If you have "no place to go," come here!

Misogyny at Occupy Wall Street

DCblogger's picture

Jill has the details.

Everyday is men hate women day.

UPDATE: Part of running a large demonstration is dealing with all the flotsam that demonstrations attract. You have to have a strategy for pick pockets, you have to have a strategy for counter demonstrators, and you have to have a strategy to create an environment where women are safe. Hot Chick of OWS may not be in the same league as Girls Gone Wild, but it is a similar mentality. It is inherently disrespectful.

Now it is very difficult for those who are there to create this with all the distractions and difficulties of making it up as you go along (a good thing) to cope with all the difficulties of a large and sustained occupation. This is one of the difficulties we are going to face and somehow we need to have a way to discourage it.

No votes yet


Daniel Kuehn's picture
Submitted by Daniel Kuehn on

I think you need to chill out. If you read the blog, I think you're totally misrepresenting his intentions. Read the positive response he's gotten from these women too.

These are really gorgeous women he's capturing, and there's no "upskirt" attitude or anything like that that Jill suggests. It's really a shame you all can't differentiate truly inappropriate behavior (like your second link), from this guy who seems to be entirely sincere and celebratory.

I'm glad the women in my life don't get angry when I let them know how beautiful I think they are.

This post belongs in some Breitbart thread or some other venue that gets intimidated by beautiful women. Not here.

RedQueen's picture
Submitted by RedQueen on

We are not here to provide visual stimulation for you. We don't give a shit what you think. You are not in the women's lives who are being profiled by this douchebag. He's a creepy stranger who isn't any better than a street harasser (and worse cause he's got a bigger audience)

And you just approved of him and his creepy ways.

I don't have a problem with my boyfriend calling me beautiful, or my friends. But I know them. I've established a relationship with them. I have a problem when strange men who harass and pester and treat me and any other woman like it's their god given right to judge them on their fuckabiltity.

But I doubt you understand that. So lemme phrase it in a way that might penetrate the dudebro layer of your brain. Imagine how crappy it would be if every time you walked down the street, or went to a protest about overthrowing the traditional power structure, some lady thought it was totally her place to announce what she thought of the bulge in your pants. "Oh it's okay sweetheart, I like em small" would be your version of "nice tits"

Nobody should be judging your fuckability who isn't actually going to get a chance to fuck you. No one should be judging mine either. Or the women of Zuccotti Park.

Daniel Kuehn's picture
Submitted by Daniel Kuehn on

RedQueen you trivialize the harassment that does go on by failing to distinguish between harassment and celebration.

If you don't like what he's doing that's fine but don't you dare twist what I've said to make me out to be some kind of woman hater. You write:

"So lemme phrase it in a way that might penetrate the dudebro layer of your brain. Imagine how crappy it would be if every time you walked down the street, or went to a protest about overthrowing the traditional power structure, some lady thought it was totally her place to announce what she thought of the bulge in your pants. "Oh it's okay sweetheart, I like em small" would be your version of "nice tits""

Please, RedQueen. I said EXPLICITLY in my comment that harassment of women like this goes on and that it's absolutely unacceptable. Don't throw a line like this back at me as if I endorse this. My whole point is that this guy's blog doesn't have anything like that. If you can find one instance on his blog of him being crude like that or harassing in any way to these women, you let me know. I didn't see anything.

You write: "Nobody should be judging your fuckability who isn't actually going to get a chance to fuck you. No one should be judging mine either. Or the women of Zuccotti Park."

And it's sad that that's what you thought he was doing.

Like I said - go join fucking Breitbart if you're going to blow things out of proportion, get uber-puritanical, and deliberately dissemble like this.

Daniel Kuehn's picture
Submitted by Daniel Kuehn on

But I wasn't explaining "how to be a feminist". I was explaining how she shouldn't use her feminism to bash other feminists on the head.

I understand people aren't going to agree with my read of this guys blog. RedQueen was way out of line to suggest I was promoting or advocating the harassing things she said.

She needs to learn to disagree without demonizing people and then hiding behind "respect for women" as if that's something that she and I don't share.

If a person can't disagree with RedQueen without being accused of being a misogynist, what's the point?

The Other Elizabeff's picture
Submitted by The Other Elizabeff on

That line always gets trotted out. "Don't call me girl. i haven't been a girl in 30 years." "But but but my girlfriend likes being called a girl!"

Red Queen, there is no direct equivalent for men of being reduced to a love sex cunt whore with darling little opinions. That is why our friend can't see the problem. He probably also thinks that men wind up with in all the leadership roles in any setting because they're like, smarter or something.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

"I'm glad the women in my life don't get angry when I let them know how beautiful I think they are."

That is way different from some stranger getting a model release from the "women in your life" for a filmed interview where they are sharing their "opinions"... but later find out that the film was done as a pretense to being part of a "Hot Chicks Know How to Talk While Being HOT!!" website.

If you are still struggling to understand the outrage here, I suggest looking to the "women in your life" and maybe asking them honestly how they would feel to be duped into being jerk-off material. If they drop their eyes and agree with you that it isnt' a big deal...

