Not all sex workers love Occupy: the creepy dynamic of pretending to speak for "the 99%"

by Furry Girl

11.17.11

In the last month, there has been more and more talk from some sex workers about how awesome the Occupy movement is, including some of my ho activist friends on Twitter who are part of different Occupy encampments.  SWOP-NYC has a pro-Occupy post, Jessie of SWOP LA throws in her support, Trisha wrote about the issues of SlutWalk and Occupy, and Melissa Gira Grant wrote a strangely pearl-clutching piece about how sad it is some people -gasp- do sex work to pay for college.

I've been wary and on the fence about the Occupy movement and its vague, utopian, barely-articulated aims.  Occupy embodies basically everything I hate about the left, and the best I've been able to muster so far is feeling sorry for people who have been assaulted by police.  Today, I went from on the fence to against Occupy Seattle.  I was trying to get to the nonprofit vegan grocery store, Sidecar, a place I'm happy to support because all the proceeds go to an animal sanctuary.  I sure timed my bus errand poorly, because I ended up behind an Occupy Seattle march.

First off, the protesters went out of their way to disrupt as much traffic and transit as possible.  I talked to my bus driver, and he said the group had told Seattle Metro they would be marching along a certain route, giving Metro a chance to divert buses in the area to another street.  Once the time came for the march, however, the Occupy folk changed their official plan and went down the street where they knew Metro buses were being re-routed, all to maximize problems for commuters.  That's a pretty asshole move.  How is going out of your way to screw up as many public transit lines as possible harming the super-rich?  Are there a lot of country-ruining billionaires on the bus during rush hour?  I guess I never noticed them though all the students, disabled people, punks/hippies, elderly people, nonwhites, single moms, young folk, and homeless-looking people who typically make up much of Metro's ridership.

After half an hour on a bus that was barely moving, I gave up and angrily walked home in the freezing rain, knowing it would have taken hours to get to my destination.  Congratulations, anti-capitalists, you prevented me from spending my money at a nonprofit, so I shopped at a corporate grocery store instead.  I went home and watched the clamor unfold on Twitter.  The march had moved on to occupying a bridge, shutting down traffic in both directions.  This bridge is one of the connections between the central Seattle area and the University of Washington and the outlying suburbs, as well as a major hospital complex at the university.  Occupy Seattle was cutting off a key route for hospital access, which could genuinely cost lives if ambulances had to re-route and go back to other another bridge in an emergency.

Less than 24 hours after winning national sympathy when Seattle police pepper-sprayed a small elderly woman, Occupy Seattle experienced a big wave of hatred from the general public, pissed off at missed meetings, missed classes, missed flights, and being stuck in traffic for no good reason.  Twitter users were cheering for them to be beaten, shot, pepper-sprayed, and many hoped aloud that the bridge would collapse, or that protesters would fall/jump to their deaths.  Comments on various local news websites all echoed similar opinions - anger, annoyance, confusion, and rooting for harm to befall protesters.  There were countless comments where someone said they supported Occupy before, but this changed their minds.

Any sane activist would be thinking, "Oh shit, we made a huge fuckup here.  The public is angry at us, we're blocking hospital access, and we're not accomplishing anything other than showing people that we like to cause pointless disruptions.  This has been an absolute disaster."

Instead, the resounding consensus among protesters on Twitter was that the event was a massive success, and Occupy Seattle marchers and supporters responded to people who disagreed by making fun of them, insulting them, telling them they are the enemy, and generally celebrating the fact that the public had turned against them after the bridge occupation.  It was like watching some spoiled punk teenager gloat about how they're really "sticking it to the man" by pissing off "the squares" with their green hair.

What today highlighted for me is my growing uneasiness with how Occupy protesters continually scream that they are "the 99%," insisting that they represent just about everyone in the country.  I don't like seeing strangers keep arguing that they are my spokespersons, that they can attest to the interests and beliefs of most Americans, that they are protesting "for me," and even that they are me.  This creepy rhetoric reminds me all too well of how anti-sex worker crusaders always insist that they are acting and speaking on our behalf, without ever deigning to listen to us.  There is something deeply and profoundly fucked up about declaring oneself the mouthpiece for people whom you don't know, aren't trying to get to know, and in many cases, who actively oppose what you are saying and doing, such as it the case of the vast numbers of Seattle folk irate over having their evening disrupted by a core group of perhaps a hundred protesters who were trying to stay on the bridge as long as possible.

Where this whole thing goes from eerily cult-like to comical is that the people who pretend to be and represent "the 99%" are a tiny minority, even in a large left-leaning city, and they were causing a problems for the majority.  Occupy Seattle wasn't representing the desires of anyone but themselves, least of all working and lower-income people who rely on public transit to get around the city.

Occupy Seattle: you are not the 99%.  You do not represent me, you do not represent Seattle, and I wish you people would stop insisting that you do.  A group that relishes in causing disruptions purely for the sake of causing disruptions does not embody the key political concerns of most Americans, any more than a right-wing billionaire does.  You are an obnoxious minority that continues to further isolate itself from the rest of the public, and I can't think of one positive thing you have contributed to my city.

But all that doesn't matter.  According to Occupy Seattle kids, the fact that I dislike them just means that they've been victorious in their protest, despite the fact I will never be earning in the top 10%, let alone the top 1%.

As a sex workers' rights advocate, my life would be so much easier if the sole metric by which I judged an activist "success" was how many members of the general public I could get to hate us.  It's easy to turn the public against you, any lazy dipshit can do that.  Influencing the public to adopt more progressive and tolerant ideas?  That's not as adrenaline-soaked and fun as instigating confrontations with the police, but it leads to actual and long-lasting change, which is precisely the kind of work that needs to be done.

 

Update one: In looking at more local coverage, the first three comments on a cheery pro-Occupy article on SLOG summed up today's debate so neatly, especially the middle one as being the most used defense by bridge protest supporters.

Gern Blanston: "Claim it for the 99 percent." What a fucking joke! When they shut down a bridge, or a busy downtown street, they're preventing everyone else from going about their daily lives. They're just a bunch of self-important, grandstanding pricks. They don't speak for me.

what_now: Maybe there are things that are more important than people going about their daily lives?

LJM: the problem is that you're suggesting that one group of people know which "things" are "more important" than going about their daily lives, and which "things" are less important. You can use this reasoning to justify any type of inconsiderate behavior by people who claim to be doing it for your own good.

Update two: Seattle Central Community College - where Occupy Seattle set up residence after moving from their original location in the shopping district - has been complaining about the public health hazards being created by the camp in the form "accumulations of garbage, poor food handling, discarded syringes and needles, fire safety hazards, dog feces, and disposal of wastewater."  Congratulations again, Occupy Seattle, you've succeeded in be-filthing a facility that caters to lower-income people.  That's really sticking it to the evil super-rich, isn't it?  (As I saw someone else point out today, if they really want to stick it to banks through civil disobedience, why not occupy bank-owned foreclosed houses?)

Occupy supporters are seemingly unable to come up with non-false dichotomy arguments to support their protest at the bridge.  It's all hyperbole like, "Oh, so you love watching billionaires raping the country?" or one who told me that I must be too busy fawning over the Kardashians to care about anything else.  You can be against Occupy Seattle and its dumbass tactics without being pro-cop, pro-bailout, pro-apathy, and pro-status quo.  I was, in fact, anti-status quo before this new wave of Carhartt Warriors grew their first pubes.  (Do dirty anarkids still wear Carhartts?  Am I totally dating myself in my choice of derisive terminology?)

Also, I actually do support using disruptive and controversial protest methods, but only when they are targeted and/or express a clear message and demands.  (Examples being crashing a shareholder meeting to send a message that a corporation should stop engaging in such-and-such practice, or civil disobedience on a logging road that prevents logging companies from cutting down any trees that day.)  Making things hard on huge numbers of Seattle residents who just want to get home from work makes people hate you, and accomplished absolutely nothing.  Yes, it got media coverage and attention, but so what?  Is the only goal of Occupy Seattle to get lots of bad press?  Does getting bad press fix the economy or make one single person's life better?  No, but it sure is easier than engaging in strategic activism or doing something positive.





