Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

Give Matriarchy Ⓐ Chance

Posted 7 years ago on July 1, 2014, 4:17 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: Matriarchy

written by Justine Tunney

I'm a strong supporter of matriarchy. This is because men are violent misbehaving creatures. If you want to have order in your society and maximize quality of life for womyn, you need to find some way to cure man of his brutish tendencies. If you look at history, you will see that only one method has really proven to work. That method is slavery.

The two most popular types of slavery in modern america are are wage slavery and slavery to a wife and children through marriage. If the men in your society aren't married or working jobs, then you will have disorder and chaos. They'll form violent gangs and spend all their time gambling and getting drunk in saloons and brothels.

Women on the other hand don't need to be slaves, since women are naturally more civilized. Under matriarchy, a woman is head of her home and home is the center of the universe. She lives in peace and serenity, spending her time with children, family, and community. She spends her time making her surroundings beautiful and sharing nourishing meals with her loved ones. After all, these are the things that truly matter. They're the very foundation of our existence. Everything else that we do, is meant to support these fundamental things. And only women should have the right to enjoy them to the fullest.

On the other hand… all the horrible soul-crushing things that suck, yet are required to support a woman's happiness—should be the sole responsibility of men. Men should be the ones forced to do all the grueling physical labor. Men should be the ones who are forced to go to war to fight and die. Men should be the ones forced to work awful jobs for evil corporations where they're tormented by cruel uncaring bosses that don't care whether they live or die. Men should have to be the ones who worry about money, bills, and all the other capitalist abominations in our society—which I might add were invented by men! When will they learn?

— Justine Tunney (@JustineTunney)



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by elf3 (4203) 7 years ago

Supreme court decision is insane here is why...it's extremely Funny!!... I took birth control for a health issue that was causing fertility problems to regulate hormones and possibly get my uterus to be able to conceive and prevent endometrial cancer -guess corporations and courts don't care about that...it's just one less thing insurance companies have to pay for - so will I have to go through a tribunal or special consideration explaining in detail to my employers, my exemption considering my circumstance as I spill out the details of my lady parts? But oh wait if they find out I want to take time off in the future and have a baby they will probably find a cause and hackimamy reason I'm not working out..i already deftly avoided the baby grilling from nosy coworkers never hear them ask men when they plan to start families this is gross sexist questioning! Female family planning is still a double edged sword...Anyway many female health problems are treated with the pill...it is not simply a contraceptive (not that that should matter either) now they can refuse to allow woman a basic right of not popping out a child everytime she has sex...so really this is about regulating and limiting sexual pleasure which doesn't happen with men (btw hey at least when woman masturbate their potential baby juice doesn't pour down the shower drain or end up in a tissue- sorry side-tracked here since we all know the religioso wing nuts think our eggs are any different from sperm in this regard aka the objection to the pill which really makes no sense to me...doubtful they even understand that the pill pauses ovulation especially since certain members of congress think our reproductive system can distinguish rape from sex)...and employers can still refuse paid maternity leave or to give time off for parenting issues as well as require overtime not allowing for any work life balance..including paying me (or my husband) enough to feed and clothe and house my potential offspring

When will the contraceptive haters demand corporations to label endocrine disrupting ingredients that cause spontaneous abortion such as parabens and phalates and milk hormones and the risks printed on the product for not only that but potential birth defects...as well as gmo and pesticides that cause infertility ( with rats studies, in two generations complete loss of fertility from genetically modified foods) our supreme court and the churches are seething with hypocrisy!

