Pussy Protest

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Issue Lie Truth
Pussy Protest

Cognitive Dissonance

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).

🗒️ NOTE:
First let me give them credit: it wasn’t overtly violent, and there was a lot of people.
  • The people seemed nice and sincere and seemed to just want to get out there, with other like minded progressives, and tell each other lies about how bad Trump was/is (how unfair it all was), and how they all need to protect against imaginary threats over things Trump did/didn’t say, and relive and idealized 60’s throwback (that never happened in real life). Harmless and sincere stuff. Never-mind that the anger of 1% of the population shouldn’t overpower the voice of the other 99%, that’s still the biggest turnout for a temper tantrum since Vietnam. And I completely support their right to get out there, and have non-violent, non-vandalistic, free speech protests, and bitch about things they don’t like.
  • They weren’t as polite and civil as say Tea Party Rally’s were, and they didn’t clean up after themselves. And their messages were infused with intolerance towards intolerance, which is also intolerance. But they were far better than BLM or Occupy Rally’s, or than the tantrums the day before (inauguration): which was a shitshow. So while there were a few exceptions with individual asshats, I completely give the organizers and protesters a pass on the scale of the events, and relative calm and tolerance.
    • The worst examples I found were things like: Frank Luntz was attacked (glitter bombed), one guy running into an asshat on an airplane, they treated pro-life marchers like shit, an Alberta (Rebel media) reporter got attacked (and then protestors covered for the perps escape), and I assume a few other little shitty one-off incidents. But those are outliers. So I’m going to declare they remained the best behaved large scale leftist event that I’ve ever seen.

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. [1]. 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)[2]:
  • America Ferrera kicked off the rally talking about fighting (love/fighting, same thing)
  • Michael Moore accused all the female Trump voters as being female sexists, or victims of self loathing. Then went on to scream about the illegitimacy of a process that the democrats signed on to. (Democrats agree to not contest the vote as long as Trump agreed to do the same. Trump women, and then the Democrats broke their word and contested the vote).
  • Madonna dropped the F-bomb on live TV like 5 times, sang about Trump sucking a dick, and claimed she wanted to blow up the Whitehouse (nothing says love like terrorist threats and slurs)
  • Ashley Judd rambled about her period, tampons, and quoted "I feel Hitler in these streets, a mustache traded for a toupee” (nothing advances a loving conversation like Godwin’s law and comparing those who disagree with you to Hitler) and saying Trump looks like he bathes “in Cheeto dust”, or has wet dreams about sex with his daughter. If you want to contrast to what a real “love trumps hate” speech might sound like, try an MLK speech and contrast it to Judd’s accusations incest fantasies, and you get the idea of how far from the mark they fell.
  • The bomb-throwing extremists Gloria Steinem turned out to be the most serene of the speakers, which says a lot.
  • Not one of the speakers mentioning anything about love and tolerance or inclusion towards those that they disagreed with. I didn’t hear any quotes like that from any of the local versions of the rally’s either (though I must admit, I didn’t get videos of them all). The tone was NOT that of love and tolerance, but of anger towards the administration for not being a far-left progressive intolerant asshat, like the speaker and the audience.

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. [3]
  • Women of color first complained because the organizers first hijacked the name of a famous women of color march (the Million Woman March), then the Facebook page of the event was rife with arguments about whether an event organized primarily by white women (and excluding Women of color organizations) could be sufficiently “intersectional" (attuned to the issues faced by, say, poor minority women who reside at the "intersection" of class, race, and gender concerns in America.”). Their concerns were waved off (so most didn’t attend, and reporters commented on how white it was).
  • In the meantime, Trump is hiring women of color for various roles, and at least one female CEO in India, was impressed enough to take out an ad congratulating him. To which she was attacked for not being as hostile towards Trump as the progressives think she should be.
  • had a few friends say they didn’t go (for a variety of reasons), and they were attacked for being “white privileged” and that’s why they didn’t attend a rally of mostly white privileged women progressives bitching about how unfair the world is, because a President they didn’t like, wanted to give more minorities jobs and opportunities.

(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.
  • I’m pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade is a ruling, and not a good one (legally). Without it, you can still get abortions, just the state decides under what circumstances, instead of the fed. In a few states it might get a bit harder, but most of the protests are in states where absolutely nothing would happen. So those arguing it is the end of abortion in their states, are either idiots or liars.
  • And no one is threatening to eliminate Planned Parenthood, they just don’t want to force people (including Women who disagree with it) to be forced to pay for others abortions against their will (not being forced to pay for things against your will is a civil right).

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.[4]

(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.[5]

(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:[6]
  • "Make them pay for razors like we have to pay for our tampons” (some idiot thinks razors are part of healthcare, but forgets that most public restrooms provide free tampons/pads? [sigh])
  • “I wouldn’t piss on Trump if he was on fire” allusion to discredited Russian conspiracy theory about him being into water-sports.
  • “I dream women will one day have the rights as guns”, sure snowflake, 10 day waiting periods, background investigations before buying one, safety training/tests required before you get one, and much more training/licensing before you can bring one with you? And none allowed within 100’ of a school or government building? Idiots.
  • You could hear chants like "They go low, we go high” juxtaposed with “Fuck Trump” posters on their high road. Yup, class acts, meant to impress the other side with their mild mannered expressions of displeasure towards the crassness of Trump getting caught once saying things far less vulgar.
  • Again, as a day of rage, I’m fine with the messaging, let them vent. But let’s not buy into the pretense that this was anything about love/high road — it was a progressive hate-tantrum / primal rage therapy.

(9) Hate and fear - Their messaging wasn't about love, it was about things like:
  • “I want to feel safe...”. Why don’t you? Oh, because other progressives sold the gullible on the delusion that Trump wants to round them up (without any evidence), to the point where they thought a march for civil rights was a good idea. In the meantime the misogynist Trump is promoting women to the highest roles of his organization and administration.
  • Others who didn’t attend were wondering, why protest now? Why not when Obama was prosecuting whistleblowers, spying on American citizens, killing civilians overseas and starting wars without congressional approval? Aren’t those bigger threats to your safety?
  • “Stopping the objectification of Women” by using Madonna who made a career of it?
  • "Stopping women from getting grabbed!”, would beg the question, “What's worse: defending rapists and attacking the victims of rape (Hillary), or the bragging claims of a guy that he might have grabbed groupies 20 years ago, and they let him?” Their retort was, “Bill wasn’t convicted!”. Well show me Trump’s conviction and you'd have a point. And they’d go full banshee. Which reminds me: never question a cult member about their cult. They are too sincere to bother with thinking. If you asked any of those questions, you weren’t welcome. This guy is much worse, even where he isn’t. Now follow or get out.

(10) LGBT rights - Some people have mentioned the defense of LGBT rights as a motivation for the protests. How stupid are they?[7]
  • Trump is the first President to support gay-marriage from the beginning (Republican or Democrat). Non-Presidents in Republican administrations like Dick Cheney supported gay marriage in 2000, 8 years before Obama was still telling the public how he opposed it, or George Bush supported civil unions (against his party), and attacked anti-gay republicans behind closed doors (criticizing some republicans for “kicking” gays), and GHWB served as an official witness at a gay marriage and said "people should be able to do what they want to do, without discrimination”. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton only flipped into supporting it after the Supreme Court case gave them political cover to do so -- but they ran against it.
  • Trump is the first Republican to invite gay speakers like Peter Thiel at the RNC Convention. And he added him to his transition team.
  • Trump was vetting Richard Grenell to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (the first openly gay man to hold that position), but he chose Nikki Haley instead (Indian-American female for those into identity politics and worried about Women or minority roles from the administration)
  • LGBT community hates Jeff Pence, because he thinks acting on gay desires is a choice, just like it is for heterosexuals. Then they scare themselves with fake news about Trump wiping out the LGBT area of Whitehouse.gov, and go apoplectic that he picked John Gore (lawyer who defended North Carolina's anti-transgender law in court), to run DOJ's Civil Rights Division. But that was a statement about states rights, not LGBT issues (for anyone paying attention).
  • So there’s a lot of histrionics over Trump being the most gay-freindly Republican Presidential candidate ever (though Reagan had lots of gay friends from running the Actors Guild and wanted to do more on AIDS, but the gay-maffia hated him and attacked him at every turn, and demanded he not hijack their agenda).
  • In the meantime, the rally’s genital-based feminism was off-putting to those trans-folks who associate as women, but don’t yet have the missing lady-parts: insensitivity only applies to Republicans.

(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. [8]

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. [9]

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. [10]

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.


📚 References
  1. Follow the money:
  2. Voice of women:
  3. Multicultural:
  4. Pro-lifers need not apply:
  5. Flag Hijab:
  6. Pussy Hat: https://www.pussyhatproject.com/knit/
  7. LGBT:
  8. Treating people who didn't attend:
  9. Why they went:
  10. Why they failed:

Sold as inclusive

Not inclusive: