Is a protest a protest if most participants do not know the point of the protest? I have not yet seen the reason for the women’s protests this past weekend covered in media reports.
I asked several of my militant female friends if they knew the reason for the protest and other than calling me interesting names they have not given me an answer. Luckily, I have a female liberal friend who understands the issues and is rather eloquent in defending her beliefs. We discuss issues all the time but never seem to agree. The good news (for me) is we are still friends after eight years of disagreements.
I asked her for the point of the women’s protest. She sent me a link to a website that outlines their guiding principles. I am willing to bet a majority of protesters and those in the media have no idea this website exists. I favor any kind of peaceful activism and applaud the participants’ initiative but I think they were pawns.
In my mind, activism needs to have an end goal presumably to change society. It seems the majority of people protested for the sake of protesting. Or, they simply wanted to protest President Donald Trump.
If that is the case, then the protest, at best, is meaningless. I do not have a problem protesting a president’s policies or viewpoints. That is fair game. I have an issue with people protesting without knowing why they are protesting.
The principles outlined in the document are good but seem overly general and state the obvious. The first principle states: “We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. This is the basic and original tenet from which all our values stem.”
Ok. Who would not agree with that? I’m guessing the 20 nations under Shira Law but so far no one has protested those countries. So why now? It’s not like President Trump created injustice to women.
Where were these women during the past eight years when the same landscape prevailed? Inequality existed long before any president took office and is not associated with any one person.
I did a little research and, as expected, chief agitator, George Soros, fronted a considerable amount of money to push his agenda. If the point of the protest is to respect women why did they allow themselves to be used by Soros?
And, while I’m at it, who thought it was a good idea to have Madonna speak? Madonna has made a living of portraying herself as an object to sell records. More power to her but credibility to the cause is lost when a former object speaks out against men who view women as objects.
The second principle states: “We believe Gender Justice is Racial Justice is Economic Justice. We must create a society in which all women—including Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, Muslim women, lesbian, queer and trans women—are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments.”
This is another no brainer. But I’m confused. President Trump campaigned as a law and order president. Wouldn’t that by default make society safer for women?
I get it. The man is a pig and a number of people do not like him. Heck, I don’t like him but he’s our president so get over it. The media will not explore the issues being raised by the march because it is too focused on its own agenda. And that is a shame.
This was a golden opportunity to raise awareness for the issues women face. Unfortunately, the real news of the protest is lost in the media narrative of “Women Hate Trump.” That narrative is driven by Soros, lapped up by the media but packaged differently to protesters.
More good could have come from the marches if the majority of those protesting actually understood the guiding principles. I encourage readers to read all the principles. Why didn’t the speakers talk about them? Why didn’t the media discuss the principles?
I do not think Soros cared about the actual point of the protest. He used the women and women allowed themselves to be used.
Who’s the real male pig here?