1st Women's March January 21, 2017. 3rd Women's March January 19, 2019

PJPOWER · January 2017

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.

They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.

cottagesteeze · January 2017

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.

Let's just label it a different way: The march was not for anti-choice people. Boom.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.

well of course. the march was for a woman to be in control of her own body/choices. pro lifers want that taken away.

add to that we have a sexual predator as POTUS. hence all the pink p**** hats.

tbergs · January 2017

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.

That, I could see. It definitely could have been a key issue that some could not reconcile to involve themselves in the march. Does anyone ever truly identify/agree with every single platform piece a group, organization, political party, etc. sets as their key stances? No, unless one point of view is inherently by nature wrong on every level no matter the circumstance (i.e. sexual assault, child abuse, etc.). Ultimately each person will have to choose if they agree with the group as a whole because the overall actions and message is one that promotes a better way of life for all people. If a pro-life person felt like they would be compromising their stance by being involved in a march that aims to keep choice in the hands of each individual, then that is the issue they have chosen as the cornerstone for their involvement in any future movements. There are people who solely vote for a candidate based on their abortion stance because of this type of belief. I don't think this is a topic you will persuade someone to think otherwise.

PJPOWER · January 2017

cottagesteeze said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.
Let's just label it a different way: The march was not for anti-choice people. Boom.

Exactly...I guess it just had a bad name. I would rather see a women's rights movement that invites all women with all stances in an act of feministic solidarity. It's unfortunate that this was not that. Might have had even larger if a turnout/message being sent.

unsung · January 2017

tbergs said:

Cliffy6745 said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/

https://twitter.com/MartinBelam/status/823637000783798272
And look at how proud all of those traditional valued white men are for this great moment. It's pathetic. Basically what it equates to is; if a man ejaculates in you it's his right to say whether you get to carry his child. So sick. None of this prevents abortions from happening, it just makes them more dangerous and unsafe.

I don't think that at all. I just don't want to subsidize it.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Cliffy6745 said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/

https://twitter.com/MartinBelam/status/823637000783798272
And look at how proud all of those traditional valued white men are for this great moment. It's pathetic. Basically what it equates to is; if a man ejaculates in you it's his right to say whether you get to carry his child. So sick. None of this prevents abortions from happening, it just makes them more dangerous and unsafe.
I don't think that at all. I just don't want to subsidize it.

it is a known fact that fewer abortions occur when planned parenthood and other agencies are there to do their job. and of those abortions, they are done safely. without those agencies, abortions go up, and maternal deaths here and around the world increase exponentially.

unsung · January 2017

Well I have a issue with subsidizing foreign women, I didn't even know that was happening. But I'd end all foreign aid.

Ms. Haiku · January 2017

This march was created in response to the November elections. Obviously, many people throughout the world are concerned about how the US will act with Trump as President. Pictures from many sister marches are available as well as Myanmar (solidarity picnic as they are not allowed to march), Kenya, Oslo, Malawi, and many more.

When I marched I marched for women's rights, but women's rights are human rights. A man at the march started a cheer to support Black Lives Matter. It made sense for me to chant with him. There was a chant by a man for the US to welcome immigrants. It made sense for me to chant with him as well. Anyone who chanted to support a person's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I chanted with them as that is supporting human rights and US basic rights.

I attended a teach-in the day before. The panelists noted that a women’s rights march comes from many different angles as there are millions of women.

I acknowledge that this exercise of the first amendment rights could reflect different goals of the participants, but with the same expression of citizen engagement most likely to support women's rights.

jeffbr · January 2017

Liberalize laws, fund planned parenthood, roe v wade, trust women with reproductive decisions and look what happens. Oh the horror!

Go Beavers · January 2017

PJPOWER said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.
Let's just label it a different way: The march was not for anti-choice people. Boom.
Exactly...I guess it just had a bad name. I would rather see a women's rights movement that invites all women with all stances in an act of feministic solidarity. It's unfortunate that this was not that. Might have had even larger if a turnout/message being sent.

I saw the march as absolutely an act of solidarity. You seemed focused on the new conservative trend: trying to use bad logic in an attempt to catch liberals being hypocritical, but then failing, rather than focus on what's going on with trump and his administration.

mfc2006 · January 2017

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.
Let's just label it a different way: The march was not for anti-choice people. Boom.
Exactly...I guess it just had a bad name. I would rather see a women's rights movement that invites all women with all stances in an act of feministic solidarity. It's unfortunate that this was not that. Might have had even larger if a turnout/message being sent.
I saw the march as absolutely an act of solidarity.

So did I and I was proud to walk with my wife and around 75-100K* others that felt the same way.

*note: numbers are not exact as the parks department didn't track actual numbers. period.

Enkidu · January 2017

Ms. Haiku said:
This march was created in response to the November elections. Obviously, many people throughout the world are concerned about how the US will act with Trump as President. Pictures from many sister marches are available as well as Myanmar (solidarity picnic as they are not allowed to march), Kenya, Oslo, Malawi, and many more.

When I marched I marched for women's rights, but women's rights are human rights. A man at the march started a cheer to support Black Lives Matter. It made sense for me to chant with him. There was a chant by a man for the US to welcome immigrants. It made sense for me to chant with him as well. Anyone who chanted to support a person's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I chanted with them as that is supporting human rights and US basic rights.

I attended a teach-in the day before. The panelists noted that a women’s rights march comes from many different angles as there are millions of women.

I acknowledge that this exercise of the first amendment rights could reflect different goals of the participants, but with the same expression of citizen engagement most likely to support women's rights.

Thank you, Ms. Haiku. You said that much better than I could have.

josevolution · January 2017

It's weird how the ones here who are bewildered by this march are Men as if you guys have any say in any matters that concern a women's own body !

PJPOWER · January 2017

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.
Let's just label it a different way: The march was not for anti-choice people. Boom.
Exactly...I guess it just had a bad name. I would rather see a women's rights movement that invites all women with all stances in an act of feministic solidarity. It's unfortunate that this was not that. Might have had even larger if a turnout/message being sent.
I saw the march as absolutely an act of solidarity. You seemed focused on the new conservative trend: trying to use bad logic in an attempt to catch liberals being hypocritical, but then failing, rather than focus on what's going on with trump and his administration.

An act of solidarity for women that are pro choice and do not vote republican not an act of solidarity for all women. How would this be any different than a pro-life group of women starting a "Women's Rights" march and saying "but if you are okay with abortions you are not invited". Way to generalize conservatives and also women for that matter...I thought you were above that nonsense.

cottagesteeze · January 2017

josevolution said:
It's weird how the ones here who are bewildered by this march are Men as if you guys have any say in any matters that concern a women's own body !

It seems to be those same men that act as if there were no men in the marches either..

josevolution · January 2017

cottagesteeze said:

josevolution said:
It's weird how the ones here who are bewildered by this march are Men as if you guys have any say in any matters that concern a women's own body !
It seems to be those same men that act as if there were no men in the marches either..

Exactly !

josevolution · January 2017

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.
Let's just label it a different way: The march was not for anti-choice people. Boom.
Exactly...I guess it just had a bad name. I would rather see a women's rights movement that invites all women with all stances in an act of feministic solidarity. It's unfortunate that this was not that. Might have had even larger if a turnout/message being sent.
I saw the march as absolutely an act of solidarity. You seemed focused on the new conservative trend: trying to use bad logic in an attempt to catch liberals being hypocritical, but then failing, rather than focus on what's going on with trump and his administration.
An act of solidarity for women that are pro choice and do not vote republican not an act of solidarity for all women. How would this be any different than a pro-life group of women starting a "Women's Rights" march and saying "but if you are okay with abortions you are not invited". Way to generalize conservatives and also women for that matter...I thought you were above that nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that you are bothered by the fact that over 1million again let me say 1million people not just women , families marched ...
Against Bafoon against Bafoon policy and no one is marching on your behalf !

Go Beavers · January 2017

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

jeffbr said:

PJPOWER said:
So was this a woman's march or a pro-abortion march? I know many woman that believe abortion is morally wrong. Just seeking clarification... I'm all for women marching in support of anti-materialization and what not...I'm not in support of a pro-abortion march being sold as a women's rights march... seems a little oppressive those women that morally object to abortions...
They're marching in support of women making reproductive decisions for themselves rather than having old men make those decisions for them. Freedom and self-determination. And that wasn't the only reason they marched. That was just one aspect that you are focused on. Here is the list: https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
So it was not a "Women's Rights" march...it was a "pro-choice" march hidden behind a "woman's rights" flag. Why were women that are pro life, yet against the sexual objectification of women turned away??? Is that not just objectification in a different form? Seems like the statement to a large portion was "if you are pro life, you are not invited to the women's club".
Point to me where they were turned away?
Here is a good write up of the point I'm trying to convey.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12471/womens-march-washington-excludes-pro-life-hank-berrien
That article is from before the march and is addressing that they didn't allow an organization to be a partner because they were pro-life. Considering they were focused on women having a right to choose as part of their platform, they wouldn't have a group pro-life sponsoring them. Pretty sure the American Cancer Society doesn't allow big tobacco to sponsor or partner in events, but they won't turn away those in that group if they show up to an event. Big difference. No marchers were turned away for their beliefs.
They may not have been physically turned away, but most definitely was a tone that the march was not for pro-life women.
Let's just label it a different way: The march was not for anti-choice people. Boom.
Exactly...I guess it just had a bad name. I would rather see a women's rights movement that invites all women with all stances in an act of feministic solidarity. It's unfortunate that this was not that. Might have had even larger if a turnout/message being sent.
I saw the march as absolutely an act of solidarity. You seemed focused on the new conservative trend: trying to use bad logic in an attempt to catch liberals being hypocritical, but then failing, rather than focus on what's going on with trump and his administration.
An act of solidarity for women that are pro choice and do not vote republican not an act of solidarity for all women. How would this be any different than a pro-life group of women starting a "Women's Rights" march and saying "but if you are okay with abortions you are not invited". Way to generalize conservatives and also women for that matter...I thought you were above that nonsense.

I'm not generalizing anyone. I'm not sure where you're getting that. I believe anyone who wanted to could've gone to the march. You're really having an hard time moving on from this.

curmudgeoness · January 2017

No, it was not a "pro-abortion" march -- or a pro-choice march. Planned Parenthood was a sponsor, yes. So was the ACLU. So was 350.org.

Yes, there were plenty of pro-choice women (I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion;" I wonder if that term ever is used by a woman who has been pregnant). But women's issues go well beyond the right to choose. Many of us were spurred into action by the "pussy grabbing" tape. On a fundamental level, we would like to be treated as fully-realized humans, not as objects or property. We would like equal pay for equal work. We would like to be judged on our achievements, not on our appearance. But marchers around me carried signs for the BLM movement, environmental issues, concern about Russia's role in the election, and LGBTQ+ rights. My computer now sports a "Make America Gay Again" sticker courtesy of another marcher.

The key word here is "intersectionality." People were united by their collective concerns about how policies implemented by the new administration might affect them, their loved ones, and the planet.

And, yes, I read stories about how pro-life feminists felt unwelcome at the march. I would like to think that we all can respect the fact that being pro-life is a choice in itself. If Planned Parenthood leaders told pro-life groups that they were not welcome, I feel that was the wrong decision to make.

But abortion is such a hot-button issue that it obfuscates or diverts attention from the more general issue of a woman's right to have access to healthcare and to have autonomous control of her own body. Planned Parenthood offers a lot more than abortions. However you feel about abortion, making it the focus of one's energy and attention instead of, oh, making sure that everyone has access to basic healthcare, sex education, and contraceptives, thereby lowering the number of unplanned and high-risk pregnancies, just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to eliminate abortions, why not work to eliminate the need for them?

1st Women's March January 21, 2017. 3rd Women's March January 19, 2019

Comments

Categories