Next thing, when this happens to a young woman (because they are the "hot" ones, right?) how many really have the experience or confidence to call it out? I'm sure they know they will be told they don't "understand" that they are being held up above all the plain girls and they are totally HOT, so don't be all sensitive. just aren't getting how harmless this huge compliment is.

Now, the part where you are drawing mysterious fire from feminists here (I am one of the feminists too) - starting your comment with "You need to chill out...". Really? Why can't we be outraged about anything we want without the dude opinion of the validitity of our reaction. Stay focused on the content and stay away from judging the person if you want to argue with anyone, even feminists. You don't do that to men, it is sexist to do it to women. I have rarely seen a man admonished with "you are overreacting".

This admonishment of "reaction quality" tends to show up ALL THE TIME on posts dealing with how feminists percieve harassment (or rape, or abuse, or ...).

Lambert can correct me if he is regularly shamed for "over-reacting" rather than commenters not agreeing with his opinion directly...

Blizzard's picture
Submitted by Blizzard on

... men like looking at attractive women. How horrifying! I do like the hyperbole about "jerk off material" though. First, that's a pretty bizarre notion of male sexuality that anyone is jerking off to a picture of a random woman on the street. Second, it's really none of your business what anyone does in their privacy.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

It seems for men like you, unless you experience being objectified, you will not be able to empathize. I'm hopeful that this condition is a result of lack of imagination rather than the more obvious likely cause, a sense of entitlement which you are unaware you even have.

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

Our appearance should be secondary to who we are on the inside. Treating women as if their appearance is the sum of their value to a movement is offensive. It's also dismissive of the other values these women bring to the table.

The problem isn't that he finds someone attractive. It's that he chose to focus on that one superficial aspect of them and use it.

I daresay a guy would like it if we categorized them by the size of their bank account. It's no different when you choose to focus on outer appearance.

Submitted by dirac on

Then honestly you're going to need to neuter men. Even if you don't feel or see them looking at you, they're judging fuckability and unless you're in a burka you're providing visual stimulation to someone, especially if they're hetero male. I'd also think that women do that, too. As the commenter said, these women seem to be OK with this and I actually thought it was pretty flattering given the crappy name of the blog. Is this a type of "whitewashing" to make it [EDIT:] seem women friendly? Maybe. Don't know.

If there is actually an issue down there, I'd think the OWSers would want to address that directly in a group setting with gender parity so that people--especially males--can shame it.

The Other Elizabeff's picture
Submitted by The Other Elizabeff on

That doodz are horny is no excuse for this. It's one thing to enjoy the landscape and another thing to slap images of individual, real women on a site to be jack off fodder. This does a number of damaging things: Erases what the subjects actually think as what is really important is their hot juicy love holes; erases any woman who doesn't meet the the exacting standards of Mr. Douche's penis; reinforces the overall idea that the only position for women in the movement is prone.

Submitted by dirac on

It's not an excuse, just a reality as this is a social situation not in a vacuum. As I said, use the structure of OWS to address it and educate/shame it if there are obvious infractions.

I am of the opinion that if they consented to give their likenesses, then they're fine with the use of the photos. Those ideas, you know, "that the only position for the women in the movement is prone" you're at least somewhat co-creating them yourself. I don't see it as "jack off fodder." Like I said (did you read the entirety of my comment or just the first couple sentences?) it could be whitewashing and the guy could be a total creep. The pictures are quite diverse actually. The interviews with a girl who wanted to talk a lot about OWS weren't focusing on her breasts or legs but he sure gave her a forum and plenty of time to express her opinion. It might actually be heard on a larger scale now. Unintended consequence of a douche? Meh, maybe.

Submitted by dirac on

Let me just add, being a somewhat younger person, that I know people are hooking up here because it's a social event. At the margins, someone's maybe even trolling for a lay.

But am I going to judge the motives of the man who goes to OWS and leaves with a woman? No.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Seriously. You can't see any difference between THINKING "Wow. I want her" and saying OUT LOUD IN PUBLIC "Hey, you're fuckable"?

A personal relationship, where she expresses an interest and you move on to that stage IS NOT THE SAME as barging in on complete strangers to whom you mean zero. Probably less than zero. Probably a negative quantity because they have to waste energy shutting you out.

Do you think women have no interest in sex? Do you have to hear about their opinion of your package all the time?


(Sorry about the caps, folks. Just a futile attempt to penetrate the dudebro ivory skull.)

Submitted by dirac on

I love how people tone troll and then call folks "blithering idiots." It's not very persuasive either. I've noticed it's a bigger problem amongst those on the left.

RedQueen's picture
Submitted by RedQueen on

I don't give a flying fuck if someone thinks I am hot or not. I certainly go through my day seeing lots of people who I find attractive.

The difference is- I don't fucking annoy them, badger them, harass them or take and post pictures of them on the internet because they made my panties damp and then throw a fucking fit when someone says "dude, not cool"

Why is it that, and you may be able to answer this since if you aren't a douchebag you certainly are defending them, why is it that douchebags always assume that a request from a feminist to act like a damn decent human being = castrate the men! I mean is it projection? Is it fear that if we ladies got a little power we'd do to men what's been done to us for millenia?

Daniel Kuehn's picture
Submitted by Daniel Kuehn on

RedQueen, you didn't just say "dude not cool". You accused him and me of being women haters, harassers, creeps, and idiots.

No one is throwing a hissy fit. We're just saying you're an asshole that has no idea what you're talking about and is trivializing real sexual harassment by getting so worked up about this"

Because you know what - someone needs to tell you that.

This isn't about women. I no more harass women then you do. I no more endorse harassing women than you do. This is about you. Someone needs to call you out on your crap. Deal with it - don't call it "throwing a hissy fit".

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

"You're trivializing the REAL shit, by getting all worked up about this." It goes on for sometime, and usually concludes with the line that we should be happy this is as bad as it is, we could be getting our clits cut off.

And thanks for the mansplaination that despite the lived realities of constant sexual objectification, that we are actually TOTALLY unaware of REAL harrassment.

This isn't about women

Maybe not to you, but good to know where you stand when it comes to the issues that affect women's lives.

Daniel Kuehn's picture
Submitted by Daniel Kuehn on

re: "It goes on for sometime, and usually concludes with the line that we should be happy this is as bad as it is, we could be getting our clits cut off."


Screw you. I don't fucking deserve this.

Stop fooling yourselves that you're standing up for feminism here. I'm on your side on almost everything I read on Corrente. But when I just pipe up that the guy doesn't seem to be doing what you accuse him of I get genital mutilation thrown at me! Jesus Christ.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

It's perfectly reasonable that people here would be offended. There's no need to insult them for making the legitimate point that this tumblr is objectifying women.

"Content of their character," remember? Why should any woman- any person- have their message valued more or less depending on how they look?

If it had been "Hot People of Occupy Wall Street," it would still be pretty bad, because what about the people who don't meet broad standards of attractiveness? Does their message somehow count less for that? Do their grievances matter less?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

You claim to be here, but if you were, it seems you would be aware that telling women to stop complaining about something that SEEMS minor to you, because it's trivializing, is one of the oldest concern trolling silencing tactics in the book.

And yes, when that line of argument starts, it quickly devolves into "You don't have to wear a burka or get stoned for being alone outside, so stuff it"

You don't want to be associated with douchenoodles who do that shit, do lower yourself to their tactics.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Some of you self-defined feminists really need to stop going to the FGM the minute some dood challenges your interpretation.

I like men. I also know when men are being sexist assholes. This is not one of those times. You owe Daniel an apology.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Come on now please!

How was what Greenberg did NOT misogyny. Did he really have to outright call his "movie" "Fuckable Babes of OWS and The Babbling I needed to Listen to to Get a Shot at Getting in Their Pants" for you or Daniel to object? By his own fucking account, this dood was lounging around his pad, watching the tv or whatever, saw some attractive women, grabbed his friend and a camera with the premeditated idea solely of oggling and leering at "hotties". I remember being young once myself, but no matter how horny I was, I never let my reptile brain take over to anywhere near that level. This dood is a fucked up leering buffoon.

Christ in a fucking shitbag. It's not even a close call!

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

... That these women are sexually attractive?? And maybe even fuckable? *I* could put together "the most fuckable guys of OWS" and let me tell you, there are plenty of delicious specimens. If I were 20 years younger, I'd be sampling the goods every night.
What really bothers me is the stupid shit that comes out of some of those women's mouths. This is not the off Broadway version of Hair and I swear that if I trip over another yoga diva meditating in the middle of a tight thoroughfare, I'm going mic check her in her ear.
It's what happens at the GA and working groups that count. Most people can keep their dicks in their pants and their headlights off. The question is, can she command respect as an activist? That's when you'll know whether there is misogyny going on.

Submitted by dirac on

I'm actually a meditator, so I'm happy to hear that they are doing that there. Don't knock it 'til you try it. ;) As long as there's no crystals and sage new age, it really does help the movement!

Anyway, I took a look at Jill's second posting and Steven Greenstreet is an opportunistic indefensible douche in this case. I still think those pictures are not upskirt-type violations and they seemed flattering when I looked at them, but he's an immature crass asshole--joking about rape and all. I'd rather not waste more time giving him attention though.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

First of all, I didn't go to the FGM, and only a dimwitted reading of my comment could claim that I did. I stated that the argument that we are trivializing REAL harrassment by claiming this is harrassment is a silencing technique, and the cry that we be grateful we aren't getting FGM is usually next.

For example, Dawkins odious defense of the notorious elevator proposition episode(another situation where you came down on the side of those who felt women were overreacting, and even threatened us with the wonderful oldie "But Men Won't Ask You Out Anymore).

Secondly, I too like men. I like men ALOT. So that means I too, happen to know when someone is being a sexist asshole, and this is one of those times.

Submitted by lambert on

Acronym, expansion, please!

As for beauty, etc. ... "Hot chicks" says it all, to me. Ick.

Sorry I'm so late to moderate this, RL has had its demands today, and now does again.

But I think it's an interesting thread anyhow, so I'm glad to let it take it's course. My views are summarized below.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Female Genital Mutilation.

When the brou-ha-ha over the girl who felt creeped out by the guy that hit on her in the elevator at the atheist convention happened, Richard Dawkins covered himself in douchenoodle glory by minimizing her complaint and writing a spoof letter to a Muslim woman about how the feminists would get to her having her clitoris removed and being stoned for being alone after we made sure that that white girls were safe in elevators everywhere.

It's a common tactic when feminists get upset about something that fauxgressive doods would rather we didn't, to guilt us with the more horrific oppressions put upon women, as if we shouldn't get upset about the smaller stuff that directly affects us, until we get around to fixing all the other ills of the world.

Which ignores several realities, like the fact that major oppressions are built upon the foundations of a thousand smaller oppressions.

Stephanie's picture
Submitted by Stephanie on

...major oppressions are built upon the foundations of a thousand smaller oppressions."

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

or perhaps this is a ploy to draw more males. I do feel the idea there should be a "Hot Women of OWS" is extremely sexist and it reflects poorly on attitudes towards women. It continues to enforce this notion that appearance in WOMEN trumps everything else and this undermines things like intelligence or compassion. Part of the reason men are often dismissive of us in a work environment can be traced back to this idea that we, as women, are merely meant to be "eye candy."

I don't mind if a man finds me attractive. I do mind if he is so focusing on it to the point that he misses who I am as an entire person.

Submitted by dirac on

Forgive me, but this thread has become a cliché. Yes, it's OK to be outraged at this (yes, I know you don't need my approval), but then it devolved from a person offering their dissenting perspective (and maybe not even skillfully, oh well, I don't think all of your language was necessarily skillful either) to "Oh, now it's [A] excuse. You don't know...[throw in a pejorative]" Then the leftyish men chime in to want to suck up to the women and everyone comes away fighting the stupid battle of the sexes. But usually it ends up as a collective dump on the dissenters and not some understanding conversation and education on misogyny. This is why I barely comment and rarely on topics like this, because once I engage in any place with a dissenting opinion, it's "I'm a blithering idiot" and then someone proceeds to think they "pwn me" or whatever.

Perhaps it's because of the unfortunate headline, which I think is tabloidish and sort of leads one to believe this is rampant. Is it? Is it because it's OWS or is that just a microcosm? Is it associated with the movement? I have these questions. I probably am more defensive of OWS than I am of the random guy who posts pics on the internet. Was this guy getting pics under false pretenses? If so, I'll accept everything you say. I found this far more flattering than what I expected though.

Re: castration: here's a little bit of my opinion on that. If someone doesn't take a pic in a public place, do you think that person still doesn't hold this image in their mind when they go home to jack off (as you're accusing us of--you're basically saying that the only reason to take a picture of hot women is to use the site as a stand in for whatever masturbation material a man uses--isn't that a pretty one-dimensional stereotype?)? Are you comfortable with that? I'm sure men wouldn't be to some degree, but it's a serious question because I'd like to know if people think that's a socialization issue that could be corrected. There's a lot of talk about how men don't know what it's like. You're right and you got the short end of the stick, especially if you see it that way. The same is true vice versa. I think people assume that by the time you're 25, you've got control of the whole testosterone thing. Well, he doesn't (and, yes, this is cliche too). I know, now trivialize my opinion by calling it mansplaining or say I'm excusing the behavior of the gropers and harassers (people like the guy in the second link, who are the real obvious fuckfaces in this).

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

the difference between guys silently judging the 'fuckability' of every woman passing by vs. making a video about a particular group's quantity of that quality and publishing it far and wide?

Also, if you can't handle your feelings, it's not up to women to wear a burka - it's up to you to wear a blindfold.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

would smell as sweet? Is that what it would take to cross your line? To actually use the word? Because his intent was pretty clear and that's exactly what it was about.

And yes, that would be me sucking up to the ladies here, pretending to be a feminist so they likes me and maybe I can get in their pants.

I didn't like the title of this post either, but that doesn't mean I don't know misogyny when I see it.

Submitted by dirac on

Actually, was just asking because it's been thrown around a lot in this thread and I didn't see it on the site.

Now proceed with your teachings!

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

why attractiveness is considered a desirable trait? Appearance is a big factor in sexual chemistry. Pretending otherwise is not very intellectually honest. However, I'll bite. What do you think the poster means by the term "hot," if not desirability?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

It's not that people are privately judging your fuckability in their heads. It is something we ALL do, as we are all sexual creatures to some extent.

It's about whether your determining another's fuckability interferes with your ability to treat the objects of your determinations, as human fucking beings with their own thoughts and feelings.

Which it obviously does for some people, hence the long established belief that objectifying women as the sex class is a form of oppression.

The Other Elizabeff's picture
Submitted by The Other Elizabeff on

So if I don't like it, I can stuff it. Mr Man's boner comes first. Thanks for proving my point.

You know, hooking up, fine. People meet and decide to go off and have a grand ol time together, fabulous. Great for them. Hell, the biggest pick-up scene in America is church.

Objectification, pornification, making movement participants into monkey-spanking material, is something completely different. It reduces our participation in the movement to eye candy fuck holes. No one takes what a hott chikk says seriously. She's there to be hott, not to lead or influence by her thought.

The narrative of the whole damned world (the humanities, the arts, politics, science, economics, any realm of activity) is "Men advance history. When they get tired from all the hard work of advancing history, they let off a little steam by fukking chix. Then they go back to the hard work of advancing history. Women are there to provide comfort and support to the men doing the real work of advancing history." That is the context, the reality, in which Hot Chicks of OWS takes its place. It's sexist, marginalizing. totally unacceptable.

