The peaceful marchers in Washington DC were so numerous that they may have outnumbered the people violently deported during one term of the Obama administration. Machado notes that brown people were probably underrepresented because "feminism" struggles with the issues of "having a living wage and immigration" and besides, those who do fight for their survival and an end to monstrous border controls probably couldn't "afford to fly and take the time off." Fair enough. If the women at the march weren't representing the demands of those whose homes are broken up by ICE, or the over two hundred thousand women in prison (63% for nonviolent crimes), or the millions of female migrant workers, or heck, just the people too cheap to shell out for a Friday night flight and hotel, but rather, were "representative of a PTA meeting or zumba class," at least they were protesting for rights.
Because the definition of feminism is, to Machado, "men and women having equal rights." Not men and women being equal. Not all women can travel to the women's march, but all women have the right to do so, except when the police have stripped them of that right.
The garbled, self-serving logic that claims "nonviolence is true power" should open the door to understand this apparent contradiction: The success of the women's march is in its failure. We can't know how many people participated, how many were inspired, the tonnage of awareness raised. We can pinpoint absolutely the impact of the women's march on Trump administration policies: 0. We know how many rapists will swear off rape for good because of the women's march: 0. How many police departments will purge themselves of the 4 in 10 officers who commit domestic violence? 0. As the feelings of solidarity dwindle, these facts will remain unchanged, and must inspire more action.
For future marches to be successful, women need to identify the enemy: the specific men who stalk, harass, assault, rape, and kill them and their daughters. And next time, we need to ask, if the police are women's friends, if police supported Saturday's march, what are they doing to get violent men out of their departments?
Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2017
Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2017
Q: What do these two tweets have in common?
A: He couldn't give a half a shit either way!!!
Edited by swampman ()
1. they were written by the same person
2. they are in the english language
3. they have over 44,000 retweets
4. they have over 190,000 likes
5. they were both posted in the morning of January the 22nd
the womans march, yes it's liberal so they hug cops and the cops let them carry on without blasting them with water cannons and stun grenades sure, but womens reproductive rights truly are going to be under attack for the next 4 years and a massive showing against that probably, is good, even if chock full of morons
I'm totally with you, I think it's important for people to march and then wonder why their march was ignored. Liberal politicians are willing to make concessions to preserve the illusion of popularity but the conservatives in power are too dumb to give a shit and they think escalation will produce endless police victories.
Ok i made this image for if the article were to someday be put on the front page, but I'm not sure it actually has a lot to do with what i wrote, any thoughts
listen i sat by and did nothing when there was a picture of a dead kid on the front page for months, but this is really fucking pushing it, swampman.