Ship of Fools: Women's marches and other marches

Thread: Women's marches and other marches Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020053

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar P. (# 10412) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

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.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

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?

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

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 ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye, she's spot on.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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 ]

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

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

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

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.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

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.”

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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 ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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!

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I was just illustrating that sometimes marches attract hangers-on who are there just for a riot.

Why?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

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."

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't know, if change is to come then it'll need a lot more than a few big marches.

General strikes, perhaps.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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]

), 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 ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

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.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

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.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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 ]

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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."

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Society moves on.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

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?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

In a democracy that's what the vote is for;
In a democracy there is a winner and a loser.

That only makes sense if democracy is just casting a vote every few years. Which, of course, is bullshit.

Added to which any candidate, including the "winner" stands on a raft of policies and views, and gains votes from people who are voting for a wide range of reasons. It is unlikely that any one position actually had the support of the majority of the electorate (indeed many may have been unpopular even with those who voted for that candidate). It is a fool who believes that just because a candidate "wins" an election that therefore s/he has the support of the majority of the population for everything in that raft of policies. Even assuming they were elected by the majority of the electorate.

The more important part of democracy is what people do between elections. Which is almost always more focussed on single issues than an election. That is when we get to write to our representatives about issues, when we sign petitions, when we march.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Whataboutism on wikipedia

It is also a common tactic when discussing human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian Territories. A report talks about house demolitions, children in prison etc and someone pops up (in comments below newspaper articles, even often on live tv debates) saying "ah, but whatabout..." followed by "the war in Syria" or "Guantanamo" or something else.

It's a classic deflection.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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.

An even huger truth is this:

Everybody already knew this.
It's irrelevant.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

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?

Since neither JFK nor Bill advocated criminal sexual assault, so you are really comparing apples and oranges. This is not about someone "doing the nasty with the wrong person", this is about assault. Sure, if I were Jackie or Hillary, the bum would be out on the street corner and publicity be damned. But that's my choice (one I made in very similar circumstances). But I didn't expect anyone to march to protest my ex's adultery. But elevating and celebrating sexual assault is a whole 'nother matter.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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

Clarification: pro-lifers WERE allowed to march, they just wouldn't allow an organization of pro-life Democrats to advertise as one of the official sponsors of the march.

As a pro-life democrat I was obviously disappointed in the decision. To me both my pro-life and my Democratic values come from the same place: the desire to advocate for the vulnerable and marginalized. For me, the other positions of the DNC are so entirely framed in a consistent pro-life ethic-- anti-death penalty, anti mass incarceration, pro BLM and similar movements, pro GLBT and gay marriage, pro universal health care, pro food stamps and other anti-poverty measures, pro education-- it seems to me a bizarre historical anomaly that they are not pro-life. GOP policies have been proven to increase abortions, and their stance toward anyone other than a fetus is so obviously anything but pro-life-- such utter disregard for human life-- the way the political divide has fallen seems completely bizarrely misaligned.

But, as a passionately pro-life Democrat, I can totally get why pro-choice feminists would have reason to distrust pro-lifers, even those who come disguised as feminist Democrats. We (pro-lifers) have chosen to approach our cause with militancy-- with what Greg Boyd calls "power over" rather than "power under". Instead of seeking to empower women and serve them, to give them the resources they need (financial, educational, legal, etc) to be able to confidently bear a child & raise a child, we have instead sought "power over"-- to impose our agenda through legal compulsion and thru not-always-subtle slut-shaming. We have chosen the route of violence and humiliation. Having chosen that, we should not be surprised if those who we wish to come along side look at us with suspicion.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I marched in London, with my 2 daughters who are 13 & 11.

Why? Lots of reasons. Big reasons. Great reasons. There's no trouble with the reasons, believe me.

1. Solidarity with women in the US who are horrified by the election of Trump & worry about the impact it may have on them.
2. Expressing concern about the tone of debate - what we saw in the US election, but also here pre-Brexit. The ramping up of anti-immigration, anti-woman, bordering-on-racist rhetoric. I'm not interested in unseating a democratically elected govt or overturning a referendum result, but I can raise concerns about it.
3. What happens in the US often comes this way - in terms of mood music rather than actual policy. I want access to a TOP if I need one. I want the same for my daughters. I want them to have good access to contraception when the time is right. I want them to have good SRE, with compulsory elements on consent (damn consent, let's hold out for enthusiasm). I don't want them to fear sexual assault every time they go for a run (like I do). I don't want them to feel there are jobs they can't do because they're girls. I want my son to be raised in a society that believes in equality.
4. Talking of mood music, and stealing a line from one of my favourite telly programmes (The Last Leg) Fuck it. It's not ok that the most powerful man on the planet (ok, perhaps second behind Putin these days), boasts about sexual assault.
5. It's not just about the march. The people (men & women) who march are the people who write letters, start campaigns, and run for office. This is a bit of encouragement on the way, it's not a replacement for any of those things.
6. Back to mood music - we changed the conversation a little tiny bit. The top story on the BBC news on Saturday night was the protests, not Trump's meeting with the CIA.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Sometimes I don’t think actually changing things in the short term is the point as such. I know that sounds a bit odd to say, but: back in the day I and a million other people turned up in the streets of London and spent five hours shuffling to Hyde Park in the freezing wind to protest the Iraq war. Personally I went in the full knowledge that it was going to change nothing. Tony Blair had made his mind up and I knew he was going to fight his war come what may. The point of my being there was to register my dissent. I wanted to make it clear that he was going to war against my wishes so that the right people could be held to account when it all went predictably belly up later. Tony, I told you that war was a bad idea [Disappointed]

.

In the same way, IMO marching against Trump is worth it purely as a way of registering one’s dissent apart from anything else. The reason his administration is getting so upset about the inauguration numbers is because they want to look like they have legitimacy. Millions of people protesting against them makes it much harder to call what they do the will of the people.

(Donald has the best protests, he has really amazing protests. Donald’s protests are yuge. [Snigger]

)

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've just heard a Trump supporter on LBC claim, firstly that marchers who were interviewed couldn't explain what they were marching for (as if these were not edited for any reason). And secondly, and more worryingly, that a) Madonna was to be charged and imprisoned for what she said about burning the White House, and b) the march organisers would also be arrested, charged and/or fined and imprisoned for doing so.

These claims did not show up on a search on Duck duckgo, and I have no intention of going to Breitbart or similar. I suppose this guy's facts were the sort of facts we now have a description of from Conway, from somewhere down the other trouserleg of the universe, but they are not ideas that should be wandering around, are they?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

LBC?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can articulate the reason perfectly. We marched, to say it is not OK. We are not going to let pussy grabbing, sexual assault and mocking of veterans, handicapped people, trans-sexuals, and essentially everyone who is not a white male, become standard operating procedure. Be an asshole if you want. But know that it is not normal, not right.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Drat, too late to go in and add a link. This article says it perfectly. The money quote: "But this was a protest of the sensible-shoe’d majority — unglamorous marchers who carefully packed their snacks in a plastic see-through backpack and threw it on over a Barbour jacket, seeking to preserve norms, rather than challenge them."

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
LBC?

Sorry. I considered putting an explanation, but thought it would confuse things - should have asterisked it.

It is a phone-in station with presenters of a variety of standpoints, based in London, but spread from there across the country. It often has calls from taxi drivers of right wing views. Not all the presenters share their opinions. I only listen to those who don't. (Don't want to risk throwing the radio out when Farage is on.)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Sometimes I don’t think actually changing things in the short term is the point as such. I know that sounds a bit odd to say, but: back in the day I and a million other people turned up in the streets of London and spent five hours shuffling to Hyde Park in the freezing wind to protest the Iraq war. Personally I went in the full knowledge that it was going to change nothing. Tony Blair had made his mind up and I knew he was going to fight his war come what may. The point of my being there was to register my dissent. I wanted to make it clear that he was going to war against my wishes so that the right people could be held to account when it all went predictably belly up later. Tony, I told you that war was a bad idea .

And if you, me, and the million other people had marched on parliament, dragged Blair to the dispatch box and made him recant, there'd be a few million people in the Middle East who'd still be alive today.

We have to face it: we fucked up. We had the opportunity, and we fucked it up.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This had happened before Doc Tor. I recall from my youth the wordwide protests of the Viet Nam war, and the fear with the repeated wars involving Israel. The difference probably is that the gov'ts and politcos weren't controlling and censoring the media like this time. The public consensus took a decade to build. Build it? yes it will. Despair is okay, so long it doesn't become apathy.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

You always get the pessimists, the skeptics, and well, the right wing, who say that there's no point in marches and demonstrations. The first two are a form of apathy, the third is just right wing, and don't like opposition. You also usually get the attempt to tarnish everyone with violence, yes, I've seen that on this thread, and in the media. A few anarchists smashed shop windows, therefore everyone is culpable.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Marches don't directly achieve much. All too easily, they become an illusion - a delusion even - 'we're marching; we really feel'. It would have been better if it had done, but 'Not in my name' didn't persuade the government not to invade Iraq.

Governments can, and habitually do, ignore protests, marches, the lot. They assume they know best. To achieve anything, one has to get one's hands on some of the levers of real power - and that involves hard work, years of attending dreary meetings and compromise.

