I’d be interested in reading about how the Democratic Party and the media cut the balls off the libs following the women’s march and airport protests. The first year of the trump presidency was marked by liberals becoming increasingly active in protesting, and after that first women’s march and the airport protest something happened where it just didn’t happen again with the same intensity.
The subsequent women's marches dissolved into woke idpol fights. The airport protests were around a discrete event, and considered "successful" at the time. But honestly I think outrage fatigue killed more actions like that.
Yup I think it probably had a lot to do with it. Seems the GOP took the same track as they did in 2003, let everyone protest until they’re exhausted and just do your evil shit anyway.
Yup I think it probably had a lot to do with it. Seems the GOP took the same track as they did in 2003, let everyone protest until they’re exhausted and just do your evil shit anyway.
most governments do this, see piñera in chile
this is why protesting by itself is not the way to force their hand, it's a show of strength at most, even if you start breaking shit
to be forceful it needs to be followed by shit like striking, blocking roads/main streets, etc, and libs will never do that
The NYC one dissolved because after trying to bring Black women's orgs into them, info came out tying some of their leadership to Farrakhan, and then the existing white leadership didn't want to associate with those groups, etc. Etc., and the marches just fizzled (my memory is probably a little fuzzy on the details).
Farrakhan? Yeah. He's a weirdo. Nation of Islam is his joint, and he's pretty famously anti-Semitic. Now, some of the women's groups pointed out that they felt he was still due some respect from his earlier activism, when he was one of the few Black leaders with neighborhood ties who was doing street level work with his organization, but (IMO) he's long descended into crankdom. Plus, white women demanding Black women denounce a Black man is a fraught subject.
I remember there was drama about it being mostly white women in the first place and very little POC representation in leadership and such and how white women overwhelmingly voted Trump in the first place (something like 90% of em). And also the whole pussy hat thing and a lot of signs referencing uteruses and such that were criticized for excluding trans women.
Nvm apparently the statistic was misleading, I just looked it up. But at the time it was used to imply that WW were being insincere and weren't actual allies and stuff.
I’d be interested in reading about how the Democratic Party and the media cut the balls off the libs following the women’s march and airport protests. The first year of the trump presidency was marked by liberals becoming increasingly active in protesting, and after that first women’s march and the airport protest something happened where it just didn’t happen again with the same intensity.
The subsequent women's marches dissolved into woke idpol fights. The airport protests were around a discrete event, and considered "successful" at the time. But honestly I think outrage fatigue killed more actions like that.
Yup I think it probably had a lot to do with it. Seems the GOP took the same track as they did in 2003, let everyone protest until they’re exhausted and just do your evil shit anyway.
most governments do this, see piñera in chile
this is why protesting by itself is not the way to force their hand, it's a show of strength at most, even if you start breaking shit
to be forceful it needs to be followed by shit like striking, blocking roads/main streets, etc, and libs will never do that
Throwing your body into the gears of capital
Tell me more about it
The NYC one dissolved because after trying to bring Black women's orgs into them, info came out tying some of their leadership to Farrakhan, and then the existing white leadership didn't want to associate with those groups, etc. Etc., and the marches just fizzled (my memory is probably a little fuzzy on the details).
Is it bad whatever that is?
Farrakhan? Yeah. He's a weirdo. Nation of Islam is his joint, and he's pretty famously anti-Semitic. Now, some of the women's groups pointed out that they felt he was still due some respect from his earlier activism, when he was one of the few Black leaders with neighborhood ties who was doing street level work with his organization, but (IMO) he's long descended into crankdom. Plus, white women demanding Black women denounce a Black man is a fraught subject.
And they still did it and were endorsed by 9 separate rabbis, And it still wasn't enough to prevent schism by chuddy folks
https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/On-Womens-March-Sarsour-rejects-Farrakhans-antisemitism-defends-BDS-578056
Basically like black chuds
He was the head of the Nation of Islam, and a huge anti Semite.
I remember there was drama about it being mostly white women in the first place and very little POC representation in leadership and such and how white women overwhelmingly voted Trump in the first place (something like 90% of em). And also the whole pussy hat thing and a lot of signs referencing uteruses and such that were criticized for excluding trans women.
deleted by creator
I confused a different statistic that I saw at the time, the actual statistic was 53% per a search. And even that is apparently disputed.
What with the pussy hat?
deleted by creator
Oooooohhhh riiiight the pussy hat cuz it's like cat ears but pussy power or some shit like that.
They should have used "Kill Them All" as rally cry.
It's a reference to pussies i.e. vulvas/vaginas which trans women don't always have
90% of wh*te women voted Trump? WHAT
Nvm apparently the statistic was misleading, I just looked it up. But at the time it was used to imply that WW were being insincere and weren't actual allies and stuff.