Hey are vasectomies covered by insurance and hey has anyone ever asked this question or if that is ethical probably not ... they only like to REGULATE woman..forget corporations crops or poisons in food and products that have a contraceptive affect...and cause myriads of health problems particular to females that are often helped by the pill ...forget regulating men...this is about subserviating women carried out and endorsed in our highest court which now sets the precedent others including employers can make decisions about what we do with our bodies..and if I can sue monsanto/ dow for my fertility issues or all the hormones in shampoo and body wash as well as hormones in treated cows that end up in milk and our water supply...that most likely caused too much estrogen to mess up my uterine lining, caused miscarriage and potential endometrial cancer especially when I can't afford the uncovered treatment which is a little group of hormones (much like the ones in your common bodywash, soaps, and shampoo -and milk, meat, and water plus don't forget plastics - except better regulated and measured and balanced) contained in a Pill ....on a secretary salary? Would I win? Hey ladies want to go in on a class action for fertility issues caused by chemicals and gmo...and after that help me fire our supreme court?

[-] 5 points by Ache4Change (3340) 7 years ago

'When will the contraceptive haters demand corporations to label endocrine disrupting ingredients' - is a MASSIVE question and so also see -

http://www.nationofchange.org/it-s-basic-healthcare-issue-planned-parenthood-s-cecile-richards-reacts-birth-control-ruling-1404306 &

http://www.nationofchange.org/save-bees-ban-neonic-pesticides-1404308003 by David Suzuki

I see important parallels here, given 'Neonics are unsafe for humans and the environment. And these chemicals pose a serious risk of harm to honey bees and other pollinators. It’s time the government protects us all and bans neonic pesticides.' But will The Supreme Court protect us or just keep on enabling The Corporations and 'their religious rights'?

Never Give Up Exposing The Hypocrisies! Occupy The 99% Issues! Solidarity.

[-] 5 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

i support womens rights and i don't think there is much a woman cant do insofar as they can povide thoughtful leadership, creativity, innovativeness, and excel at any intellectual or artistic activity. i love women and respect them. what i know is women break my heart all the time so w/e and i am a good guy not a nice guy wuss/pushover so anyways good day to you don't pigeon hole everyone.

[-] 4 points by gsw (3378) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

They/we become enlightened one by one, hopefully enlightened become a majority, not that it matters in our oligarchy, of plutocrats and billionaire shortsighted profiteers, until we have democracy. Man needs woman, woman needs man, it's a polarity.

Edit we must put the others needs above our own, live with love and purpose

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

Women better leaders?


Just abump

[-] 3 points by gsw (3378) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

We all have dual polarity of masculine and feminine.

Woman tends to be more nurturing, not always, just my belief, but we most everyone, all have a nurturing capacity. We need all voices included, and democracy. Yes someone must take leadership position, but should be representative.

How about Chris Christie telling new town parents 100 magazine clips are ok. Who does he represent, Mother fucking dumbshit corporatist sand himself is his constituency, the officials are so brazen they don't represent their constituency, just their funders


[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

He is a good example of testosterone as a detriment. He is a dangerous guy sacrificing lives in order to please extremist gun corp supporters he needs for his possible presidential campaign.

No honor

Of course gender doesn't really matter, either gender has a similar capacity for good & evil.

Sure would like to see more of this type of leader (whatever gender!)


[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

A bigger day of action for women is required


I support more women leaders!


I concur. In the end of course, for me the best leader is progressive, regardless of gender.



[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 7 years ago

I have one or more stalkers playing their games again. You may have one or more as well. All of your most recent comments have been marked down at least once within the last hour. It wasn't me. I'm marking them back up.

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

Pretty sure the numbers are irrelevant, just as any "stalkers" are.

Must be doin something right, if people payin attention?

Do you have comments on thread topic?


[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 7 years ago

There was a time very long ago when men and women had specific roles defined by their circumstances. The men were expected to do the hunting and the building. The women were expected to care for the children. It doesn't have to be that way anymore. I say whatever works is fine with me.

The rotten side of modern society has had it's negative influence on women as well. They have become more prone to violence over the last 20 years. That's not a bash on women. It's a bash on modern society. It was a perfect concept in the beginning. People working together for mutual benefit. A common cause. Beautiful.

