Street: hide your kids, hide your wife and hide your husband cause they're raping everybody out here. Well done 99%.

P.S. lmao@including the LGBTQ in it. If you're going to let anyone who identifies as bi or gender queer in you might as well not have a safe space at all. Might want to rename that to sexual assault tent or something.

[-] 1 points by RichZubaty (37) from Wailuku, HI 12 years ago

Ah yes, the woman is holding the sign; the men are erecting the shelter. 19 out of 20 on the job deaths are men, 4 out of 5 suicides are men, women live 7 years longer than men, men are not regarded as "equal" parents, men are drafted in war and women are not. There is massive discrimination against men in America and it better stop if Occupy is to succeed. Forty years of demonizing men is what turned the Left into a horde of wimps and got us in the mess we're in. Occupy is working precisely because the men are back. Don't drive them away by trying to shame them with phony identity-agendas.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"Forty years of demonizing men is what turned the Left into a horde of wimps and got us in the mess we're in."

Wow.... where did you pull THAT lie from?

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

It's not a lie. I actually second what RichZubaty said. Just look at the media, men are continuously portrayed in the negative. Men are always the aggressor, the ones who are in error and deadbeats.

Many women wanted equality, but the rest wanted a damned Matriarchy.

A woman shows aggressivity, she's a go-getter. A man shows aggressivity, he's a violent scumbag.

A woman assaults a man, he should "suck it up", A man assaults a woman, it's prison.

A woman gets the kids in a divorce more than a man would. You also never hear of women paying child support. I don't think that ever happens.

A woman gets preferential treatment in the law. It's ridiculous.

Another example? You'll love this. Just look at work attire. A woman has waaaaay more options to be considered "professional-looking" than a man. Think about it. Women have an entire wardrobe to draw upon and a guy only has...a three-piece suit. Seriously, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Also, Just look at all the programs that are "just for girls" and the guys are just left out. This is garbage.

I long for a day where a guy can just be A GUY and not feel he's going to be seen as a male chauvinistic pig or a wimp just because of who he is.

I am a male, I am proud of being male, and I am part of the 99%

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"A woman shows aggressivity, she's a go-getter. A man shows aggressivity, he's a violent scumbag."

Um.... that's not true. When a woman defends herself and other women or is aggressive, she's told she's a lesbian, a bitch, a dyke (I play sports with men, so I know this from experience).... while men are seen as brave and strong for being aggressive.

"A woman gets the kids in a divorce more than a man would. You also never hear of women paying child support. I don't think that ever happens."

I agree that this is not fair at all.

"Also, Just look at all the programs that are "just for girls" and the guys are just left out. This is garbage."

Oh, you mean like all the sports that favor boys over girls!!!! I have been involved in women's baseball since 1999, developing teams and participating in it from playing to organizing to helping to move it forward. I can write a book about all the discrimination, sexism, oppression, etc. that happens towards girls and women who want to play baseball at ALL levels. You WILL NOT win this argument at all.

As far as your other claims, they are very weak and are only your opinion. There's all kinds of historical proof of the oppression of women. Your claims are baseless.

That's great you're proud to be a guy. You should be proud of who you are.

[-] 2 points by helsabot (2) from San Francisco, CA 12 years ago

I agree with all this. A few more things:

"A woman has waaaaay more options to be considered "professional-looking" than a man. Think about it. Women have an entire wardrobe to draw upon and a guy only has...a three-piece suit."

Women may have more options (and men should have more, I agree), but we're judged by what we wear far more harshly than men ever are and it's actually very difficult for us to be considered "professional". If we wear things that are "too conservative" we're accused of being mannish, uptight or lacking femininity. If we wear things that are "too sexy" we're accused of being slutty and unprofessional. No matter what we choose, our appearance is evaluated before our skill.

"A woman assaults a man, he should "suck it up", A man assaults a woman, it's prison." and "I long for a day where a guy can just be A GUY and not feel he's going to be seen as a male chauvinistic pig or a wimp just because of who he is."

I long for this day, too! The same culture that oppresses women also oppresses men in terrible ways. One thing you can do is call out the men and women you know when they do behave like chauvinistic pigs so they learn such behavior is unacceptable. If we all work together to remove our negative attitude toward emotion and other traditionally feminine traits, we can live in a better world.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I agree totally.

As far as clothing goes, women have MUCH fewer options when it comes to athletic clothing and sports gear. This is completely stereotypical and sexist.

As far as guys being told to "suck it up" in whatever situation, I usually hear that coming from other guys. I also hear guys calling other guys girls, pussies, ladies, etc. when they are putting them down and saying that they are weak and cowardly. Using those types of names (feminine names) to degrade someone is sexist in and of itself, and I'm really sick of hearing it so much. Yet, if someone is describing someone who is strong, brave, winning a competition, whatever, they are said to have balls.

[-] 1 points by Oldcrone (5) from Missoula, Mt 12 years ago

Actually, the reason women get the kids most of the time is because they are the ones who want them. However, when men are also fighting for custody, they win the children more often than women. Part of that is due to the unequal pay and some Judges view that if the man has more money, owns a home, etc it will give the children a better life. He also has typically more financial resources to pay for attorney costs, etc.

[-] 1 points by OccupyEquality (8) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

OccupyEquality https://www.facebook.com/groups/occupyequality/ supports the right to a Safe Space. It is absurd that this is even necessary. The people who participate anywhere in the world have the right to be there without fear of the people who they are supposed to be working with, and for the Occupy Str8 White Men to ignore this is totally unacceptable. This is the problem with the "consensus" process because if the consensus of a few is that LGBTQ people can be gay bashed, then there is nothing you can do about it. Real participatory democracy honors the vision of unconditional constitutional equality where everyone has the opportunity to participate according to their own vision. In a true participatory democracy, no one has the right to deny anyone else their right to participate. Anything else is tyranny and the tyranny of a few is still tyranny.

[-] 0 points by OccupyEquality (8) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

If you are waiting for the traditional oppressors - str8 white men - to help you that's like asking the banks to stop doing what they are doing and expect them to stop doing it. Maybe the LGBT & str8 women need to form their own force and if anyone is assaulting women, let the LGBT occupiers deal with them. You have a right to defend yourselves - so defend yourselves.

Form a "neighborhood watch" of sorts, and make sure that if anyone is accused of assault that the accused is guilty, then deal with them doing whatever you have to do to deal with them.

