Evlar said:
I simply disagree; I look at these crowds and see quite a few females, to start with. Furthermore, "leadership" is undoubtedly a smaller set than "core group", so de-emphasizing the second part softens the original critical statement.
To be specific, what was being referred to is the
New York City General Assembly, which initially consisted largely of white males. The group has diversified somewhat from the sounds of it, and is always open to fluctuation. But as confirmed by members of it, as well as people interacting with them, this movement had a largely white male group acting as the General Assembly, the group that organizes the movement in NY.
Doesn't matter who you happen to see, doesn't matter what the cameras show, and it wasn't intentional or secretive anyway. It happened to be (well, I say happened, but existing cultural dynamics and structures aren't chance, and they are most likely responsible for it) that the General Assembly consisted of mostly white guys.
The call from people is to recognize that POC, LGBTQ, and females have all been experiencing disenfranchisement, economic suffering, and abuses from the system for a lot longer than white middle class guys have. It is important to hear their voices, to insure that the systemic and cultural embedded power dynamics are brought out into broad daylight and then dismantled and re-arranged, and that everyone have a fair voice, an opinion that can be heard, and an access to power and decision making equal to their neighbor, regardless of their color, sexual orientation, or gender.
It's pretty simple, and there just isn't that much to argue about. This movement seeks to address the problems that the "99%" are experiencing, and that would include gays, women, black people, and other social groups that are on the bad-end of an uneven power dynamic.
Oh, and the reason the "leader" vs "group" vs "committee" vs whatever else is so tricky is because this movement specifically seeks to avoid overly concrete power hierarchies that are traditionally used for organizing people. Why? Because those systems tend to reflect the society in which they were designed and are so often used. Instead, there is no big "spokesperson" or "leader," and while there are people who "take the lead" to get stuff done and to achieve goals, they aren't leaders of the movement per se. They are leaders of specific actions, goals, or committees seeking to get concrete stuff done (like how to handle gathering and disposing of trash and recycling, how to insure restrooms are available, how to access legal help, etc.). So there's not great terminology for a leaderless yet led group, and thus there is some confusion in the language.
Don't get too hung up by it