Nevertheless, it's better that people march than they don't, because at least if lots of people do, it lets governments know that large elements in the population don't support them. That's particularly important if it's visible that for once, a lot of the the people who are marching aren't the usual suspects.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And if you, me, and the million other people had marched on parliament, dragged Blair to the dispatch box and made him recant, there'd be a few million people in the Middle East who'd still be alive today.

We have to face it: we fucked up. We had the opportunity, and we fucked it up.

Doc Tor, if you believe, along with the late and by most civilised people, unlamented, Chairman Mao, that power does - and should- come from the barrel of a gun, then go on saying that if you wish. I will oppose you as long as I am able.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And if you, me, and the million other people had marched on parliament, dragged Blair to the dispatch box and made him recant, there'd be a few million people in the Middle East who'd still be alive today.

We have to face it: we fucked up. We had the opportunity, and we fucked it up.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Sorry. The boards seem to be playing up this afternoon. My last post has appeared twice. Please could an administrator remove one of them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Sorry. The Boards seem to be playing up this afternoon. My last post appeared twice. Please could an administrator remove one of them. Thank you.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Doc Tor, if you believe, along with the late and by most civilised people, unlamented, Chairman Mao, that power does - and should- come from the barrel of a gun, then go on saying that if you wish. I will oppose you as long as I am able.

And you, like me, were simply too civilised to save millions of people from dying when we had the chance.

I'm sure we can all pat ourselves on the back and congratulate each other that we're not like that nasty Mao.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

Pro-lifers do not lack visibility in DC.

I lived in DC for decades, and there is a very large pro-life march every January in Washington DC, close to the date of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. 2017's is on Jan 27; this year's could be bigger than most.

Any pro-life woman or man who felt unwelcome for any reason at the Million Women March has their very own pro-life march on Washington, every year.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think marches and so on achieve a variety of things, from zero to a lot. A recent example, demonstrations in Poland against anti-abortion laws being proposed, are claimed to be making the government think again.

A stronger example: in Russian in 1905, massive demonstrations and strikes led to the announcement of a state duma. However, this movement went beyond marches, e.g. peasants were seizing land, there were some mutinies among the military, and so on.

But it's claimed that the Tsar was shocked by this, but also cracked down, with thousands executed.

But size does matter. If five million come on to the streets, many governments would feel nervous, and would either propitiate or repress. See Egypt in recent years.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

We had a good contingent from our church who went to the Seattle march--some together and some separately with friends or other groups. On Sunday three women wore their pink hats to church. Another wore a Statue of Liberty "hat" she'd made out of poster board!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And you can bet your sweet bippy that Trump was aware of the women's marches, well aware. Hey, dig the 60s slang, so k-k-k-k-ool.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Governments can, and habitually do, ignore protests, marches, the lot. They assume they know best. To achieve anything, one has to get one's hands on some of the levers of real power - and that involves hard work, years of attending dreary meetings and compromise.

And, of course, many people on those marches have already done that hard work. In the US, the last 8 years have seen the fruits of much of that hard work - marriage equality, some more movement towards racial equality, further steps towards equal pay for men and women, an improvement in health care provision for the poor, a recognition of the impact of human activity on the global climate to name a few. There will be hard work ahead to try and stop the new administration from reversing those gains, let alone continuing to make advances. I can't imagine that the people who are doing that hard work won't be encouraged by the size of the demonstrations they have seen in the last few days. And, probably some of those who have marched will find the local groups where they can get stuck in with the hard work over the next four years and beyond.

Mass protests are the very visible face of the ongoing hard work of grass-roots groups trying to influence government policy. They rarely happen spontaneously, they happen because there is a ground swell of opinion that isn't being heard by governments. That groundswell of opinion is fuelled in a large part by hard working activists, the people who have for decades worked hard to make it unacceptable for women to be treated as eye-candy and to gratify the urges of powerful men, those who have laboured (and, in many cases died) to enshrine equality for different races in law even if there's work to be done to change hearts, those who have through tireless effort achieved marriage equality.

Mass protests are the tip of the iceberg of public opinion. Governments may feel that they can ignore them, but it's a very foolish government that would steam ahead at full speed through the treacherous waters the protestors represent. They may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later they're going to find themselves clinging to the lifeboats.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

This past March was especially important, because the TF is insisting that he has a Yuge mandate, and that everybody loves him and supports him in every particular. It is important that he see, in terms that he can understand, how untrue that is. It won't make any difference in how he acts, I don't think, because truth and fact are kind of alien concepts over there. But it is possible, being a complete weathervane, that he will bow to the popular will. If he were a more principled man (Obama) or even a creature of his party (Bush) then he might stand buff. But faced with unpopularity? This president?