And frankly, HCOOWS is on the internet, and so am I, and I am allowed to shame it, and not wait for a man to do it.

Submitted by Lex on

Not seeing how this is misogyny at Occupy Wall Street. On the internet, yes, but what's new?

Misogyny at the protest would be only letting "hot" women speak, or not letting them speak at all.

This is one guy (and maybe a few friends) who has a total of three pages posted on the internet. The headline here is Huffington Post worthy and misleading.

I'm not making excuses for the guy, but i'm not sure how overreacting to him is helpful to anyone. Don't get me wrong, i love playing "Someone is wrong on the internet!" It's just that ... oh never mind. I can see it coming: i'm a misogynist too now.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

We don't really know the relationship of the guy who posted this is to OWS. We just know that that guy is a misogynistic douche, but for all we know he has no real relation to the protest itself.

I'd be shocked (or more accurately I wouldn't believe it) if there wasn't some misogyny at OWS only because there's misogyny everywhere, it's become so ingrained in the culture. But this may or may not be an example of it at OWS. It certainly is an example of it about OWS.

The part of Jill's post about gropes and sexual assaults at the protest - and whether the current response is adequate - is another, more serious, matter.

Submitted by lambert on

If there is a relationship, the General Assembly would have had to approve it.

Has anybody bothered to check the minutes? They're online.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

...with respect to letting both genders contribute equally. The Zuccotti park stack practices the progressive stack, the primary facilitator that night was a female with a very authoritative voice and the crowd there "gets it".

San Diego is the occupy site that made me cringe. All guys on the stage. No facilitator. No organized progressive stack. Let me guess: a bunch of geeky PhD types from the small biotechs there who are constantly on the look out for the next layoff announcement who are used to cutting women out of discussions at work and taking credit for their stuff. Or, that's what it looked like to me.

Those people need to take some lessons with the zuccotti park facilitators.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

The headline doesn't say "Misogyny By Occupy Wall Street" and imply that OWS is accountable. It simply points out that misogyny is taking place there. It's calling attention to the fact that it's taking place, not laying it at the feet of OWS.

Submitted by lambert on

It's the web site that's the issue. The occupation is about holding space, right? So "at" is a critical point.

I'm all for calling out any misogyny at any occupation; apparently #OccupyLSX has had issues like that. Some dude waltzes in with a camera, and hijacks the brand, and the headline reinforces this. It's next door to a smear, and when it propagates without nuance, it will be.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

The video was made at Wall Street, by a guy who went looking for "Pics of hot chicks being all protesty" "at Zucotti Park." Yes, he posted pics and vid on a website, but I don't see how that absolves him of his actions at Wall Street.

From the guys blog:

A lot of fantastic media has been created about the “Occupy” movement. I was watching one video in particular and commented to a friend, “Wow, seeing all those super smart hot chicks at the protest makes me want to be there.” He replied, “Hmmm… Yeah, let’s go with that.”

We instantly went to Tumblr and made Our original ideas were admittedly sophomoric: Pics of hot chicks being all protesty, videos of hot chicks beating drums in slow-mo, etc. But when we arrived at Zuccotti Park in New York City, it evolved into something more.

There was a vibrant energy in the air, a warmth of community and family, and the voices we heard were so hopeful and passionate. Pretty faces were making signs, giving speeches, organizing crowds, handing out food, singing, dancing, debating, hugging and marching.

It made me want to pack my bags and pitch a tent on Wall Street. And it’s in the light that we created this video.

And we hope it makes you want to be there too.

(emphasis mine)

I agree with Lex that the title is misleading if read to mean misogyny is sponsored by OWS, or is a particular characteristic of OWS (as opposed to other parts of the political spectrum, or large gatherings of whatever type, etc. Misogyny is widespread enough that it would truly be a miracle if OWS was somehow immune). But there's really no website to be offensive without the at Wall St. part.

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

mentioned super smart in his explanation of why he considered these chicks "hot". As a guy he probably didn't even think that the title would/ could be construed as objectionable. Unfortunately many of us who've been around the block a time or two as the female species have found that for some men the term "hot" is solely limited to appearance. They could care less about the full package. He probably didn't realize that when you use the term that there is an amount of reenforcing the position that judgment by appearance is acceptable.

I just wish that guys that are on women's side would realize that there are people in their gender that view sex as sex and can and do separate that from looking at a female as a person. That there is for a percentage of the male population some nonchalance when it comes to seeing a woman as a person rather than just an object or means of release for themselves. Until they call that kind of behavior out, and create its extinction and make it to the point where alot of men men don't act as women are notches or adjuncts and there isn't a bunch of bragging on "bagging" there is going to be a small amount of horror expressed by women who have been objectified and have seen men act (for lack of a better term) like dogs towards our gender.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

"Pretty faces were making signs, giving speeches, organizing crowds..."

When I make signs, give speeches, and organize crowds I use my brain, my hands, and my personality, NOT my "pretty face."

Diminishing a woman's abilities (to create, persuade, lead) by attributing those abilities to the highly subjective and objectifying existence of her pretty face is straight-up cultural oppression and repression of women.

This is basic basic feminism.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

First, clearly this Greenberg character is a misogynist doucheboat (yes Lex, yes Daniel, this dood is a fucked up asshat and what he did is rightly called misogyny). No problem with that. But the more important second is, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH OWS. He could have done the exact same thing at a tea party protest, a montessori picnic or a fucking grocery store. Would you call it Misogyny at the Montessori?

This is one moron with a camera and a tumblr site. Please don't let him hijack OWS with his crap. Don't let ANYONE hijack it with ANY of their crap.

OWS may or may not have internal misogyny/sexism problems (loud shouting doodz), but if so, they should be documented as being actually part of the movement. Not the bullshit of some parasite not really a part of it.

Here is another similar screwed up comparison:

Anti-Semitism at OWS!

Don't let the memes propogate.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

When some dood thinks his cause is more important than your paycheck and livelihood.

But I guess it would be Ok with Jill as long as he wasn't checking them out.

What is WRONG with this generation of feminists?

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

That video was misogyny? Are you kidding? The videographer took some beautiful pictures of women. Not all of those women are classicly beautiful but he found something visually appealing about all of them.

What ticked me off was some of the nonsense that emanated from their mouths. The Aquarian era?? Really??? That's so 45 years ago. Where does astrology fit in to a serious movement about economic inequality? Hey, if you're saying this crap thinking that the guy on the other side of the camera can totally relate, you're probably as ditzy as he thinks you are.

As for men checking women out, it's nature. Jesus Christ on a cracker, how do people get laid these days? I check guys out all of the time. There are some seriously nice looking guys at OccupyWallStreet. They're so hot you could bake cookies on them. What's wrong with that? Nature built us this way so that we would be sexually attracted to each other.

Real misogyny is not some guy chatting you up in an open space with lots of people around. Real misogyny is when the guys in your department go behind your back to steal your projects and don't answer your phone calls or emails when you need information for a report you need to turn in. Real misogyny is when they call you "not a team player" or "difficult to work with" in order to undermine your authority. Groping and sexual harassment? Unheard of at the companies I've worked at in the past 20 years. That's a real no-no and can get you fired so fast your head will spin. Real misogyny is much more subtle and damaging to the career than that.

Women who are complaining about this guy and his video, thinking it is sexist and exploitative and objectifying, have no idea what they're talking about. Personally, I have no patience for this pointless outrage. Come back in ten years when you know what real misogyny is.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Precisely because of the mentality the two fellows have shown here: "Hey, it's not a problem." (That's the "ignore you" stage.)

"Lighten up" (That's the "ridicule" stage.)

Once women make enough noise, the objection will be, "Well, you shouldn't put up with it. Nothing to do with me." (That'll be fighting it. Except for one sentence, we're not there yet in this thread.)

And we're so far away from winning, it's hard not to despair. Winning will be when everyone, men as well as women, says "NOT cool." The sort of reaction you might see if he'd posted "Cool cat n*****s of Wall St." The sort of reaction that would shut him right down. The sort that wouldn't be worrying about whose fault it was.

It's up to everyone to stop put-downs. It doesn't matter who started it.

Some of us don't see enough OWS'ers understanding that. There's rather too many mansplainers and not enough "That's revolting." That's why we're discussing it as if it was a blot on the movement.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Just because you don't care about male fuckability opinions doesn't prove that they don't matter. There's actually an accumulating mountain of research at this point, showing how much sexual objectification shuts down women and girls. And how it lowers everyone's, including women's, opinion of their significance.

Plus, there's a few women pointing out their lived experiences. You're saying they should shut up? Lighten up? Deal with it? Hmmm.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

It's is how we are made. Male and female, estrogen and testosterone, a little bit for each sex. You can not control what you think about another person of the opposite sex. All you can do is control your behavior. But if you're going to get down on the film maker for appreciating wholesome beauty, why single THIS generation's artists out for condemnation?
In the 19th century, some dude painted a naked vulva in all its glory, grassy savannah of pubic hair and labia minora and clitoris. He called it Origine du Monde. It's hanging in the musee d'Orsay in Paris. I had just enough time to steer my 65 year old mother in the opposite direction. Talk about objectification, some people find it an exquisite work of art. It's not to my tastes, no pun intended, but someone liked it.
I've been a feminist since I was 12 years old back in the 70's when there really was sexual harassment. But I always thought that I was entitled to my sexuality and in control of it. I enjoyed my physical beauty and the fact that I was hot back then. I never confused it with misogyny. Real sexism and misogyny is much harder to tame. Gratuitously whapping guys on the nose for checking you out is a very easy form of feminist activism. It's quick, it's loud, it gets attention. And it does absolutely nothing to correct the power struggle between the sexes in the public sphere.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Some of the greatest works of art are of people stark naked. Think of Botticelli's Venus or Michaelangelo's David. I'd hate to think that some {{air quotes}} feminist {{air quotes}} would make a federal offense out of "objectifying" a beautiful body with paint. Do they picket the Uffizi? Demand that the Birth of Venus be modestly covered? Rant about how the model was exploited and dehumanized by the artist?

Some {{air quotes}} feminists {{air quotes}} need to go back and look up the definitions of sexism and misogyny because I do not think those words mean what they think they mean.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

but... really, are you comparing this to Botticelli?

