Monday, January 23, 2012

Occupy Extremist Feminism (Feminazism)

In my previous article, I released an article slamming both the Boston Globe and a group of extremist Feminists called the "Occupy Boston Women's Caucus" for targeting folks who have served their sentences. So now they have posted their proposal to the Occupy Boston assembly online. Lets look at it, shall we?


OB Proposal on Sa...
Occupy Boston had an encampment, and issues of sexual misconduct were present, including the presence of persons with a reported history of serious sexual crimes. Though we are no longer encamped, these concerns remain. Our intent with this proposal is to protect our community and not to vilify individuals.
Sexual Assault Awareness Proposal
1.         If an Occupy Boston activist finds that another Occupy Boston activist is a Level 3 Sex Offender they are encouraged to inform the Sexual Assault Awareness (SAA) working group with documentation from the Sexual Offender Registry Board.
2.        SAA would then ask the individual to voluntarily leave the movement for one week. They will announce that they will return to GA within a one week period and research any publicly available details of the individual in question in the intervening time.
3.        SAA will present their results at the previously announced time and ask the GA whether or not the individual in question should be allowed to stay. The question will be put to a modified proposal process, where SAA will answer questions, take points of information, hear supports and concerns from any parties (including the individual in question), and then ask the GA for a direct vote.
If 75% of the GA votes to allow the individual to stay, they can remain a member of Occupy Boston. If not, they will no longer be considered a community member. If necessary, SAA will contact the accused and relay the results of the vote.
5.        Should the offender be asked by the GA to leave and choose not to voluntarily leave, or later shows up at any public Occupy Boston events, an announcement will be made at the next General Assembly by SAA making the community aware of this.
6.  This proposal, like all proposals, is a living document and can be added to, subtracted from or amended at any time with subsequent proposals.

[a]Anonymous:
My question is where did this SAA group come from? Who is spearheading it? This is nicole btw, I would love to participate in it- but I have never heard of it before which sends up alarms for me.

SarahBarneyDesigns:
We have to start it.  I will participate and I will make outreach calls and
emails to the groups needed to make this work.  We have two weeks,
according to the prop, to get it started.  This came from two people's
amendments and I think this will work better than depending on various
working groups already established.
S
[b]SarahBarneyDesigns:
I just sent the proposal to our legal team email (as listed on the wiki) and asked for any feedback and specifically about being left open for discriminatory lawsuits.  The flip side to that is that this is questioning if a level 3 is violating their probation to start with by participating in community events with children present.  I've been trying to research what the boundaries of that are but haven't been too successful.  I also asked legal for help in that.  One specific person I know is level 3 lived at Dewey Square and actively participated in demonstrations when school groups visited.  I believe this is a gross probation violation.
I also agree with sticking with primary resources, but I think having backup from independent groups (i.e., non-government possibly victim advocate groups?) is also a good idea.
Gunner, I'm leaning towards not addresses that in the proposal.  I don't know how I feel about it and I think that addressing just the physical aspect is a good start.  If anyone would like to make an amendment and present it later in addition, I'm fine with that.  I'm just not comfortable speaking on a specific standpoint when I'm not sure my feelings on it.
[c]gunnerscott:
what about participating via online? Could be the alternative to in person participation?
[d]dcheeno:
OK, I have a few different comments.  I'm not sure where's the best place to put them, so I decided that this "comment stream" would work.
First, I think that this proposal does a great job of addressing the concerns that many of us share, and I'm glad that this is being done.
I think that it would be best to stick to "primary sources," if that makes sense.  So rather than using the massresources.org site or the sexcriminaldefense.com site, it may be best to use the definitions for a Level 3 sex offender as directly provided by MA laws: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter6/Section178K
Another concern that I have is a bit more difficult to address.  By relying on the definitions of a level 3 sex offender and by using the fact that at least one member of OB is a sex offender based on her registry entry, would we be in violation of the sentence that is plastered on every registry entry: "Information shall not be used to commit a crime or to engage in illegal discrimination or harassments of an offender?"  By relying on the registry entry as our primary way of singling out this individual, does this proposal cross the line of "discrimination" if we shun registered sex offenders?  Again, I agree that this proposal, or something like it, is necessary to protect our community, but I also want to make sure that we don't somehow end up opening ourselves up to a civil rights lawsuit by doing this.  Perhaps we should have a discussion with the Legal WG before this proposal is presented?
Finally, just logistically: Is Safety still an active WG?  I ask this because I honestly don't know--I've seen plenty of Safety folks around, but I'm not sure if they're still organized as a WG.


