|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Women's marches and other marches
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I think this deserves its own thread. I attended the San Jose, California march which had at least 25,000 people (police estimate). There are at least two other marches in the Bay Area (though a few people were attending both San Jose and San Francisco [one was noon time, one is evening]). How to build on it is the next question.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar P.
Shipmate
# 10412
|
Posted
I marched in St. Louis, Missouri. The police estimate was that more than 10,000 people were there. While St. Louis is a stronghold of the Democratic Party, the state as a whole voted Republican in national and statewide races. It was encouraging to see such a strong turnout here and at the marches in two other state locations.
Posts: 93 | From: Gateway to the West | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I got stuck in traffic near the Seattle march (trying to visit a friend in the hospital - never made it). The Seattle police estimated 130,000, which is not bad for a city of 650,000 to 680,000 (estimates vary). From where I sat, it looked like more than half the people had pink pussy hats, and the people were packed in pretty good.
Josephine is visiting her sister in North Carolina, and they marched in the little town of New Bern (population about 30,000). She didn't have an estimate of the crowd.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MaryLouise
Shipmate
# 18697
|
Posted
Sister March in Cape Town, South Africa, in solidarity. Brilliant sunshine, blue skies -- we marched through the Company's Gardens up towards Parliament under Table Mountain. I took along bottled water, a big floppy hat and plenty of sunbloc. It was a very intergenerational crowd: older anti-apartheid activists, #FeesMustFall students, young women, teens and toddlers. A number of supportive men. South Africans are very experienced at organising and attending resistance marches and rallies, so there was a strong transgender presence, SWEAT sex workers' rights groups, LGBTI marchers, #BlackLivesMatter placards, a great press turn-out, snappy pace.
--------------------
“As regards plots I find real life no help at all. Real life seems to have no plots.”
-- Ivy Compton-Burnett
Posts: 646 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Interesting questions came up on the Aftermath thread, and elsewhere:
1. What difference will one march make? Trump is still in office.
My answer: a grassroots movement requires that people physically get together. At the march I attended, the sense that people were connecting with a mind toward future action was strong. Of course no-one thinks one march will solve the world's problems, it's the act of coming together and making connections that will bear fruit.
Also, when I was looking over various news items about the March locations, I was particularly watchful for news of marches in red/ "purple" states. The number and size of the marches in conservative states surprised me. Think what it might mean to people who are silently questioning Trump's words and actions, to find out hundreds of people quite close to them share their concerns.
2. (Daily Mail comments) "Why are we marching in support of Americans in the UK? We have our own problems!"(and even) "Shame on you women!"
Well,my first thought was, this wasn't just about American women, it was about women, but I'm interested in something other than my guesses-- those of you who did march outside of the US, what motivated you to show solidarity?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MaryLouise
Shipmate
# 18697
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Interesting questions came up on the Aftermath thread, and elsewhere:
Well,my first thought was, this wasn't just about American women, it was about women, but I'm interested in something other than my guesses-- those of you who did march outside of the US, what motivated you to show solidarity?
Well, solidarity with women elsewhere is a major factor -- and during apartheid, America's support and disinvestment campaigns were important in changing South Africa.
But it's a big complex issue and I'm just talking here from my understanding. This is too long but gives the bigger picture.
Trump policies could hammer South Africa’s small open economy, and Trump’s disinterest in and ignorance about any of the 53 countries on the African country is ominous. Trade relations and developmental aid agreements have been steady and productive during Obama’s eight years. The American Chamber of Commerce has 80+ firms in South Africa, the African Growth & Opportunity Act has created many jobs for South Africans and several billion dollars worth of mostly manufactured and agricultural product exports to the US. Trump’s isolationist and protectionist approaches means his govt may raise import taxes so as to make it cheaper for American consumers to buy locally produced goods.
He is unlikely to continue to fund humanitarian aid in Africa which makes South Africa more vulnerable to outbreaks of Ebola, malaria, multi-resistant TB, AIDS, cholera and typhoid. A homophobic US govt is likely to increase persecution and violence towards LGBTI people in Africa. Fundamentalist evangelical American missionary activity is likely to increase in rural Africa. Because Trump thinks climate change is a hoax, water shortages and desertification in Africa will worsen. White supremacist rhetoric will harden black African anti-Americanism and may end local co-operation on counter-terrorism.
Trump may also cut US funding to women’s NGOs (rape crisis centres, shelters for battered women, gynae healthcare and free contraceptive aid, abortion clinics etc) in Africa that provide healthcare for disadvantaged women.
A bleak prospect and that's before we get to military surveillance or interventions.
[ 22. January 2017, 08:54: Message edited by: MaryLouise ]
--------------------
“As regards plots I find real life no help at all. Real life seems to have no plots.”
-- Ivy Compton-Burnett
Posts: 646 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I'm sorry I can't attend any marches, but I support those who are. Last night, Edwina Currie (retired, wel-known Conservative MP) was one of those discussing the marches. She is usually very down-to-earth, practical and sensible, but she was saying that the marches themselves will not achieve anything and that what activists need to do is get involved in politics and stand for election. This is one of the occasions when I thought she had really missed the point.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are multiple reasons why people attend marches, but to just address Edwina Curry for the moment I'll highlight one of them. Which is that any form of protest seeks to inform our elected representatives of what the people, the people they are elected to represent, think about an issue (or, as is often with mass events a range of issues). Not everyone can be elected to the local council, Parliament or whatever the particular equivalents are in a given country. It wouldn't even help if everyone marching stood for election. The system simply doesn't work like that. But, everyone can (and should) get directly involved in the political process, adding their voice to others so that it's heard in the corridors of power. There are several things we can do - sign petitions, write letters to our representatives, pound the streets at election time in support of a particular candidate ... and, of course, take to the streets in mass protest.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Marches can both endorse and support particular positions, but equally they can reinforce and strengthen the views of those who oppose those positions. That's simply the way it is.
I've held my nose on social media and 'befriended' people with very different political views to myself, in order to get a feel for how they think and to avoid the online phenomena of immersing oneself in a silo of the like-minded ...
What struck me was how those on the right of the US political spectrum are highlighting that the Women's Marches are marginal in some way, asserting that Pro-Life women are barred from participating and so on ...
As I understand it, Pro-Life organisations are barred from sponsorship, but individual pro-lifers are welcome to participate in the marches themselves - although this is likely to be a minority view on such marches.
The other aspect is that those on the Right are trumpeting (pun intended) that it purely represents sour-grapes or a 'sore butt' on the part of the losing side ... which they would say, of course.
My own view is that marches and public demonstrations are fine, in and of themselves, but they need to be allied with other forms of engagement and action - and in that respect I don't think Edwina Currie is that wide of the mark.
Again, as you'll have anticipated, it's one of these areas where there's a both/and thing ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, she's spot on.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I have always been in favour of, and had respect for, the Right of peaceful Protest whatever the issue. However, TMM it was a mistake to emphasis it being a women's march. Particularly now DT is in the Whitehouse as it does look a lot like a 'sore butt' response.
Hindsight is a very fine thing, but....had women mobilised like this months ago, when it became clear trump was cleverly using *casual misogyny* as an electioneering tool it may well have put a spanner in his wheel. Whatsmore, had it happened back then it most certainly would have helped the hot mic bomb to blow him back from whence he came. All academic now of course.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think the marches would have stopped Trump had they started sooner. There were a combination of factors affecting his victory - as indeed there are in any election anywhere at any time.
But as you say, it's academic. It's what happens next that counts.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I would always support demonstrations and rallies but sometimes the 'core' demonstration seems to attract protesters from other causes. Now, that might seem to be a positive; there is no problem with a demonstration that brings together people from a spectrum.
But.
I was watching 2 US TV news discussion programmes late last night, with people from all sides of the argument.
In one of them a man went out onto the streets to talk to the women as they paraded past him.
He was shocked in some instances by the hostility he saw and heard -hostility that was not being directed at Trump.
People were there, it seemed, simply because they wanted to protest -at anything! - and it was basically a very 'liberal' gathering.
Someone in the studio - a woman - said that it should not have been called a woman's march because it didn't represent all women.
It didn't represent the pro-life women's movement.
It didn't recognise that Trump had appointed women into high office - and 'women of colour' as well.
She felt as a woman that she had been excluded because she was the 'wrong type' of woman. The problem with demonstrations is that sometimes the participants don't recognise the 'yes but' that might be suggested to them.
Not all women are left wing, liberal, pro-choice, democrats. They might be offended at the locker room language (and so they should be) but they are not necessarily in the side of some of the causes the marchers may have espoused. It's a shame that some demonstrators cannot see that there are other views available.
In fact, one woman highlighted the fact that next week 400,000 people will march at a pro-life demonstration and wondered whether the media would be as supportive of that demonstration as this so-called 'women's march.'
