Sent time:   Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:32:30 PM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: Hot Chicks on Wall Street makes me fucking sick

This is a great response! As a cisgender guy who does work around

challenging male supremacy, I'm curious about what initiatives have

already taken place or are taking place at #OWS to address these

problems... anyone got a good overview of this? Thanks, RJ


> Here's a really great post I came across that shows why it's not just the

> TITLE that is an outrage.



> Steven Greenstreet is the dude behind the Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street

> tumblr and

> video<>.

> That video has gotten a lot of attention — a lot of women and some dudes

> have been like “well this is fucked up,” and then some other dudes have

> been

> like<>“I

> don’t see what the big deal is, boys will be boys and what’s wrong

> with

> wanting to meet attractive women at a protest?”


> And like I said in my initial post, the deflecting from legitimate

> concerns,

> and the fact that the OWS “public” includes a lot of men who think it’s ok

> to treat women at a protest like we’re there for their visual fulfillment,

> troubles me. No one is saying, “Don’t find women attractive.” I actually

> like hot chicks too! No one is saying “Don’t meet hot people at a

> protest.”

> People meet people in all kinds of social settings, and that’s great. I

> met

> a past boyfriend at a liberal blog conference. Meet away, I say. No one is

> objecting to dating or hooking up or meeting women or meeting men. No one

> is

> objecting to the fact that straight men are attracted to some women (fun

> fact: straight women are also attracted to some men! So really, no one is

> pissed about attraction, I promise). What people are pissed about is what

> Rebecca Traister says:


> The larger, simpler argument, outside of consent or permission, is: This

> video is sexist.* It’s an example of women participating in public life —

> political, professional, social — and having their participation reduced

> to

> sexual objectification.* That’s what happened here, nothing more, nothing

> less.


> The notion that dressing in a certain way is an invitation (and presumably

> that dressing in another way is not) is flawed. There is no way for women

> to

> dress (dresses, shorts, jeans, overalls) that is not considered an

> invitation by someone. When you add in the ways in which women are

> expected

> to dress in order to be taken seriously, or liked, or listened to or paid

> attention to, and then add to that assumptions that the choices that they

> make equal invitations to be ogled, it leaves women no sartorial freedom.


> Emphasis mine. If you’re at an event and you strike up conversation with

> someone cute? Wonderful. But creating a blog and a video dedicated to

> showing women at a protest with the sole purpose of reminding dudes that

> women at the protest are hot? That does reduce women to objects of male

> attention. It’s another reminder, for women, that how seriously we’re

> taken

> and how valuable we are depends on how sexually attractive we’re deemed.

> That it’s ok to use us as bait because hey, it’ll attract more dudes to

> the

> protest<>!



> Frankly, the kinds of dudes who would come to the OWS protests because

> they

> heard there are hot chicks there? Are not the kinds of dudes I want to be

> protesting with. I would hope they’re not the kinds of dudes that most

> progressives would want to be protesting with — but judging by the

> lefty-dude reaction to Steven Greenstreet (hi Matt Zoller Seitz, looking

> at

> you!), that’s not the case. It’s disappointing. It’s pretty shitty to know

> that some progressive men are a-ok with female protestors being portrayed

> as

> boner-bait, because boys will be boys and it’s all in good fun. It’s also

> worth noting here that actual sexual assaults have happened at OWS.


> Also? The early “he’s a misogynist creep” vibe that I got off of Steven

> Greenstreet appears to be pretty on. I avoid Twitter fights like the

> plague

> because nothing productive ever happens in 140 characters, but last night

> Mr. Greenstreet apparently spent the evening google-imaging me and then

> kindly used his Twitter account to link to photos of me wearing — get

> ready,

> ladies, it’s shocking — *a dress*, in a feminist eco-friendly fashion show

> my friend Kate <> hosted, where she used her

> friends because she didn’t want to exclusively feature traditional very

> thin

> models. Greenstreet added commentary like, “Oh I see, dressing in a short

> skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when

> you

> do it” and “Love how these guys stare as you show off your curves.”


> Because walking in a friend’s fashion show is totally the same thing as

> taking pictures of women on the street without their knowledge or

> permission

> and putting them on a “hot girls” website. And yes, by wearing a skirt in

> some photos I was obviously asking for it, right? Not creepy at all. Just

> totally normal guy stuff.


> Steven is also

> mad<>that

> I use the f-word sometimes. It is a shame that I am the face of

> feminism, he says. Steven Greenstreet would definitely do feminism better

> than me. Especially when he gets all rape jokey.


> [To protect the privacy of people who are Steven's facebook friends and

> because I just don't feel like digging my heels in on this one, I've taken

> down the screenshot of Steven's Facebook page. On that page, Steven linked

> to his "Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street" video, and added, "The way me

> and

> [a colleague] contribute to the movement.” A friend of his comments, “Way

> to

> legitimize the movement, Steve.” Steven replies, “An erection legitimizes

> anything.” His friend replies, “Even rape?” Steven Greenstreet says, “It

> probably wouldn’t be rape without one.”]


> Good dude. Very not misogynist, clearly. Definitely interested in women’s

> rights and definitely being treated unfairly by mean feminists who clearly

> just hate attractive women.


> We want to attract more dudes like this to progressive politics? This is

> who

> women should shut up and make way for? It’s no big deal that this dude is

> making a “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” tumblr and video because his

> erection legitimizes it?


