There was a pussy march on Washington (their words), marching down the street chanting, “we’re here, we fear, and we can’t get over it”. Really it was about two things: the hate of the leadership, and the gullibility (fear) of the followers. The leaders convinces the rubes that Trump was the new Hitler, he was going to create death camps for minorities, he was going to take away abortion, he was going to institute racism, and so on. When you can't argue reasonably, you need to convince people to think with their emotions.
|The pussy protest was a march of bigots: the stupid or the evil. The leadership and the media screamed how Trump was going to round up Women, Gays and Minorities, with symbolism such as Hitler, Handmaidens tale, and so on. They got millions of gullible rubes to dress as vaginas, or just act like intolerant cunts, and protest... far-left hate hags having apoplexy over not getting their way in election.||Trump of course has done none of the things they promised. He's actually fairly moderate. The protestors on the other hand were lead by anti-semites, and intolerant bigots that prevented pro-life women from marching, blocked conservative groups, and were protesting over losing an election: the wanted to end democracy because they didn't get their way. They used the tool of blatant hypocrisy to convince those paying attention that they were role models: for how not to.|
This event can best be described as cognitive dissonance (the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes).
March of the Hypocrites
My problem with it was it was presented as an inclusive march to protect women’s rights and diversity, love and tolerance. But you parse that, it was none of the things it claimed to be, it was a walking-talking contradiction between what the words mean, and what the actions did or stood for. Here’s just a few:
|(1) Follow the money: who paid for it and why? - That’s always a hint as to the true agenda. It sprang from (or at least was inspired by) pantsuit nation activists (a Hillary group enraged by her loss), and funded by George Soros (anti-liberty divisive progressive), and the organizers like Linda Sarsour had ties to all the normal anti-American and anti-liberty places like Hamas. . So the point is it was either a march for far left, anti-semitic intolerance and Sharia law supporters, or it was the march of the lemmings who didn't know who sponsored the event and what the agenda was really about.|
|(2) Voice of women - Let’s drop the presence. Start with the fact that they are billing this event as "the voice of women" when 42 percent of women (and 62 percent of non-college educated white women) actually voted for Trump. This was never about Women, but about the agenda of the far left sponsors, scaring Women into thinking Trump was going to take away their abortions, and put them in chains. Anyone with a shred of integrity will admit it was an anti-Trump bash-fest wrapped in faux feminism. Those that can't admit that, should be dismissed as kooks and loons. Look at their headliners, and what they talked about (it wasn't Women's issues, it was bashing Trump and his supporters):
Does that look like "Love and Tolerance" to you? If it does, you might be a Democrat extremist.
|(3) Multicultural? - If multi-cultural means whiter than the Tea Party. then sure. 
|(4) Women’s rights - Their mission included statements that it was about Women’s rights. But “Women’s rights” meant "Healthcare for all” —which isn’t a right at all, it’s a progressive agenda. If healthcare was a right, it would require enslaving caregivers (many of which are Women) and demand their services for free, or enslave others to pay for it. You don’t have a right to enslave others, or not pay them for their work, or force others to pay for you -- that's not what a right means.|
|(5) Reproductive rights - Nobody is trying to ban women’s rights to reproduce, so what’s “reproductive rights?” That is code for other progressive agendas including Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood —which are’t “rights”, they are positions or agendas.
For more cognitive dissonance (hypocrisy), the left claims Planned Parenthood isn’t an abortion mill and it is NOT most of what they do. But if you remove funding for those abortions, they scream, "OMG you’re trying to destroy Planned Parenthood". Margaret Sanger’s eugenics dream of killing all the brown babies on the public's dime is what Planned Parenthood has always been about.
|(6) Pro-lifers need not apply - The Pussy-March's promotional video showed a pregnant mom pointing to her belly and saying “her life matters”... but they didn’t mean it. Pro-lifers were banned from being included in the event, and they responded that the march obviously was not about celebrating women (or advocating women’s rights at all), instead, it was organized only to push progressive values — including abortion. (Duh!). A quote I’ve heard is "Progressivism is an ideology that holds it to be an egregious wrong to refer disparagingly to women, but considers it completely acceptable to kill them and their children with drone rockets or abortionists cannula”. Organizers want to claim their events are non-partisan/political, and then take strong positions like pro-choice. Just own your actions.|
|(7) Flag Hijab - Their symbolism was things like making a hijab made out of an American flag (to show they supported Muslims). Don’t they understand the basics that the flag is supposed to be a symbol of freedom, and the Hijab is a symbol of oppression, modesty and restrictions. In Iran, they used to protest being forced to wear the Hijab, before they were beaten into submission. Probably without being bright enough to recognize it, this flag-hijab is a slur to Americans that value religious liberty and women’s rights, or worse, they were useful idiots to their Hamas sponsor/organizers who wanted to dupe the tools into supporting oppression, while thinking they stood for liberty. If a woman wore that in many Muslim countries (or didn’t wear the Hijab or worse), they’d be put to death. So combining them is what? Sending the message, "let's treat our women with the same respect they get in Saudi Arabia”? Stupid messaging.|
|(8) Pussy Hat - Another symbols was a pink floppy knit hat, meant to be the shape of a uterus, called the "pussy hat". Nothing says "take me seriously” and stop objectify women by their lady-parts, like a floppy uterus “pussy" hat. Or 1,000 signs with offensive NSFW slogans, pictures of vaginas with teeth, and chants for the kids and TV viewers —with uteruses flipping people the bird, dumb signs like the following:
|(9) Hate and fear - Their messaging wasn't about love, it was about things like:
|(10) LGBT rights - Some people have mentioned the defense of LGBT rights as a motivation for the protests. How stupid are they?
|(11) How did they treat people that didn’t attend (or wrote about it)? - Not so great in both their condescension about people that didn’t feel the need to attend, or if you read the comments to those that made any posts/articles that weren’t 100% positive about attending. Some women wrote why they weren’t going, and they were of course attacked (verbally), condescended to, and criticized by their betters. I had posted some of the points about I wasn’t impressed by some of the hypocrisy in the messages (that while I supported a day of venting, just not misrepresenting it as a day of love/tolerance), and for that, I was attacked as trying to belittle them by mansplaining the contradictions they refused to acknowledge existed. As usual with leftist movements, they are about tolerance —but if you disagree with their redefinitions, they’ll lecture, malign, belittle, bully and harass you, in the name of tolerance. |
Why ask why?
So again, my problem isn’t with the event, it’s with the lie about what the event was about.
|I kept asking people why they went? - And they’d start with the party line above, because “Women”. Eventually, if I pushed them enough (about the contradictions mentioned above), you might piss many off, but way too few could intellectualize it enough to get to real answer: sometimes people just need to vent/rant when they’re angry. Great! There are a few honest ones. I’m totally fine with that…. if it was sold honestly as, “Come to the Angry White Women rage walk”. I have no problems with primal scream therapy for the snowflakes that can’t accept that you can't always get what you want. Just be honest about it. We know that “Women” was just a leftist costume to allow them attack anyone who questioned them for being a misogynist. That dishonesty is the problem, not that they had a rally (or even if they got nasty/corrosive in it).
When I tried to get them to see that using analogies, “what if an alt-right rally sold themselves as being an all inclusive love-fest, while calling for Elizabeth Warren to be bombed in her home?”, it didn’t get the desired effect of introspection, honesty or consideration. I just got angry rationalizations back about how much better they were than the other side. So I was reminded that economic vampires can't see their own reflections and empathy was beyond their grasp. 
|I kept asking people what they hoped to accomplish? - My thinking is that when you do something like this, than they should have an objective. You know, start a grass-roots movement, like the tea party? Gain momentum for the next election for their causes? Persuade the public or the politicians to support them? Something? But it was all about creating a movement, to do something they couldn’t define, or all defined differently.
I tried to lead them to the point. “This was a success in blue cities and blue states, which has zero impact on 2018 or 2020 elections. You don’t need more democrats in states you already carried, you need to convince the moderates/conservatives in places you didn’t carry". The whole attracting flies with Honey vs. Vinegar thing got me nowhere. I was told that question was belittling. So I asked, isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about belittling a movement, when the purpose of that movement was to belittle a everyone that disagreed with them? And slam went their minds into full rage mode.
I was trying to help them understand that if you wanted to build a movement, or get a snowball rolling, it had to be about something people cared about, and made non-extremist activist want to join. The protests got smaller and smaller over time, showing they were unable to attract the reasonable.
What did they actually accomplish?
Very little, beyond cathartic screaming an like-minded haters seeing that they’re not alone in their anger. 
If they were trying to start a movement, they didn’t. To do that, you have to either change society by getting them to your side (persuasion: not abrasion), or tap into cultural shifts that are already happening. The protests did neither.
When a culture isn't already ready for change, then movements fizzle out and die off, or worse, they cause backlash against the out-of-touch protestors themselves.
One of the key differences is the left sees protests backwards. Instead of trying to unite people to their cause, the protestors think protests (and agreement amongst themselves) causes change. But their history is as backwards as their philosophy. Historically, protests either reflected changes in society, or they didn’t go anywhere. MLK followed the 1957 civil rights movement, he didn’t lead it. The Vietnam protests followed long after people were asking why we were going in (and Johnson put his penis on the desk, and said, “that’s why”). And still the war went on for 20 years. Activists didn’t lead, they followed (reflect society), or they are ignored or imprisoned.
This women’s movement is the opposite: these counter-protests are just raging against cultural shifts that are happening the other way -- away from the progressive failures of Obamanomics, safe spaces on college campuses, against the identity politics of the feminazi’s and the political correctness that these very protests represent. Trump was empowered because the media and left took political correctness to absurd levels, and Trump was that backlash. So their solution was to not learn from their mistakes, and push harder?
The other flaw, was they had no focus and conflicting messages. They didn’t want to admit it was a progressive rally, so they didn’t have a clear message: just nasty ranting. How can a movement snowball, when they can’t even define it?
And the last flaw was you need to be likable. Abrasive progressives can enjoy a mean-girl-clique’s cultish hatefest — but moderates were more mortified than persuaded. Who (outside of far-left progressives) wants to be associated with vagina posters and pussy hats, or nasty bitches like Judd, Moore and Madonna? Having a tantrum before Trump has done anything bad isn’t building a bridge, it’s blowing one up. And anyone reasonable could see through the hypocrisy, its’ about tolerance (except for fucking Republicans), it's about women (except for fucking pro-lifers), it's about liberty (now pay for my damn pet causes or else), it was about love and inclusion (now let’s listen to hate-speakers insult Trump and his supporters for putting him in charge of the country). You have to be pretty out-of-touch to think those messages will resonate with good people.
Thus while I knew many sincere (and otherwise intelligent) people that attended, because they wanted to be energized by their cult’s pep-rally (and belong to something). and scare each other with boogeyman stories around the campfire.
What they miss, is that they immunized Trump against their histrionics, and burned all their political capital (attention) on day-one. (The public tires quickly of protests over nothing. So they’re more likely to sleep through the next one, unless you can really up the excitement). They cried wolf and set expectations so that Trump can’t lose. If Trump doesn’t immediately start passing laws to covert Women back into chattel and outlaw birth control, then he will have exceeded expectations. And if he does, oh well, it was expected — and it will take a bigger protest than this one to be newsworthy (or they lose momentum). So I’m flustered at how dumb they were to empower Trump by trying to disempower him before he had done anything.
I don't begrudge them their day of rage against someone who promotes women to the highest ranks in his company or country, I'd just rather do something more productive with my limited time on this mortal coil. Despite their best intentions, they're were really just fascists in a dress: happy to march in unison to a message that said, “we’re better than them", and scapegoating the other side as being the source of all injustice. Along with the message, "Agree with us, or we'll try to bully you in silence”.
As Charlton Heston once said, "Political Correctness is tyranny with manners”. This group didn't even have good manners.