How Long? - Thoughts on Women and Occupy Wall Street

By Alda Facio

Translated from Spanish by Emily Goldman

November 15, 2011

A few days ago, I read the following item on Democracy Now!:

“In other news from ‘Occupy,’ activists in New York erected a tent to be used only by women, after complaints of sexual assaults in the Lower Manhattan encampment.’”

“Alex Borders of Occupy Wall Street said: ‘Many women felt their rights were being violated, to the point that they were on the campus and there were people who were invading their spaces in the tents and stuff like that, and for that reason we set up a tent to be used only by women.  We have 24-hour security that patrols the encampment.”’

“Nan Terri of Occupy Wall Street said: ‘At this time, [the tent] houses 20 people, but once we organize it, more will fit.  That’s why I have my gloves on, because I am going to go clean.  But my idea is to get more women-only tents.  I am trying to get a tent measuring 80 x 80 or 60 x 80 to put up on the other side and thereby ensure women’s security.’”

 

I am not sure what bothered me more – the way in which Democracy Now! published the above news item or the news itself.  It would seem that the sexual harassment and even rape of women have become so commonplace that what became a newsworthy event was not that among a group of people protesting against the violation of the most essential human rights of 99% of the world’s population, there are some men who rape women’s bodies.  No, that was not newsworthy, because raping women’s bodies would seem to be an inherent characteristic of being a man, whether the man in question belongs to the 1% of the elite or the 99% who are outraged.  The only thing that was deemed newsworthy was the fact that some women had erected a tent only for women, for the purpose of protecting themselves against sexual assaults.  Just like that, as if the need to put up a tent only for women were as unavoidable as putting up tents for protection against the rain or ramps to permit access for persons utilizing wheelchairs or having sign language interpreters to include non-hearing persons.

But what saddens and frustrates me most is that we women remain silent in the face of these violations of our bodies so as not to discredit a movement which is against the pillaging and violation of Mother Earth and in favor of the economic, social, and cultural rights of the large majority of the people. What outrages me most is that I have not seen or heard any male co-occupier demand that women’s bodies not be raped in Occupy Wall Street or any other place.  What makes me despair most is knowing that if the Occupy movement, or any other social justice movement, were to achieve its goal or dream, women’s bodies would continue to be raped because ending male violence against women is not part of the hoped-for transformations.  And I despair even more when I read that there are more than one billion women who have been raped worldwide, that rapes and femicides are ongoing in Congo and Guatemala, to name just two of the many countries where women’s bodies are ravaged on a daily basis, or when I am told that pornography is freedom of expression and prostitution is a job like any other.

I am tired of the fact that the rape of a woman’s body is only denounced when the violation is committed by a man or men who are members of enemy armed groups or by groups against whom we are struggling but when the rapes are committed by our own brothers-in-struggle, we feel it best to keep quiet.  And we silence ourselves because we believe that the movement – be it anti-capitalist, -imperialist, -neoliberal, -colonialist, -racist, -corruption, -impunity, or any of the things against which we organize– is more important than our bodies, or because we know that denouncing our brothers-in-struggle would be considered treason both by our brothers as well as by other women.

How long until we understand that the ones betraying the movement are those who violate women’s bodies, not those who denounce such atrocities?  How long until all of us who organize for social justice understand that if we do not pull out by its very roots the belief that makes possible the millions of rapes of women’s bodies each year – that is, the idea that women’s bodies are merchandise or objects which can be bought or simply taken by force – we will never be able to eliminate the mentality which permits and justifies coups d’état, wars, corruption, the pillaging of Mother Earth, her rivers and forests, as well as the appropriation by 1% of the world’s population of 99% of its wealth?  As long as we believe that it is only natural that some men will continue to rape some women, how can we believe that we will succeed at getting 1% of the men to stop taking whatever they desire by force?

Alda Facio is a world-renowned human rights attorney and expert, and a long-time friend and strategic adviser to JASS and JASS Mesoamerica who also contributes extensively to our knowledge and learning.

Women Build their Collective Power by Pen and Paper in Buhera

By Vimbai Njovana

The period from the FTX till now has been something of a whirlwind tour for me and an exhausting one too. As I reflect on the skills gained and the time spent at the FTX and how it has impacted my work, I can really see how I have been building women’s collective power in my organizing. A few months back, I, along with my colleagues, visited a growth point in Zimbabwe called Buhera to set up Anti-Domestic Violence Clubs. On our most recent trip this November, we visited Buhera again to conduct refresher courses on local level advocacy and build women’s skills in basic counseling.

The idea behind these clubs is that even though Musasa Project has offices in Harare, Bulawayo and Gweru, the three major towns in Zimbabwe as well as an office in Chiredzi which is a town in the Lowveld, it is important for us to establish ‘little Musasas’ in as many areas as we can. Musasa has worked in Buhera for a number of years now and the growth point is among the first to have Anti-Domestic Violence Clubs.

During this most recent visit to Buhera, I realized the impact we have begun to have on the lives of the women in those clubs. In the reports they submit to Musasa, they tell of interventions they have made in their rural districts to create communities that are free from domestic violence. For women who could probably write before but really had nothing to write, I saw what those short reports could mean for them. Being able to sit down and write about something may not seem like much of an achievement to many of us, but for these women it means a lot. As I came to this realization, it dawned on me that although we have not reached the level of working with ICTs like computers or mobile phones, ordinary pens and paper can be tools for women in Buhera to build their own collective power.

Vimbai Njovana participated in JASS’ Feminist Tech Exchange in Johannesburg earlier this year. She is Programme Manager at Musasa Project, an organization that addresses violence against women in its many forms in Zimbabwe.

What is Theory of Change (TOC) thinking and its added value for social change movements?

By Alia Khan

Within the past five years “theory of change” has been promoted and popularized by some of the world’s largest charitable foundations as a way for social change organizations to describe and evaluate their work. Look around, and you’ll find social service and mission-driven NGOs of all sizes and shapes espousing their “theory of change” in funding proposals and promotional materials. Private foundations such as the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have invested heavily in developing “theory of change” tools for existing and potential grantees, drawing on the services of private sector-oriented management consulting powerhouses such as McKinsey & Company.

The following reflections are based on my experiences over the past five years utilizing “theory of change” as a construct for strategic planning and proposal development for NGOs involved in social change work. It was prompted by a Hivos-sponsored virtual dialogue that posed the question “what is ‘Theory of Change thinking’ and its added value.” 

For me, “theory of change” (TOC) thinking cannot be separated from the context in which it has been introduced and promoted, that is, as a strategy for philanthropic and development actors to guide and evaluate their grantmaking and aid strategies. Having had multiple opportunities to develop and articulate theories of change, I have come to understand it as a technical term for making visible and explicit the assumptions, motivations, rationale behind what we do and why. This requires self-knowledge, introspection, and reflection to surface and unpack the driving forces behind our thinking, being, and doing.

For some, such a process is written into their DNA, as JASS would say. For others, it can be a confusing, even threatening concept to realize and acknowledge that our ways of thinking, being and doing are neither value-neutral nor universal. They are the product of the ideas, context, reflection, relationships, and power that we see and experience in our environment.

The value of TOC thinking is in making what’s invisible visible. This means you’re better able to communicate who you are, what you do and why. In turn, this serves as a concrete tool to identify and build common ground as well as cement relationships across difference. By articulating your TOC, you provide others a way to know you—a concrete way to determine whether your interests and values are the same or vastly different; a benchmark against which others can subjectively determine your viability as a partner or, conversely, the threat you pose as an opponent. TOC thinking is what enables cohesion, unity, community, connection, be it within and among individuals, organizations, political parties, or social groups.

For a donor, TOC is what makes a grantee unique; it determines their ‘added value,’ whether they will produce a meaningful return on investment. It helps grant seekers answer the questions “why you,” “why now?” For donors that aren’t enmeshed in the day-to-day business of their grantees, it gives them a language/construct to understand and evaluate the organizational viability, validity, and value.

In many ways, TOC is simply a way to name and describe a way of being and doing that exists and has always existed. It is about seeing yourself within a broader (ecological) context and understanding that your actions are influenced by and have an impact on that context and all of the elements within it. Activists are inherently TOC thinkers, whether they call it that or not. When faced with issues of survival, for example, activists have to identify the problem and devise a solution that can be achieved with limited resources (financial, political, social, and otherwise). That forces them to be creative and efficient, choosing strategies that get the most bang for the buck. But while this creativity and power exists, it is invisible to those who don’t have to work so hard for mere survival. Then the onus is on the activist to explain and justify why their work is necessary, strategic, and important if they are to gain access to resources (resources being broadly defined).

So, while I think TOC thinking is helpful in forming and maintaining relationships, the label “TOC” can be confusing. Some funders’ requirements for articulating your theory of change have, perhaps inadvertently, forced social change organizations to describe their way of thinking and being within a technical, logic-driven framework. It’s analogous to how conventional society does not intrinsically value and support what we might call women’s “way of knowing,” that is, an intuitive, relational, and ecological way of interacting with the world. But give it a new name, one that can hold its own in “business management speak”, and it suddenly becomes “real” and important. Something that can be distilled down to a commodity and that can be produced with a handful of one-size-fits-all processes, by any given group of people, in any given context, at any given time.

From an organizational and philanthropic perspective, the need for “TOC thinking” is understandable, and contributes to developing frameworks for evaluation and accountability. However, this style of logic-driven linear thinking privileges upwards accountability, diverting resources and energy away from efforts that could make constituent accountability and ownership truly meaningful. In addition, the very technical nature of being able to communicate in terms of a “valid theory of change” often creates yet another barrier for grassroots women’s groups (formal and informal) to access financing for development. And yet, it’s these very women and women’s groups on whose backs development “innovations” (e.g. home-based care, peer educators, self-help groups, etc…) claim success.

This is not an argument against being able to be accountable for describing the beliefs, values, and assumptions behind what social change organizations and movements are doing. However, it’s a call to acknowledge the context in which “theory of change” thinking has been promoted, for what purposes, and for whose benefit. What would donor relationships and giving look like if social change organizations had the platforms and resources to demonstrate their “value added” in their own language, in their own ways, and on their own terms?