The very first sentence is already confusing enough to the average reader. The article states "issues of sexual misconduct were present, including the presence of persons with a reported history of serious sexual crimes", which obviously implies correlation between the two. That is obviously NOT true. The Occupiers were only made aware of the presence of a so-called "Tier 3" sex offender after the Boston Herald rag slammed the Boston Globe for featuring a registrant in a story about love found at the Occupy movement (already covered in my last article). But because the Extremist Feminists have infiltrated the Occupy movement, this became a point of contention for these extremists.

In a nutshell, this is what they proposed--If they found out you're a registrant, you'll be booted out for a week so people who freely admit they don't have much knowledge on such things will prod your personal life, then make a decision on your worthiness based upon your label alone. This is what discrimination looks like! Thankfully the proposal was blocked, which pissed the Feminazis off so much they left.

At least one comment on the proposal recognized the registry's disclaimer that states the info CANNOT BE USED TO HARASS A REGISTRANT. What they proposed obviously violates that rule.

So now they have a Care2 Petition up where they are complaining while distorting the facts even more. I can't imagine why they would bother at this point:

Issues of sexual misconduct have been present in Occupy Boston, including sexual assault of Occupy Boston members and the presence of persons with a documented history of serious sexual crimes. Individuals active in the Occupy Boston community attempted to address some of these concerns with the Sexual Assault Awareness proposal, which, after four, long contentious General Assemblies, was blocked without reaching a vote.

This block was a culmination of actions and events at Occupy Boston that have made women in particular and marginalized groups in general feel progressively less and less welcome. We the undersigned, while supporting the stated goals of Occupy Boston and the larger Occupy movement, strongly condemn the actions of Occupy Boston's General Assembly (GA) on Sunday, January 8 2012 and ask that Occupy Boston take immediate steps to address those actions and prevent further damage to our community
.


Here we go, the "If you don't cave in to our demands you're a woman hater" argument. The irony is that registrants already feel marginalized and less and less welcome thanks in large part to this women's caucus.

Without going into detail (which you can read in full if you want by clicking the link) they accuse Paul Shannon of RSOL of hijacking the GA, even calling him a "rape apologist" in the process (no doubt after reading vigilante blogs as a cheap substitute for actual research). Ironically, Occupiers have been up in arms over having their personal info published, yet they targeted Shannon and referred to him in a negative fashion. Those who walked out consider themselves to be the backbone of the local movement. To me, it sounds like the quote from Animal farm where some people are more equal than others. As with many hypersensitive people, they feel their voices were not being heard enough. TRANSLATION-- they were not allowed to dominate the meeting.

Well let's look at the GA "minutes" for that day in question. Lets see what Paul Shannon did that was so offensive.


1919: Paul Shannon stands up to block. He is concerned about the path that this type of decision takes us. His understanding (says he is not an expert) is that level 3 choosing process is illegitimate, that many level 3s are not actually a threat. Also concerned that proposal only addresses classification, not behavior. We’re saying that the US CJ system is messed up, but not on this. It’s messed up here, too. Human Rights Watch and other groups have shown that offender registries do not keep people safe. Main objection is that this approach is the opposite of what OB is about.


Oh My God! Paul Shannon had the audacity to give people THE TRUTH. I know, who wants to hear the truth huh? So the Women's Caucus complained that Shannon violated some rule about autonomy, as if being an activist is the same as running some huge special interest like say, a Women's Caucus with an extremist agenda. That's more like the pot calling the Kettle black. I'm curious if I would be considered a "profession activist" had I been there because I damned sure would have raised the exact same questions. Now, I haven't exactly been a supporter of RSOL over the years and we really don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but for once I'm in agreement with Paul Shannon.

Feminism, as with any ISM, does not support equality. Many complain of stuff like rape culture and patriarchy, but much of society favors women, ESPECIALLY the "Justice System."

  1. Women have the advantage in the courts-- battered woman's syndrome, rape shield laws, defenses based upon hormonal changes from pregnancy/menopause/PMS/etc., advantages in custody battles
  2. There is a double standard in sentencing guidelines, mainly based upon gender views (women seen as having psychological issues/ unmet emotional needs, where all men are seen as predatory)
  3. Acts of misandry are seen as entertainment or condoned, as in the recent case of the woman who cut her husband's penis off and threw it in a garbage disposal; after all, the man MUST'VE done something to deserve this, huh? If someone cut off a woman's breast, would anyone find that funny?


Again, no ISM has ever brought equality. If we must "Occupy" anything at all, we should be begin with knowledge. Occupy your mind with the facts. Blind hatred as propagated by extreme feminists have destroyed innocent lives, from the McMartin trial to the 9 year old child on the registry. Truth and Equality are not ISMs.

Feminists blaming the victim and engaging in victim bashing? No, it must be my imagination.

what they really mean--You cannot Occupy Wall Street unless you emasculate yourself.


No comments:

Post a Comment