Are the "like" ratings on that site really about the quality of the video and pictures of the artist? It looks to me like that is not what the "artist" is intending but rather rating the hotness of the girl in the picture.

This is not by any means the worst example of objectifying women nor is it the most sexist rendering I've seen, but the name of the site plus the ratings... I don't think it is completely harmless either.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

That video showed women as beautiful creatures. I quite enjoyed watching it. Beautiful beings of both sexes are a delight to the eyes, like flowers in bloom where you least expect it. This world is so ugly sometimes, why shouldn't we appreciate the way a lovely girl smiles as she looks over her shoulder, her hair framing her profile in gentle blonde waves? Or the ditzy girl with freshly scrubbed face with the little chip in her front tooth that made her interesting.
Let's get some pics of Dwayne the #OWS livestream host. He's beautiful. And there's some other guy who occasionally appears from some control room, he's do sexy, with his shaggy tousled dark hair and the look of a French resistance fighter, unaware that we're looking at him, his cigarette dangling out of the side of his mouth as he messes with the vertical. I know there was more than one woman in the chat room who despaired when the camera cut away from him. Of course we undress them with our eyes, trying to determine how firm his ass is when we grasp it to get a better fit.
Shit, I've said too much haven't I?
Well, you get what I mean. Do I objectify them? Jeez, how could I not? But not so they'd actually know. And I've always found intelligence and wit makes for a good lover so I'd probably want to have a conversation before I jumped his bones.
Wait, am I the only one who has ever been female and horny? Are you all celebate or on some kind of libido dulling medication?
Didn't think so.
It's perfectly normal. Enjoy it. Life is too short and beauty too fleeting.

Submitted by jawbone on

young women. Style, savvy, presence. Taking a stand, taking action, taking part in --oh, I do so hope-- history.

Really, I so admire them for what they're doing at Zuccotti Park, for the whole OWS movement.

I appreciate that the videographer went, it appears from his own words, with one intention and was changed by what he observed. I think he produced a beatiful homage to what's going on with OWS, to how these women are contributing..

I think his film shows respect and admiration. And left me, one viewer, with really good feelings and admiration for these protesters.

Manet's nudes broke the mold by depicting women who were unclothed, but looked directly at the viewer (Olympia, Le Dejeuner sur l'Herbe). They demanded the viewer see them as people, not objects. Were these mysogynistic? Or a way to show a new respect for the human body?

Are women who believe they should be able to walk in a park or on a beach topless being sexually enticing? Or saying they're the equal of men in being able to robe or disrobe as they choose?

I'd have known nothing about this video without this post, so I appreciate the link.

If this makes other women and men feel they can contribute to this feeling of togetherness and work for change, more power to the people.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Hair was good. Who couldn't like it?
It's just that it sounded kind of spacey even back there. Hey, if she's feeling some kind of cosmic realignment, I want what she's smoking. But she's going to be bloody useless at the infrastructure working group.
BTW, if you enjoyed that video, you're not nearly old enough.

Submitted by Lex on

If the guy had titled his tumblr "The Beautiful Women of OWS," would there be the same outrage?

Further, in his description, he says "...super smart, hot women..."

Language can be intentional or unintentional and i don't know this guy so i can't say, but whatever it was he put smart before hot. Does that make a difference?

Along the same lines, the kids today tend to use "hot" to mean a few different things, including what the old folks would call "beautiful," so i'm not so sure that others aren't putting the whole "fuckability" rating into his mouth for him. I only say this because his choice of subjects were clearly not the biggest breasted, porn-star/super model kind of "hot" women. Most of them looked like the girls that would have been in your AP classes rather than women who put their looks before everything else.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

*Not that I think you're stupid Lex, just playing on the riff.

But yea, I can definitively say that if the title had been "The Women of OWS" I'd have not been upset. It's the derogatory "Hot Chicks" that's caused most the problems. And "Beautiful Women" isn't as bad, but it's bad enough.

And the term "Chick" is one of those thorny words, that some women are okay with, and others aren't. I frequently call many of my women friends "Chick" or "Chica" in conversation. But, I say it as someone who's been degraded with that terminology, and am speaking to our shared experience, much like the word "bitch". This dood, likely never has and never will, had someone degrade him on the basis of his sexual appeal alone. Their looks are irrelevant, their reasons for being there and their thoughts on our current situation are what are important.

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

I don't think his intent was to rile people up. I just think he's unfamiliar with how it feels to have people judge you or even listen to other people judge based on appearance.

My next question would be for those condoning this, would you consider it acceptable if he'd titled this the ugly women of OWS and posted pictures of women he didn't find attractive? It really isn't that different. Either way he's placing the focus on how they look. It's offensive.

Gentlemen to put it in context for you: How would you feel if we rated you based on your bank accounts? You would likely feel diminished as a person. Because what you have financially isn't a sum of who you are. That's how alot of us that are female feel about men focusing on our looks. We want to know you see the total picture, not just our faces and bodies.

MsExPat's picture
Submitted by MsExPat on

Because I wasn't enraged as a feminist, by the film. To me it is a big ho hum. Actually, a plus for me is that the women pictured are not media-star anorexic, glamorous, or even a particular "type." This represents a significant improvement over the usual boringly objectifying white-bread male gaze.