> Obviously this guy doesn’t speak for most liberal men. But I actually

> haven’t seen very many liberal men being like, “This is fucked up,”

> period.

> I’ve seen them be like, “Well it’ll attract more men to the protest!” and

> “Well it’s kind of a problem but it’s not really that bad” (there are of

> course a few

> exceptions<>).



> Get it together, dudes.

> *

> [Just an FYI for the comment thread: A bunch of Steven's supporters have

> come out to tell us how they really feel, and I'm letting many of the

> comments through. I'm deleting the worst ones -- the ones about how we

> should be raped, how women who are dressed like skanks are asking for it,

> etc -- but I'm publishing a lot of stuff that we usually wouldn't let fly

> in

> order to illustrate my point that no, this isn't just good fun "boys will

> be

> boys" stuff, and very real hostility to women is lurking behind "The Hot

> Chicks of Occupy Wall Street" and its supporters. Some of the comments

> might

> be triggering, especially concerning violence and sexual assault.]*




> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:06 PM, rob hollander <> wrote:


>> +1, grim

>> sounds like the right attitude to take



>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:16 PM, grimwomyn <> wrote:


>>> honestly I have bigger battles to fight-- I saw it-- thought it was

>>> stupid, and went on with my work.



>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM, rob hollander <>

>>> wrote:


>>>> The video includes the spontaneous speech of the women it focuses on.

>>>> They are articulate, intelligent, incisive and inspiring, so I can

>>>> only

>>>> conclude that, the gross title aside, this video is more than just a

>>>> piece

>>>> of sexist voyeurism, but more a devout and adoring tribute that, if it

>>>> were

>>>> made by a woman, could easily be described as a feminist tribute to

>>>> the

>>>> female youth at OWS.


>>>> The *title* is an outrage. Was it chosen as irony, since the video

>>>> doesn't come off as a "hot chick" video (note the all-string

>>>> classically-inspired elegiac music -- no rock, no percussive heavy

>>>> beat)?


>>>> I'd like to know what women, including the women depicted, think of it

>>>> and its intentions.


>>>> I'm trying to imagine what the hot male equivalent would be like, and

>>>> how

>>>> I'd respond. Too bad the videographer didn't include men for a

>>>> "Beautiful

>>>> Youth of OWS." It would still be off-topic, but at least it wouldn't

>>>> be

>>>> sexist.


>>>> In any case, denouncing a piece so carefully designed to be beautiful,

>>>> artistic, intelligent, inspiring and sensitive would be philistine. As

>>>> long

>>>> as OWS doesn't embrace it (an that's not likely), I don't see a

>>>> problem with

>>>> it being out there as some videographer's esthetic obsession. It makes

>>>> OWS

>>>> looks intelligent and attractive without trying.




>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Morgan Buck

>>>> <>wrote:


>>>>> Hi again,


>>>>> Just wanted to apologize quickly for my harsh tone and foul language.

>>>>> Although I do feel strongly enough about this to curse up and down, I

>>>>> also

>>>>> realize that this kind of reaction is rather unconstructive,

>>>>> particularly on

>>>>> a forum such as this. I sincerely hope that nobody is offended. I

>>>>> fully

>>>>> intend to approach any future discussions with a far more thoughtful

>>>>> and

>>>>> reasoned tone.


>>>>> M




>>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Morgan Buck

>>>>> <>wrote:


>>>>>> Hey all,


>>>>>> Don't know if everyone has seen this yet:



>>>>>> If so, please disregard. I just saw it though and I find it

>>>>>> downright

>>>>>> disgusting and fucked up, a total disservice to the movement and

>>>>>> everything

>>>>>> that we stand for. This being said, I understand that some

>>>>>> women/other

>>>>>> people may not share my opinions or sensibilities. I'd love it if

>>>>>> there were

>>>>>> some folks—maybe related to safer spaces, or maybe some new

>>>>>> formation—that

>>>>>> would be into talking about/dealing with this shit and the way that

>>>>>> it

>>>>>> represents women and the occupation/movement in general.


>>>>>> Oh, and the original video/Tumblr is also getting a fair bit of

>>>>>> coverage, Some good (Jezebel - "Point-Missing

>>>>>> Dudes"<>);

>>>>>> Some *meh* (Alternet - "Really

>>>>>> Bro?"<,_bro/>);

>>>>>> And some awful and/or sofuckingweirdandoffensiveIcantbelieveitexists

>>>>>> (SF

>>>>>> Chronicle blog - "Deal With

>>>>>> It"<>

>>>>>> )


>>>>>> Also, this would maybe be a good segue into talking about a more

>>>>>> general need: the organization of women voices about this, and other

>>>>>> potentially awesome and/or alienating aspects of the movement, both

>>>>>> in and

>>>>>> out of the Square.


>>>>>> Much love,

>>>>>> Morgan






>>>>> --

>>>>> Morgan Buck

>>>>> Brooklyn, NY






>>>>> t. 917-529-6860





>>>> --

>>>> Rob Hollander

>>>> Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development


>>>> 622 E 11, #10

>>>> NYC, 10009

>>>> 212-228-6152






>> --

>> Rob Hollander

>> Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development


>> 622 E 11, #10

>> NYC, 10009

>> 212-228-6152





> --

> So we decided to get together & change the weather, not just for now --

> but

> forever.