[ 23. January 2017, 20:36: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I will just add an excellent article that explains it more cogently than I can.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

To say a Women's march against Trump isn't a woman's march because it doesn't include all women is stupid. It doesn't include women who are Trump supporters, so by your twisted logic, they'd have to ditch the point of the march being anti-Trump so that female Trump supporters aren't excluded. The march was organized by women to protest Trumps election. It excludes Trump supporters which includes all the pro-life evangelicals who voted for him to get anti-abortion supreme court judges.

Some rioters took advantage of the crowds to damage a MacDonalds, that doesn't make the marchers responsible.

Mudfrog, for a person who claims they didn't want to speak out against the Women's March, you've brought no end of spurious complaint that it's being done all wrong. The people on Fox News feel left out. Well how sad for them and you.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Doc & Alan

Doc: We didn't fuck up. Turning this least worst system from representative to participative democracy - lawless mob rule - would not have been a good thing or led to good things. Not like in Bucharest. Blair had already been knowingly, unhingingly instrumental in Saddam killing a million of his own people over the ten year siege prior to invasion. Nobody else batted an eyelid. No million of us.

Alan: The hard work for minorities wasn't for the dispossessed white working and increasingly middle class. It was more icing on a shrinking cake. Trump is creating the illusion of more cake already.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And you, like me, were simply too civilised to save millions of people from dying when we had the chance.

You really think you could have achieved that with a bit of violent unrest? As the saying goes, apt in this setting, you and whose army?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And you, like me, were simply too civilised to save millions of people from dying when we had the chance.
You really think you could have achieved that with a bit of violent unrest? As the saying goes, apt in this setting, you and whose army?

The million-strong one that took to the streets of a single city?

I'll grant you (and Martin) that this is more a fantasy than reality. But still. We marched peacefully. Absolutely nothing changed. Maybe we should acknowledge that our tactics were wrong, or that we just didn't care enough about other people, or that we were just virtue signalling.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Or that we did what we could with what we had. There's no rule of the cosmos that owes us what we want if we just try hard enough. Even though in practice one often has to live like that to overcome the despair and get anything done.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Trump has kicked off his Republic of Gilead agenda by returning to the so-called "Mexico City rule". It's sooooo typical of Trump: it harms vulnerable girls and women who can't fight back. We can now add Coat-Hanger President to his nicknames. And although it's none of my fucking business, I do wonder how many abortions his promiscuous lifestyle produced.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hey Doc, don't beat yourself up. You did all that could be done and with hindsight you shamed me. It WAS done in my name.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Republic of Gilead

Finally understood the reference. Is there anything relevant to be learned from the book in question?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

You mean The Handmaid's Tale? One of the great dystopian novels of our time, a worthy successor to 1984 and Heinlein's If This Goes On. Of particular reference to SoF denizens, because Atwood drew upon all the nuttier theology about the sexes you can dig out of the Old Testament. It has been made into a couple movies and an opera, and the latest iteration, coming to cable TV in the spring, stars Elizabeth Moss, an award winning actress best known for Mad Men.
Here is the book review I wrote of the book, which appeared in late October of last year. I reviewed it on that date because it is an important work, now more than ever. Over where I come from, we are telling each other: We've all read the novels. We write SF. We can overthrow dystopian regimes.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Trump has kicked off his Republic of Gilead agenda by returning to the so-called "Mexico City rule". It's sooooo typical of Trump: it harms vulnerable girls and women who can't fight back. We can now add Coat-Hanger President to his nicknames. And although it's none of my fucking business, I do wonder how many abortions his promiscuous lifestyle produced.

I loved the picture of him signing the order surrounding entirely by conservative white men.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Trump has kicked off his Republic of Gilead agenda by returning to the so-called "Mexico City rule". It's sooooo typical of Trump: it harms vulnerable girls and women who can't fight back. We can now add Coat-Hanger President to his nicknames. And although it's none of my fucking business, I do wonder how many abortions his promiscuous lifestyle produced.
I loved the picture of him signing the order surrounding entirely by conservative white men.

Don't worry, he has promoted three women of colour to high office. I'm sure he'll be signing stuff from them soon.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Trump has kicked off his Republic of Gilead agenda by returning to the so-called "Mexico City rule". It's sooooo typical of Trump: it harms vulnerable girls and women who can't fight back. We can now add Coat-Hanger President to his nicknames. And although it's none of my fucking business, I do wonder how many abortions his promiscuous lifestyle produced.
I loved the picture of him signing the order surrounding entirely by conservative white men.

Actually....
THIS

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Actually....
THIS

Actually, if you read the byline on the picture, it's from a different meeting - one, presumably, which included at least one woman because she's a union leader and there on her own merit.

So, THAT.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Actually....
THIS
Actually, if you read the byline on the picture, it's from a different meeting - one, presumably, which included at least one woman because she's a union leader and there on her own merit.

So, THAT.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that - it's a picture from yesterday.

The 'THIS' comment was referencing my comment that I was sure he'll sign something from a woman soon, and not just white conservative men. I have no idea who the lady in the picture is but the fact is that yesterday she stood front and centre (almost) next to the President in the Oval office - a woman, and 'a woman of colour' as well (as Americans are wont to say).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

But that's not what the complaint is. It's about signing something that'll affect many women worldwide, while surrounded only by men.

That charge stands, absolutely, and you're coming over as obfuscating that fact.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Trump has kicked off his Republic of Gilead agenda by returning to the so-called "Mexico City rule". It's sooooo typical of Trump:

Well, yes. But it's also something every recent Republican has done on entering office, and every recent Democrat has rescinded. This isn't uniquely Trumpian. Every Republican has to jump up and down about abortion, or lose the support of the "Christian Right".

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But that's not what the complaint is. It's about signing something that'll affect many women worldwide, while surrounded only by men.

That charge stands, absolutely, and you're coming over as obfuscating that fact.

Yep. And as the current meme has it "As long as you live you'll never see a photograph of 7 women signing legislation about what men can do with their reproductive organs". Maybe "as long as you live" is too depressing, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

That's what the complaint here is about - it's the balance, or lack of it.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The Guardian has a nice collection of placards. "IKEA has better cabinets", "Respect our existence or expect our resistance", "Super callous fragile racist sexist nazi POTUS".

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But that's not what the complaint is. It's about signing something that'll affect many women worldwide, while surrounded only by men.

That charge stands, absolutely, and you're coming over as obfuscating that fact.
Yep. And as the current meme has it "As long as you live you'll never see a photograph of 7 women signing legislation about what men can do with their reproductive organs". Maybe "as long as you live" is too depressing, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

But is that really what you want? Just a chance to see injustice inflicted in the other direction?

[ 24. January 2017, 20:32: Message edited by: Dave W. ]

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

No! Of course not. That's not what I meant, I'm sorry it came over that way.

This isn't about 2 wrongs making a right, it's recognising the way the imbalance has so often been historically, and that having the occasional woman present legislation is not somehow making all of that better.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's good to see that freedom of speech is still valued, but the fact that so many people are angry suggests that democracy isn't working very well. If voting in a president leads to 1000s of angry people demonstrating against him straight away that means voting is rather pointless, because the will of the people hasn't been done.

These days it seems that voting only adds to the amount of division and unhappiness in the world.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I'm sorry, (actually, I'm not, so I'm going to say it anyway) but as a married man with three adult sons, I feel that I have a right to have a joint say about what happens to my unborn child; and in any case, an unborn human being is not part of a woman's reproductive organs, s/he is a separate life relying upon the love and care of his/her mother to bring him/her to full potential.

I find the whole 'my body/my choice' thing cold, heartless, loveless, and in a sense, anti-men as well as anti-human and antiChrstian.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry, (actually, I'm not, so I'm going to say it anyway) but as a married man with three adult sons, I feel that I have a right to have a joint say about what happens to my unborn child; and in any case, an unborn human being is not part of a woman's reproductive organs, s/he is a separate life relying upon the love and care of his/her mother to bring him/her to full potential.

I find the whole 'my body/my choice' thing cold, heartless, loveless, and in a sense, anti-men as well as anti-human and antiChrstian.

I've started a new thread, just for you.

New thread here!

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Thanks, Doc Tor!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's good to see that freedom of speech is still valued, but the fact that so many people are angry suggests that democracy isn't working very well. If voting in a president leads to 1000s of angry people demonstrating against him straight away that means voting is rather pointless, because the will of the people hasn't been done.

These days it seems that voting only adds to the amount of division and unhappiness in the world.

Actually, it doesn't. It is a fairly obvious indicator that society is very seriously divided. It's a consequence, not the cause.

However, the way the successful candidate campaigned has seriously exacerbated the division.

Something that theses threads also demonstrate is that the division is not as binary as politicians and media would prefer it to be.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But the point is that this candidate won, in spite of what he said. Some people weren't put off by that, while others were repelled.

Of course, very few Shippies would have voted for him anyway. This highlights the chasm between the Ship's demograpgic and half of the American nation.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

These days it seems that voting only adds to the amount of division and unhappiness in the world.
Actually, it doesn't. It is a fairly obvious indicator that society is very seriously divided. It's a consequence, not the cause.

I also think division, or maybe diversity of opinion is present all of the time in a society.
Whenever polls are held over contentious issues, like the one in 02 for rubbing out Saddam, it often comes back as split down the middle. The one for reinstating capital punishment often came back as more for's than againsts. Not sure if that is still true.