37 Comments

  1. Thanks for your post! I do not take issue with your criticism about the protest disrupting traffic and causing havoc for alot of people.
    However I do disagree with your claim that the occupy movement has only "vague, utopian, barely-articulated aims."
    I have only attended a couple of the rallies down at Westlake, and I frequently walk by the camp at Seattle Central because its near where I work. From this limited exposure I have gained an undertanding that the movement is fed up with 1) the undue influence of money in politics, 2) too much power held by corporations over the political process, which in turn erodes our democracy.
    Those are two clear critiques of the occupy movement. Not vague, not utopian. Beyond that, I think many believe our current political/economic system in this country is rotten and needs to be massively reformed.
    I think its important to remember this movement is in its infancy, and we do not have an extensive history of political engagement for the average citizen. So they are bound to make mistakes, over reach, and do some stupid shit. Let's be patient and support the changes we much need.
    I appreciate the work you are doing Furry Girl!

    Comment by Marcos Martinez — November 17, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

  2. Wow, nothing like the disruption of business as usual to make the sky fall. I've often marveled at the political apathy of most Americans as contrasted with that of other populations and have to wonder what was in the water of American labor activists during the Progressive Era and those trouble makers in the civil rights and anti-war movements 45 years ago. I seem to recall that these where violent, "controversial", and quite messy affairs that effectively raised the costs of business as usual. 'A revolution is not a tea party' a wise man once said and I think history supports this.

    Forgive me Furry, but these complaints strike me a bit like...

    “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who favor freedom without agitation want crops without plowing ... they want rain without thunder and lightning.” -- Frederick Douglass

    Comment by Bill Jackson — November 18, 2011 @ 3:44 am

  3. Bill: You have continued to prove my hypothesis that Occupy Seattle and its supporters are incapable of making an argument that does not rely on false dichotomy. (Please read about this logical fallacy so you can refrain from using it in the future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma ) People can be anti-bridge occupation and anti-Occupy Seattle dipshittery and not be utterly apathetic. I was involved in activism before these whiny entitled punk kids grew their first pubes.

    Marcos: Saying there is "undue influence of money" or "too much power is held by corporations" *is* the exact definition of vagueness. It's a generic, "we are against corruption and bad stuff" Well, that's good, I am against bad stuff too, but what specifically is anyone against? What tax code loopholes? Which economic regulations, or lack thereof? And what is the proposed solution to America's super complex economic system, sleeping outside in the rain and hoping someone will magically fix it for you? It's also silly to say this is a movement in its infancy. Occupy may be the new fad name for dreadlocked young people in black hoodies, but the modern North American anti-capitalist movement has been going strong since the late 1990s. Or skip back another generation and look at anti-capitalist anti-"bad stuff" groups from the 60s and 70s. Occupy is hardly suffering from a lack of history to learn from, it simply refuses to.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 18, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

  4. I think you’re making the common mistake of assuming that these kids should read from a playbook that you’re comfortable and familiar with. That’s not going to happen Furry. These are different people responding to very different historical moment. Furthermore, what’s so ‘vague’ about wanting a world turned upside down?

    OWS activist Yotam Marom responded eloquently on AlterNet to the charge of unfocused directionless-ness. “It’s not that we don’t have demands.” Marom wrote, “it’s that we speak them in a different language. We speak them with our struggle. Our movement is made up of people fighting for jobs, for schools, for debt relief, equitable housing, and healthcare. We are resisting ecological destruction, imperialism, racism, patriarchy, and capitalism. We are doing it all in a way that is participatory, democratic, fierce, and unwavering. There is nothing vague about that.” Further:
     
    “We want a political and economic system that we all actually control together, one that is equitable and humane, one that allows for people to self-manage but act in solidarity, one that is participatory and democratic to its core. We want a world where people have the right to their own identities, communities, and cultures, and the freedom from oppression and constraint. We want a world with institutions that take care of our youth, our elderly, and our families in ways that are nurturing, liberating, and consensual. We want a world in which community is not a hamper on individual freedom, but rather an expression of its fullest potential…If that’s not a clear enough statement of demands for you, CNN, I don’t know what to tell you.”

    Comment by Bill Jackson — November 18, 2011 @ 6:48 pm

  5. Bill: Yes, silly me. There is nothing activists should learn from knowing history, and the only way forward is refusing to learn from the mistakes of anyone else. Onwards and dumbwards!

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 19, 2011 @ 1:59 am

  6. PS: It's so cute that Occupy kids all think that they are the very first people ever to notice that the world isn't a perfect place. I just want to pinch all of your cheeks and blow raspberries on your little tummy-tum-tums!

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 19, 2011 @ 2:01 am

  7. The behavior you're describing is indefensible and those trying to defend it are just showing their cluelessness. Everything these demonstrators were doing constituted attacking and harassing ordinary people without doing anything whatsoever to advance the cause they claim to embrace. No amount of rhetoric and hand-waving can obfuscate that fact. Why weren't they picketing Bank of America instead of tormenting commuters?

    In general, I do think Occupier demonstrations in most parts of the country have shown more sense. I haven't heard of abuses like this elsewhere. In New York, for example, there's been an emphasis on understanding that even most of the police are part of the 99%, and not antagonizing them any more than necessary.

    Part of the problem with an open, decentralized movement like this is that no one has any control over who shows up and declares themselves part of it. Apparently the Seattle Occupiers have been joined by a great number of clueless juvenile jackasses more interested in goading the grown-ups than actually accomplishing anything. There have been infiltration problems of other kinds elsewhere; here in Portland I attended one Occupier rally at which a clutch of Ron Paul cultists showed up, and as far as I could see, no one saw fit to tell them they didn't belong there. The movement needs a mission statement and more structure if it's to avoid diffusing into incoherence or being hijacked by bullies like the people you describe.

    Comment by Infidel753 — November 19, 2011 @ 2:56 am

  8. I wonder. If all the 'Occupy' people went to work and bought shares in 'Evil Corporation Number 1', then went to the AGM, maybe they could vote some of their own people on to the board?

    Like the Australian guy Steve Irwin (RIP). Instead of just whinging about the destruction of wilderness areas he used some of his millions to buy tens of thousands of acres of wilderness and old farms to preserve them for future generations.

    (Nice blog, by the way, Furry Girl. I followed a link from The Honest Courtesan. You're on my Favorites list now).

    Comment by Stick — November 19, 2011 @ 4:44 am

  9. So, a group of Ron Paul cultists don't belong? Smaller govt/ less authority over people's lives doesn't fit in this movement. So, are these folks in the richest 1%, or just more of those occupy claims to represent, but won't listen to and "don't belong?

    Comment by Scorpio800 — November 19, 2011 @ 6:17 am

  10. The protesters are being very successful at the moment, even when they have no clear message. It is all over the national newspapers world wide, the buzz on twitter and You tube videos, the arguments going on in newspaper comments sections, etc etc.

    All for a few thousand unwashed hippies sitting on their bums.

    Brilliant. And what is everybody arguing? Like yourself, they are discussing "what is the point?" This enforces people to discuss the issues and by doing so there are millions more people who are talking about inequality, injustice etc - even if they polarise onto one side of the fence or another - at least they are not sleeping. Everybody wants to have an opinion. To do that, they must start thinking.

    Good luck to them. And thanks for your article.

    Comment by Soctrap — November 19, 2011 @ 8:42 am

  11. I saw the same behavior with protests in Berkeley around 10 years ago from people who know (and some were part of) the history. They blocked roads during commute time, pissing off workers over a radio station's lack of community support. I don't get it. Saw the tents up by the CC, and they do not look terribly well-placed. I don't get it. Oakland is "occupying" the capital. NYC is at least near the NYSE. Atlanta... well, that started with a massive fuck-up [1] but seems to be regaining some sense. Still far away from the capital, though, which amazes me. I just don't get it.

    (And thanks for tweeting about the traffic issues. Helped some visitors to town.)

    [1] http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/a_brief_history_of_georgias_1--or_why_you_cant_occupy_atlanta_without_facing_race.html

    Comment by Jason Riedy — November 19, 2011 @ 8:48 am

  12. Furry Girl: I appreciate your perspective here and on the Slog. I think, like many progressive movements in Seattle, OS has been hijacked to a degree by the anarchist/black hoody element. While OS has produced one of the most salient images of all the protests, Dorli Rainey being pepper-sprayed, it's actual actions have been ill-conceived at best.

    @4: Wanting to turn the world upside down is a goal. It just isn't a good one. The quote from AlterNet speaks to the vagueness issue: These are all laudable IDEALS but they're not clear achievable, measurable plans.

    Comment by Mike D — November 19, 2011 @ 9:33 am

  13. Thanks fort the comments, everyone!

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 19, 2011 @ 12:26 pm

  14. >Twitter users were cheering for them to be beaten, shot, pepper-sprayed, and many hoped aloud that the bridge would collapse, or that protesters would fall/jump to their deaths. Comments on various local news websites all echoed similar opinions - anger, annoyance, confusion, and rooting for harm to befall protesters. There were countless comments where someone said they supported Occupy before, but this changed their minds.

    Yeah, well, gee... So sorry trying to fight the corruption that is dooming this nation causes a bit of inconvenience. I'm sure that if it was some big capitalist meeting shutting down down town it'd be just fine.

    And oh, just to bring this one topic, you see the same sort of ignorant comments when sex workers are killed or assaulted.

    Although I don't agree with the OWS folks on everything, I'm damned glad that finally, there's a spark of outrage at how we've been robbed, conned, and swindled in this nation, and at how our former democracy has turned into a oligarchy.

    I don't think OWS will succeed, really, in creating much change. This is just one of the first big howls of anger. The Money Lords will slap it down when it becomes inconvenient. Then it will go underground and fester. Maybe more average working people will get pissed off, look around them and see how they can screw the bosses system when the time comes. Maybe the next time, as the money lords drive the nation into the rubble, the 99% will be prepared to really do something.

    Comment by Comixchik — November 19, 2011 @ 2:57 pm

  15. I keep hearing Occupy supporters defend the bridge stunt by saying that it doesn't matter if people were inconvenienced. How is it a progressive and populist idea to insist that the needs of the masses don't matter at all compared to the desire of a small group to have fun and do whatever they feel like doing? If Occupy supporters want to take the line that *my* problems don't matter, then why on earth should I care about *their* problems? It's bizarre that a movement that's supposed to be about "the masses" and "the majority" couldn't give less of a shit about what the majority thinks, and focuses solely on their own self-indulgent self-interest. It's the exact same mentality as a greedy corporate billionaire. We can't *selfish* our way out of a problem caused by selfishness.

    As a longtime hater of lifestyle anarchism and a lot of the politics of the modern left, I highly recommend reading a classic critique written almost a century ago, Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism: http://anarkismo.net/article/14544 Fabbri's essay is a sort of precursor to Bookchin's Social Anarchism Versus Liftstyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm, and does a good job of eviscerating those who fawn over pointless gestures, be they artistic or terroristic.

    "For these artists and writers, the beauty of the gesture takes the place of social utility, with which they don't concern themselves."

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 19, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

  16. Comixchik: "I'm sure that if it was some big capitalist meeting shutting down down town it'd be just fine." This an example of a logical fallacy that's called false dichotomy. Nowhere have I read a single Occupy critique say that only rich people should be allowed to disrupt traffic. Further, I can't remember the last time "big capitalist meetings" took place on a bridge and blocked hospital access.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 19, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

  17. @ Mike D

    There is nothing at all vague about the desire to ‘turn the world upside down’. The world as it is presently constructed is one of barely disguised neo-feudalism thus reversing this state of affairs is a natural impulse. The first step, at minimum, is to create a space where such a radical conversation can even begin. Our problems are structural with both major political parties obviously compromised so attempts at “reforming” a broken system rotted to its core is an exercise in futility. I’ve afraid we’ll need to start from scratch and that will require a unique approach. The inclusive, non-hierarchal, and, highly democratic decision making process of the Occupy movement is in fact an antidote to the top-down model so prevalent in our numerous captured, sell-out unions and political parties that effectively serve as roach motels for progressive activism (witness the anti-war movement in the age of OBOMBa, and the demobilization of the Wisconsin Moment in exchange for toothless reforms).

    Mike if there is any hijacking going on with OS or any of the Occupy movements it is from stalking horses for the Democratic Party such a SEIU, MoveON.org, and the Van Jones sham outfit Rebuild the Dream in the hopes of commandeering its message and goals into a platform for electing More and Better Democrats™. This, to their everlasting credit, the OWS kids categorically reject to the chagrin and frustration of the Wise Men who stand ready to take the reigns if only these scrubby delinquents would submit to their wisdom.

    @ Furry

    There's no remedy for inconvenience during a revolution. That's simply a part of the process. Sorry, truly. As far as the 1% is concerned if the majority can be fractured over missed shopping opportunities then they really have nothing to worry about do they?

    Comment by Bill Jackson — November 19, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

  18. So sorry trying to fight the corruption that is dooming this nation causes a bit of inconvenience.

    How does harassing commuters and mass-transit users constitute "fighting the corruption"? Not one of the actions OS is described as undertaking here was in any way an act of opposition against, or even inconvenient to, the financial parasite class. It was all purely tormenting others of the 99%.