It's not so beautiful anymore.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

'Women are the N#$@^& of the world'


All over the world, whether discussing wages, domestic violence, or war, Women & children by far make up the vast majority of victims.



Support women! End war! correct economic inequity!

This has been true throughout all history not just now. Certainly that experience adds to womens the leadership qualifications.

[-] 2 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

Anyway, to be serious, the matriarchal societies have been largely done away with by male dominated ones, or infused with the familiar stereotypes. I think the Hawaiian culture was one. Anyone from the islands, hit us with some history, or herstory, please. The problem is that a culture of productivity still needs self defense capabilities. I wouldn't want to find my Utopia, then wake up with the encroachers at hand and no defense. Metaphorize as you will, there need be the legal, mental, and physical stamina to withstand. Men are decorative and interesting creatures, though. When they're not thinking with their junk. Okay, I'll shut up now. :)

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 7 years ago

property rights was an important early issue in the suffrage movement

[-] 2 points by Ihippy (49) 7 years ago

Men that act in a way you claim would be civilized..... usually don't get the chance to be married or have children. Cause and effect. I thought you were an atheist? We ARE monkeys. So now that I have stripped your pretense, you should take time to examine the subject under some illumination.

  1. People (including mothers) are violent.
  2. Humans are built to eat other thinking and feeling creatures so that we may live.
  3. We are lucky in our enlightenment but we have a long way to go before we learn to properly utilize it.
  4. We haven't been a member of the universe for very long.

Blaming and claiming omnipotence doesn't create much progress.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (4203) 7 years ago

Please watch the film I am ...a brilliant counterpoint to survival of fittest...human beings evolved in groups as it offered better chance of survival as such they needed to evolve to share and in turn evolved compassion -this trait depending on circumstance can be nurtured or surpressed...even see in wolf packs as lone wolfs acting in self interest to detriment of group survival are ousted...when a person is born into wealth, they no longer must soley depend on the group to survive as such they begin to see themselves as separate and don't need to be as compassionate or giving...though this is an illusion since they do still need the group to buy products work for them etc. Without compassion or need for dependency their relationship to the group becomes domineering and parasitical. They become lower intelligent lifeforms relying on base survival and agression instead of thoughtful cooperation...and what a sad existence it is to live without purpose of love and compassion in exchange for being the one with the most toys. I believe the purpose of life is to communicate thought and spread love and be as creative and communicative as possible to the benefit of the group. To live for domination and control certainly goes against our nature and purpose as highly developed communicative life forms. They only want to get from the group but unwilling to give in return they must control and steal what they need since the group resents their lack of equal exchange. We need eachother and the greater picture is that without that realization of equal give and take inevitably leads to pain, suffering, poverty, and starvation, resentment, war and battles for resources. We need to share without it we become depressed and purposeless. Look at this forum we must speak to eachother..we can't help sharing our thoughts with one another...it's innate

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

''We need each other and the greater picture is that without that realization of equal give and take inevitably leads to pain, suffering, poverty, and starvation, resentment, war and battles for resources. We need to share without it we become depressed and purposeless.'' Emphatic ditto elf and in compliment of your excellent comment, please consider ...

From which : ''Being poor. It means stretching a dollar to be sure that your children can eat every day. It means deciding whether you can skip a car payment or a mortgage payment this month, because one more missed electricity bill will get the power turned off. It means ignoring the pain in your chest because even if you have insurance you can’t cover the deductible for the doctor’s visit, or skipping your medication because the copay is just a little too much. It’s trying to decide between buying a shirt without a hole for a job interview or having the gas you need just to get to it.

''And, according to most Republicans, that’s all “having it easy.”

''A new study conducted by Pew Research says that over 75 percent of those who identify as conservative believe that the poor have it “easy.” “More than three quarters of conservative Americans – those in the steadfast conservative, business conservative, and young outsider typology groups — agree that ‘poor people have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything,’” reports Wonk Blog. “Only seven percent of steadfast conservatives say that the poor ‘have hard lives.’”

Now don't for a moment think that doesn't apply (but perhaps to a less pathological extent) to soft small 'c' conservatives in The Democratic Party & especially those On-The-Hill !!! Thanx for a great comment !! Solidarity ! Fyi for The 4th :

pax ...

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 7 years ago

The Right to Parent, Even If You Are Poor

Friday, 18 July 2014 10:39
By Sarah Jaffe, In These Times | Report


Carolyn Hill still remembers the night, two years ago, when the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) came to take her nieces away. The girls, ages 1 and 2, had been placed with her about a year earlier, after being removed from their mother's custody due to her mental health issues. Hill thought she’d begun the process of adopting the girls: She’d taken parenting classes at the request of the agency and had begun paperwork so that she could go forward with adoption.

But on Tuesday April 3, 2012, Hill got a call from the Lutheran Children and Family Service (LCFS), a nonprofit that had taken over her case the previous fall (Philadelphia's DHS farms out its caretaking services to a number of nonprofits). The caller said that she needed to speak with Hill that day. The social worker who had called Hill arrived at her home after 5pm and, without prior warning, took Hill's nieces away. “She didn't even let them finish eating—I had stopped to get them some food, but she just took them right on out,” Hill tells In These Times. (LCFS did not return a request for comment.)

When Hill called DHS to find out why the girls had been removed from her care, she was told that everyone was on Easter vacation (Easter would fall on the following Sunday, a full five days away). “It felt like it was a set-up for them to come get the kids [at a time] when I can't get in touch with anybody,” she says. Hill went to court the following Monday. She says she was not informed by the agency of how she could fight the removal: “I was supposed to go within 30 days [of the court hearing] and file an appeal—file for standing—but nobody told me about that.”

Two years later, she still isn't sure why the girls were removed from her custody. The answers, she says, keep changing. The agencies brought up a drug conviction for which she served six months' probation in 1999—something the city knew about when she first took custody of her nieces, she says—and accused her of having mental health issues because she possessed Ambien to help her sleep. They also complained that she did not have a GED.

Hill began to seek ways to get her nieces back, and soon found an ally: Every Mother is a Working Mother Network (EMWM), a Philadelphia- and Los Angeles-based group that works to combat the devaluation of parenting labor, particularly as done by low-income women of color. Members of the group have advised her, helped her find a lawyer, and will be available to testify that she would be a fit parent for her nieces.

EMWM sees Hill’s case as an example of an ongoing problem not just in Philadelphia, but also across the country and around the world: Poverty and a lack of opportunity become an excuse to separate children from their families

“How dare they say that she cannot have the children because she doesn't have a high school diploma?” asks Selma James, author of Sex, Race and Class, cofounder of the 1970s International Wages for Housework Campaign and coordinator of the Global Women’s Strike, an international network that aims to value the caring labor disproportionately performed by women, of which EMWM is a member. James continues, “The class bias that says that anybody who doesn't have a GED therefore can't be a parent is so blatant that it's terrifying.”

“Poverty is confused with neglect,” says Phoebe Jones, a member of the EMWM who has been working closely with Hill on her case. Indeed, poverty-related problems like a lack of access to housing routinely result in children being taken away from families. According to the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, some 30 percent of foster children could be home now if their families had housing. Jones says that it would be cheaper, certainly in Philadelphia, to provide housing assistance than to pay for a child to go into foster care. “If you are a mother, you don't get any [financial] help. But if your kid gets put in foster care, that person gets help.”

To James, the fact that care work remains unpaid or undervalued sets the tone for the treatment of caregivers. “The carers, the cleaners, the nurses, the teachers, especially of the little ones: All of us are either unwaged or low-waged. Either we are not respected at all or we are marginal. The reproduction of the human race has been degraded to a marginal activity, and it opens the door to all kinds of brutality.”

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 7 years ago

Privatization Problems?