I don't write this to say anything against the women's march - I can understand the feelings because of some of what Trump has said - but it would be a mistake to say the whole march, and every interest group represented, is against Trump.
After all, the pro-choice v pro-life 'discussion' is not new; and even if DT is going to be more conservative on this issue than Obama, that doesn't mean he's uniquely wrong; and he has a lot of support from the pro-life movement, the churches, other faiths and others.
[ 22. January 2017, 11:54: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In a discussion on 'Woman's Hour' a week or so ago one of the organisers of a march in the USA acknowledged that marches of this size and number were likely to bring together a wide range of agendas and participants with many different goals. It's inevitable, isn't it?
You could say that Trump is the catalyst but not necessarily the focus of what's happening. Maybe that's all to the good.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In a discussion on 'Woman's Hour' a week or so ago one of the organisers of a march in the USA acknowledged that marches of this size and number were likely to bring together a wide range of agendas and participants with many different goals. It's inevitable, isn't it?
You could say that Trump is the catalyst but not necessarily the focus of what's happening. Maybe that's all to the good.
Indeed, as long as one doesn't say that every woman who marched was directly protesting against Trump. Some were protesting just to air their pet issue.
On the protest thing; I'd like to know why smashing the window of McDonald's just before the Inauguration was a positive demonstration of anything.
Oh, I get it now: it has the word 'Donald' in it.
Of course! Such intelligence.
[ 22. January 2017, 12:49: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I will note I saw one pro-life sign at the San Jose march. I wasn't close enough to see whether it was strictly anti-abortion only or pro-life also in the sense of supporting healthcare (housing, food, etc.) as well. The march was ethnically and religiously diverse. I saw Muslim women (with and without hijab). I saw signs in Hebrew (and a group from a local synagogue). I saw African-American men and women. I saw people of European descent and of Asian descent. I saw Christian clergy. I saw young and old, men and women. I saw rainbow banners and American flags (some held upside down), I saw a lot of people thanking the police officers who manned the intersections.
San Francisco got two marches with a morning March for Life and a late afternoon Women's March. According to a local newspaper some attended both.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
those of you who did march outside of the US, what motivated you to show solidarity?
I didn't go for childcare reasons.
The reasons I would have gone are partly to show up in protest against right-wing xenophobia generally, and partly to signal to our government that we don't want them cozying up to Trump because they're desperate to take a trade deal on any terms.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
those of you who did march outside of the US, what motivated you to show solidarity?
I had full intentions of joining our local march in St. John's, NL, till we got cancelled by a blizzard. My motivations were:
1 - to show support for women marching in the US
2 - to send a clear message to Trump-style wannabe politicians in Canada (especially Leitch and O'Leary) that Trump-style tactics are not welcome here
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What struck me was how those on the right of the US political spectrum are highlighting that the Women's Marches are marginal in some way, asserting that Pro-Life women are barred from participating and so on ...
I feel like that's a fair point. It shows "diversity" has hard ideological limits.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Host
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On the protest thing; I'd like to know why smashing the window of McDonald's just before the Inauguration was a positive demonstration of anything.
Surely you don't think anyone here did it? If not then pray tell why you would ask us why it was good.
I am somewhat more supportive of riots--I think they are at least complicated--when done by the oppressed and marginalized. But the crowd who marched, particularly in D.C. was not particularly poor at all. No excuse. I think it would be interesting to talk about quotes like "You can't force people to live under capitalism, which equates your worth to how much you own, then not understand [accept] property damage as protest." or King's quote: "A riot is the language of the unheard.”
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What struck me was how those on the right of the US political spectrum are highlighting that the Women's Marches are marginal in some way, asserting that Pro-Life women are barred from participating and so on ...
I feel like that's a fair point. It shows "diversity" has hard ideological limits.
Well, I suppose that if the point of the rallies is to show opposition to Trump's policies, and those policies include(as per the GOP platform) opposition to abortion, then it makes sense to bar "pro-life" women.
But I guess this raises the question as to what issues ARE sine qua non for participation. I can well imagine that some of the pro-lifers are just as appalled at Trump's personal misogyny(eg. the p*ssy-grabbing remarks) as the pro-choicers are. But the policy would prevent them from expressing their opposition to his misogyny, at least in solodarity with other women.
Personally, these kind of dilemnas are one reason I think it's somewhat problematic to hold rallies against an inauguration, as opposed to rallies that express viewpoints on a certain issue.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On the protest thing; I'd like to know why smashing the window of McDonald's just before the Inauguration was a positive demonstration of anything.
Surely you don't think anyone here did it? If not then pray tell why you would ask us why it was good.
I'm sorry, I don't follow your question; what do you mean about anyone here? anyone where? It was done in Washington:
[url= http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=McDonald%27s+attacked+Inauguration&=&view=detail&mid=270EA41A09DC0889A1E5270EA41A09DC0889 A1E5&FORM=VDHSOP&fsscr=0]HERE IS THE VIDEO[/url]
I didn't say it was good - I'm just asking how the protestors can see it as a positive demonstration?
[ 22. January 2017, 14:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Why are we talking about riots? 750,000 people marched in Los Angeles yesterday -- the largest gathering of them all -- and there was no violence. There were no arrests. Where I was during the rally ahead of the march we were packed in like sardines; I spent about an hour and a half barely able to shift my weight from one foot to the other, and everyone stayed calm.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I was just illustrating that sometimes marches attract hangers-on who are there just for the protest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNKFOdwB1V4
I am glad the huge march didn't degenerate into a riot.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On the protest thing; I'd like to know why smashing the window of McDonald's just before the Inauguration was a positive demonstration of anything.
...
It was done in Washington ...
By different people on a different day. Why are you bringing this up?
[ 22. January 2017, 14:51: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well done to everyone on the marches - I only watched them on TV, and they were much bigger than I expected. In London, Trafalgar Square looked full, and it is a pretty big place. But in the US, they looked huge.
I feel inspired by them, although it is always an issue as to how to move forward. Some people will obviously carry on in various groups, such as green movements, LGBT, women's issues, and so on.
It does make the political parties look like a pile of dog poo, but that is a personal view, post-Brexit.
Venceremos!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I was just illustrating that sometimes marches attract hangers-on who are there just for a riot.
Why?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am glad the huge march didn't degenerate into a riot.
This is an important point to make. And the point you're making is "I am glad the huge march didn't achieve anything like definable change."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am glad the huge march didn't degenerate into a riot.
This is an important point to make. And the point you're making is "I am glad the huge march didn't achieve anything like definable change."
Erm, no; not at all!
I am glad that, in view of the huge numbers, that there was no trouble, no danger, no threat, no panic, no stampede, no infiltration by people the kind of which were seen on Friday morning.
Don't ascribe meaning to my words that I did not intend.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't know, if change is to come then it'll need a lot more than a few big marches.
General strikes, perhaps.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Depends what kind of change you want, and why?
Change of President? Well, go to the democratic process then. Oh right, you already did.
Change to abortion laws? Well, go to the democratic process then. Oh right...
I think it's horrible, to use the words I read on social media, and 'sad that thousands of women would march for the right to kill children.'
My point is simply this: it's OK to protest - whatever the issue might be - but it's the democratic process that must be respected. And if you feel that the process is wrong - electoral college v popular vote - then change it. A big demonstration in some major cities does not add up to the millions who voted for Trump. They don't agree with the marchers.
[ 22. January 2017, 16:18: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Depends what kind of change you want, and why?
Change of President? Well, go to the democratic process then. Oh right, you already did.
Justice. Freedom. The end of fascism and darkness.
quote:
Change to abortion laws? Well, go to the democratic process then. Oh right...
I think it's horrible, to use the words I read on social media, and 'sad that thousands of women would march for the right to kill children.'
Well that's not only bullshit, that's offensive bullshit.
If you think the only issue women have been marching about is abortion, then you've not really capable of having this conversation because you've not been paying attention for the last six months.
Anyhoo, if this puts you on the side of Trump, fascism and darkness that's fine. I'm done talking to you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am glad the huge march didn't degenerate into a riot.
This is an important point to make. And the point you're making is "I am glad the huge march didn't achieve anything like definable change."
Erm, no; not at all!
I am glad that, in view of the huge numbers, that there was no trouble, no danger, no threat, no panic, no stampede, no infiltration by people the kind of which were seen on Friday morning.
Don't ascribe meaning to my words that I did not intend.
Certainly no trouble to Trump, no danger to Trump, no threat to Trump. He didn't have to panic or stampede for the doors. He remained supremely unbothered by the whole thing.
If a couple of hundred thousand women had marched on the White House, occupied it, then marched the Orange Buffoon back up to Capitol Hill to make him revoke his attacks on the ACA and women's reproductive rights? That would have been a good day's work.
That is also democracy.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I'm not American. Why would I be on the side of anyone?