    That is the salient point, which none of the defenders of this bullying have addressed.

    Comment by Infidel753 — November 19, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

  19. How does harassing commuters and mass-transit users constitute "fighting the corruption"?

    The bus boycotts in Montgomery, Alabama were mighty inconvenient Infidel753, particularly for minorities themselves who heavily relied upon public transport. Perhaps it's a generational thing. My paternal grandparents (b. 1910 & 1917) where themselves the grandchildren of slaves and could give first hand accounts of Jim Crow yet both felt that Dr. Martin Luther King and SNCC were troublemakers whose actions were counterproductive to African-American equality.

    Comment by Bill Jackson — November 19, 2011 @ 4:56 pm

  20. Bill: The key difference is that the Montgomery bus boycotts had a target - the bus company's racist policies. Occupy Seattle kids wanted to shut down a bridge just to be disruptive. While watching the Twitter stream once I got home, people at the event were cheering that the bridge occupation became a "dance party." So, a "dancy party" for a hundred punk kids is more important than the needs of tens of thousands of working people in Seattle? Again, ya'll are hardly the 99%. You are the tiny minority making things hard on the real majority.

    This is also another example of Occupy supporters deploying fallacies of logic. Right now, Bill is relying on affirming the consequent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent "The Mongomery bus boycott caused disruptions for commuters, and they were successful, therefor anything that is disruptive is a successful revolutionary act."

    And, yet another example of how Occupy supporters refuse to consider lessons from the past about activism, but are quick to use their incorrect interpretations of the past to justify their actions.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 19, 2011 @ 8:15 pm

  21. And you still aren't addressing the point. The bus boycotts of the Civil Rights era did actually put economic pressure on part of the power structure that oppressed blacks. Nothing that the Seattle occupiers are here described as doing is in any way an action against the financial parasite class, nor even an inconvenience to them. It is not fighting corruption. It is not in any way advancing the cause proclaimed by the broader Occupier movement (which, again, in the rest of the country, has avoided doing idiotic things like this). These actions are solely bullying and harassment of fellow members of the 99%.

    Comment by Infidel753 — November 19, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

  22. Note: My comment is addressed to Bill Jackson (should have made that clearer).

    Comment by Infidel753 — November 19, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

  23. One massive difference: The people in Montgomery were risking their lives even just by boycotting. Not pepper spray. Rope from tree limbs.

    On the plus side for the current movement, the various "mic check" events seem to be quite clever and well-targeted. I'm sure there are similar actions of which I haven't heard that are more direct. Some groups seem more anxious to party. What's the story behind the Friday night hip-hop thing? Faux beggars approaching passers by while people really are hungry one block up (and Scientologists prey on the weak one block down) seems a bit off.

    Comment by Jason Riedy — November 19, 2011 @ 10:34 pm

  24. Firstly Furry, there is no single target from the Occupy perspective as they have gone through great pains to explain. The dismay and frustration that "progressive" detractors have with Occupy is understandable given that few are accustomed to engaging with a truly horizontally organized entity with its anti-co-optation defenses baked into the cake. Secondly, your assertion that OS ‘wanted to shut down a bridge just to be disruptive’ is just that, your assertions. Neither you nor I have any idea what the OS kids were thinking.

    The Montgomery bus boycott campaign was but one front in a multifaceted strategy that was extremely disruptive as is the case with every successful revolution in history. That’s the long and short of my argument. Your caricature of my argument that any disruptive action is ipso facto an effective revolutionary tactic bears no resemblance to any idea that I’ve expressed here.

    Comment by Bill Jackson — November 19, 2011 @ 10:49 pm

  25. One of the biggest problems with our current system is the top-down, hierarchical approach. Our entire system isn't designed to be efficient, logical, robust or resilient. It's designed to make money for a few. And it's unsustainable.

    A protest has to get attention. It has to be heard. In our modern culture, that means getting media attention. Nothing gets media attention like disrupting traffic, look at all the coverage of "Carmageddon" when the freeway was closed for a weekend in LA.

    So there was a point to the bridge. Also, perhaps, a message to the 1% that if pushed, we can gum up the works of the machine delivering money to them.

    Now personally, OWS isn't my style. Mass demonstrations, well, been there done that years back. But it's about the only thing going these days.