Hill says her custody problems began in the fall of 2011 when LCFS took over her case from another subcontracted agency, several months after the city placed the girls in her care. LCFS, she says, came out to conduct a parent capacity evaluation of her and get a GED. She was told she had until July to enroll in the GED program; but, she says, the social worker came to collect the kids in April.

Since then, she says, it's been a series of shifting goalposts and misinformation. The DHS, according to Jones, said in writing that they'd support the children being returned to Hill, and then reneged. Even with a lawyer representing her and the support of her community and EMWM she hasn't been able to see the children since January.

Philadelphia has one of the highest rates of child removal in the country. Its DHS has a history of problems—and a history of privatization. In 2008, after the high-profile 2006 death of disabled 14-year-old Danieal Kelly, criminal charges were brought against two DHS case workers and two employees of a private agency hired by the city to oversee children in the child protection system. The head of that agency was eventually convicted, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, of “involuntary manslaughter, child endangerment, reckless endangerment, perjury, criminal conspiracy, and four charges involving what prosecutors called a 'forgery fest' to create a case file to fool investigators into thinking Kelly actually got in-home services.”

In a 2008 article for the Philadelphia Daily News and WHYY's “It's Our Money” blog, Ben Waxman traced the flow of federal, state and city dollars through DHS to private contractors, often religious, and asked, “How sound is the policy of having the welfare of children in the hands of private organizations that are not accountable or subject to public scrutiny? Should DHS be considered a social services department when in fact its real job is the management of a staggering number of contracts, worth over a half-billion dollars?”

And yet the city has doubled down on its use of private agencies since then. Its Improving Outcomes for Children (IOC) process, the planning for which began in 2008, explicitly aims to “[shift] the management of child welfare cases from the city to community-based organizations.” Even Frank Cervone, the executive director of the Support Center for Child Advocates, an agency that works with the city on this program, expressed some hesitation as the program began. “We remain cautious about the locus of responsibility and accountability,” he told a reporter. (The DHS commissioner is stepping down in August to take another job—it is unclear if anything will change under her replacement.)

Jones considers the use of multiple private contractors part of the problem in Carolyn Hill's case. “[The agencies] are not acting like public servants. They're acting like public masters,” she says. “Partly that's because a lot of it is privatized.”

It's not just Philadelphia that has had problems with social services and privatization. Indiana attempted to privatize a chunk of its health and human services in 2006 and wound up considering banning privatization of Medicaid and food stamp management because users had so many problems getting services. Back in 2000, a Denver Post investigation found that Colorado was spending millions on private agencies that oversaw more than half of the state's foster children and pocketed more than three-quarters of the money spent on foster care. And not far from Philadelphia, a scandal rocked Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, in 2008 when juvenile court judges were found to be accepting kickbacks from private juvenile detention centers in exchange for funneling kids into their facilities.

Punishing the Poor

Dorothy Roberts, professor of law and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, attributes the current punitive trends in social service to a neoliberal ideological framework that believes private solutions are the best answer to social problems. Roberts has spent decades researching child welfare systems. Her 2001 book, Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare, argued that current policy reflects a political choice to punish families rather than address the societal causes of black poverty. She has noted that about one-third of children in foster care are black, despite black children making up only 15 percent of the nation's children.

In a 2012 article in the UCLA Law Review[PDF], Roberts wrote:

The end to the welfare safety net coincided with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, which emphasized adoption as the solution to the rising foster care population. Both can be seen as neoliberal measures that shifted government support for children toward reliance on private employment and adoptive parents to meet the needs of struggling families. This convergence marked the first time the federal government mandated that states protect children from abuse and neglect without a corresponding mandate to provide basic economic support to poor families. Both the welfare and foster care systems, then, responded to a growing black female clientele by reducing services to families while intensifying their punitive functions. The main mission of child welfare departments became protecting children not from social disadvantages stemming from poverty and racial discrimination but from maltreatment inflicted by their mothers.