It is almost as if an entire society is like a single mind which is trying to evaluate right from wrong. When something provocative like this comes along it may appear that a society is deeply divided, or it could be more a collective wrestling of consciences. If it is, then is it such a bad thing?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

What I find frightening is the analysis of the white evangelical voter. Apparently this cohort voted for the Ogler because he will nominate pro-life judges. Every other issue or factor was unimportant -- the groping, the racism, the anti-Muslim agenda, the gutting of science and government. They are content to see everything destroyed and overthrown, lives wrecked and health care torn away, because they are 'pro-life.' Everyone pre-born wins out, over everyone now alive.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Science march

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

This article gives an interesting, and I think perceptive view on how a certain brand of evangelical Christianity has managed to adapt itself to Trump's political and social values.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I couldn't find a link to just the meme, but go here and look at the illustration, a short way down. This is really believed, by those who insist that Obama was Satan incarnate (and was going to take all the guns, initiate a Muslim caliphate and sharia law, etc. etc. etc.)

[ 25. January 2017, 19:56: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Really odd - I have been harbouring the thought that if anyone resembled the Anti-Christ, well, it wasn't Obama.

And hey, whoever that guy with the suitcases is, he certainly ain't Jesus. 'Cos he isn't, in any way, shape or form, Jewish. Or even Jewish-ish.

[ 25. January 2017, 20:03: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I couldn't find a link to just the meme, but go here and look at the illustration, a short way down. This is really believed, by those who insist that Obama was Satan incarnate (and was going to take all the guns, initiate a Muslim caliphate and sharia law, etc. etc. etc.)

Which is one of those reasons to give short shrift to those arguing that 'post-modernism' caused a sudden descent into the world of 'alternative-facts'

Go back 15 years before that and you get the same kinds of rumours about Whitewater and the Clintons murdering people, it's not like this thing started in the last years due overbearing 'SJWs'

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I saw an amusing comment on this picture: "Typical Republicans, they're letting Jesus carry his own bags."

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Re the massive protests, I read an article outlining what the author thought was next for the movement.

Selected quotes:

quote:
First, the rage of the protesters and those who were with them in spirit will have to be maintained.

Secondly, the movement will need a leadership that can keep together the broad and potentially fractious groupings in the anti-Trump camp.

Thirdly, it will need to be vigilante about being white-anted from within by those who would see the movement direct all its energies to campaigning for the Democratic Party.

The dominant faction of the Democrats, the ones who worked hard to undermine Bernie Sanders, is as much part of the problem as it is part of the solution.

These are the basics. All sorts of other unpredictable and uncontrollable factors may come into play

What are the thoughts on this of those who marched? The author saw what you did as a movement rather than a one-off march [he contrasts it to the anti-Iraq war marches which fizzled out and were ignored by those in power]. Also, is the dominant Democratic faction part of the problem?

He ends with "perhaps the biggest challenge is to understand what has happened to American society". How would such an analysis sit alongside marches, or are they necessarily separate?

[edit: added question]

[ 27. January 2017, 21:54: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I think the most important question is at the end. How could such a man as DT be elected? We don't really know. A significant chunk of the voting population (but not the majority, thank God) were either deceived or deluded.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

But there's no reason to think the voting population was much different last year than in previous elections, is there? I doubt they had become more gullible, foolish, or bigoted, or even more economically desperate. (Median wages have been stagnant for what, forty years? And we're supposed to think that only now they're outraged?)

How about this: The people who voted for Trump were always there and always like that, more or less - they just didn't have that option until now. In years past, the Republican party establishment enforced limits on the type of person who could possibly reach the nomination, but those norms and barriers have been crumbling. You could see it in the ever more clownish assembly of grifters and nutjobs appearing as candidates as the establishment lost its grip. John McCain can't possibly have thought Sarah Palin was a suitable running mate in 2008; in 2012 we laughed as block-headed Rick Perry, swivel-eyed Michele Bachmann, and pizza magnate Herman Cain somehow appeared next to Romney. But in 2016 the wheels finally came off the wagon and the big wigs discovered that their years of whipping up no-nothing anti-government sentiment and baiting the rubes had neutralized their ability to beat back an obviously unqualified, narcissistic grotesque with the flair of a professional scam artist.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I heard about this yesterday.

"INDIVISIBLE: A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA. Former congressional staffers reveal best practices for making Congress listen." (Indivisible Guide)

I've skimmed through it. Basically, how to effectively interact with your Congress peeps, and how to organize a local group. Available in English and Spanish; and in HTML, printer-friendly, and downloadable formats.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think the most important question is at the end. How could such a man as DT be elected? We don't really know. A significant chunk of the voting population (but not the majority, thank God) were either deceived or deluded.

No they weren't. That's the delusional excuse of the middle class left who feel guilty for being educated and not being working class. It's the same as the way as Christians we often feel so guilty about suggesting that someone is bad, that we excuse malevolence by saying the perpetrator is mentally disturbed or a victim of psychological damage from their upbringing.

