Women's March: What should my sign say?

[KBecks]

I support people's rights to march.  Trump did not have a terrible first weekend, as stated in the top post on this page.  The inauguration was a massive success from many conservatives' point of view, and now it's time they're getting to business.   This president is going to make a lot of changes, like them or not.   My point is that the protest is fine for feeling good for the protesters but it has no effect at this time that I can see.
I'm glad the protesters had fun and made friends and they will have some good memories of this experience.  That is great. 

[calimom]

I think that many on the right were hoping that one or more of the following would happen:

1. the women's march would get low turnout
2. the protestors would break laws/cause riots

Because these things did not happen, they've had to turn to lesser partisan arguments. The signs were gross/think of the children!/stop whining/omg the trash/the marchers were fat/vagina dentata is cultural appropriation (tbh-this one is my favorite). I take heart that the marches caused Trump distress BECAUSE THE MEDIA REPORTED THEY WERE SO MUCH BIGGER. Because of this, he had a crap first weekend, his inner circle is plotting to get rid of his press secretary, and the first steps towards him being one and done are in place.  We can't stop Trump's agenda for the next two years, but we can do our best to limit the damage by making it politically costly to align with him.  And the way to do this is to emphasize and reemphasize what an idiot conman he is.  His core supporters won't budge, but independents will peel off. How many people do you know who talk proudly about their vote for W?

+1.

This pretty much nails what some of the "gals" here are thinking. They were hoping for a big violent uprising so they could "Tsk Tsk" over all the unruly dirty hippies acting up again, but what they saw was a peaceful march or women and men who love women exercising their rights. And they saw a lot of women who looked like…them. Nice suburban ladies, PTA moms, WalMart employees who just are not going to put up with the status quo. The "gals" conveniently forget, or maybe they never learned much history (or her story, ha!) in the first place because they were poorly educated in selective religious schools or home schooled or whatever. They don't know that a couple of generations ago their kids would have been working in factories, and a generation ago, they would never have been able to have a credit rating or qualified for a mortgage on their own. They would have had to have had baby after baby, possibly with an abusive man they were never allowed to divorce. The list goes on, and they don't like unpleasant facts.

So they lash out about pussy hats and vagina posters. They cry "think of the children!", while clutching their fake pearls from China and fall over on their Scotchguarded sofas. Then they wait for the next missive from the DJT camp to tell them how they are supposed to think.

[RosieTR]

The marches certainly hit their intended target:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-first-days-inside-trumps-white-house-fury-tumult-and-a-reboot/2017/01/23/7ceef1b0-e191-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?postshare=191485222707286&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d18c4a0fb12f

Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition — massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall....Trump grew increasingly and visibly enraged.

As well, a bunch of people were energized and went to go have a chat with their Senator or Congressional Rep. So yeah, it was a rousing success! I was certainly glad I went, and it definitely made me reflect on all the women in my life and in this country and world who stuck their necks out so that I could have the rights I enjoy today. It's not full equality, but I am aware that it used to be very, very different and it's also very different in other parts of the world. So I am at once grateful for my privilege and emboldened to demand more.

[CanuckExpat]

Mike Pence Disappointed In The 200,000 Husbands And Fathers Who Permitted Women To Attend March

Part of me sadly wonders if this article, while satire, isn't close to the administration's response to the march

[calimom]

A few more great signs from Saturday's march:

The Same People Who Thought Obama Was Muslim Think Trump is a Christian

and

Goodnight Obama
Goodnight moon
Goodnight legally unrestricted womb
Goodnight science
Goodnight facts
Goodnight corporate income tax
Goodnight stars
Goodnight air
Goodnight equal rights everywhere

[Metric Mouse]

Another way to have your voice heard is to watch the petitions that are circulating at whitehouse.gov.

Here's one that started right after inauguration to force Trump to release tax returns. It needs 100k signatures and 60 days for a response from Potus.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance

And 3 days later it has 282,504 signatures. Not that there is any chance that Trump will release his returns. There is bound to be something harmful to him there, or he would have released them already.

I just struggle to believe that anything in there is more harmful than the things he says and tweets on an average day.

If it showed he was poor, it would hurt HIS opinion of himself. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Meh. I would not sign a petition or go on a march with the goal of making someone feel bad about themselves because they were poor.

[KBecks]

+1.