This is the same point made by Jones and James; instead of fixing poverty, Roberts notes, the state “addresses family economic deprivation with child removal rather than services and financial resources.” It stereotypes and punishes low-income African-American women as “aggressive” and “cognitively delayed” without questioning those labels. Officials are often blatant in their assumption that black parents, particularly black women, are incompetent. Women like Carolyn Hill.

Meanwhile, Waxman pointed out (using 2008 numbers), “If the DHS budget were divided by the number of children it serves, each one would get a check for $34,000 every year.” That might do more to solve the problems caused by poverty than removing those children from their homes.

EMWM points out that when the state is overstretched in taking children away from families whose only problem is poverty, it can miss the cases in which a child actually is in immediate danger.

That danger, James says, can come in part from women being economically unable to leave dangerous circumstances—women who face domestic violence, she points out, sometimes have their children taken away because they themselves have been abused.

And right now, in Detroit, as water is being shut off to thousands who were late on exorbitant bills, parents fear that if anyone finds out they don't have water, the Department of Human Services will take their children. The fear of losing one's children then becomes a barrier to asking for needed help.

An Uphill Battle

On June 11, Carolyn Hill went to Family Court for the latest hearing in her two-year fight to adopt her nieces. She had lined up 12 witnesses to come testify on her behalf, including family members, friends and neighbors, the pastor from her church, who used to see the girls with her every Sunday, and five members of EMWM. They were all on a list provided to the court by Hill's lawyer.

Only one of them was allowed to testify, Dr. Steven Samuel from Jefferson Hospital, who had evaluated Hill and found her able to care for the children. Meanwhile, according to Hill and Jones, the relative with custody of the children had no one listed to testify. The only person to testify on her side was the children’s therapist, who had not seen the girls since August of 2013. And yet Hill lost her case.

“Every time they asked me a question and I went to answer, they'd tell me to just answer the question yes or no,” Hill says.

“Because family court is closed, all kinds of misinformation can go on, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors,” says Jones.

Hill has filed a new appeal. Meanwhile, she hasn't seen the children since the end of January. “First I was seeing them four times a month, two hours every time, four hours in my home and four hours at the agency,” she says. “Then they said when the kids would come from my house they would act up, so they cut the visits down to two hours at the agency.” Then they cut them down to one hour, and then none at all.

The only reason she can think of that the children remain with the other family is that they have more money than she does. The children may be spending more time in day care with the new family, according to Hill, but the time she spent caring for them is seen as less valuable because she is poor. James says, “They've made absolutely clear that a good mother is one who dumps their kid in some child care or other and gets a job. Stacking supermarket shelves, anything you do is better than taking care of your child or children. In other words, if you're not exploited you're nobody.”

Since the 1996 welfare reform bill, low-income women get little financial help raising children, and then their poverty is used as a strike against them. They are pushed to find work because, James says, the society doesn't see the care work they do as worthy of financial support. Money, it seems, is everything.

“We're fighting so hard because it cannot be the case that income is the determinant of whether or not you're a good family,” Jones says. “If that's the case half of Philadelphia would lose their kids.”

Originally published at InTheseTimes.com

[-] 1 points by therute (2) from San Francisco, CA 7 years ago

the only thing I pointed out was that womyn can be just as violent to men and each other as men have been to womyn and men alike. My comment was in full compliance with the rules, and it is immediately removed. Might I point out how hypocritical it is to seek an open forum where lucid and constructive yet differing and diverse views are being invited out in the open, and then silence those you don't feel align with the webmaster's ideals?

we should be seeking to reach gender EQUALITY for EVERYONE. I eschewed the obvious irony in the fact that statute 1 in your forum rules states that sexism is forbidden. is this article not sexist? you justify violence and war as one of the "horrible soul crushing things that suck, yet are required to support a woman's happiness" ....what??? war is tradition. a horrible tradition we should move away from as a species. right? and all "men should be the ones forced to do all the grueling physical labor. Men should be the ones who are forced to go to war to fight and die." ???