    I'd much prefer to see us building an alternative, well designed society right along side the old, something that is efficient and robust, and offers great freedom. I'd rather see us topple the old from within. But I only see patches of that happening. It will be too little, too late.

    Furry Girl and I agree on most things.

    Currently, near where I'm living these days, we've had an invasion of political candidates visiting, messing up traffic. I'd rather be delayed for a protest than that.

    Comment by Comixchik — November 20, 2011 @ 10:30 am

  26. Bill and Comixchik: Since both of you believe that the disruption was a good thing because it got attention, would you support it if protesters had blown up the bridge instead? That would have gotten even more media attention, so by the metric of "anything that gets any attention is a success," then blowing up the bridge is a brilliant idea.

    Bill, again, it's really cute that you think Occupy kids are the first people to notice that there are problems in the world. You have this fervent misunderstanding of history where you believe every other protest ever held prior to now was completely single-issue, and only the genius of Occupy has finally realized that there systemic social and political issues. In reality, very few activists are single-issue, but their understanding of myriad problems doesn't mean that they give up on fighting for any specific goal. I know there are heaps of problems out there, but I also know that running around trying to cause chaos and screaming "DOWN WITH EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING SUCKS! FUCK YOU ALL!" will fix them.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 20, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

  27. Bill: I think it's too soon to see where the Occupy movement is going to end up. Is it going to be an anarchist footnote to an utterly depressing era of corporate greed? Will it grow into a hierarchical force for social change? Will it somehow spark a global change in consciousness?

    I think the best we can hope for is the second. My assumptions is that you're hoping for the third. I wish it were otherwise but I think the only way we could revert to the sort of utopian, nonhierarchial, horizontal government would be through an end to globalism, a reversion to smaller autonomous groups of individuals, and a loss of many of the comforts we hold dear. Are you willing to tear everything down in the hope that something better emerges?

    Comment by Mike D — November 20, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

  28. Should they have blown up the bridge? No. For violence to be effective, it needs to be targeted, and a bridge like that is just too vague and unrelated a target. Blocking the bridge in the long run is a minor inconvenience. Blowing it up isn't.

    Right now we've got an active, but peaceful protest asking for the redress of wrongs in this nation. If we repress it. we're very likely to get the violence, as people see that the Constitutionally mandated activities of free speech and right to assemble no longer hold.

    Comment by Comixchik — November 21, 2011 @ 6:32 am

  29. Know what else gets attention? Creativity. Light displays on corporate walls. Mobile sculptures. Street performances. Tents held in the air by balloons above where they're not allowed (yeah, I'm a Berkeley alumnus). Pieces that make people think "yeah! I want to be a part of that!" rather than "get the fuck out of my way!"

    Although I do admit that the escapade on the Brooklyn bridge is what broke the barrier into the mass media. But that's done. Now show "the system" dismantling peoples' creativity and dreams directly.

    Comment by Jason Riedy — November 21, 2011 @ 7:57 am

  30. Bill commented, "your assertion that OS ‘wanted to shut down a bridge just to be disruptive’ is just that, your assertions. Neither you nor I have any idea what the OS kids were thinking. "

    That is part of the problem, isn't it? The protesters held a protest and they didn't succeed in communicating any constructive message to FurryGirl, an actual member of the proletariat / working class. The only thing they managed to communicate to her is "Hello, we are inconsiderate dickheads!"

    Or do you think that protesting is about a lack of communication? How do you think protests are supposed to achieve their goals anyway? Do you have a hypothesis on that?

    Might as well block traffic and hold up big signs saying "AEFRJVA! FSADRV! ADSAWRFFFAS!"

    Comment by Bogo1 — November 21, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

  31. To echo what Bogo1 said: the problem with Occupy as a whole, as well as Occupy Seattle in particular, is a complete and utter failure to communicate ideas to the public. The number one response from the public to Occupy groups is "What do they want? Why are they doing this? What's the goal?" To which Occupy kids make sarcastic grunts and laughs and tell us that we're too stupid to understand their, like, totally way deep and profound ideas... and stuff.

    As an activist, your number one priority is learning how to communicate your message. If no one can understand what you think you're trying to convey, that is no one's fault but your own. Instead of taking this as a sign they need to work on PR, Occupy kids take it to mean that anyone who doesn't embrace them is a moron, apathetic, or a billionaire.