Nobody voted Trump who wasn't entirely capable of seeing and knowing that he was telling lies on a gigantic scale. They chose, knowingly, to close their ears and brains to this self-evident fact, to prefer wishful thinking and fervid emotion to the responsible exercise of citizenship. There is no excuse.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Enoch--

No.

People always have reasons for what they do, even if they're not aware of the reasons, and all sorts of factors contributing. And, much as I hate the results of this election, and rage about it, and want to grab people and ask what the hell is wrong with them...that applies to everyone who voted, whichever way they voted.

Your argued judgment comes across like two-ton granite tablets handed down cooperatively from Mt. Sinai, Mt. Olympus, and any other such place. There's no mercy, no allowance for the realities of life.

Do you take the same attitude towards people in your own country?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Will the march give rise to a movement? Only time will tell. 1 of every 100 Americans turned out that day, and there does seem to be some good follow-up work taking place, so I am hopeful. If the tea party can do it, so can we.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Enoch--

No.

People always have reasons for what they do, even if they're not aware of the reasons, and all sorts of factors contributing.

It does not follow that if a person can produce a reason why they do something, that reason must be a good one or a legitimate one.

quote:
And, much as I hate the results of this election, and rage about it, and want to grab people and ask what the hell is wrong with them...that applies to everyone who voted, whichever way they voted.

Your argued judgment comes across like two-ton granite tablets handed down cooperatively from Mt. Sinai, Mt. Olympus, and any other such place. There's no mercy, no allowance for the realities of life.

Do you take the same attitude towards people in your own country?

Why not?

I agree with you that this may sound judgemental, but this is a very rare instance. It may be unique

The election of Trump is a very, very rare case where I think one has to conclude that it is clearly and objectively sinful to have voted for him. It really is a very unusual situation. Usually, the public have wickedness done to them by those in power over them. They don't usually get put in a situation where there is an obvious direct choice where to decide one way is morally wrong. I'm not sure that I can think of any other case in my lifetime, when one can say that it is actually morally wrong to vote in a particular way, rather than that I happen personally to think it was foolish, wrong-headed or short-sighted. The only possible others that spring to mind, but I don't know enough about the facts, have been when the candidate was Silvio Berlusconi.

In all normal circumstances, there a a balance of reasons why a person might choose to vote one way or the other. One isn't normally either able or entitled to say that there is one right way to do that balancing exercise, and all those who came to a different conclusion were wrong.

On Brexit, for example, I think the public has voted stupidly. But neither Remain, nor Leave were either 'the cause of God' or a single issue clear moral choice. Some people voted Leave for sinful reasons. Those who did may have swayed the result. Xenophobia is a sin, but not all the Leave voters voted that way because they are xenophobic. There may also have been some who voted Remain for reasons that for them were sinful.

Trump, though, is something different. And it isn't just about politics or ideology.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The election of Trump is a very, very rare case where I think one has to conclude that it is clearly and objectively sinful to have voted for him. It really is a very unusual situation. Usually, the public have wickedness done to them by those in power over them. They don't usually get put in a situation where there is an obvious direct choice where to decide one way is morally wrong.

You make it sound as though the alternative would have been morally right. Is that objectively the case?

I imagine that for many Americans, it was a case of choosing between two highly undesirable and even dangerous candidates, in which case you'd have to argue voting for either would have been a sin....

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The election of Trump is a very, very rare case where I think one has to conclude that it is clearly and objectively sinful to have voted for him. It really is a very unusual situation. Usually, the public have wickedness done to them by those in power over them. They don't usually get put in a situation where there is an obvious direct choice where to decide one way is morally wrong.
You make it sound as though the alternative would have been morally right. Is that objectively the case?

I imagine that for many Americans, it was a case of choosing between two highly undesirable and even dangerous candidates, in which case you'd have to argue voting for either would have been a sin....

No. I'm not saying anything of the kind. That is an over-binary way of looking at this. It isn't that any moral righteousness pertains to Mrs Clinton. She was just 'any normal candidate'. In any normal circumstances, there would have been good and bad reasons for voting for her or her opponent. It's that the combination of the personal qualities of one particular candidate and what he holds himself out as standing for make one of the choices a moral issue.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I don't understand the point of pointing out the sins of the electorate and their representatives, thanking God how liberal and enlightened we are, trying to make ourselves feel good whilst alienating ourselves further from ... 'them'.

On the same spectrum a beloved family member was liking the punching of Nazis, for whom another is an apologist, on FB this morning.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

However the trump legacy turns out there can be little doubt that his campaign did touch on a base common denominator that exists in every human heart. How he was able to do this, when most thought we lived in an age where racism, sexism and bigotry had gone into terminal decline, will remain open to debate for a long while.