we already are. it's called the draft. furthermore, why should ANYONE be forced to partake in such a horrible thing as war. I'm not going to speculate as to what your views are on capital punishment, but I know I certainly see the immorality of killing on ANY level.

there was an episode of the 90's remake of The Outer Limits where a plague had wiped men off the planet and they made a lot of the same points you're making, but what you're suggesting is that women are perfect and men are imperfect. all i'm saying is, if anybody's imperfect, it's everyone, but it shouldn't have to stay that way.

but what do I know. i'm just a violent, misbehaving brute. (i'm really not)

[-] 1 points by therute (2) from San Francisco, CA 7 years ago

not to say that we have reached the apex of true gender equality, but I guess that's not the point of this article. yes, it's true men in positions of power have allowed themselves to get super corrupted, but I think that's a human defect, not a gender defect. that's like saying men have much more of a tendency to be abusive to those they love than womyn. not true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks


[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

A movement is only as strong as it's constituent parts ... gel !!! We have the essential elements in U$A, UK and elsewhere .. we've just got to learn to have faith in ourselves & start to .. gel !! Reactionary Right Wing Corporate & State Media .. will always think it can keep USers & other citizens, dumb and divided but that is less and less so as time passes and all the while, 99%er seeds keep getting planted !

dum spiro, spero ...


[-] 1 points by Axis116 (63) 7 years ago

So Justine...is this your idea of some kind of weird sociological experiment to see just how much like caged rats we would behave when given a post like yours, something you...and everyone...knows is completely and utterly wrong?

To see if we would eat each other alive over twinkle points?

What a wastes of Kb's.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

The weird sociological experiments are going on on Facebook - didn't you hear?

[-] 0 points by Axis116 (63) 7 years ago

Well, I win if I can stay at 0 twinkles...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Missed that bet too.

[-] 0 points by Axis116 (63) 7 years ago

Ha! I win...at least for now. Getting into negative numbers now. Anyway, I'm outta here. Have fun. This is not "kicking the ass of the ruling class." This is a website filled with frustrated and mean-spirited people screwed into facebook and tweeties and often strange articles beyond any relevance...like the above.

Sorry Occupy people, but you must be just too young to know how long it takes to start a meaningful movement.

I am aligned to the Resistance, to bad Occupy is wasting it's talent and opportunity.

Bye, my friends and enemies...see you somewhere beyond this darkness.

[-] 1 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

You are frickin' hilarious! Seriously, they just need to learn their place. It's ok, once they get over themselves, they're usually docile, just gotta train them how to do the ol' heave-ho the right way, after you make them do it about 4 or 5 in a row they don't have the energy to be bitchy. If they don't be nice throw 'em out, there's always better ones out there.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

So, you planning on posting your real point? Or do we just kick back and count suckers?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

[ edit ] Door #2 - Rod Roddy - show the unwitting contestants ( umm just the one so far ) what they have won - https://occupywallst.org/article/give-matriarchy-a-chance/#comment-1037003 ( edit -> well apparently two - now )

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Ahhhhh - baiting - that was my thought/feeling as well.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

It's one of those either/or shallow and flimsy arguments that indicates there has to be a punch line. It seems every 20 years the matriarchal argument makes the rounds.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

OH - well - I was just thinking about the blatant inflammatory content/presentation.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Well, that's the shallow and flimsy...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

[ edit ] Purposefully - but - so far - the suckers have refused the bait.

edit-> well most of the suckers anyway - there is always at least one that just can't help it - https://occupywallst.org/article/give-matriarchy-a-chance/#comment-1036930

[-] 1 points by Ihippy (49) 7 years ago

LMAO. I guess I was one of the suckers. I posted a response. The two of you sound SO BORED! What in the hell do you guys/gals do while you're hanging out on here? I mean you guys post uninterrupted, almost every day, for years! You sound bored with the forum but you're ALWAYS HERE! lol, no hate. Just kinda blows my mind.