I'm just pointing out one huge truth and quoting an alternative view (that I knew in advance would be controversial - but it's a quote from someone who fundamentally disagrees with the belief of some of the protestors. I make no more comment than that.
Yes, you may think it's offensive, but apparently there are those who think pro-choice if offensive. That's an argument for the Americans to have, because here in the UK it's not so much of an emotive issue.
The huge truth is this: not everyone agrees with the protestors.
Not all the women agree with them.
Not all the minority groups agree with them.
Not all the churches agree with the marchers on the pro-choice stance they take - especially the Roman Catholic and Evangelical churches.
Why is it - and I am NOT talking about particular issues here - why is it that just having a march, however well organised or beautifully conducted - is seen as the way to get change, to force change?
In a democracy that's what the vote is for;
In a democracy there is a winner and a loser.
I don't know how many people voted for Trump - and I know that, as with the Democrats once before, he got in with less than a majority of the popular vote.
That might upset a sizeable chuck of the population, but a sizeable chunk of the population do agree with Trump - even with his offensive rhetoric (and I agree that it is).
But that's democracy.
And protestors need t realise that there are more people who disagree with the marchers than were marching.
And that goes for any march, whoever is marching, and whatever issue they are marching for.
By the way, what do you think of 400,000 who will apparantly, if the news is to be believed, march in support of pro-life ssues next week?
[ 22. January 2017, 16:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Depends what kind of change you want, and why?
Change of President? Well, go to the democratic process then. Oh right, you already did.
Change to abortion laws? Well, go to the democratic process then. Oh right...
I think it's horrible, to use the words I read on social media, and 'sad that thousands of women would march for the right to kill children.'
Emotive, scare mongering language.
They are marching against bigotry, misogyny, isolationism and climate change denial.
Many pro-life aims are wrapped up misogyny and the need to control women. The use of fearful, misleading language around abortion is part of the package, sadly.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
that's democracy
I have defended the voting process, flawed as it may be, both in the US and for Brexit.
Challenging it because you lost is a threat to democracy.
However, the right to free speech is also part of democracy.
I think in this respect it's a case of different strokes for different folks. Some people are into extravagant, in-yer-face activism; others are into diplomacy and politics; others are into incremental, long-term change (for instance, I'm sure a lot of people voted Trump to secure what they see as a better SCOTUS).
Democracy is a patchwork of all these things. I've taken part in (very timid) strike action just twice in my life and marched just once (apart for March for Jesus ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ), after the Charlie Hebdo shootings. It's not really my thing. But I've come to terms with the fact that there's a place for it.
[ 22. January 2017, 17:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Host
# 11076
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I think Ruth has basically answered you, but to add one more bit: Someone in the same city broke a window (not even on the same day as the march, but let's pretend it was.) To assume that most protesters approve is rather like saying someone in Britain shot an M.P. and expecting you to reassure me that you don't approve of shooting M.P.s Unless you showed signs of disturbingly violent tendencies, I will assume you do not assume of murder. Until we show signs of reckless pointless destruction--again a riot of the powerful is I think pretty indefensible--maybe do us the courtesy to make the same assumption.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Attended the New York City march, I have seen estimates of anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000.
Part of the reason for a march is just to let the ones in power know that people are watching what they do. Lots of people.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not American. Why would I be on the side of anyone?
Many people around the world marched in solidarity with women in the US. They can of speak for themselves, but I imagine that one of the reasons is that the US is enormously powerful and that things that happen here affect people who don't live here.
quote:
The huge truth is this: not everyone agrees with the protestors.
Protest wouldn't be necessary if everyone agreed with us!
quote:
Not all the women agree with them.
So what? Not all women were in favor of women's suffrage 100 years ago.
quote:
Not all the minority groups agree with them.
Which minority group is not in favor of their own equal rights?
quote:
Not all the churches agree with the marchers on the pro-choice stance they take - especially the Roman Catholic and Evangelical churches.
So what? Churches fell behind decades ago, which is one of the reasons they are increasingly irrelevant, even in the US.
quote:
Why is it - and I am NOT talking about particular issues here - why is it that just having a march, however well organised or beautifully conducted - is seen as the way to get change, to force change?
Just having a march is not seen as the way to get change. But getting together with like-minded people is one part of the process of forcing change.
quote:
And protestors need t realise that there are more people who disagree with the marchers than were marching.
Evidence for this? Especially given that Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin, it is incumbent upon you to provide support for this claim.
quote:
By the way, what do you think of 400,000 who will apparantly, if the news is to be believed, march in support of pro-life ssues next week?
I think they're wrong. But they're well within their rights.
[ 22. January 2017, 19:00: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
Totally agree Nicolemr. Part of the point of the marches was the idea that if there is no challenge to the misogynist 'locker room' attitudes then they become normalised. Do we want to have a society where it is normal for men to talk in this way, because making it acceptable thins the barrier between talk and action.
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On the protest thing; I'd like to know why smashing the window of McDonald's just before the Inauguration was a positive demonstration of anything.
...
It was done in Washington ...
By different people on a different day. Why are you bringing this up?
Because the title of this thread is "Women's marches and other marches."
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Totally agree Nicolemr. Part of the point of the marches was the idea that if there is no challenge to the misogynist 'locker room' attitudes then they become normalised. Do we want to have a society where it is normal for men to talk in this way, because making it acceptable thins the barrier between talk and action.
Did I miss the marches in 1963 and 1998 when women rose up in their thousands to protest against Kennedy's adulterous activities and Clinton's fumblings in the Oval Office?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Society moves on.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I marched yesterday in Washington, and here is my report. With pictures!
The reason to march? It's to show that we don't accept the attempt to normalize this. No, grabbing pussy is not OK. Egomania and vengeful tweeting are not normal. He will certainly tell us it is. It is wrong, and if we don't say so, it'll become SOP, standard operating procedure.
Or, to put it more succinctly we may always count upon Berkeley Breathed.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did I miss the marches in 1963 and 1998 when women rose up in their thousands to protest against Kennedy's adulterous activities and Clinton's fumblings in the Oval Office?
Classic whataboutery.
Were they wrong to march yesterday, yes or no?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
My head hurts.
Presumably MLK Junior did not have a democratic mandate to push for civil rights - otherwise he could have forced law changes through Congress without the whole, y'know, getting bashed over the head, getting locked into jail and getting assassinated thing.
Assuming he didn't have the Electoral College votes, then what right did he have to March on Washington in 1963?
Given that there were a lot of people, possibly a majority, who disagreed with him (and, let's just pause for a second and contemplate the full idiocy of that thought.. right, that'll do..) why didn't he just shut up and sit down? Didn't he believe in democracy?
When the civil rights protestors began sit-down protests, were they subverting democracy? Were they inciting violence (even though almost all the violence was turned on them by the police, racists and others)?
This, basically, is the choice: either you think the right to peaceful protest is a birthright of the citizen on a democratic nation; or you are in fact tacitly supporting Trumpism.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What struck me was how those on the right of the US political spectrum are highlighting that the Women's Marches are marginal in some way, asserting that Pro-Life* women are barred from participating and so on ...
I feel like that's a fair point. It shows "diversity" has hard ideological limits.
Pro-life* women are free to march and free to not have an abortion. What more do they want? Yeesh.
Of course there are limits. Why would the marchers accommodate those who want to trample on the rights of other members of the group? You might as well ask why Black Lives Matter didn't invite the KKK to protest with them.
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Did I miss the marches in 1963 and 1998 when women rose up in their thousands to protest against Kennedy's adulterous activities and Clinton's fumblings in the Oval Office?
Kellyanne, is that you?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did I miss the marches in 1963 and 1998 when women rose up in their thousands to protest against Kennedy's adulterous activities and Clinton's fumblings in the Oval Office?
Classic whataboutery.
Were they wrong to march yesterday, yes or no?
Beautiful! I have a new word. I get so sick of people whatabouting, but never had a word for it before, and without a word it takes too long to explain something, like this sentence.
Whataboutery. Beautiful. (And well used in this instance.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What struck me was how those on the right of the US political spectrum are highlighting that the Women's Marches are marginal in some way, asserting that Pro-Life* women are barred from participating and so on ...
I feel like that's a fair point. It shows "diversity" has hard ideological limits.
Pro-life* women are free to march and free to not have an abortion. What more do they want? Yeesh.
Of course there are limits. Why would the marchers accommodate those who want to trample on the rights of other members of the group? You might as well ask why Black Lives Matter didn't invite the KKK to protest with them.
*Offer expires at birth
Responding to Alt Wally, not Soror Magna:
I don't understand. Are pro-life* women in favor of rich men feeling entitled to grab their pussies? If not, why wouldn't they have marched yesterday? Or are you saying every march has to be about every (perceived or real) injustice? Or do pro-choice women have abortion cooties that could infect the pro-life* women, the fear of which caused them (the p-l* women) to stay away?
[ 22. January 2017, 21:02: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