Having said all that I do not think condemning people who voted for him is such a good idea, and bandying the 'S' word about is liable to heighten emotions and cause further entrenchment. We are not into 'good men did nothing' territory here. A period of calm reflection is required by people on all sides of the various barricades.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hell could freeze over, let's take them over a cup of tea, offer a fag, ask about their kids.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think offering Trump supporters a fag may result in an, erm, interesting reaction.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I think the people turned away at airports cannot afford to wait for us to reflect in calm. If we do not act now we may pass the point where action has any effect. There is such a thing as the point of no return.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

This article in the Toronto Star by a good friend explains nicely why two women in their late 60s felt it was worth a 500 or so mile bus ride to Washington and back, proving that not all Americans can be induced to vote against their country's and the world's interests, putting an ignorant and dangerous oaf in the White House. I have a photo of them wearing their pink pussy hats and holding their signs as they leave - something I'll cherish for a long time. Marching made a difference to them last week and it will carry on motivating them for a long time to come.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What, Alan, if I smiled, archly raised a plucked mascarraed eyebrow, accentuating the mauve eyelid, offered a cigarette and said 'Fag?' in my best Quentin Crisp English, to a full blooded, bull necked red neck, could go wrong?

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What, Alan, if I smiled, archly raised a plucked mascarraed eyebrow, accentuating the mauve eyelid, offered a cigarette and said 'Fag?' in my best Quentin Crisp English, to a full blooded, bull necked red neck, could go wrong?

A colleague who had recently given up smoking, announced in a bar in Arizona at the end of a long day of flight testing, that he was dying for a fag. The place went silent until people processed the fact that the words had been spoken with an English accent. It was briefly quite tense in there.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Ah, two nations divided by a common tongue.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{H/As: I'm not sure of the protocol on sharing this. It's an e-mail I got from the official Democratic party site, Democrats.org. I couldn't find a copy on the site. Otherwise, I would've linked to it. If sharing this e-mail isn't acceptable, please feel free to amend or delete it. Thx!}

I'm on the mailing list for the Democratic party, and they sent me an e-mail that's pertinent to the thread. It's about protestors--fining them, and even running them over and killing them. I haven't fact-checked it.

quote:
Friend --

Donald Trump's two weeks of major announcements have dominated the news cycle -- and it's giving Republicans in state legislatures cover to introduce some truly reprehensible bills that violate our First Amendment right to protest this administration.

In North Dakota, where thousands have organized against the Dakota Access Pipeline, a Republican has introduced a bill that would allow motorists to run over and kill people who protest on highways.

An Iowa Republican has proposed charging protesters who peacefully block highways with a felony, which would strip convicted protesters of their right to vote along with up to five years in prison and a $7,500 fine.

A committee of the Minnesota House recently moved forward with a bill that would fine protesters whenever the police attend their rallies and events.

These are direct attacks on our constitutional right as citizens to peacefully assemble, and they underscore how important it is for us to win elections at every level.

This is where our comeback begins. To defeat Trump in 2020, then we have to go state-by-state, city-by-city, block-by-block, and door-by-door to put Democrats in office -- for governor, mayor, city council, state legislature, you name it -- who will fight his administration tooth and nail.

We're counting on grassroots supporters right now, because state and local elections this year and in 2018 will be here before you know it.

I left out the fundraising stuff at the end.

[ 03. February 2017, 02:32: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Peaceful assembly is explicitly protected in the Constitution -- I doubt a ban would stand up in court.

A protest is planned for April 15, tax day in the US, down at the White House to call upon Lyin' Donald to give up his tax returns, as he promised he would. Scientists are planning to march on April 22, the week following. I am knitting pink hats as fast as I can, and am mulling over signs. I am thinking of "Orwell Warned Us!" and a matching one "Heinlein Warned Us!"

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

There's a rally planned for President's Day at Trump Tower.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

A wicked thought has suggested getting a choir together to perform this. Go on, click it. If I label it, it will spoil the joke.

I think it is totally safe. But noisy. In a nice, classical way. If you like that sort of thing. DT might want a bucket of cold water to be thrown, though.

[ 08. February 2017, 08:40: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A wicked thought has suggested getting a choir together to perform this. Go on, click it. If I label it, it will spoil the joke.

I think it is totally safe. But noisy. In a nice, classical way. If you like that sort of thing. DT might want a bucket of cold water to be thrown, though.

That definitely gets a [Overused]

. Possibly even deserves [Overused]

Thank you.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thank you.

Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :

What Enoch said.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

A friend just emailed me about the Ides of Trump. I won't post the link here, but Google is your friend.

They're trying to organize a record-breaking number of postcards mailed on March 15 to "President (for now) Donald J. Trump", saying what we think of him.

[Snigger]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0