[BRAH]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BRAH BRAH:

The Women's March was a great success.

It was a great success. Almost everywhere they got way more people than they were expecting. I marched in Vancouver. Great vibe.

Women in Saudia Arabia and other countries have no rights and is Malala Yousafzai is fighting for Women's rights around the World not Elitist Celebrity Snowflakes.

[Zipperfish]

BRAH BRAH:

Women in Saudia Arabia and other countries have no rights and is Malala Yousafzai is fighting for Women's rights around the World not Elitist Celebrity Snowflakes.

We're all elites here, Brah. You are unimaginably wealthy compared to most of the world's population. I marched for women here, in Vancouver. I wish all the best for women in Saudi Arabia, and for women in the US, but my focus is on making it better for my daughter, my partner, my family and my friends.

[BRAH]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BRAH BRAH:

Women in Saudia Arabia and other countries have no rights and is Malala Yousafzai is fighting for Women's rights around the World not Elitist Celebrity Snowflakes.

We're all elites here, Brah. You are unimaginably wealthy compared to most of the world's population. I marched for women here, in Vancouver. I wish all the best for women in Saudi Arabia, and for women in the US, but my focus is on making it better for my daughter, my partner, my family and my friends.

We're all elites?
Your daughter has a better life and will have a better future than most Women do in the rest of the World. The sad truth is today in 2017 young Women look at celebrities like Kim Kardashian as role models when they should be looking at Women like Malala Yousafzai.

[N_Fiddledog]

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as “a grassroots effort” with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.”

It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.

As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making white women feel unwelcome, nixing women who oppose abortion and hijacking the agenda.

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, a march “partner,” told me his organization was “nonpartisan” but has “many concerns about the incoming Trump administration that include what we see as a misogynist approach to women.” Nick Fish, national program director of the American Atheists, another march partner, told me, “This is not a ‘partisan’ event.” Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, another march “partner,” returned my call and said, “This is not a partisan march.”

Really? UniteWomen.org, another partner, features videos with the hashtags #ImWithHer, #DemsInPhily and #ThanksObama. Following the money, I pored through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.

On the issues I care about as a Muslim, the “Women’s March,” unfortunately, has taken a stand on the side of partisan politics that has obfuscated the issues of Islamic extremism over the eight years of the Obama administration. “Women’s March” partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only deflected on issues of Islamic extremism post-9/11, but opposes Muslim reforms that would allow women to be prayer leaders and pray in the front of mosques, without wearing headscarves as symbols of chastity. Partners also include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which wrongly designated Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, an “anti-Muslim extremist” in a biased report released before the election. The SPLC confirmed to me that Soros funded its “anti-Muslim extremists” report targeting Nawaz. (Ironically, CAIR also opposes abortions, but its leader still has a key speaking role.)

Another Soros grantee and march “partner” is the Arab-American Association of New York, whose executive director, Linda Sarsour, is a march co-chair. When I co-wrote a piece, arguing that Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves as a symbol of “modesty,” she attacked the coauthor and me as “fringe.”

Earlier, at least 33 of the 100 “women of color,” who initially protested the Trump election in street protests, worked at organizations that receive Soros funding, in part for “black-brown” activism. Of course, Soros is an “ideological philanthropist,” whose interests align with many of these groups, but he is also a significant political donor. In Davos, he told reporters that Trump is a “would-be dictator.”

A spokeswoman for Soros’s Open Society Foundations, said in a statement, “There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports.” She added, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The left’s fierce identity politics and its failure on Islamic extremism lost my vote this past election, and so, as the dawn’s first light breaks through the darkness of the morning as I write, I make my decision: I’ll lace up my pink Nikes and head to the inauguration, skipping the “Women’s March” that doesn’t have a place for women like me.

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninthewo ... ashington/

[N_Fiddledog]

So what was it all about then?

What were they hoping to accomplish for women?



In Germany they were chanting Allah Akbar for women.

https://twitter.com/V_of_Europe/status/ ... 57/video/1

What were they hoping to achieve for women

Why was it the only societies protesting for equal rights for women were the ones that already had them?

I think it's kind of like lawfare. The process is the punishment. Societal chaos is the only real goal.

[Zipperfish]

BRAH BRAH:

We're all elites?

You are probably top two percent, if you are in Canada and can afford an internet connection and the leisure time to post here.

$1:

Your daughter has a better life and will have a better future than most Women do in the rest of the World. The sad truth is today in 2017 young Women look at celebrities like Kim Kardashian as role models when they should be looking at Women like Malala Yousafzai.

Couldn't agree more.

[BRAH]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BRAH BRAH:

We're all elites?

You are probably top two percent, if you are in Canada and can afford an internet connection and the leisure time to post here.

That's a valid point and why Facebook, Google's efforts to supply areas of the World free internet connections is a worthy effort.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BRAH BRAH:

Your daughter has a better life and will have a better future than most Women do in the rest of the World. The sad truth is today in 2017 young Women look at celebrities like Kim Kardashian as role models when they should be looking at Women like Malala Yousafzai.

Couldn't agree more.

[N_Fiddledog]

Glad they put some thought into why they were there though.

[herbie]

Enough. I call your cards
WHAT THE FUCK DID SAUDI ARABIA HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
The marches weren't about other countries.
Same fucking deflection the rednecks always give. Dismiss an environmental argument if dome by someone who's fat, drives a car or earns money promoting the environment.
Dismiss women protesting Trump's assholiness unless you protest every women's issue everywhere in the world.

Instant dismissal of any subject they don't want to think about. Same assholiness leading to attitudes like "don't believe climate claims, so we'll increase coal use just to show those fuckers who do."

[N_Fiddledog]

That was it? Women who don't like the new president? That was the only issue?

So what then?



What was all the dressing up like vaginas about though? That was curious.

[andyt]

What a good boy he is.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Glad they put some thought into why they were there though.

That refers to sales tax - mens items like razors, rogaine, etc are tax exempt but womens' toiletries and tampons etc aren't.

Why do you think that is Fiddle? If there's no 'patriarchy'?

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

That refers to sales tax - mens items like razors, rogaine, etc are tax exempt but womens' toiletries and tampons etc aren't.

Why do you think that is Fiddle? If there's no 'patriarchy'?

I think it's interesting.

Honestly, I didn't know about that one. It is kind of fascinating.

Apparently these tax exemptions are state laws. In Canada we were able to adjust the tax laws federally so that tampons are tax exempt. In America it seems to be a slower patchwork process.

$1:

When it comes to sales taxes on purchases, states typically set the rules.

Seven states currently exempt tampons, menstrual cups and pads from taxation, the latest of which came into effect Jan. 1, 2017 (Illinois), said sales tax consultant Diane Yetter. Washington D.C.’s exemption, passed in December 2016, is pending congressional approval, and Connecticut's will kick in July 1, 2018.

Five states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon) have no sales tax at all. So, as of Jan. 22, 2017, 38 states and D.C. tax feminine hygiene products.

Because it is a prescription drug, Viagra, an erectile dysfunction medicine, isn’t taxed in any state except Illinois.

Rogaine, a product for hair loss, is exempt from taxes in eight states because it is an over-the-counter treatment and doesn’t require a prescription. (Four states have qualified exemptions for nonprescription that Rogaine does not appear to qualify for.)

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... gaine-not/

But in general, and unlike the wage gap lie, sex selective pricing does seem to be a legitimate issue. I base this solely on just walking around looking at the prices of things. I see women buying men's jeans. They used to say this was because they liked the fit. Now I don't know. Maybe men's jeans are cheaper. Maybe it's a little of both - fit and price.

I don't know why some women's stuff might be more expensive. Perhaps there is a historical mindset thing where women's items are sometimes thought of as specialty items and priced as such. Perhaps in some cases there are added costs like advertising. I don't know.

I know this. Reading around I saw a case where a pink scooter was double the price of a red one. If I was buying for a daughter she'd get a red scooter.

Also I know that protester came to brandish her sign in a place where this is happening -

$1:

Washington D.C.’s [tampon tax] exemption, passed in December 2016, is pending congressional approval

[N_Fiddledog]