There are no leaders in OWS so stop being "victims" and start taking charge. Don't complain - fight back. If these rapists know that they will be dealt with by a bunch of angry lesbians, word will go out that they better not try it.

Use every means necessary to defend yourselves - you have that right- use it. Don't complain - DEFEND

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Exactly, there is no better "safe place" than the one that the individual creates within himself.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Safety is always collective. Safety and security are among the main reasons any society exists at all.

As to the suggestion to "fight back", if you mean that literally, that's a good way of getting oneself killed. By all means, straight women and LGBT people should protect each other, but there is no harm is being helped by straight white men. Simply being a straight white male does not make one guilty of anything. And sincerely wanting to help should not be met with unwarranted accusations. Such accusations, however tempting, only tear the movement apart, and display the same irrational hatred that LGBT folks have themselves been unfairly, tragically, subjected to for so long.

Helping, being concerned, being LOVING AND GIVING, is not being patronizing. Let's not allow our own history of hurts get in the way of everyone being able to rely on everyone else. Perhaps ironically, being defensive is a terrible way to be safe.

[-] 1 points by QuietDay (59) 12 years ago

"Exactly, there is no better "safe place" than the one that the individual creates within himself".

Ha, spot the irony.

And if you can't create a safe place within yourselves sisters, and someone does manage to violate your personal space, assaults or rapes you it just means that you weren't defending your 'safe place' hard enough. Stop playing the victim and try a little bit harder next time, mmmkay? After all it's not up to our democratic, egalitarian and just community to work together to create a democratic, egalitarian and just space for those who are statistically the most vulnerable to violence, is it?

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

rolls eyes And did you enjoy that eviction? You outnumbered the police and yet did nothing to stop them, so don't talk to me about creating a "safe space" when you refuse to defend yourselves.

Are you certain you can afford to be peaceful at this point in time?

[-] 1 points by Dillfaro (1) 12 years ago

I like how it is all males that are building the shelter for the poor defensless woman in the front holding the sign in the picture. Equal rights my ass! Women like her must love the special attention that she gets from feeling like a victim. When you separate people you force people to see in color and race the same way you liberals do. Seeing in color is racist within itself. If you really cared about women and "minorities" you would let them thrive on themselves. You are giving them crutches and making them weak. You are indoctrinating them to be less than what they are. You are reaffirming to these people that they are victims and that they are pitiful subhumans. I tried really hard to understand you OWS people, but you guys are fucking retarded(and I mean fucking retarded in the most PC way possible LOL).

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

On what basis do you say that women aren't working together with men in the building of that shelter? The photo shows nothing like that. Your jumping to such a conclusion says more about you than it does about the movement.

[-] 1 points by wnkinc (12) from Bodega Bay, CA 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 12 years ago

I agree fully. All Children, Women and Men should be free of harassment and abuse. Men of the World need to remember that is their responsibility to protect the women and children of the world. Women do a much better job of being protectors than men. We need to stop fighting wars for the 1% and protect each other. Fair-ness.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

That's not true. I don't know where you get your facts, but women are not superior to men and men are not superior to women. Equality means equality.

[-] 1 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 12 years ago

You are right. Men are not superior to Women and Women are not superior to Men. Equality means Equality. However, as we all know, Women and Men are Different in some ways. Different is Good. Peace.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

I'm on board with this based on the title alone.

[-] 1 points by owstag (508) 12 years ago

I think the suggestion that straight women are as likely to be verbally or physically assaulted as 'LGBTQ' people is a reach. Also, while Wall Street is undoubtedly disproportionately male and perhaps disproportionately white, where is the evidence that Wall Street is disproportionately straight? There wouldn't have to be too many gays working on Wall Street for it to be proportionate. The gay community tends to be affluent.

[-] 1 points by OccupyEquality (8) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

hey you fucking gay basher shove that gay bashing shit down your fucking gay bashing throat and choke on it - and tell your family to let me know when you are dead so I can dance on your fucking gay bashing grave you fucking pile of gay bashing shit

[-] 1 points by owstag (508) 12 years ago

You're stark, raving, foaming at the mouth mad.

Expressing skepticism at the suggestion that women are as vulnerable to harassment as gays can hardly be construed as 'gay bashing'. If anything, an overzealous straight feminist might object.

Also, the gay community is usually reported to be relatively affluent. I know kbb claims this is a myth and has provided some links but I haven't had time to look into it yet so as to evaluate the credibility of the referenced studies, but I'll assume kbb's assessment is correct until I have reason to know otherwise.

In any event, your violent, profane laden overreaction here suggests you are mentally unstable.

[-] 0 points by kbb (1) 12 years ago

This is actually a myth that recent research has busted. LGB adults face poverty rates as high or higher as their straight peers and surveys on transgender people report poverty rates twice that of the general population. See the Williams Institute, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the National Center for Transgender Equality for more information.

[-] 1 points by OccupyEquality (8) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Never debate equality - tell those fucking gay bashers at Occupy Wall Street to drop dead

[-] 1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 12 years ago

Sounds like you should develop a security force.

[-] 1 points by jhoffman (22) 12 years ago

Holding up signs like that is only going to encourage crime. Victim Precipitation theory.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

You put shape the the words I was looking for! Right on!

[-] 1 points by airplaneradio (50) 12 years ago

By the way, how are you going to fit all the marginalized oppressed peoples inside the tent? Or is this just a symbolic gesture where only 30 people by lot are selected? Or do you have to be a victim to get clearance?

[-] 1 points by Adam (116) 12 years ago

This is very discriminatory. I do not fall into this category and I have been a "groping" target, I have been sexually assaulted as well. I guess I am an unrecognized survivor. I survived but it doesn't count because of my physical appearance. Stop the hate. It's not my fault if people who looked similar to me did bad things across history. People who look similar to me did good things and neutral things as well. Stop the hate. ALL hate. Racist hate, religious hate, and any kind of possible reason to hate must not be tolerated. Being mean is not acceptable.

[-] 4 points by Jbear (60) from Greenfield, MA 12 years ago

When I was down there, there were extensive discussions on the fact that men, too, need a safe space. While this proposal does not address your need, it does address a need. Perhaps, if you are down there or would like to get involved, you could start organizing a more inclusive safe space. The argument I heard was the there are women who simply feel uncomfortable sleeping near men, and while that is not necessarily a big issue for me, I need to respect those for whom it is. There are also women who would feel more safe with safe men nearby, so maybe you could set something up.

[-] 1 points by Adam (116) 12 years ago

It boils down to the main issue. Every person needs their own room. Every person has the right to a safe place to live. A safe home in the country, or a safe private room in the city. This can only be accomplished by breaking open the wall street banks by force and redistributing the stolen wealth. If that does not happen, people will continue to be "raped" and enslaved on many levels. Especially if they refuse to defend themselves.

[-] 1 points by jjoplin (25) 12 years ago

Adam, there is absolutely not one case in history that backs up your plan. Communism fails. Every single time. People end up with less safety, less freedom, fewer choices. I don't think OWS is advocating communism? We need to force our politicians and big money to get a divorce. Absolutely. But we don't need to go the way of the old Soviet Union, East Berlin, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. We don't need a totalitarian state in order for everyone to be safe. We simply need a civil society where laws are made by - not bought by - the people.

[-] 1 points by Adam (116) 12 years ago

No one can force another to do anything without violence. We have no control over our politicians and they must all be eliminated. No more leaders. Local voting. Salary caps on super wealthy to provide for the super poor.

[-] 1 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

I'm speechless. Are people planning on living in the parks and streets of cities permanently? I'm telling you right now, that won't fly. I thought the point was to protest to make a point, not to stake a claim and homestead.

[-] 1 points by Adam (116) 12 years ago

The point for me is to get my money back that was stolen by the system. I will die or I will get it back. The money hoarded by wall street came from hard working honest people like me and we want it back. We are taking it back By Any Means Necessary as far as I am concerned. Once you have nothing to lose, you will understand where I am coming from.

[-] 0 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

How much money did you contribute to the system? How do you know how much was "stolen" from you, and who exactly stole it? Are you telling me you actually had this money before? If you didn't have it before, how can it be stolen?

The real thing that has been stolen from us is the value of our currency. Because the dollar has been devalued to such a degree, everything costs more and we are not earning more.

The devaluation of our currency is due to the "full employment" mission of the Federal Reserve, something they should never be held responsible for, and frankly, the existence of the Fed is dangerous to the health and stability of our economy and country.

[-] 1 points by Adam (116) 12 years ago

I refer to my social security. After all the taxes I paid in my life, which came out to way more than I could ever afford, more than $300,000, I should at the very least be getting social security after I can't work any more from disability. $300,000 is not much to the federal government, but now that I have nothing at all, it seems like everything. Especially since they are leaving me to die.


[-] 1 points by ctan (2) 12 years ago

This would make more sense if naked women weren't protesting and I wasn't a white male that supports this. If you want to build equality you can't make men/women barriers by stating there is a women safe place. Where is the man safe place? For us to be equal you shouldn't have these post at all.


[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

So, naked women deserve to be raped.... because men can't control themselves and think they have the right to rape a women, just because she's naked???

This is the same type of thought of men who think having sex with their female partners while they are sleeping and unaware is OK.

[-] 0 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

Let's face it, we men are visually stimulated creatures and women, while completely within their rights to do so, are adding to the risk of an assault by going topless or what have you. Most men will simply ignore this, but not all are so cultured.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Visually stimulated? !!!!!

Rape is not about sexual stimulation. It is about violence. Period.

[-] 1 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

I refer specifically to the YouTube post that accompanied Ctan's original comment, to wit, topless women protesting. Re-read Ctan's post.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Sorry, that has no relationship to what rape is.

Women (even stupid ones) who takes their shirts off in public are not the inspiration for an act of rape.

Rape has nothing to do with sexuality, nudity, suggestive clothing, etc.

It has to do with one thing, and one thing only: Violence. It is an act about assault, brutalization and domination. It is NOT about being aroused by visual beauty, but power. 80 year old women are raped. So are 10 month old girls. What was visually alluring about them? Their the depends they were wearing or that "just so" slant of the diaper?

Men are indeed more visual when it comes to choosing partners for sex. But a rapist is not partner. He is a brutalizer who uses forced sex as a weapon of choice. He gets off, not on the sex per se, but the act of assault.

So I repeat: rape is not about sex (which is at most secondary). It is about violence. Period.

[-] 1 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

I'm well aware of the theory that rape is only about violence. I suggest it's not always about violence, but it often is. You're ignoring the reality of the sexual nature of human beings, and unless you are a rapist (and I don't think you are... neither am I) then neither of us can speak with final authority on the subject.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

No, but the psychology reports I have read do speak with authority.

But I will try this again. Yes there is obviously a sexual component to sexual assault, i.e rape. But try to follow this: that sexual component is not the erotic component. The erotic component is the violence itself.

And THAT is why rape is not about esthetics, or beauty of scantily clad women and all the other shameful drivel. The purpose of rape is degradation, power, and violence. That's why 80 year olds and 10 month olds are also raped. Erotic pleasure derived from sex is not the goal of the act. erotic or psychological pleasure is derived from the violation.

[-] 1 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

I didn't really mean to get into the minutiae of this subject, as I think the subject is far afield from the central reason for these threads.

I'll leave my comments at that.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"we men are visually stimulated creatures and women..."

That's the biggest bullshit excuse I've ever heard. Don't be surprised by how some women may react to being raped by men who think they have the right to do so or because they "can't handle" themselves. Don't be surprised if they get a baseball bat or something up beside their heads.

[-] 1 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

Actually, that was not an excuse. It's a fact that men are more visual than women, it is not just my opinion. And if it's any consolation, I agree that any attacker or rapist deserves to get a hammer to the head if that's what it takes to subdue him. It's unfortunate that nudity is frowned upon in America, IMO. Social morés are such nonsense.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

And I believe that men (not all) like to use such things as excuses.... "Men have needs that they need to meet" and all that bullshit. Have they no self control at all? I'm not saying you are saying this. I've just heard this so much from men that it pisses me off to no end.

"It's unfortunate that nudity is frowned upon in America, IMO. Social morés are such nonsense."

I agree.

[-] 1 points by PincheCabron (131) 12 years ago

Yes, we are once again in full agreement.

[+] -4 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

If you're a White Heterosexual Christian Male, you must do everything yourself and provide for everyone else via taxes. You must jump to the defense of everyone and sundry but not yourself or your religion, race or sexual orientation. To do so is racist bigotry. If you're a White Christian Heterosexual Male like myself, stay the hell away from this "movement"!

