March for women. A message from Conservatives

[whichphilosophy]

I won't go too much into it.
For many this is an opportunity for a human rights march but the reality it is organised to be something else.

I won't bore anyone with references but this is part of an orchestrated campaign which is riding piggy back on a legitimate march concept.

First some of the artists who pulled out of the inauguration did so because they received threatening calls whereby they would never work again, It's in google but no one bothered to watch.

Then no less than Angela Davis appears on the women's march website as an honorary Chair for the March. She's made quite a few of her traditional drum thumping speeches. Her Marxist group split from the main Communist party in 1991. I worked in a communist country 10 years and while pleasant it's ideology is incompatible with US values on Free speech.

Then the March organisers hosted convicted kidnapper and killer Donna Hylton jailed for first degree kidnapping and 2 counts of second degree murder in 1986 and served 27 years. Things like that don't rest well for too long with the public.

On BBC which never says anything about Trump there was a documentary about Republican students being harassed at US Universities by those who claim (and some may be) Democrats.

The March is all about what Trump said in 2005. No on cares what Bill did in the Oval office as the public weren't interested.
The 2005 "Trump even" is being orchestrated by the pink pussycat hats. These hats are in fact a metaphorical nose ring.

In the UK elections, the Tories won a majority of 12 seats with just 36.1 % of the Vote because there is no proportional representation. The UK also has problems but it has had 200 or so years to make changes. The Democrats have at times controlled both houses yet the Electoral College still stands,
There is a problem in Europe from a handful of migrants who entered and some attacks were carried out in Paris, Belgium, Germany and earlier the UK. There are few but nonetheless some were very destructive as mentioned in the Indian Times

I took out the parts that had no bearing on the march for most of the 4+ million people who participated.

You're welcome.
Now you know.

The censorship pen struck.
You removed Angela Davies but she is relevant as she is an honorary chair of the Women’s March and is central to this.

https://www.womensmarch.com/honorary-cochairs/

Here is Angela on a pilgrimage to East Germany shaking hands with the East German Leader Eric Honecker.
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/11/25/angela-daviss-racism-glance-morality-history/

In the 1970s, Angela Davis travelled in—seemingly—the opposite direction. Her critics have harped on the point ever since. They condemn Davis’s chummy delight for East block dictatorships. ‘What does Angela Davis know about freedom?’, runs the title of Alan Johnson’s Telegraph piece, published the day of Davis’s celebrated October 2013 speech at Birkbeck College in London.

And

Johnson also lashes out at the ‘academics and students at Birkbeck’ who would ‘cheer her to the rafters’, but would ‘ask no awkward “anti-communist” (sin of sins, still) questions’. In defence of that audience, it is worth noting that Davis renounced her membership of the US Communist Party many years ago. Since few of that audience’s leftists would, by 2013, entertain much doubt about Soviet abuses, it might have seemed pointless to rehash old Cold War polemics.

Welcome to the Marxist world.
NB Angela Davis left the Communist Party but in fact formed here own (Marxist) group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_of_Correspondence_for_Democracy_and_Socialism

The inauguration as I quoted from Media statistics that the viewer ratings were not low by any means. I posted these earlier. TV viewership in the tens of millions.

Linda Sasour’s comments in attacking an Atheist female feminist who is an ex Muslim are worse than Trump’s.

Therefore it is pure hypocrisy when Linda Sasour made worse comments about two other women. And these are okay but Trumps from 2005 are constantly trotted out as if he has just said them. You can find the comments and an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
https://twitter.com/LaloDagach/status/826989429554368512

The Agenda of the Women’s March does not draw out a clear objective to cover specific areas.
Here is what it says.
https://www.womensmarch.com/global/

Women's March Global
Women’s March Global invites individuals and organizations committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion and those who understand women’s rights as human rights to join our local coalitions of marchers in representing the rights and voices of progressive people around the world.

As concerned citizens standing up for human rights, Women’s March Global immediately seeks to increase the number of coalitions participating in the upcoming global marches, while continuing to organise future campaigns.

Women’s March Global is building and empowering a persistent global network that will organise future campaigns and actions in support of progressive values including women’s rights.

Women’s March Global is a proactive international movement, not a U.S. election-specific protest per se, which has galvanized people to defend women's rights and those of others in response to the rising rhetoric of far-right populism around the world.

Donna Hylton was speaking at the March so it is relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Hylton
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/30/donna-hylton-background/
See the clenched fist photo

Not every women’s group is permitted.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...d-womens-march-protesters-showed-up/21662068/
Pro-life protesters banned from Women's March on Washington
Controversy has erupted over who was and who wasn't allowed to participate in one of the biggest marches in U.S. history.
An anti-abortion student group is saying it was barred from the Women's March because of its views. Students for Life of America posted pictures as they showed up at the march anyway.
They unfurled a giant banner that read "abortion betrays women." They also went on Facebook live to show the reaction by marchers.
If this is supporting freedom then those we disagree with are also entitled to express their views.


Here is a question for the Muslim marchers since the Women's March by its own statement is global.

Why is there no Muslim movement marching with it campaigning against the treatment of women in many Islamic countries such as forced dress codes, Yazidi women and girls being kidnapped, Acid attacks in Pakistan and forced wearing of the veil and hijab as well as forced marriages and the list goes on?

There are Muslim men and women who campaign in these countries. Muslim's in the US face discrimination in the USA for wearing a hijab. However women also have the right NOT to wear the Hijab.

While the demonstrators proudly display their Hijabs as a symbol of Islam this is false because this is not mandated in the Quran.

When enforced the Hijab can be defined as a dress code for women as defined by men.

Here is the problem: the Muslim women in the march remained silent on women's rights in Muslim countries. Let me know if you find anything contrary to this as I hope you do.






































+

 

[TSwizzle]

In a statement that has gone viral on Twitter and Facebook, UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights NGO in Geneva, expressed disappointment that Sweden’s self-declared “first feminist government in the world” sacrificed its principles and betrayed the rights of Iranian women as Trade Minister Ann Linde and other female members walked before Iranian President Rouhani on Saturday wearing Hijabs, Chadors, and long coats, in deference to Iran’s oppressive and unjust modesty laws which make the Hijab compulsory — despite Stockholm’s promise to promote “a gender equality perspective” internationally, and to adopt a “feminist foreign policy” in which “equality between women and men is a fundamental aim.” In doing so, Sweden’s female leaders ignored the recent appeal by Iranian women’s right activist Masih Alinejad who urged Europeans female politicians “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to kowtow to the compulsory Hijab while visiting Iran. Alinrejad created a Facebook page for Iranian women to resist the law and show their hair as an act of resistance, which now numbers 1 million followers. “European female politicians are hypocrites,” says Alinejad. “They stand with French Muslim women and condemn the burkini ban—because they think compulsion is bad—but when it happens to Iran, they just care about money.” The scene in Tehran on Saturday was also a sharp contrast to Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin’s feminist stance against U.S. President Donald Trump, in a viral tweet and then in a Guardian op-ed last week, in which she wrote that “the world need strong leadership for women’s rights.” Trade Minister Linde, who signed multiple agreements with Iranian ministers while wearing a veil, “sees no conflict” between her government’s human rights policy and signing trade deals with an oppressive dictatorship that tortures prisoners, persecutes gays, and is a leading executioner of minors.

Oh dear

You couldn't make it up.

 

[Malintent]

"I am not a "disgrace to women" because I don't support the women's march. I do not feel I am a "second class citizen" because I am a woman. I do not feel my voice is "not heard" because I am a woman. I do not feel I..."

I stopped reading there. Just sounds like some bossy bitch. If I cared about her having an opinion, I would have given it to her before letting her use the computer.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"I am not a "disgrace to women" because I don't support the women's march. I do not feel I am a "second class citizen" because I am a woman. I do not feel my voice is "not heard" because I am a woman. I do not feel I..."

I stopped reading there. Just sounds like some bossy bitch. If I cared about her having an opinion, I would have given it to her before letting her use the computer.

Agreed. The kitchen is NO PLACE for a computer.

 

[laughing dog]

.......

Let's see. Basically, you think women should listen to you about
1) the timing of the march,
2) which women should attend,
3) which women should not attend,
4) the topics addressed at the march, and
5) the topics that should not be addressed at the march.

Wow.

 

[Angry Floof]

.......

Let's see. Basically, you think women should listen to you about
1) the timing of the march,
2) which women should attend,
3) which women should not attend,
4) the topics addressed at the march, and
5) the topics that should not be addressed at the march.

Wow.

That about sums it up.

 

[fromderinside]

The censorship pen struck.
You removed Angela Davies but she is relevant as she is an honorary chair of the Women’s March and is central to this.

https://www.womensmarch.com/honorary-cochairs/

Here is Angela on a pilgrimage to East Germany shaking hands with the East German Leader Eric Honecker.
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/11/25/angela-daviss-racism-glance-morality-history/

In the 1970s, Angela Davis travelled in—seemingly—the opposite direction. Her critics have harped on the point ever since. They condemn Davis’s chummy delight for East block dictatorships. ‘What does Angela Davis know about freedom?’, runs the title of Alan Johnson’s Telegraph piece, published the day of Davis’s celebrated October 2013 speech at Birkbeck College in London.

And

Johnson also lashes out at the ‘academics and students at Birkbeck’ who would ‘cheer her to the rafters’, but would ‘ask no awkward “anti-communist” (sin of sins, still) questions’. In defence of that audience, it is worth noting that Davis renounced her membership of the US Communist Party many years ago. Since few of that audience’s leftists would, by 2013, entertain much doubt about Soviet abuses, it might have seemed pointless to rehash old Cold War polemics.

Welcome to the Marxist world.
NB Angela Davis left the Communist Party but in fact formed here own (Marxist) group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_of_Correspondence_for_Democracy_and_Socialism

The inauguration as I quoted from Media statistics that the viewer ratings were not low by any means. I posted these earlier. TV viewership in the tens of millions.

Linda Sasour’s comments in attacking an Atheist female feminist who is an ex Muslim are worse than Trump’s.

Therefore it is pure hypocrisy when Linda Sasour made worse comments about two other women. And these are okay but Trumps from 2005 are constantly trotted out as if he has just said them. You can find the comments and an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
https://twitter.com/LaloDagach/status/826989429554368512

The Agenda of the Women’s March does not draw out a clear objective to cover specific areas.
Here is what it says.
https://www.womensmarch.com/global/

Women's March Global
Women’s March Global invites individuals and organizations committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion and those who understand women’s rights as human rights to join our local coalitions of marchers in representing the rights and voices of progressive people around the world.

As concerned citizens standing up for human rights, Women’s March Global immediately seeks to increase the number of coalitions participating in the upcoming global marches, while continuing to organise future campaigns.

Women’s March Global is building and empowering a persistent global network that will organise future campaigns and actions in support of progressive values including women’s rights.

Women’s March Global is a proactive international movement, not a U.S. election-specific protest per se, which has galvanized people to defend women's rights and those of others in response to the rising rhetoric of far-right populism around the world.

Donna Hylton was speaking at the March so it is relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Hylton
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/30/donna-hylton-background/
See the clenched fist photo

Not every women’s group is permitted.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...d-womens-march-protesters-showed-up/21662068/
Pro-life protesters banned from Women's March on Washington
Controversy has erupted over who was and who wasn't allowed to participate in one of the biggest marches in U.S. history.
An anti-abortion student group is saying it was barred from the Women's March because of its views. Students for Life of America posted pictures as they showed up at the march anyway.
They unfurled a giant banner that read "abortion betrays women." They also went on Facebook live to show the reaction by marchers.
If this is supporting freedom then those we disagree with are also entitled to express their views.


Here is a question for the Muslim marchers since the Women's March by its own statement is global.

Why is there no Muslim movement marching with it campaigning against the treatment of women in many Islamic countries such as forced dress codes, Yazidi women and girls being kidnapped, Acid attacks in Pakistan and forced wearing of the veil and hijab as well as forced marriages and the list goes on?

There are Muslim men and women who campaign in these countries. Muslim's in the US face discrimination in the USA for wearing a hijab. However women also have the right NOT to wear the Hijab.

While the demonstrators proudly display their Hijabs as a symbol of Islam this is false because this is not mandated in the Quran.

When enforced the Hijab can be defined as a dress code for women as defined by men.