This pretty much nails what some of the "gals" here are thinking. They were hoping for a big violent uprising so they could "Tsk Tsk" over all the unruly dirty hippies acting up again, but what they saw was a peaceful march or women and men who love women exercising their rights. And they saw a lot of women who looked like…them. Nice suburban ladies, PTA moms, WalMart employees who just are not going to put up with the status quo. The "gals" conveniently forget, or maybe they never learned much history (or her story, ha!) in the first place because they were poorly educated in selective religious schools or home schooled or whatever. They don't know that a couple of generations ago their kids would have been working in factories, and a generation ago, they would never have been able to have a credit rating or qualified for a mortgage on their own. They would have had to have had baby after baby, possibly with an abusive man they were never allowed to divorce. The list goes on, and they don't like unpleasant facts.

So they lash out about pussy hats and vagina posters. They cry "think of the children!", while clutching their fake pearls from China and fall over on their Scotchguarded sofas. Then they wait for the next missive from the DJT camp to tell them how they are supposed to think.

When you say the gals, you mean the 53% of white women who voted for Trump?   

[Poundwise]

When you say the gals, you mean the 53% of white women who voted for Trump?   

I'm not sure why this number is significant to you. Only 42% of ALL women voters voted for him. 58% voted otherwise.

There are a lot of women who are NOT white. We are people, citizens, and patriots too. I hope you're not implying that we don't count.

[KBecks]

Do you see the characterization of Trump voting women, or women who did not march above? Clutching their pearls?  fainting on their Scotchguarded sofas?

That kind of attitude does not win people over! 

[Poundwise]

Do you see the characterization of Trump voting women, or women who did not march above? Clutching their pearls?  fainting on their Scotchguarded sofas?

That kind of attitude does not win people over!

Yes, but why didn't you just say, "you mean the 42% of women who voted for Trump?"

I really don't get it. Is it because you could then point out that some sort of majority voted for Trump? Or do you feel that there is some sort of racism... that Scotchguard and pearls are well known signifiers of racism, like watermelon and fried chicken?

It would make more sense if you pointed out some percentage of middle class women who voted for Trump... might well be a majority, I don't know. But the "white women" part makes no sense to me.

[KBecks]

It's the last statistic about women voting for Trump that I had heard, and I did not take time to look up the rest of the data.   

And, the stereotyping that was laid out sure sounded like white women, didn't it?  So it fits the conversation.

Of course all voters matter.

[Poundwise]

It's the last statistic about women voting for Trump that I had heard, and I did not take time to look up the rest of the data.   

And, the stereotyping that was laid out sure sounded like white women, didn't it?  So it fits the conversation.

Of course all voters matter.

Thanks for the clarification. It didn't sound like white women to me but here is how two people can hear the same words a different way.

I took it in the following way, as mocking those who pretend prudery and shock:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pearl-clutching

[SisterX]

My dad saw a sign that read:

Washington: I cannot tell a lie.
Nixon: I cannot tell the truth.
Trump: I can't tell the difference.

Sounds about right. Alternate facts, people!

That kind of attitude does not win people over! 

I don't know about others, but I'm done trying to win people like you over. You're going to support this tiny-handed orange buffoon no matter what we say, so why try? Also, if you're going to try to troll people, you can't enact a tragedy of moral outrage when people do the same to you. You knew what this thread was and you came in here to be deliberately inflammatory.

[Malloy]

It's the last statistic about women voting for Trump that I had heard, and I did not take time to look up the rest of the data.   

And, the stereotyping that was laid out sure sounded like white women, didn't it?  So it fits the conversation.

Of course all voters matter.

Actually, calimom was cleverly using signals of being lower middle class, which is perfect in this context.  The scotchguarded sofa and fake pearls are part of a package that go together with a woman who keeps a spotless home and is disgusted by bodily functions as described so tartly in the Jilly Cooper character Jen Teale.  Jen Teale is the avatar of a generic British lower middle class woman, but she's got a lot in common with her American sisters.  American Jen Teale would certainly NEVER wear a pussy hat or carry a vulgar sign and always votes conservative. 



 

[Metric Mouse]

My dad saw a sign that read:

Washington: I cannot tell a lie.
Nixon: I cannot tell the truth.
Trump: I can't tell the difference.

Sounds about right. Alternate facts, people!

That kind of attitude does not win people over! 

I don't know about others, but I'm done trying to win people like you over. You're going to support this tiny-handed orange buffoon no matter what we say, so why try?

Because it might convince more reasonable people? But attacking the president of the United States simply because he looks different than others, or has body parts that are a typically sized is pretty poor form, unhelpful to the people who actually will be negatively affected by his policies, and unlikely to get the majority of humane, reasonable people to take the attackers seriously.

[SisterX]

My dad saw a sign that read:

Washington: I cannot tell a lie.
Nixon: I cannot tell the truth.
Trump: I can't tell the difference.

Sounds about right. Alternate facts, people!

That kind of attitude does not win people over! 

I don't know about others, but I'm done trying to win people like you over. You're going to support this tiny-handed orange buffoon no matter what we say, so why try?

Because it might convince more reasonable people? But attacking the president of the United States simply because he looks different than others, or has body parts that are a typically sized is pretty poor form, unhelpful to the people who actually will be negatively affected by his policies, and unlikely to get the majority of humane, reasonable people to take the attackers seriously.

Oh, I'm fine having conversations with reasonable people. KBecks (and actually, you) have proven yourselves incapable of a higher level of discourse on this matter. You're intractable, trollish, and no amount of reasonable evidence that people present to either of you has swayed you on anything. But hey, go ahead and claim the moral high ground on this.
As for the people who are going to be "negatively affected by his policies", as you cutely put it, I'm saving that work for real life. What would I accomplish online?
Lastly, Trump has attacked women over and over based on their appearance. Throwing the same back at him in an online forum isn't exactly the same, but if that's how he's going to treat women as a group, then I don't really see the problem with giving him the same treatment in return. He's not a 10. Also, mocking someone for their artificial tanning is not quite the same as mocking someone for, say, skin color or a disability. I'll start showing him some respect when he starts respecting other people OR the office he was elected to.

[golden1]

Agreed, Trump is 3 , maybe a 4 at best.  I really would NOT want to grab him by the testicles. 

[KBecks]

Actually, calimom was cleverly using signals of being lower middle class, which is perfect in this context.  The scotchguarded sofa and fake pearls are part of a package that go together with a woman who keeps a spotless home and is disgusted by bodily functions as described so tartly in the Jilly Cooper character Jen Teale.  Jen Teale is the avatar of a generic British lower middle class woman, but she's got a lot in common with her American sisters.  American Jen Teale would certainly NEVER wear a pussy hat or carry a vulgar sign and always votes conservative. 

Well, there's the stereotype then.  :)   

[KBecks]

That kind of attitude does not win people over! 

I don't know about others, but I'm done trying to win people like you over. You're going to support this tiny-handed orange buffoon no matter what we say, so why try?

It's OK we don't have to talk.  I'm not that fond of your postings either. I'm clearly putting too much time into these conversations, which are of course, fruitless, but sometimes interesting, it's kind of fun.  I enjoy reading what people think, even when I don't agree.  It is always interesting to see the diverse opinions and how people react and what angles they put into the conversation. 

Onward.

[Metric Mouse]

Oh, I'm fine having conversations with reasonable people. KBecks (and actually, you) have proven yourselves incapable of a higher level of discourse on this matter. You're intractable, trollish, and no amount of reasonable evidence that people present to either of you has swayed you on anything. But hey, go ahead and claim the moral high ground on this.
As for the people who are going to be "negatively affected by his policies", as you cutely put it, I'm saving that work for real life. What would I accomplish online?
Lastly, Trump has attacked women over and over based on their appearance. Throwing the same back at him in an online forum isn't exactly the same, but if that's how he's going to treat women as a group, then I don't really see the problem with giving him the same treatment in return. He's not a 10. Also, mocking someone for their artificial tanning is not quite the same as mocking someone for, say, skin color or a disability. I'll start showing him some respect when he starts respecting other people OR the office he was elected to.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But you are right; it is very unlikely that my mind will be changed to think that making fun of people for the way they look is acceptable behavior.

[former player]

Oh, I'm fine having conversations with reasonable people. KBecks (and actually, you) have proven yourselves incapable of a higher level of discourse on this matter. You're intractable, trollish, and no amount of reasonable evidence that people present to either of you has swayed you on anything. But hey, go ahead and claim the moral high ground on this.
As for the people who are going to be "negatively affected by his policies", as you cutely put it, I'm saving that work for real life. What would I accomplish online?
Lastly, Trump has attacked women over and over based on their appearance. Throwing the same back at him in an online forum isn't exactly the same, but if that's how he's going to treat women as a group, then I don't really see the problem with giving him the same treatment in return. He's not a 10. Also, mocking someone for their artificial tanning is not quite the same as mocking someone for, say, skin color or a disability. I'll start showing him some respect when he starts respecting other people OR the office he was elected to.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But you are right; it is very unlikely that my mind will be changed to think that making fun of people for the way they look is acceptable behavior.

BIB: What about political cartooning, which relies on ridicule and the exaggeration of physical features.  Is that "unacceptable behaviour"?

[sonjak]

Agreed, Trump is 3 , maybe a 4 at best.  I really would NOT want to grab him by the testicles.

Me either and I think your number scale is being REALLY generous.

[Metric Mouse]

BIB: What about political cartooning, which relies on ridicule and the exaggeration of physical features.  Is that "unacceptable behaviour"?

An excellent question. I respect cartooning as physical art medium, realizing that it can rely upon exaggeration. The difference in political cartooning lies in the message; satire for policies and actions of the subject. While political cartooning may exagerate physical features for comedic effect, the entirety of the piece is usually not "Look at Obama's giant ears, that stupid _____, hur hur hur." While a political cartoon showing Trump holding hands with Putin would have a point, a drawing of Trump simply as a cheeto with small gloves serves little purpose other than to attack the subject and make the drawer feel superior.

[former player]

BIB: What about political cartooning, which relies on ridicule and the exaggeration of physical features.  Is that "unacceptable behaviour"?

An excellent question. I respect cartooning as physical art medium, realizing that it can rely upon exaggeration. The difference in political cartooning lies in the message; satire for policies and actions of the subject. While political cartooning may exagerate physical features for comedic effect, the entirety of the piece is usually not "Look at Obama's giant ears, that stupid _____, hur hur hur." While a political cartoon showing Trump holding hands with Putin would have a point, a drawing of Trump simply as a cheeto with small gloves serves little purpose other than to attack the subject and make the drawer feel superior.

Well, the comment that started the complaint about complaining about Trump's appearance was SisterX calling him "a tiny handed orange buffoon", which you described as "poor form".  I think SisterX was using satire rather the personal abuse, and doing so in order to point up the extremes of support he was getting from KBecks -

1.  Does Trump have tiny hands?  I've no idea.  It's become a "thing" because Trump himself has made it a thing - Obama didn't make a "thing" of his ears.  "Get your tiny hands off my uterus" was one of the Women's March signs: that is the sort of satire that SisterX was referencing in her comment, and it's not about the size of his hands per se, it's using his fixation about the size of his hands to emphasize a political comment.
2.  Is Trump orange?  Pretty accurate statement, but it's not because of race or accident of birth: he deliberately chooses to make himself orange, over and over again.  A man of 70, "leader of the free world" (although I suspect not many people are going to be using that designation seriously after his recent pronouncements) who shows as much care and less taste about his appearance than Kim Kardashian is worth mocking for that. See also: mangomussolini, the Angry Cheeto and Agent Orange.
3.  Buffoon seems entirely accurate to me.  Trump's claim that his uncle was an intellectual doesn't really cut it as a reposte.

[SisterX]

BIB: What about political cartooning, which relies on ridicule and the exaggeration of physical features.  Is that "unacceptable behaviour"?

An excellent question. I respect cartooning as physical art medium, realizing that it can rely upon exaggeration. The difference in political cartooning lies in the message; satire for policies and actions of the subject. While political cartooning may exagerate physical features for comedic effect, the entirety of the piece is usually not "Look at Obama's giant ears, that stupid _____, hur hur hur." While a political cartoon showing Trump holding hands with Putin would have a point, a drawing of Trump simply as a cheeto with small gloves serves little purpose other than to attack the subject and make the drawer feel superior.

Well, the comment that started the complaint about complaining about Trump's appearance was SisterX calling him "a tiny handed orange buffoon", which you described as "poor form".  I think SisterX was using satire rather the personal abuse, and doing so in order to point up the extremes of support he was getting from KBecks -

1.  Does Trump have tiny hands?  I've no idea.  It's become a "thing" because Trump himself has made it a thing - Obama didn't make a "thing" of his ears.  "Get your tiny hands off my uterus" was one of the Women's March signs: that is the sort of satire that SisterX was referencing in her comment, and it's not about the size of his hands per se, it's using his fixation about the size of his hands to emphasize a political comment.
2.  Is Trump orange?  Pretty accurate statement, but it's not because of race or accident of birth: he deliberately chooses to make himself orange, over and over again.  A man of 70, "leader of the free world" (although I suspect not many people are going to be using that designation seriously after his recent pronouncements) who shows as much care and less taste about his appearance than Kim Kardashian is worth mocking for that. See also: mangomussolini, the Angry Cheeto and Agent Orange.
3.  Buffoon seems entirely accurate to me.  Trump's claim that his uncle was an intellectual doesn't really cut it as a reposte.

Not to mention, it's so much easier than typing out that he's a raping, misogynistic, racist, cheating, lying, opportunistic, amoral douche hole. 'Sack of crap' and 'waste of human skin' are good, but they don't quite cover all the things.
Yeah, the tiny hands thing would never have become a thing except that he used it to talk about himself, specifically to defend the size of his dick. It was a comedy show that first brought it up and then he brought it up in the fucking debates. And then it still wouldn't have been a thing except that that's his MO for everything! Someone said something mean? Quick, tweet out a clearly insulted and ridiculous butthurt response! The media is accurately reporting that there were larger crowds at the women's marches than at the inauguration? Nuh-uh!

So, yeah. MetricMouse you're going to get on my case for mocking him? Yes. Clearly you have the moral high ground. It's so much better to spend your time defending a guy who will make fun of others for their appearance and disabilities, remove the rights of millions, and further divides in our society by taking advantage of racism, xenophobia, and economic inequality. You sure showed me!

[Metric Mouse]

So, yeah. MetricMouse you're going to get on my case for mocking him? Yes. Clearly you have the moral high ground. It's so much better to spend your time defending a guy who will make fun of others for their appearance and disabilities, remove the rights of millions, and further divides in our society by taking advantage of racism, xenophobia, and economic inequality. You sure showed me!

Again, I would defend anyone from being attacked based solely upon physical appearance. There are so many things wrong with Trump's actions and policies that I don't know why anyone would stoop to the level to attack him over appearance. If the size of his hands or his hairstyle or skin tone or whatever is the only thing an attacker can come up with to use against their opponent, (and why this would even be discussed, other than that it might be a sensitive subject and thus used to get under their skin) that is pretty poor form, and completely undermines the attacker's standing.

Well, the comment that started the complaint about complaining about Trump's appearance was SisterX calling him "a tiny handed orange buffoon", which you described as "poor form".  I think SisterX was using satire rather the personal abuse, and doing so in order to point up the extremes of support he was getting from KBecks -

1.  Does Trump have tiny hands?  I've no idea.  It's become a "thing" because Trump himself has made it a thing - Obama didn't make a "thing" of his ears.  "Get your tiny hands off my uterus" was one of the Women's March signs: that is the sort of satire that SisterX was referencing in her comment, and it's not about the size of his hands per se, it's using his fixation about the size of his hands to emphasize a political comment.
2.  Is Trump orange?  Pretty accurate statement, but it's not because of race or accident of birth: he deliberately chooses to make himself orange, over and over again.  A man of 70, "leader of the free world" (although I suspect not many people are going to be using that designation seriously after his recent pronouncements) who shows as much care and less taste about his appearance than Kim Kardashian is worth mocking for that. See also: mangomussolini, the Angry Cheeto and Agent Orange.
3.  Buffoon seems entirely accurate to me.  Trump's claim that his uncle was an intellectual doesn't really cut it as a reposte.

The fact that these things may be true (tiny hands, etc) does not mean that commenting derogatorily upon them is satire. "That large-eared African descendent buffoon is not my President." would not be satire about Barack Obama, even though the description would be accurate. "Get your tiny hands off my uterus." could qualify as satire, as it contains a clear comment upon policies or positions, with a bit of humor thrown in.

I just don't see how attacking a person for physical features over which they have no control, and seem to be sensitive about, is helpful to political discourse or helpful in sharing one's concerns about the actions and policies of a powerful political figure. Maybe it's just trolling, and I'm taking the bait.