Diversity means, "Whites need not apply." And that counts especially if you're a White male.

[-] 4 points by JonoLith (467) 12 years ago

I'm a White Heterosexual Christian Male and I am absolutely in love with this movement and everything it stands for.

If you can't handle standing near, or seeing, a naked lady without thinking less of her, then that is your problem, not hers. You might want to ask yourself "Why do I think that way?"

[-] -3 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

Um, where did I say I have a problem with a naked lady? If she does it in public, then sure, that's a bit troubling and as a Christian Male I would not support it.

And you're right, if I don't like it that's my problem, not hers. Just like it's her problem if she gets attacked by some feral deranged "diversity" freak on parade. NOT MY PROBLEM!

[-] 1 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 12 years ago

" it's her problem if she gets attacked by some feral deranged "diversity" freak on parade."

See what you just did there? That's called Blaming The Victim. When you expect a woman to be attacked, and blame her when it happens, you are actively aligning yourself with her attacker. As a Christian male, I would assume that's the last thing you want to be doing.

[-] 0 points by Dio1313 (69) 12 years ago

I'm confused? I thought this was about Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

It is. But as usual special interest groups just can't resist pushing their agenda. They are opportunists, after all.

[-] -2 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

No it's called "taking responsibility for your own choices". She wants to dance naked in front of a protest and gets hurt, going against conventional Christian wisdom that says that ain't such a grand scheme and then blames this problem on "White Christian Heterosexual Bigoted Racist Men" and then expect me to give a damn.

That's her freaking hamster going, rationalising everything thing SHE DOES as Male Chauvinism and not her fault. It's also societal conditioning, rationalising the slutty behaviour of modern women and not warning them about the dangers involved in partaking in such things. Hey, don't blame me, I ain't raping women, oppressing women or assaulting them in anyway. I just don't really care much for slutty no good career girl SLUTS getting hurt doing what they do best. Sucks to be them!

[-] 1 points by Oldcrone (5) from Missoula, Mt 12 years ago

I would say that your comment is oppressing and assaulting to women and you are a perfect example of that societal conditioning and rationalizing of which you speak. And your words and attitude are far from my understanding of Christianity and Jesus' love, even of Magdalene.

[-] 2 points by NoPartySystem (10) 12 years ago

I am white and male bodied, but I don't feel that this is an exclusionary movement. In fact, unless you are saying that you are part of the 1%, nobody in this movement is trying to exclude you.

But there is a certain amount of privilege you have from being white, male, heterosexual, and christian. Even though it might not feel like it all the time, those "perks" have given you a serious leg-up over women, LGBTQ people, and racial and religious minorities. It is difficult to see yourself in a diverse movement when you are angry at minorities for being angry at you. I am not saying that you should be guilty, I am just saying that you should acknowledge your privilege, and that that might lead to you being more comfortable and motivated in terms of this movement.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

All of this enforced tolerance is destined to fail.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Actually, everyone has a right to occupy space safely when they have the right to occupy the space. That doesn't mean it is open season on squatters, but there is a differentiation.

[-] 0 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 12 years ago

Violence against anyone is unacceptable, including violence against white males..........of whom I am one.

[-] 0 points by buster (1) 12 years ago

does this strike anyone else as pathetic?

You're at a rally with people who are fighting for the same cause, and you need a safe space?

Maybe it's time to leave the park and get therapy instead.


[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 12 years ago

federal land in America is different than crown land in the queen's world (Canada, etc...)

[-] 0 points by Dio1313 (69) 12 years ago

Attention all OWS please go to liveleak.com and watch video of violent protest in Oakland. By occupying you give opportunities for these idiots to blend in with you and act like asses. I am not sure what, if anything you can do about it, but these idiots definitely hurt your cause. Do what you can to keep these dumbasses away from you.


[-] 0 points by KatieGoldman (5) 12 years ago

This is amazing and inspiring, as #OWS has been for nearly two months. Thank you for posting this.

[-] 0 points by jjoplin (25) 12 years ago

wait, so OWS is building space to segregate the women? it's worse than i thought. perhaps the hijab would help, too?

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

I know right? This is not going to help it's the whole "boys have cooties, throw rocks at them" mentality all over again. Seriously WTF?


[-] 0 points by bohratom (22) 12 years ago

Never saw any of this at tea party rallies. Oh thats right, they never raped anyone either.

[-] 3 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

They never held a month-long siege either. I don't think any of us saw occupy wallstreet going this far.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

They just took guns to their protests and kicked people in the head who disagreed with their views and who are disabled. They also started fights with people who were counter-protesting at their events. Violence is violence, no matter what brand it is.

[-] 0 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Obviously women are especially being targeted. I suggest you make this a general safe space for all people who are being targeted.

Hate and violence, and any form of aggression, is childish. Primitive in the fact that it does not function towards our evolution.

Let us throw this way of acting and being away.

[-] 3 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

Everyone is a target in an inner city. Hate and aggression are childish? Oh my God. You have come face to face with reality: some people are bad. They are thieves, rapists, sociopaths, etc. Childish is an extreme understament.

[-] 2 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Thanks for pointing this out to me but you seem to misunderstand me. I know enough about disturbing hate, violence, and 'evil' within people. I study psychology, specifically children and aggressive mental disorders.

I am talking in the attitude that is on a global scale, rather than individual. I know exactly what happens to women who unfortunately get targeted by sociopaths as their next victim, or foster children who are forced to sexually please their foster parents constantly, etc.

There are fucked up people out there. And I've talked to enough psychopaths to learn most of them come from horrible, fucked up backgrounds as is. So, this is why I continue to try to help children most of all.

[-] 2 points by Gabbles (18) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

they are being specific because there has been issues of sexual assault and harassment specifically directed towards people who identify as women, or LGBTQ.

Due to these events, people who identify as such may feel anxiety about their safety when participating in the physical occupation, OWS.org is simply addressing this issue, as anyone might expect, with real solutions.

They can only do one thing at a time and this is clearly an issue that is most urgent considering the sexual violence that has taken place.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Yeah, I started it off with 'obviously' because people began getting offended.

If women are the majority being attacked, as well as LGBTQ individuals, then why not make a safe haven with them in mind, and of course letting it be open to everyone. They were the inspiration for this. It is not a restriction on anyone else. I would really like to present the challenge to people who can't understand this to simply throw away their fundamental ideas about something (even if only temporarily) in order to accept it as being possible.

[-] 2 points by Gabbles (18) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

All I am saying is that by addressing this specific need, they are NOT by any means disregarding other discrimination victims within the camp. Why would they?! Would anyone really allow that?

Imagine this scene, on a chilly wet day, you come across. say...3 large boxes. One box has a bunch of kittens in it, the next, puppies, and the third a bunch of bunnies. Even though they all look like they could use some help, the are cold, and hungry, after all, you decide to take the kittens because they look sick. You don't want to leave the bunnies and puppies behind, but you only have two hands and arms to carry each one. You'll have to come back for them if you want to help.

So, when someone comes up with their arms crossed, "HEY, WHY ARE THOSE KITTENS SO SPECIAL?!"

It seems pretty silly to ask a question like that...doesnt it?

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Yup, it does. It already registered in my mind that Occupy is not prejudiced. Everyone seems to be welcome there, even the homeless if they pitch in.

I see this as being very unneccessary, personally, and I think there are more important issues to discuss. People need to loosen up.

[-] 1 points by Gabbles (18) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

I saw evidence too of the homeless being more than welcome if they were willing to pitch in. Pretty rock n roll.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Lol hell yeah.

[-] 1 points by watson21 (5) 12 years ago

this is such a stupid exsample, you even made the qulifier that the kittens looked sick, and that affected your "judgment". It seems perfectly reasonable to the outsider to ask why are those kittens special, or more accuratly why are you leaving the others behind.

[-] 2 points by metanoia1950 (2) from Kingston, NY 12 years ago

I think the proper response to that particular situation and question might be, "Well, I couldn't carry them all at once, and these looked sick. Why don't you get one of the other boxes, and we'll carry them all someplace they can be safe and warm!" Someone who accosts the person trying to actually DO something with a criticism rather than jumping in and helping out themselves is the problem, not part of the solution!



[-] -1 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

This is the funniest shit ever. "Evolution" is all about survival of the fittest, that includes physical aggression, obviously. Without it, there would be no human race.

Women cry foul when men protect them because we are all equal. Sex, like race, is just a "social construct" or so they say. However, once again, it's probably going to have to be the state, society or MEN who will have to protect the wimenz once again. Oh man, this is fun!

[-] 1 points by Gabbles (18) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

Because of the difficulties in determining the intentions of animals, aggression is defined in neuroscience research as behavior directed at an object or animal which results in damage or harm to that object or animal. Although humans share aspects of aggression with non-human animals, they differ from most of them in the complexity of their aggression because of factors such as culture, morals, and social situations.

So where does this aggression you speak of come from?

Many researchers focus on the brain to explain aggression. The areas involved in aggression in mammals include the amygdala, hypothalamus, prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, hippocampus, septal nuclei, and periaqueductal grey of the midbrain. These are all part of the limbic system.

The brainstem is the inner and most primitive layer and is the part of the brain that oversees repoduction, self-preservation, and vital functions (blood circulation, breathing, etc). Located at the base of the skull, this portion of the brain is sometimes referred to as the "reptilian brain" because all vertebrates from reptiles to mammels share this portion of the anatomy. For the purpose of this discussion, let's think of the brain stem as the source of physical action...

Around the top of the brain stem is the limbic system, whose function seems to be the generation of vivid emotions. Scientists can surgically stimulate the limbic system of lab animals and create spontaneous outburts of fear and aggression. This is often referred to as the "old brain." Think of the old brain as being hard wired and determining most of your automatic reactions.

Now think about the .06% difference in our DNA from that of chimpanzees. They are our closest relatives, but chimps barely have a frontal cortex. That .06 percent difference must have a lot to do with frontal-cortex development, and it's this part of the brain that makes us human.

We are not further evolved in order to use evolution as an excuse for aggression. There is a part of us that is, yes, hard wired to react aggressively. Our frontal cortex, though, what makes our species an evolutionary miracle, is not the root of aggression.

Good luck out there! Absorb Knowledge!

[-] 1 points by ssassy (83) 12 years ago

Sex nor race can be socially constructed. They are both naturally decided.

Nature can not be socially constructed. However, our VIEWS of natural order can be.

The reality is this. Men ARE weaker than women physically, as a man's heart would explode during childbirth. Their organs are not strong enough to sustain. Men ARE physically stronger than women in terms of upper body strength, and this is why patriarchal dominance has been sustained throughout history. If childbirth were the determining factor in regards to our SOCIAL beliefs about strength, it might be men that would be expected to wash dishes and fold clothes. However, that is not how strength is measured based on the social conditions of global societies, nor would it be realistic for women to suddenly take on jobs that require them to lift 100 pounds.

Women and people of color have been marginalized, overlooked and used. The first step in rehabilitation of anything, INCLUDING FAULTY SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS, is acknowledgment that such social conditioning exists.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Why do you think it's about survival of the fittest? What are you competing for? Everything is provided for you. Or, at least, in the beginning it was.

Women have been subjected for thousands of years in all cultures in all ways, with few exceptions. There has been a recent growth spurt of power that women have experienced, and I believe some have forgotten the past. Men nor women are right or wrong, only thinking makes it so in the words of Shakespeare.

This 'aggression' and 'survival of the fittest' is what has caused us to desire more than there is, and has caused the destruction of this planet. Take a look at this if you'd like.


[-] 0 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

The cause of destruction of the planet is due to the 3rd World population expanding at a rate the Earth cannot handle. It's not just greed, although that's part of it too. However, if the population of the Earth continues to grow, the needs of the population will increase and the damage will increase too. That's just common sense, something lacking in this protest group!

Anyway, if you cannot defend yourself, which requires a level of aggression, you will eventually be killed off. The only thing protecting you from the very real dangers of life are the state and the police you hate so much. When they're gone, who is going to defend you? Your morality?

[-] 1 points by ssassy (83) 12 years ago

Actually, third world populations use next to ZERO resources, as they have almost ZERO access to them. Their carbon footprint is practically nil. On the other hand, those of us here in America create tremendous carbon tracks throughout our lifetimes.

WE are killing the planet more than the third world. However, the factories being built in the third world are accelerating this process, as there aren't any regulations to protect the earth, and the people are too poor and powerless to stop it. That doesn't matter to us though! We keep justifying our convenience by demonizing their existence.

I agree that the third world would do itself a HUGE favor by instilling family planning programs with the appropriate educational outreach to back it up. However, we all know the Catholic Church, alongside a host of other 'faith-based' organizations will NEVER let that happen. So, we continue to send blankets and food instead of condoms.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

It's many things, not just one. It's our depletion of our water, natural resources, land, and chemical usage. It's so much more. Population consumption rises at extreme rates, which raises the level of destruction. This is common sense, agreed.

I do not hate them. I hate what most of them have become. What most of them have forgotten. The dangers of this life are experienced by too many people now given our advancement. There is something wrong that we are regressing so. I want both the people in power and the people who gave them that power to sit together in respectful and quite urgent discussion of the solutions that need to take place, what caused the damage to take place, and how it should never happen again.

But, on the other hand, I really don't care if I die. There are more grand and pressing matters to understand. If someone really feels the need to 'end' my physical body, then I will simply let them and continue on the Cosmological Wheel of Life.

You will probably denounce this as esoteric bullshit and continue on in your reality. Which is your life-given right.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

I guess they never read "Lord of the flies".

[-] -1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Don't get me started. I used to support feminists until I realized that they were just criminalizing the male gender. I support equal rights, not slanted rights.

[-] 0 points by OWSsanitation (2) 12 years ago

LGBTQ get special tents. for anyone who is "regularly heterosexual", tough luck. it is, as the article says, "the price they pay" for not having a specialized sexuality identity. heres a concept: throw the partiers, drug users, and alcoholics OUT of the park once and for all and we wont need any special tents at all. unless they should get their own tent, too. <eyeroll>

[-] 3 points by Gabbles (18) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

The article says women & LGBTQ. I am sure of the fact that they are being specific because there has been issues of sexual assault and harassment specifically directed towards people who identify as women, or LGBTQ.

Due to these events, people who identify as such may feel anxiety about their safety when participating in the physical occupation, OWS.org is simply addressing this issue, as anyone might expect, with real solutions.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Thank you. So many people are just stupid.

[-] 3 points by sgcase (8) from Carson City, NV 12 years ago

They are just repeating talking points from faux news or hate radio. The same thing happens on every open discussion board. They are terrified and should be ignored.

[-] 2 points by Gabbles (18) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

I feel like the people who are repeating things, are worth taking the time to try to say something to, directly. They may disregard it with bells and whistles, insisting on their previous stance, but something in me says its worth trying to plant a seed. Even if it means repeating things that seem common place to me.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] 2 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

Partiers, drug users and alcoholics come with the territory of New York. And society for that matter. You are trying to create a Utopian society in a public park in NYC. It ain't gonna happen.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Working to make things safer is the responsible thing to do. It is not Utopian. It is realistic.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

Kicking out parts of society is an attempt to create something that does not exist. Staying safe is important, but you can't expect to camp out in an inner city and not have unsavory types. They exist.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

No, but you can work to minimize their negative impact, as people do everywhere outside of the park as well.

[-] -1 points by wnkinc (12) from Bodega Bay, CA 12 years ago

how many times can a real man make a real woman cum? a real man dont give damm!!

hahahahaaa LoL

[-] -1 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 12 years ago

Sad, that even in the Occupied movement this is an issue.

[-] -1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

As a woman, I would be mortified to feel such a thing was necessary.

[-] 0 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

It shows the lack of experience from the "leadership".

[-] -1 points by FreeMarkets (272) 12 years ago

Actually, out here in the real world none of those things are accepted as "the price you pay". It is only when you start to devolve back to the law of the jungle that these things will become common again. This is where the OWS anarchist wing is bringing you . . .

[-] 2 points by sgcase (8) from Carson City, NV 12 years ago

FreeMarkets = privatize the profits...socialize the risk. Is this is the real world?

[-] 0 points by FreeMarkets (272) 12 years ago

That is the world that statists have brought upon us, but it will be torn down over the next few years as we reset the federal government back to its Constitutionally defined roles.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

And unregulated, free markets have nothing to do with the law of the jungle being perpetuated on us all. when you point fingers, three are pointed right back at you.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by FreeMarkets (272) 12 years ago

Hmm. We were talking about queers and such, but so be it. We have an OVER regulated market, not an unregulated market. What we really need is far more regulations on the power and scope of government.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Deregulation of banks are the primary cause of the recession we're in now. The system is STILL under-regulated, due to the involvement of the banks.

Corporations are a fiction created by law written after the constitution. There is no constitutionally guaranteed protection from regulation they enjoy.

What's more, the constitutionally defined role of government was to keep changing, and all sorts of mechanisms are embedded in it to make sure that would happen. One role of government that was not mandated by the constitution, however, was that it be nothing more than a handmaiden to big money. That is a fabrication by libertarian think tanks funded by billionaires.

The common good, not the protection of the elite, was the thrust of that document, its spirit and purpose. That is why it is still rightly celebrated as the greatest civil document in history: it ushered the rest of the world into democracy, not corporate oligarchy. For the first time in history, the people had the right to make new laws, change those they didn't like, and even alter the very document that enabled them to do so.

Constitutional Originalism mandates that government grows or shrinks as needs or wants change over time. It does not mandate preservation of government's function in amber, but brilliantly gives government the ability and obligation to be dynamic, in service of the people. Its genius was not in limiting government, but in making it elastic and accountable.

That, not some fantasy about a fictitious mandate for unregulated business, is the constitution we must return to. Promoting the common welfare, not the welfare of the wealthy alone is the stated goal in the preamble, and the first three words are "We the People" not "We the Servants of International Conglomerates."

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Yeah, every one says that until unregulated competition gets too hard, then it is please government come save me. You marketeers are like children who want more freedom, but hate the responsibility that comes with it, i.e. the banks in '08. As for the LGBTQ, I don't waste my time even having an opinion about them. That would be like worrying about snow in spring.

[-] 0 points by FreeMarkets (272) 12 years ago

Let me try again: A government that was stripped of its power to come and save industry would solve the whole problem. We cannot grant this kind of power to government and then think we can regulate it into submission.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

That is a pipe dream, kinda like the one the USSR had before it imploded. because we all have the right to form factions, as the Federalist Papers indicate, there will always be market subversion. The Founders made private industry kiss their boots. Private industrialists in modernity makes the gov't kiss their boots. The difference between fascism and socialism is who is kissing whose boots. I prefer that the private sector do the boot kissing, at least the gov't is answerable to the people. And to say there is a middle ground is wishful thinking. As Adam Smith said, “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”

[-] -1 points by NonParticipant (151) 12 years ago

You do realize it's not the 1% harassing, groping and assaulting, right? It's the 99%. The 1% wouldn't touch you...and alot of the 99% for that matter.

[-] 4 points by Oneofmany (85) 12 years ago

Herman Cain allegedly disagrees...

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

THe 1% has only groped, harassed and especially assaulted all of us economically and politically. It has only fought wars over oil or political hegemony, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

So no, these particular assaults were not perpetrated by that 1%. Many, far more horrific ones, on a huge scale, have been.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 12 years ago

But that's not what this article is addressing. It is addressing the fact that the 99% are harming each other and have to hide from one another, to be protected from others in the same camp. So helpful for the cause.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Yes, I was extending the issue. I did so because you implied that the 1% is innocent of harm. You opened the door; I went through.

What's more, the homelessness, rage, mental illness that goes untreated, among the 99%, conditions that too often lead to assault, were created largely by the 1% you laud as innocent. You say they would touch anyone. They have.

(And in terms of being literal, the 1% is not guilty of sexual assault? Did you miss the story about the hotel maid and the French banker this past summer?)

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 12 years ago

I am talking about THIS article that says a special tent for people to hide in from other protestors is being set up. I was strictly addressing what was discussed in THIS article. If OWS can't get their crap together in one little campsite, how do they POSSIBLY think they can run the country???????

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

I think you completely misunderstand. Hiding from other protesters is not what the tent is for. It is a place within the occupation that is somewhat insulated from outsiders taking advantage of the openness of the site and event.

Nowhere in the article does it say that women were attacked by their fellow protesters.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

Anyone is capable of these things. it's as though they have been in the burbs their entire lives and now finally are confronted with society.

[-] -1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Once again. Heterosexual males are portrayed as savage brutes. This is garbage. I don't like this culture of victims that this "safe place" is brewing. And the fact that there is three identifiable feminist group involved doesn't speak well of this.

Yeah you heard me. I do not support feminists. Their ideology isn't about equality but about misandry. How can OWS allow the misandrists to run this? Equal rights yes, but just turning the tables on men? Unacceptable. Please make it so that it's fair for all.

To hell with the Matriarchy, they are but female chauvinistic pigs!

Proud to be a male!

[-] 6 points by Sly (19) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Please put on your rational thinking cap for just a moment. This is a call to the Occupy camps to take action to help those occupiers who feel targeted or threatened to feel safe. The rational way to approach this is to ask those who do not feel safe what steps could be taken to help them feel safer. In this instance, it happens to be the women who feel targeted by assault and they have requested a separate, protected sleeping area. The correct course is to construct this for them. It would help them feel safer and having their needs respected by the community makes them PART of the community. The correct course is NOT to construct a segregated area for every single "group" you can think of. That is a waste of time, space, and resources, and likely no one would actually use the space because no one requested it. Should, however, heterosexual males request a similar safe place, they should also get one, without any snide comments about their already being protected because they are the majority. People who do not feel safe are not empowered.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by crowseye (3) 12 years ago

Dude, what kind of f-cking revolution are you talking about? "Turning the tables on men"? How insecure can you get? Aren't you lefty men turning the tables on the rich? How many examples of communist revolutions where the rich have been sent to work camps (Cambodia, China, Vietnam, Soviet Union). Where is the "equality" there? And "culture of victims"? Where do you get this shit. Aren't you making the working class out to be a "culture of victims"? Oh no, but that's different. Why? Well, because that oppression actually exists. Whereas jailing homosexuals (Cuba, China), laws that allow men to beat their wives (nope, not talking about Iran...was a law on the books in the US and Canada up until the mid-1960s), well, heck, that's just nature. Just the way things are. Yup.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

Well said!

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 0 points by occupymind (5) 12 years ago

I'm a male and I don't mind this at all. I'm white and I don't mind this at all. I'm hetero and I don't mind this at all. As a male I feel it's my duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. That is what I'm "programmed" to do. So why not allow this? It means I have less to worry about. It's obvious that in the abominable instances in which this has happened there was a failure on both the protector and the victims part to participate in safety, so the victim has done something to create a better sense of security. This is what any animal (sentient or not) is programmed to do. If the males are feeling they need to erect a tent, then they can have it voted in at the GA. Though I think it a testament to your inability to cope with reality if you feel you need a tent for safety and equality as a male. We are the protector, women are the nurturer, but it can go both ways. However, statistically men are and women are the aforementioned respective statuses.

Go ahead my fellow gender, make a big deal about it. But when it comes down to it, you should be just as happy with these two tents as me.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Right on!

[-] 0 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

No I am not. I just don't like the idea of what that "special tent" entails. This is a bloody occupation, you're not there for tea and biscuits.

Those who can't handle it, shouldn't even be there. It's that simple, I mean did we loose tract that this is a damn protest we're doing?

I guess that flew over your head right? It's going to be ugly, it's not going to be fun, it will be hard, and you're the one living in a dream state if you don't realize this.

That tent, is a liability, that tent is the weak link in the chain. It needs to go. It makes it a target. When the cops push, where do you think they are going to aim at? That's right, you guessed it.

We have to stop acting like it's woodstock and be serious about this. Where are the vets? They should voice their concern and experience!!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Yes, it might get (and has been) ugly. This is indeed a damned protest. But the ugliness and risk are different for most men and most women. 1 in 5 women are raped, at least, according to all studies. That can't be said of men. Until you grow a vagina, you really can't speak to the legitimacy of what women feel they should be willing to "handle".

There is no harm in doing whatever is possible to mitigate the danger of sexual assault among those gathered. There is harm, deeply unethical harm, of doing nothing.

The tent is a haven for those who want it. The choice to occupy there is just that: a choice. Nobody is being herded anywhere.

[-] -1 points by Gileos (309) 12 years ago

Please point out to me what peice of legislation gives anyone the right to occupy anything.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

The first amendment to the constitution gives the right to assembly. It does not specify that the assembly must disband when the sun goes down.

There is a long history of occupying movements in this country. The most apt, perhaps, is the Bonus Army's Hooverville in Washington, DC during the Great Depression.

[-] 1 points by Gileos (309) 12 years ago

As I said, it does not give the right to occupy anything, thanks for clearing that up.

Who cares if its happened before, it doesnt make it ok.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

It does indeed. The Constitution is set up in such a way that if an action is not expressly forbidden, it is a right.

I'm afraid to ask, but why do you object? What, in your mind makes it not OK?

[-] 1 points by Gileos (309) 12 years ago

You must be delusional.

Its trashy.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Please explain.

[-] -2 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

This is the stuff that is so ridiculous. You are sleeping in tents in a park in the middle of New York for Christ's sake. Where are these people from that they didn't see this coming? If you really gave a shit about people, you'd tell them to sleep somewhere safe and protest during the day. There are BAD people on this planet. This Pollyanna-just off the train from the Midwest- mentality is so naive it's laughable. NYC is not for whimps or suckers. Give those girls mace at least.

[-] 0 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

You echo my thoughts about this. This is a revolution we're doing, not an f'n kid's birthday party. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

[-] -2 points by primaloath (-1) 12 years ago

Let me translate and summarize the above article.

  1. We get upset when heterosexual males grope us. Women wouldn't try to grope us because they're not risk-takers and homosexual males are okay because they only grope other homosexual males, so we can't vilify them as outsiders anyway.

  2. The world is run by heterosexual males, and that's why things are going badly. We should overthrow them.

  3. It's in the interest of heterosexual males to treat us well and keep us safe [while we strive to overthrow them].

  4. The reason we want heterosexual males to make things safer for us is that we don't like taking risks like actually fighting the people who grope us. Also, we deserve to be treated as equals to those who fight in our stead.

There. Now it reads properly.

In any case, I don't think feminism and other identity politics groups have any place in a movement that claims to support "the 99%". These are special interest groups. They do not support the common good, they support themselves. I highly encourage anyone who finds this comment surprising to read a bit about Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Solanas, Pamela Smart and the like, and also engage run-of-the-mill feminists in casual conversation to understand their character.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

From personal experience alone, (let alone my reading and hearing Steinem, Friedan, et al) I can attest to your inaccuracy. ALL of my female friends are feminists, and NONE of them spout the drivel you just ascribed to them.

If you believe women should have the right to vote, you are a feminist.

If you believe women should have equal pay for equal work, you are a feminist.

If you believe women are as qualified as men to be scientists, doctors, artists, judges, Senators, etc, you are a feminist.

If you understand that women have been unfairly denied these rights and opportunities in the past, and are still discriminated against in many ways today, you are a feminist.

It's really that simple.

Feminism is not identity politics; it is an insistence on equality, a civil rights issue. It is unsurprising that some men feel threatened by this, distort it and engage in demagoguery; More equality means less control and power, illusions not surrendered easily.

[-] 1 points by Oldcrone (5) from Missoula, Mt 12 years ago

And you don't have to be female to be a feminist. I have many male friends who consider themselves feminists.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Count me among them.

[-] 1 points by buster (1) 12 years ago

sorry. Needing a "special cuddle room" that denies access to other people based on how they were born isn't equality, it's a reboot of the smoke-filled-good-ol-boy's-clubroom.

Seriously, if you need a structure like this to feel safe at your own rally, you should be on a therapists couch, not a rally.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 12 years ago

Unfortunately there have been several rapes against women in the Occupy movement across the country - yes, life on the street in the big city at night really is dangerous! It's not paranoia when every perv in the city is looking at the pictures of the pretty demonstrators on the news and licking his chops (or doing something else...) about what he'd like to do to them. Like affirmative action, making a special safe place for women naturally strikes people as intrinsically unfair and an example of what we'd like to see ended, but as an emergency measure, lasting only until the underlying injustice is resolved, it can be justified.

[-] -2 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

Seeing websites like Hollaback! and Feministing just turns off a lot of supporters, me included.

[-] 0 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

I distrusts these groups as much as I distrusts Fathers 4 Justice or the Promise Keepers.

[-] -2 points by FreeMarkets (272) 12 years ago

If you scroll from the bottom of the home page to the top, you see this amazing evolution from quasi-serious to leftist to goofiness to loons. Yesterday is was the Barrio soul mates, now we've got the LGBQT rainbow eaters.

This movement has so jumped the shark!

[-] 0 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

No proper leadership That's the problem. We need a REAL LEADER!!

[-] 1 points by sgcase (8) from Carson City, NV 12 years ago

OccupyDenver has elected a leader.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

'bout time


[-] -2 points by reallycold (34) 12 years ago

Special tents are making this movement a joke. This revolution looks like the same old revolution. Inequality.

[-] 2 points by grimwomyn (35) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I kinda agree, I think there should be roller derby girls with baseball bats to run security in all the occupations.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

How about seasoned martial artists from all walks of life, male female, young old, straight, gay, etc?

[+] -5 points by Theundecidedpercent (24) 12 years ago

Who knows, perhaps beneath the starry night sky, in a special tent, a child will be conceived, a new leader to lead the leaderless 99 % over the hill and into the ditch on the other side to be reborn in poverty, depression and hopelessness! Yes, I can see it now, this wonderful new world awaits you OWStreeters! You can but clutch at it like straws!

Oh and, Diversity, diversity, diversity! Don't forget that. Diversity is our strength and onwards it must march till no White is left alive! Then humanity will have obtained true DIVERSITY!


[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

All of these "others" exist for a reason but i think it somewhat unrealistic to believe that open display will ever be entirely acceptable to the majority that are biologically programmed, on a subliminal level, to emotionally respond to it as repugnant.

And for that reason, I do not support the open and free expression of minority sexuality.

[-] -2 points by DrRonPaul (8) 12 years ago

Does this mean you will stop assaulting police officers?

[-] 3 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

Cops shouldn't dress so seductively. They're asking for it.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I like that you used that name and speak such garbage. you do your sugar daddy proud. he should be worried you are soiling is little bit of credit he still has. good job.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Self-defense isn't a crime.

[-] 1 points by thestruin (83) 12 years ago

remember its not self defense if its a cop, just like its illegal to defend your home if a cop breaks down the door with a drawn weapon.

[-] 2 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Between respecting the law and saving my own neck, take a wild guess what I will choose?

[-] 1 points by Dio1313 (69) 12 years ago

You would most likely get shot to death.

[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

Or worse, I would be successful.

[-] 0 points by Dio1313 (69) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by thestruin (83) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by Occupytheimf (134) 12 years ago

99% dont approve. Who do u believe police serve 99% or crony