The filmmaker has nothing to do with OWS. He's grabbed a lot of attention because of his stupid, link-bait headline that doesn't accurately describe his film. Neither does the (stupid, link-bait) title of the OP here, "Misogyny at OWS" accurately describe the situation. The film is not produced by nor sanctioned by OWS. At OWS, the participation, comfort and safety of women are major concerns. I have not attended a single GA meeting, nor read the minutes of one, at which these concerns haven't been foregrounded. I am very concerned about the work of the "safe spaces" working group. If I were to see signs they were being marginalized or shut down, then I would be shouting "Misogyny!"

But not over a stupid film made by some OWS outsider.

What I'm seeing here is a "Look! Over there!" moment. This film which has nothing to do with the real OWS dynamic and structure is distracting attention from it. Even here at Corrente, if the number of comments are any indication.

Speaking of distraction, one of the very first things we (me and my female companions) noticed is how very, very cute many of the guys there are. (Sample transcript of our comments in the first fifteen minutes after arrival: "Be still my heart"...."If I was 25 now I would SO be there!" and "OMG, it's Mark Ruffalo"). So I suppose that makes me a sexist objectifier. Or something. Anyway, there is a lot of beauty in Zuccotti Park, male and female and in-between (for we have represented here, remember, people who identify with neither gender!) Freedom, joy and opening up of possibility have a marvelous side effect: they make people more attractive and yes, sexy.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I can agree with most of what you say, Ms ExPat, and as been stated previously, it's not the appreciation of physical beauty that's the problem. It's the public objectification. So no, that doesn't make you a sexist objectifier.

In this particular case, the guy was going down there explicitly to objectify women, and was suprised when he found walking talking human beings. If his intent hadn't been to objectify, I don't think he would have been surprised in that way.

And once again, I don't think the title is trying to associate OWS and the actions of this one dood(he did that on his own, by calling his blog what he did) it was just pointing out that misogynistic stuff is happening at the OWS site, which isn't really a surprise.

And Ruffalo? The New Hulk? Awesome!

MsExPat's picture
Submitted by MsExPat on

in the second week of the occupation. He was sitting on a chair, hanging out, and so anonymous and low key (unlike Michael Moore, who's like a red giant star perpetually orbited by a solar system of cameras), that I thought he was just another one of OWS's contingent of extremely good looking "male-bodied persons" (to use the preferred OWS terminology).

"That guy's handsome enough to be in the movies," I remarked to my pal. "He already is," she told me.

Ruffalo's Twitter feed is here: @Mruff221 He tweets a lot about politics, intelligently, and he's very pro-OWS. He's from a working class, union family in the midwest somewhere.

adrena's picture
Submitted by adrena on

You observed all that male hotness and you failed to create a video titled "Hot Hunks of the OWS?" Oh, I forgot, advertising your sexual fantasies is only a male prerogative.

Submitted by lambert on

1. The headline is link bait, in MsExPat''s felicitous phrase. The argument that because it's "at" "Occupy Wall Street" it has nothing to do with "Occupy Wall Street" is mere parsing of words that we would be laughing at in any other context. Particularly when "at" is the preposition for space, and the occupations are, duh, all about holding space. Everything about OWS is "at" WS.

2. "Hot chicks...." We can talk about Botticelli all we want, but "Hot Chicks" says all that needs to be said about intent, so far as I'm concerned.

3. If you want to see what happens when a link bait headline gets propagated without nuance, see here: The Hot Assholes of Occupy Wall Street, and do notice how easy to shift from "at" to "of" was.

4. I know this is not the intent of the poster or commenters, but the sophisticated way to attack the Occupations is by attacking their process. Co-optation is one way to do that; this, by implying that OWS has not employed tools like the progressive stack to mitigate the very concerns that the commenters on this post express such outrage about, is really, really unfortunate.

Submitted by jawbone on

--mostly on the teebee-- all the time, but also from comedians, kids talking in groups, chit chat among the younger set. Along with "hot chick" to refer to any girl or young woman thought to be attractive. But, "hotties" seems to be a well-used term for both sexes..

Is it just a current "in" way of saying an individual is attractive to the speaker? Jejuene, but used bcz it's in the conversational air?

Now, "OWS Girls Gone Wild" or some kind of wet t-shirt montage would set my teeth on edge and raise my ire big time.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Not "hot naked babe on a clamshell".
But we all know what the medici's were thinking.
They wanted pictures of unclothed women. They just had to paint them in a mythological setting so the church couldn't use it against them. "see? It's not a hot babe. It's VENUS. You know how we've been digging around in all those classical documents? We're just honoring that ancient wisdom. You know, nostalgia. What good for the Romans and all that."

Submitted by jawbone on

maidens" -- or something like that.


(NOO-bil, -byl, NYOO-)

1. Sexually attractive (referring to a young woman).
2. Ready or suitable for marriage (referring to a young woman).

From Latin nubere (to marry). Earliest documented use: 1642

Heh, reading the definition, perhaps "nubile" is more sexually charged than "hot"!

Submitted by lambert on

"Nubile" -- though probably only in, er, elevated conversation -- is way more charged than "hot chick"; feel how your mouth moves when you pronounce it.

Not suitable for link bait, however!