Here is the problem: the Muslim women in the march remained silent on women's rights in Muslim countries. Let me know if you find anything contrary to this as I hope you do.

whichphilosophy unwinds .... and then remarks on Muslim women not doing something out of scope to the march. WHA

 

[Rhea]

whichphilosophy, are you still rattling on that I'm wrong about why I went? And that I should read your posts to find out what my march meant to me?

I don't care about davis and the other one you said. It is not relevant to me or anyone I know who went.

All your mansplainbabble cannot force it to be relevant to me.


Dude. We went for our own reasons, not because of the content of the speeches, none of which we heard or even knew would happen at the time all 5 million of us made our decision to go.

Re-frame fail.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The censorship pen struck.
You removed Angela Davies but she is relevant as she is an honorary chair of the Women’s March and is central to this.

https://www.womensmarch.com/honorary-cochairs/

Here is Angela on a pilgrimage to East Germany shaking hands with the East German Leader Eric Honecker.
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/11/25/angela-daviss-racism-glance-morality-history/

In the 1970s, Angela Davis travelled in—seemingly—the opposite direction. Her critics have harped on the point ever since. They condemn Davis’s chummy delight for East block dictatorships. ‘What does Angela Davis know about freedom?’, runs the title of Alan Johnson’s Telegraph piece, published the day of Davis’s celebrated October 2013 speech at Birkbeck College in London.

And

Johnson also lashes out at the ‘academics and students at Birkbeck’ who would ‘cheer her to the rafters’, but would ‘ask no awkward “anti-communist” (sin of sins, still) questions’. In defence of that audience, it is worth noting that Davis renounced her membership of the US Communist Party many years ago. Since few of that audience’s leftists would, by 2013, entertain much doubt about Soviet abuses, it might have seemed pointless to rehash old Cold War polemics.

Welcome to the Marxist world.
NB Angela Davis left the Communist Party but in fact formed here own (Marxist) group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_of_Correspondence_for_Democracy_and_Socialism

The inauguration as I quoted from Media statistics that the viewer ratings were not low by any means. I posted these earlier. TV viewership in the tens of millions.

Linda Sasour’s comments in attacking an Atheist female feminist who is an ex Muslim are worse than Trump’s.

Therefore it is pure hypocrisy when Linda Sasour made worse comments about two other women. And these are okay but Trumps from 2005 are constantly trotted out as if he has just said them. You can find the comments and an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
https://twitter.com/LaloDagach/status/826989429554368512

The Agenda of the Women’s March does not draw out a clear objective to cover specific areas.
Here is what it says.
https://www.womensmarch.com/global/

Women's March Global
Women’s March Global invites individuals and organizations committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion and those who understand women’s rights as human rights to join our local coalitions of marchers in representing the rights and voices of progressive people around the world.

As concerned citizens standing up for human rights, Women’s March Global immediately seeks to increase the number of coalitions participating in the upcoming global marches, while continuing to organise future campaigns.

Women’s March Global is building and empowering a persistent global network that will organise future campaigns and actions in support of progressive values including women’s rights.

Women’s March Global is a proactive international movement, not a U.S. election-specific protest per se, which has galvanized people to defend women's rights and those of others in response to the rising rhetoric of far-right populism around the world.

Donna Hylton was speaking at the March so it is relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Hylton
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/30/donna-hylton-background/
See the clenched fist photo

Not every women’s group is permitted.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...d-womens-march-protesters-showed-up/21662068/
Pro-life protesters banned from Women's March on Washington
Controversy has erupted over who was and who wasn't allowed to participate in one of the biggest marches in U.S. history.
An anti-abortion student group is saying it was barred from the Women's March because of its views. Students for Life of America posted pictures as they showed up at the march anyway.
They unfurled a giant banner that read "abortion betrays women." They also went on Facebook live to show the reaction by marchers.
If this is supporting freedom then those we disagree with are also entitled to express their views.


Here is a question for the Muslim marchers since the Women's March by its own statement is global.

Why is there no Muslim movement marching with it campaigning against the treatment of women in many Islamic countries such as forced dress codes, Yazidi women and girls being kidnapped, Acid attacks in Pakistan and forced wearing of the veil and hijab as well as forced marriages and the list goes on?