    Personally, I think this isn't just a PR issue, it'd a problem with Occupy at its core. When your protest is "we're against everything, and we demand someone else fix it for us," it's no wonder people don't take it seriously. These people might as well be 10-year-olds demanding that Santa bring them unicorn. I don't believe some angry 17-year-old punk kid has a better idea of how to fix the economy than do all the world's economists put together. These are all extremely complicated problems, and Occupy's only "solution" seems to be picking fights with police, sleeping outside, and causing disruptions for normal working people. And yes, it's horribly sad when people are getting pepper sprayed and hurt by police over-zealousness, but the real sadness is that activists are subjecting themselves to it for absolutely nothing.

    There is no real message, there is no real goal, there's just a bunch of people with a lot of energy and not the brains to do anything productive with it.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 21, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

  32. Comixchik says,

    "Should they have blown up the bridge? No. For violence to be effective, it needs to be targeted, and a bridge like that is just too vague and unrelated a target."

    That's exactly the same logic you are refusing to see about the blockade.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 21, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

  33. Well, some "Occupy" movements are making clear statements through their actions. The Occupy Wall Street (at Wall Street, where I saw barriers a few days before their "occupation") folks had a *library* that was destroyed physically. That's a clear statement to me of the relative value of books over nonexistent physical inconvenience but 'real' imaginary inconvenience. OWS was *not* in the way of business from the early bits I saw. And the events that caused them to be arrested and abused at banks for closing their accounts were damned brilliant to me. Occupy Oakland with its heritage in the Panthers and other movements physically inconvenience state government. Occupy (pick a UC campus) is pulling attention to the rapid and extreme increase of tuition up to nation-wide norms, and hence the odd nation-wide norms relative to the value that I see. When UC Berkeley's Occupy UC faced an obstacle, they worked around it. That's one reason why I miss UC Berkeley so much (alumnus with PhD in computing who got lucky with a job).

    Locally to you, I kinda giggled when I saw "Occupy Seattle" in one of it's relatively tiny marches down (Pike? Pine? I'm just a state--funded tourist). Locally to me, "Occupy Atlanta" is still trying to overcome it's racial screw-ups. That's quite serious in the South for good reason.

    I fully admit that my observations are limited to my own experience, and that my own experience is biased from the fully armed white upper-middle-class perspective. But not every "Occupy" group is, um, clueless? undirected? unclear?

    And, as many well know, Tahrir Square is under siege again. With US-manufactured tear gas. I need to look up "Occupy San Diego" and a few other places where that's manufactured. I don't know if it's media or personal blindness.

    Similarly, note that I've carefully phrased everything above as my personal opinion. I'm a quite well-trained lap dog in that sense. Meanwhile, our lap-dogs and lap-cats are staring at me and wondering why I'm being so boring. They have a wonderful perspective.

    Comment by Jason Riedy — November 21, 2011 @ 6:13 pm

  34. It facinates me to watch people come out of the woodwork and try to defend this movement. The faux belief that they are engaging in some time of long forgotten Athenian democracy is particularly hilarious, in that sad, snicker behind someone's back sort of way.

    Here's another quality offering from the Occupy Seattle crowd.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Wl1ObUGAoHE

    Bravo kid, but *this* member of the 99% wants you to stop acting like a savage and go home.

    Comment by Matthew F — November 21, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

  35. You've a very good point, Furry, about the confusion over OWS's message. I think the problem is that the real message is this: "Something is very wrong with our society, when it's this corrupt, unequal, and people are denied a chance." Hard to get all that into a sound bite.

    I see OWS as just the opening movement of a long struggle. They're just the people to point out "Wait- Something's wrong here." There's got to be a lot more coming if there's to be any effect.

    Comment by Comixchik — November 22, 2011 @ 6:27 am

  36. Jason: I can't speak to other cities, but I will garner the guess that Seattle's group is failing the hardest.

    Matthew: Thanks for sharing. I suppose that will be added to the next round of health citations issued to poor Seattle Central Community College: http://www.seattlecentral.edu/president/publichealth.php

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 22, 2011 @ 2:33 pm

  37. Comment by Trackbacks — May 23, 2013 @ 4:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Furry Girl: a good time not yet had by all.

Activism

My adult sites

More of me online

Enjoy my writing? I enjoy presents!

Buy SWAAY shirts:

Browse by topic

New to my blog? Some favorite posts

Favorite sex/ho blogs

Videos and podcasts

Sex workers' rights info

Search

RSS