Bridge building between movements typically consists of formulating an action agenda based on common interests, on forging compromises where interests have marginal conflicts, and by agreement to set aside fundamentally conflicting differences. Such cooperation tends to work best where the root values are similar and where there was already some overlapping effort taking place--such as with the ecology movements and the nuclear disarmament movements of the 70's and 80's. My sense is the general focus here is on uniting the general movements against the heavy ecological and climate footprint of corporate-dominated models of production and the movements against the heavy economic footprint of corporate-dominated capitalism.
Climate change, pollution, and current modes of energy production tends to hit poor, minority and native populations harder, so there's a natural point of overlap with the economic policies which also tend to land heaviest on those same populations. Naomi Klein is trying to weave social justice and economic transformation into the climate movement. Vandana Shiva's efforts for agriculture reform also have both a climate change tie-in and an opposition to the giant agri-business model which has left so many small farmers economically devastated. The Pope's encyclical was cited as a possible framework for outreach to the larger Catholic community--providing impetus on both the climate and economic equity fronts. Longtime climate and social justice activists can offer new-arrivals in the Catholic community the benefit of their experience and an already-existing action network, and all concerned benefit from increased unity and less duplicated effort, so it has the potential to be a win for all.
The climate tie-in with low-wage (and particularly fast food) workers seemed weak, aside from the fact that increased wages for these workers means less money for their corporate overlords to throw at derailing certain climate efforts, but there may have been an aspect of quid pro quo, where there is no inherent conflict between low wage workers and climate activists, so by helping the downtrodden, maybe that will put them into a better position to be helpful in the future, particularly if their voting rights have been protected. I gather portions of the Occupy movement scored a big win with public opinion in their efforts after superstorm Sandy, again tying together themes of protecting people from the ravages of corporate economic policies and protecting people from the ravages of extreme weather brought on by corporate-dominated production activity.
And I'm pretty sure that the brief list given in this article was not meant to be exhaustive. Vandana Shiva's primary interests weren't specifically cited, but I'm confident her efforts and groups are nonetheless welcome and appreciated. And I did not get the impression this is an invitation-only affair. If you are keen to wade in and try to do some bridge-building using those winning people skills of yours, I doubt there will be any bouncers at the door to turn you away.
I am curious though, given your feelings about paternalistic anti-abortion religions, how did you imagine yourself doing bridge-building with the Catholics? How were you going to get them on board for your issues, and what were you planning to offer them in return?
Did you have an action agenda for getting women promoted faster in corporations (or other large institutions, like the military)? What action did you want these diverse groups to take regarding rape in college? Do you see either of those as pertinent to relieving the ecological and/or economic burdens created by corporations and their related (or effectively owned) large institutions?
I can see a tie-in when it comes to access to cheap and effective contraception, but I think the challenge there is going to be in addressing Catholic concerns. Even Catholics who feel contraception is not inherently evil worry that it is just the thin end of the wedge which ultimately leads to abortion.
One other problem for you is that these other groups largely behave as groups. There is a fair amount of unity of purpose or belief, and they generally have well-supported leaders who can speak for them, and make deals on their behalf. Women, as such, don't have that kind of unity, or organization, or representation. So what would be the foundation on your end from which to build a bridge?