There are Muslim men and women who campaign in these countries. Muslim's in the US face discrimination in the USA for wearing a hijab. However women also have the right NOT to wear the Hijab.

While the demonstrators proudly display their Hijabs as a symbol of Islam this is false because this is not mandated in the Quran.

When enforced the Hijab can be defined as a dress code for women as defined by men.

Here is the problem: the Muslim women in the march remained silent on women's rights in Muslim countries. Let me know if you find anything contrary to this as I hope you do.

whichphilosophy unwinds .... and then remarks on Muslim women not doing something out of scope to the march. WHA

The Womens' March is a Global March for Human Rights but are silent on atrocities against women in many Islamic countries. It follows the motive is nothing to do with human rights to that degree.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The censorship pen struck.
You removed Angela Davies but she is relevant as she is an honorary chair of the Women’s March and is central to this.

https://www.womensmarch.com/honorary-cochairs/

Here is Angela on a pilgrimage to East Germany shaking hands with the East German Leader Eric Honecker.
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/11/25/angela-daviss-racism-glance-morality-history/

In the 1970s, Angela Davis travelled in—seemingly—the opposite direction. Her critics have harped on the point ever since. They condemn Davis’s chummy delight for East block dictatorships. ‘What does Angela Davis know about freedom?’, runs the title of Alan Johnson’s Telegraph piece, published the day of Davis’s celebrated October 2013 speech at Birkbeck College in London.

And

Johnson also lashes out at the ‘academics and students at Birkbeck’ who would ‘cheer her to the rafters’, but would ‘ask no awkward “anti-communist” (sin of sins, still) questions’. In defence of that audience, it is worth noting that Davis renounced her membership of the US Communist Party many years ago. Since few of that audience’s leftists would, by 2013, entertain much doubt about Soviet abuses, it might have seemed pointless to rehash old Cold War polemics.

Welcome to the Marxist world.
NB Angela Davis left the Communist Party but in fact formed here own (Marxist) group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_of_Correspondence_for_Democracy_and_Socialism

The inauguration as I quoted from Media statistics that the viewer ratings were not low by any means. I posted these earlier. TV viewership in the tens of millions.

Linda Sasour’s comments in attacking an Atheist female feminist who is an ex Muslim are worse than Trump’s.

Therefore it is pure hypocrisy when Linda Sasour made worse comments about two other women. And these are okay but Trumps from 2005 are constantly trotted out as if he has just said them. You can find the comments and an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
https://twitter.com/LaloDagach/status/826989429554368512

The Agenda of the Women’s March does not draw out a clear objective to cover specific areas.
Here is what it says.
https://www.womensmarch.com/global/

Women's March Global
Women’s March Global invites individuals and organizations committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion and those who understand women’s rights as human rights to join our local coalitions of marchers in representing the rights and voices of progressive people around the world.

As concerned citizens standing up for human rights, Women’s March Global immediately seeks to increase the number of coalitions participating in the upcoming global marches, while continuing to organise future campaigns.

Women’s March Global is building and empowering a persistent global network that will organise future campaigns and actions in support of progressive values including women’s rights.

Women’s March Global is a proactive international movement, not a U.S. election-specific protest per se, which has galvanized people to defend women's rights and those of others in response to the rising rhetoric of far-right populism around the world.

Donna Hylton was speaking at the March so it is relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Hylton
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/30/donna-hylton-background/
See the clenched fist photo

Not every women’s group is permitted.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...d-womens-march-protesters-showed-up/21662068/
Pro-life protesters banned from Women's March on Washington
Controversy has erupted over who was and who wasn't allowed to participate in one of the biggest marches in U.S. history.
An anti-abortion student group is saying it was barred from the Women's March because of its views. Students for Life of America posted pictures as they showed up at the march anyway.
They unfurled a giant banner that read "abortion betrays women." They also went on Facebook live to show the reaction by marchers.
If this is supporting freedom then those we disagree with are also entitled to express their views.


Here is a question for the Muslim marchers since the Women's March by its own statement is global.

Why is there no Muslim movement marching with it campaigning against the treatment of women in many Islamic countries such as forced dress codes, Yazidi women and girls being kidnapped, Acid attacks in Pakistan and forced wearing of the veil and hijab as well as forced marriages and the list goes on?

There are Muslim men and women who campaign in these countries. Muslim's in the US face discrimination in the USA for wearing a hijab. However women also have the right NOT to wear the Hijab.

While the demonstrators proudly display their Hijabs as a symbol of Islam this is false because this is not mandated in the Quran.

When enforced the Hijab can be defined as a dress code for women as defined by men.

Here is the problem: the Muslim women in the march remained silent on women's rights in Muslim countries. Let me know if you find anything contrary to this as I hope you do.

whichphilosophy unwinds .... and then remarks on Muslim women not doing something out of scope to the march. WHA

Per the website it is a Women's March Global so it follows that this would be a Global March.
The point is what are the Muslim women doing about Global issues relating to human rights in their own countries. Or didn't their parents or some of them actually flee oppression?

 

[whichphilosophy]

whichphilosophy, are you still rattling on that I'm wrong about why I went? And that I should read your posts to find out what my march meant to me?

I don't care about davis and the other one you said. It is not relevant to me or anyone I know who went.

All your mansplainbabble cannot force it to be relevant to me.


Dude. We went for our own reasons, not because of the content of the speeches, none of which we heard or even knew would happen at the time all 5 million of us made our decision to go.

Re-frame fail.

Why did you go?

Have you read
Black Flags from Rome 2014.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In a statement that has gone viral on Twitter and Facebook, UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights NGO in Geneva, expressed disappointment that Sweden’s self-declared “first feminist government in the world” sacrificed its principles and betrayed the rights of Iranian women as Trade Minister Ann Linde and other female members walked before Iranian President Rouhani on Saturday wearing Hijabs, Chadors, and long coats, in deference to Iran’s oppressive and unjust modesty laws which make the Hijab compulsory — despite Stockholm’s promise to promote “a gender equality perspective” internationally, and to adopt a “feminist foreign policy” in which “equality between women and men is a fundamental aim.” In doing so, Sweden’s female leaders ignored the recent appeal by Iranian women’s right activist Masih Alinejad who urged Europeans female politicians “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to kowtow to the compulsory Hijab while visiting Iran. Alinrejad created a Facebook page for Iranian women to resist the law and show their hair as an act of resistance, which now numbers 1 million followers. “European female politicians are hypocrites,” says Alinejad. “They stand with French Muslim women and condemn the burkini ban—because they think compulsion is bad—but when it happens to Iran, they just care about money.” The scene in Tehran on Saturday was also a sharp contrast to Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin’s feminist stance against U.S. President Donald Trump, in a viral tweet and then in a Guardian op-ed last week, in which she wrote that “the world need strong leadership for women’s rights.” Trade Minister Linde, who signed multiple agreements with Iranian ministers while wearing a veil, “sees no conflict” between her government’s human rights policy and signing trade deals with an oppressive dictatorship that tortures prisoners, persecutes gays, and is a leading executioner of minors.

Oh dear

You couldn't make it up.

The Women's Global March has no time for Civil rights of Muslims around the world. See video Masileh Aliinejad

https://www.unwatch.org/walk-shame-swedens-first-feminist-government-don-hijabs-iran/

 

[laughing dog]

whichphilosophy, are you still rattling on that I'm wrong about why I went? And that I should read your posts to find out what my march meant to me?

I don't care about davis and the other one you said. It is not relevant to me or anyone I know who went.

All your mansplainbabble cannot force it to be relevant to me.


Dude. We went for our own reasons, not because of the content of the speeches, none of which we heard or even knew would happen at the time all 5 million of us made our decision to go.

Re-frame fail.

Why did you go?

Have you read
Black Flags from Rome 2014.

Why do you think more mansplainbabble will help your position?

 

[Rhea]

Why did you go?

Post 301, 303, asks you why you are making up reasons
307 predicts you
308 tells you why I did not march for hijabs
In 316 you claim, “I would agree with a person's statement why they went and that is up to them.” But then you proceed in eviscerating this promise throughout the rest of the thread.
Post 336 explains how annoying are your repeated assertions that you know why people went to the march
373 talks of my reasons and reminds you, “I don't actually care one iota what you think we "should have" marched about, since you can't even figure out what we _did_ march about. Your kind of thinking is part of the problem.”
374 reminds you that this has been about all women’s rights for a very long time.
379 gives more details to add to those given in 373
380 tries to put it in crayon for you
386 addresses your derail into trade unions where you claim they are who _really_ advocates for women!
394 points out how little you reveal you know of the speeches, and explicitly states how much they meant to me on my march (NOTHING, since again, I didn’t hear them until two weeks later)
400 reminds you _again_ that 5 million people had 5 million reasons to go. And reminds you again that the speeches you keep harping on were not what drove me to go.
409 from LordKiran points out how tedious and transparent is your game of trying to get people to say _your_ answer. Obvious that you are not actually trying to find out why women went, you’re trying to tell them why they went.
419 answers you _again_ why I went, why I went on Jan 21
430 is Ravensky predicting you to a tee.
438 I point out to you _again_ that what you call the meaning of the march turns out to not be true for people at the march. So, you’re wrong. You’re just flat wrong.
448 I remind you that Angela Davis and Hylton and whoever CANNOT be the reasons for the march because of the 5 million people there, NONE of them even knew those people would be there, let alone who they were and what their history is or what they’d say. I CANNOT be true that they were the reason for anyone to go because we decided to go _before_they_did_.


So then in post 451, you lose your memory again and repeat, “Why did you go?”


I roll my eyes. Go re-read the thread. I have no expectation that my telling you a tenth time will obviate the need for an eleventh, so I am moving on without you. So sorry you couldn’t keep up.

Have you read
Black Flags from Rome 2014.

No.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why did you go?

Have you read
Black Flags from Rome 2014.

Why do you think more mansplainbabble will help your position?

Mansplainbabble; That's a good one from Rhea. However asking if a person is aware of or read a document is hardly babble; it's simple English.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you think more mansplainbabble will help your position?

Mansplainbabble; That's a good one from Rhea. However asking if a person is aware of or read a document is hardly babble; it's simple English.

You are mistaken - more mansplainbabble simply prove the points that Rhea and others are making.

 

[RavenSky]

Per the website it is a Women's March Global so it follows that this would be a Global March.
The point is what are the Muslim women doing about Global issues relating to human rights in their own countries. Or didn't their parents or some of them actually flee oppression?

Do you get paid every time you repeat this falsehood?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Mansplainbabble; That's a good one from Rhea. However asking if a person is aware of or read a document is hardly babble; it's simple English.

You are mistaken - more mansplainbabble simply prove the points that Rhea and others are making.

Specifically what?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Per the website it is a Women's March Global so it follows that this would be a Global March.
The point is what are the Muslim women doing about Global issues relating to human rights in their own countries. Or didn't their parents or some of them actually flee oppression?

Do you get paid every time you repeat this falsehood?

I'm quoting the website and asking a question in the second statement. My question is very straight forward so why the resistance to a direct answer to a direct question. This is asked by feminists (2 who I have quoted).

 

[PyramidHead]

Do you get paid every time you repeat this falsehood?

I'm quoting the website and asking a question in the second statement. My question is very straight forward so why the resistance to a direct answer to a direct question. This is asked by feminists (2 who I have quoted).

This comment, and those that preceded it, are indicative of a common misconception some conservatives have about liberals. Conservative movements (the alt-right, the Tea Party) tend to be monolithic, either because they are based on simple ideas that appeal to a lot of people without much nuance, or because they are funded by individuals and corporations with an interest in controlling the message. The left is not so easy to pin down. Even though there may have been an 'official' Occupy Wall Street charter at some point, the majority of people who participated probably didn't have any idea what it said. There is no 'leader' of Black Lives Matter, and so literally anyone can make themselves a representative of that movement by adding a hashtag to their tweet. These things are amorphous (which is probably why they will continue to fail). Conservatives often seem to insist that there must be a credo, a set of beliefs that every person involved must adhere to, because that's the only way they themselves know how to organize and protest. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what a website says about the Women's March, it matters what the women think and say. Do you really think that not a single woman who marched has a problem with the way women are treated in some Muslim countries? Are you fooling anyone when you demand that they either protest on behalf of all women everywhere, or don't protest at all? It may come as a surprise to you that not everybody receives their marching orders from a centralized authority, even if years of indoctrination from a predatory cult has conditioned you to think they do.