[-] 0 points by AbrahamMarx (3) 7 years ago

This is absolute bullshit.

I'm a cis-white-man, i.e. the greatest evil the world has ever known. Except I have about 80 cents to my name.

Address hard economic issues or relegate yourselves to being critics from the sidelines who will never take power.



[-] 5 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 7 years ago

[-] 1 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

Geez, Wick, pity you're in a funk about your relationships or lack thereof. I jjuuuussstt want to say -- when a woman likes you, do you really want them to, or are you qualifying them by how much they look like a centerfold? Can you be friends with a woman and really get to know her and appreciate her psyche and relate to her as a person or ya just lookin' for love in all the wrong ways? Think about it.

[-] 2 points by wickerman (62) 7 years ago

Your crossing a line aren't you? I never said or implied that I hated anyone because of gender, as a mater of fact I am rather happily married and have been for many years. The writer of this post expressed a hatred of me simply because I am male, if you hate me for the same reason then you are a sexist bigot. Plain and simple if you hate someone because of their race your a racist, because of their sex your a sexist, etc. etc. I don't buy into this crap about if your this or your that you can't be a racist, or a sexist, equal is equal. Furthermore, this whole mess is a waste of time, this movement has turned into a theater of the absurd, and any real hope of presenting a united front against the ruling elite went out the window a long time ago. Too bad really you folks really had something going for a while.

[-] 1 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

Hhmmm. Glad you have a good marriage, it's a rarity! Hug your significant other NOW. Yes, I am a slight female chauvinist, sorry I misunderstood your meaning, and yes, I agree that Occupy has gone weird! The offshoots are password protected and not all us 99% can even get in, defies the purpose. One mistake here is those darn essays which get too long but show they have a degree, how nice. No action. Sigh.

[-] 0 points by wickerman (62) 7 years ago

Going on 20 years, and it is both of our first marriage. I agree it is a rarity. I get offended pretty easily on some topics, and most feminist find ways to push my buttons. It isn't that I don't respect them as equals or anything like that, I just get the impression that they don't respect me (men). It's one thing to be proud of who you are, and to fight repression, another thing entirely when that pride turns into hate. Take the so called White Nationalist movement. If racial pride were all they were about I would have no problem with them, but if you ever meet one, you will find out pretty fast that pride in their heritage is second to hatred of any other race. I think that a lot of feminists fall into the same trap. I don't know if Occupy has gone weird or not, this forum has for sure. I just do what I can here on a local level, I support Republicans, Democrats, and independents, if I agree with them. It is a little weird, here in the south, the party lines don't really hold down here, until someone runs for national office. I couldn't tell you what our mayor is, party wise anyway. Apology accepted by the way, probably not your fault anyway, I tend to come across a bit rough at times.

[-] 1 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

We cool. BTW, I lived some years in an area with two supremacist groups, so I know what you mean about nationalists. The forum is representative, Occupy has reduced visibility and integrity. there's always been the conundrum of a leaderless group and the ones in charge making the moves and decisions. I can do more by myself. Frankly I'm kinda fearsome :) . I am in Brooklyn NY so I see a bit up close. used to go in to Zucotti regularly, a great idea that should be done again, publicly and accessibly. There were tours focused around Occupy, for gosh sakes. The city actually made money off it! Oh the irony. When I traveled cross country with my youngest we made stops at historic and touristy places and the mandatory McDonald's for happy meals. The one in Texarkana had a ball pit, and my son was small enough to be confused. The next time he wanted to go to one, he looked for a ball pit at McDonald's in PA and asked to go to Arkansas. This confused the heck out of the McEmployees. Hope you're having a good weekend, Wick. Later.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 7 years ago

our san diego mayor is a suit with an apology


[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3084) from Waterville, NY 7 years ago

Re:All of the above-The worst character flaw of all is a lack of a sense of Humor.