So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon 365 Replies latest social current

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    I guess JW made these type of comments in the 60's about Dr King - bad comparison/false equivalence.

    It was obvious what King and others were marching for back then: equality and justice for black people, and for improvements to their lives. In the 60s, Black people were still basically the next level up from slaves - absolutely shameful.

    Correct, you don't need a reason to march in America but Simon was asking the legitimate question: what is this march for? There's nothing wrong with asking this, so get up off the floor and dust yourself off.

    Take deep breaths and if you're having trouble, someone will pass you the smelling salts ...

  • The Rebel
    The Rebel

    When you get 3 million people, marching and feeling the same way, it can often be the result of a group mentality, which has taken over rational thinking. I am not in to this type of hysteria, or at least I think it's better suited to football matches.

    I am not saying that marching doesn't have a good cause, but I often feel large demonstrations have only achieved giving a bad demonstration to that cause.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Hurrah! I think I've found a worthwhile reason for feminists to oppose Trump.

    The following link is to an article in today's Guardian. The writer claims that Trump will stop founding NGOs that work abroad and that this will lead to safe abortions being denied for women abroad.

    She then links this with a past statement made by Trump that says women who have abortions should be punished. Further, she then explains that Trump's running mate, Pence, is also dead against abortions.

    If this is correct, it's things like this that women (and all other decent people!) should be criticising, protesting about, etc.

    Hopefully, the Sisterhood will sort out its priorities and bring this issue to the fore ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/trump-once-said-women-should-be-punished-for-abortion-t

  • cobweb
    cobweb

    My impression is that this was a march in solidarity for people and rights that are deemed to be under threat. The specifics of what individuals were marching varied - it wasn't just one issue. Maybe you ought to ask people who actually went on the march why they went. They will be able to give you their own personal reasons.

    I thought it was a powerful thing personally. It might not directly achieve anything but that does not mean it was ineffective. Even a scream of defiance is worthwhile. It signals non compliance, non complicity to onself and others. Saying out loud what you value where you feel undermined or those values threatened, with crowds of others and finding strength from that. Seeing that you not alone. These are all positive things as far as I'm concerned.

  • Simon
    Simon

    bohm: You are doing mental gymnastics to try and delegitimize valid criticism. The left is doubling down on their identity politics and it will fail because of it.

    Look at the reality - a women who is actively promoting an ideology that promotes and practices the worst and most widespread barbarism and oppression of women anywhere on the planet ever becoming the focus of the march supposedly for women's rights. Can you not see the hypocrisy? It's not just about ignoring the worse abuses happening elsewhere, it's actively promoting that abusive ideology to the women supposedly protesting abuse (or whatever the claimed purpose is today). They are now making it all about defending and promoting Islam, mission accomplished.

    I criticize stupid when I see it and this is stupid beyond belief. It's like convincing Chickens that Colonel Saunders is their saviour or that Cows should worship Ronald McDonald in the church of the Golden Arches.

    But it's not those un-oppressed latte-sipping women that will really suffer initially, no, they are just happy to shout down any support for the truly oppressed women of the world based on their indoctrinated identity politics.

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade
    Look at the reality - a women who is actively promoting an ideology that promotes and practices the worst and most widespread barbarism and oppression of women anywhere on the planet ever becoming the focus of the march supposedly for women's rights. Can you not see the hypocrisy?

    Amen to that. It makes my head hurt it's so hypocritical,

    pro-shariah??? WTF??? Look up the ways Shariah law takes away women's rights and hurts them in a way that has no place in the modern world

  • Simon
    Simon
    It was obvious what King and others were marching for back then: equality and justice for black people, and for improvements to their lives. In the 60s, Black people were still basically the next level up from slaves - absolutely shameful.

    Correct. The civil rights march was to draw attention and increase support for the civil rights act.

    Unfortunately, many people's view of history will probably now be based on the portrayal of LBJ in the movie "Selma" where his role was mischaracterized for racial effect (it doesn't fit todays narrative). The reality was different, the march was an essential tactic to bring about change, not just a march for the sake of it (and the people marching were putting things on the line, not just having a nice day out):

    The makers of the new movie “Selma” apparently just couldn’t resist taking dramatic, trumped-up license with a true story that didn’t need any embellishment to work as a big-screen historical drama. As a result, the film falsely portrays President Lyndon B. Johnson as being at odds with Martin Luther King Jr. and even using the FBI to discredit him, as only reluctantly behind the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as opposed to the Selma march itself.

    In fact, Selma was LBJ’s idea, he considered the Voting Rights Act his greatest legislative achievement, he viewed King as an essential partner in getting it enacted — and he didn’t use the FBI to disparage him.

    On Jan. 15, 1965, LBJ talked to King by telephone about his intention to send a voting rights act to Congress: “There is not going to be anything as effective, though, Doctor, as all [blacks] voting.”

    Johnson then articulated a strategy for drawing attention to the injustice of using literacy tests and other barriers to stop black Southerners from voting. “We take the position,” he said, “that every person born in this country, when he reaches a certain age, that he have a right to vote . . . whether it’s a Negro, whether it’s a Mexican, or who it is. . . . I think you can contribute a great deal by getting your leaders and you, yourself, taking very simple examples of discrimination; where a [black] man’s got . . . to quote the first 10 Amendments, . . . and some people don’t have to do that, but when a Negro comes in he’s got to do it, and if we can, just repeat and repeat and repeat.

    “And if you can find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana or South Carolina . . . and if you just take that one illustration and get it on radio, get it on television, get it in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it everyplace you can. Pretty soon the fellow that didn’t do anything but drive a tractor will say, ‘Well, that’s not right, that’s not fair,’ and then that will help us on what we’re going to shove through [Congress] in the end.”

    King agreed, and LBJ added, sealing the deal, “And if we do that we will break through. It will be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting this ’64 [Civil Rights] Act, I think the greatest achievement of my administration.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-movie-selma-has-a-glaring-historical-inaccuracy/2014/12/26/70ad3ea2-8aa4-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html?utm_term=.fd65dc25796b

    Their march was to demonstrate the problem that the legislation being put forward was going to change, to shift public opinion. It had a clear goal and achieved it.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Watch this and tell me some people are not suffering mental issues.

    So much virtue signalling, so much stupid, so very very funny:

    https://twitter.com/DOEDoobs/status/823705747070525440

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    It turned out to be an all-encompassing protest. It is called the women's march because originally, it was a group of women's associations that sponsored it. They eventually kept on bringing in so many groups that it became what it became.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    I had to come here to see who the funny guy was in his avatar - its simon - thanks for the laugh

    but simon you have to admit tdtt has a point - in fact this what I like about Americans - their ability and desire to protest - how else are we going to get this awful awful excuse for a politician out of the whitehouse

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit