Stephanie:
Hi Uncle David, I thought it would be fun to blog with you again! Just this past weekend, as you may have noticed, 3 million women across the world marched for themselves, their families, their friends, or their enemies. I, along with many of my friends, made the trip down to D.C. to walk alongside some 500,000+ people. The women's march for me was a way to reclaim some harmful rhetoric that sprang up during the campaign season. I think different women were there for different reasons, but it was an overall very supportive environment to be a part of. It was really wonderful to see and hear inspiring women let us know that there are people out there supporting women and standing up for them. I wanted to know what your thoughts were on the women's march and maybe protests regarding the election or other events in general.
David:
Hi Steph. It's good to have my favorite niece (named Stephanie) to blog with! Welcome once again.
I was wondering if you had participated in the march.
When you say "inspiring women", are you talking about Madonna and her expletive-laced rant threatening to blow up the White house? Or perhaps you are talking about Ashley Judd's expletive-laced attack on how Donald Trump looks, and insinuating he has an incestuous relationship with his daughter (who is herself a successful woman). Or perhaps you're talking about the women wearing vaginas on their heads. Yes, they are all very classy and inspiring.
Stephanie:
Yes and no. I believe that women have a right to be angry. Sexually assaulted women and rape survivors had to see a man who used expletive-laced and harmful rhetoric towards women become their president. Of course I didn't agree with every single thing that every woman said, but I don't think you agree with every single thing Trump has said or done (I hope). And yes the cat hats were fun. Don't diminish a whole march, a whole movement, just because there are curse words in it.
No pictures of Madonna showed up when googling "women's march. "
David:
You may be too young to remember, but the media seized on a few loony folks dressed as minutemen and labeled the entire tea party movement based on those individuals. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is. Madonna is now the face of the women's march for a large swath of America. If you googled "women's march" for several days after the march, her picture showed up most frequently.
In the interest of equality, should we equate a woman wearing a vagina hat with a man wearing a giant penis on his head? That's actually how a great many people I know are viewing your great fun. Again, very classy.
It's also interesting to note that they excluded pro-life women who wished to join them in their march. Rather than a march for all women, it appears it's only a march for women who follow a very rigid ideology. If you stray from that ideology even on one issue, you are excluded. Apparently those inspiring women in charge of the march are not for diversity of thought. Unfortunately, that move, coupled with many of the speakers just listing Democratic talking points, gives the appearance that this was a Democrat women's march. This makes it somewhat easy for anyone from the conservative side of the spectrum to dismiss the march outright as just partisan sour-grapes.
Stephanie:
The term "rigid ideology" is just downright wrong. It's also funny that you use the term "diversity." Trump's rallies were filled to the brim with straight white (older) men. There was so little diversity at Trump's rallies that he singled out a black person in the crowd and said "look at my African-American." Point is, I think the women's march was beyond diverse. Women and men of every race, religion, ethnicity, and background showed up to add their thoughts (via signs and chants) on immigration, sexism, race relations, our government, etc. To call it a march for rigid ideology is wrong. I don't particularly agree with excluding pro-life women. It's hard for women who might want/need abortions in their future to have those rights taken away and then happily embrace women who are anti-choice and contribute to the anti-roe v. wade movement. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. As for the supposed Democrat women's march... I don't know what you mean considering you were not at the march nor did you watch the livestream of the speakers as my own mother did. Confused as to how you got the idea that it was only for democrats. The march was for women of fluid ideology and diversity. Again, don't dismiss the march, that's the easy thing to do if you're lazy. If a whole gender is marching against the harmful rhetoric of one man, maybe you should start paying attention.
David:
Again, the media portrays a very different picture. And since I doubt you were at any Trump rallies, you too are using media reports and images to form your opinions. Does the dismissal of Trump's supporters like these women below make you "lazy"?
Which brings us to the second march for women this week, also know as the March for Life. In 2013 this annual march brought out 650,000 men and women, and current estimates are that there was a bigger crowd this year. Many of these women were also appalled at the comments Trump made a decade ago. Too bad they were not allowed to make the other women's march a bit bigger. You might take note that this march also included a huge number of women who feel much differently about things than the march you attended. Many in the crowd were young women. The March for Life also had men and women who represent every race, religion, ethnicity, and background. Their views were refused a place in your women's march. I think that negates your claim that the women's march was "beyond diverse".
I note you've titled this blog "Right to Fight!" While you describe the march as an uplifting and supportive group for women, the real agenda seems to be seeping through. When you listen to the speakers that the media highlighted, this was another liberal, celebrity rally for the left, to oppose and obstruct anything the Republican-elected majority proposes. They're girding themselves to fight against anything and everything this administration attempts, even before they know what's on the agenda.
Stephanie:
Which media are you referring to? I titled this "Right to Fight!" because every man, woman, and child has a right to stand up for what they believe in. The first amendment allows this.
Do you think we'll see the pro-life marchers at the anti-muslim ban protests springing up at airports nationwide to support the lives of refugees?
David:
You have framed the supportive and inspiring women's march under the banner of "fighting". Standing up for principles and protesting is certainly everyone's right. Free speech is a right. But fighting against something is different from supporting something. As I said, your initial comments describe a very inspiring movement for supporting women's issues, yet you're really looking for a fight. Bombing the White House doesn't seem to be either peaceful or supportive of anything.
Stephanie:
I do not agree with all of the speaker's statements as I previously mentioned. A fight does not have to be a violent movement. It can be a simple act of resisting what you believe to be wrong. If you thought something a president did was wrong, would you not resist?
David:
I think the pro-life marchers were marching for the life of unborn children. Why do you feel the need to bash them if they don't protest against American security?
Stephanie:
I did not bash pro-life marchers.
David:
You asked if we'll see them marching for Syrians, and asked it in a way to question why they wouldn't. You made it sound as though they are not really pro-life, if they were not marching for the displacement of Syrians.
Stephanie:
I asked: "Do you think we'll see the pro-life marchers at the anti-muslim ban protests springing up at airports nationwide to support the lives of refugees?" No blame. Just a question.
David:
You have either misread or purposely manipulated the President's executive order into saying things it does not. If you are a Christian in a country that is exporting terrorists, you are going to be vetted before you come into America. If you are an atheist from Syria, you will be vetted before you can come here. There is no Muslim ban. As we've seen across Europe, the refugees from Syria are at great risk trying to get out of Syria. Many have died making that trek. But they can't stay in their homes with things as they now stand. But, if we create safe zones for them in Syria. They would be much safer there than trying to flee. And most of them want to stay in their homeland. We don't need to re-litigate this as you and I actually discussed exactly this issue in our prior blog.
Stephanie:
Honestly, it sounds like border patrol was told to give Christians and Trump supporters priority evidenced by these tweets and also given that the only people held in the airports were Muslim.
David:
I believe your father would describe your last comment as false equivalency. I don't know who Trita Parsi is, but he isn't the POTUS.
So, by bring up the refugees, are you now saying that the women's march was for Syria? Are the women's marchers all going to airports to support Syrians? Or are they just protesting something else this administration is doing? Because now your argument sounds strangely similar to my comment that this seems to be a group of Democrats protesting anything and everything this President does. Is there anything you'll support from President Trump?
Stephanie:
As I said earlier, people in this country have the right to fight for what they believe in. If those who are protesting believe that this administration is doing something wrong (wrongness that looks eerily similar to Nazi Germany days --U.S. did not accept Anne Frank as a refugee back then-- I mean seriously take a look around), then they will fight to stand up for that belief. I will support any president if they do not threaten the lives of my fellow Americans. My friend at school may never be able to see her family in Iran. If that seems okay to you, I seriously question what your breaking point will be. So I ask you, is there anything you won't support from President Trump? Where do we draw the line? Golden M's on all Muslims? Criminalizing all immigrants? Concentration camps?
David:
You started out that last comment strong. But Nazis? Concentration camps? Golden M's? (Do they have to be gold?) You've really gone completely over the rhetorical line. Perhaps you've been reading fake news from guys like Trita Parsi?
You may want to review history a bit more before you play the Nazi card. Perhaps your liberal upbringing left out some very important concepts. Your father and I did an entire blog debunking Trump as Hitler. In that blog, your dad indicated a study showed conservatives are authoritarian, and Trump can be compared to Hitler. After that blog was posted, the study's authors released a disclaimer that they evaluated the results wrongly, and it was actually liberals who are authoritarian. If any party can be claimed to be Nazi-esque, it turns out to be the Democrats, according to the research.
You say you will not support President Trump because he is threatening the lives of your fellow Americans? Whose lives has he threatened? As far as I can tell, the only lives he's threatened are ISIS terrorists. To say he's threatened Americans is just not true.
Stephanie:
I said: "I will support any president if they do not threaten the lives of my fellow Americans."
David:
So, you support President Donald Trump. Glad to hear it.
Does your friend's Iranian family consist of terrorists? If not, then she will certainly be able to see them again. And very soon if she wishes. Why wouldn't she be able to do that? There is nothing in President Trump' executive order that would preclude that. (You do realize that it was the Obama administration that targeted those seven countries? There are over 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world. Only seven are on the Obama list that Trump is following. This is not a Muslim ban.)
Stephanie:
People from countries on the list are not allowed into the country at this moment. Do you not realize that there is no way to tell if someone is a terrorist or not? What's the test for that? (Obama's vetting was not similar to Trump's.)
David:
"At this moment" is the key phrase. Earlier you said, "never". She will be able to see her family and friends. The argument is moot.
There are certainly ways to tell if someone is a terrorist. Many use social media to communicate their thoughts and actions. If they draw up plans to kill people, I'd say they're a terrorist. If they are communicating with similar-minded folks, I'd say they are terrorists. That's why the FBI is searching social media sites for tips.
I'd advise you to tell your friends to do exactly what you would have requested of Republicans if Hillary Clinton had won the White House. DOn't just go crazy and protest everything just because you don't like her. If you protest everything, the people you want to convince will dismiss you. Focus your protesting (or fight, if you prefer) on the issues you feel need to be protested. Again, is there anything you will support from President Trump? Anything at all? Making America the world leader for democracy? Anything?
Since you are my favorite niece (named Stephanie), I'll give you the last word.
Stephanie:
Protest the issues that need to be protested... What do you think has been going on? That's what the airport protests are doing. How would you make America the world leader for democracy? Get rid of the electoral college and truly put the vote in the people's hands? Again, I will support any president that does not threaten the livelihood of my friends, neighbors, etc. Again, is there anything that you will not support from President Trump?
Hi Uncle David, I thought it would be fun to blog with you again! Just this past weekend, as you may have noticed, 3 million women across the world marched for themselves, their families, their friends, or their enemies. I, along with many of my friends, made the trip down to D.C. to walk alongside some 500,000+ people. The women's march for me was a way to reclaim some harmful rhetoric that sprang up during the campaign season. I think different women were there for different reasons, but it was an overall very supportive environment to be a part of. It was really wonderful to see and hear inspiring women let us know that there are people out there supporting women and standing up for them. I wanted to know what your thoughts were on the women's march and maybe protests regarding the election or other events in general.
Hi Steph. It's good to have my favorite niece (named Stephanie) to blog with! Welcome once again.
I was wondering if you had participated in the march.
When you say "inspiring women", are you talking about Madonna and her expletive-laced rant threatening to blow up the White house? Or perhaps you are talking about Ashley Judd's expletive-laced attack on how Donald Trump looks, and insinuating he has an incestuous relationship with his daughter (who is herself a successful woman). Or perhaps you're talking about the women wearing vaginas on their heads. Yes, they are all very classy and inspiring.
Stephanie:
Yes and no. I believe that women have a right to be angry. Sexually assaulted women and rape survivors had to see a man who used expletive-laced and harmful rhetoric towards women become their president. Of course I didn't agree with every single thing that every woman said, but I don't think you agree with every single thing Trump has said or done (I hope). And yes the cat hats were fun. Don't diminish a whole march, a whole movement, just because there are curse words in it.
David:
You may be too young to remember, but the media seized on a few loony folks dressed as minutemen and labeled the entire tea party movement based on those individuals. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is. Madonna is now the face of the women's march for a large swath of America. If you googled "women's march" for several days after the march, her picture showed up most frequently.
In the interest of equality, should we equate a woman wearing a vagina hat with a man wearing a giant penis on his head? That's actually how a great many people I know are viewing your great fun. Again, very classy.
It's also interesting to note that they excluded pro-life women who wished to join them in their march. Rather than a march for all women, it appears it's only a march for women who follow a very rigid ideology. If you stray from that ideology even on one issue, you are excluded. Apparently those inspiring women in charge of the march are not for diversity of thought. Unfortunately, that move, coupled with many of the speakers just listing Democratic talking points, gives the appearance that this was a Democrat women's march. This makes it somewhat easy for anyone from the conservative side of the spectrum to dismiss the march outright as just partisan sour-grapes.
Stephanie:
The term "rigid ideology" is just downright wrong. It's also funny that you use the term "diversity." Trump's rallies were filled to the brim with straight white (older) men. There was so little diversity at Trump's rallies that he singled out a black person in the crowd and said "look at my African-American." Point is, I think the women's march was beyond diverse. Women and men of every race, religion, ethnicity, and background showed up to add their thoughts (via signs and chants) on immigration, sexism, race relations, our government, etc. To call it a march for rigid ideology is wrong. I don't particularly agree with excluding pro-life women. It's hard for women who might want/need abortions in their future to have those rights taken away and then happily embrace women who are anti-choice and contribute to the anti-roe v. wade movement. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. As for the supposed Democrat women's march... I don't know what you mean considering you were not at the march nor did you watch the livestream of the speakers as my own mother did. Confused as to how you got the idea that it was only for democrats. The march was for women of fluid ideology and diversity. Again, don't dismiss the march, that's the easy thing to do if you're lazy. If a whole gender is marching against the harmful rhetoric of one man, maybe you should start paying attention.
David:
Again, the media portrays a very different picture. And since I doubt you were at any Trump rallies, you too are using media reports and images to form your opinions. Does the dismissal of Trump's supporters like these women below make you "lazy"?
Which brings us to the second march for women this week, also know as the March for Life. In 2013 this annual march brought out 650,000 men and women, and current estimates are that there was a bigger crowd this year. Many of these women were also appalled at the comments Trump made a decade ago. Too bad they were not allowed to make the other women's march a bit bigger. You might take note that this march also included a huge number of women who feel much differently about things than the march you attended. Many in the crowd were young women. The March for Life also had men and women who represent every race, religion, ethnicity, and background. Their views were refused a place in your women's march. I think that negates your claim that the women's march was "beyond diverse".
I note you've titled this blog "Right to Fight!" While you describe the march as an uplifting and supportive group for women, the real agenda seems to be seeping through. When you listen to the speakers that the media highlighted, this was another liberal, celebrity rally for the left, to oppose and obstruct anything the Republican-elected majority proposes. They're girding themselves to fight against anything and everything this administration attempts, even before they know what's on the agenda.
Stephanie:
Which media are you referring to? I titled this "Right to Fight!" because every man, woman, and child has a right to stand up for what they believe in. The first amendment allows this.
David:
You have framed the supportive and inspiring women's march under the banner of "fighting". Standing up for principles and protesting is certainly everyone's right. Free speech is a right. But fighting against something is different from supporting something. As I said, your initial comments describe a very inspiring movement for supporting women's issues, yet you're really looking for a fight. Bombing the White House doesn't seem to be either peaceful or supportive of anything.
Stephanie:
I do not agree with all of the speaker's statements as I previously mentioned. A fight does not have to be a violent movement. It can be a simple act of resisting what you believe to be wrong. If you thought something a president did was wrong, would you not resist?
David:
I think the pro-life marchers were marching for the life of unborn children. Why do you feel the need to bash them if they don't protest against American security?
Stephanie:
I did not bash pro-life marchers.
David:
You asked if we'll see them marching for Syrians, and asked it in a way to question why they wouldn't. You made it sound as though they are not really pro-life, if they were not marching for the displacement of Syrians.
Stephanie:
I asked: "Do you think we'll see the pro-life marchers at the anti-muslim ban protests springing up at airports nationwide to support the lives of refugees?" No blame. Just a question.
David:
You have either misread or purposely manipulated the President's executive order into saying things it does not. If you are a Christian in a country that is exporting terrorists, you are going to be vetted before you come into America. If you are an atheist from Syria, you will be vetted before you can come here. There is no Muslim ban. As we've seen across Europe, the refugees from Syria are at great risk trying to get out of Syria. Many have died making that trek. But they can't stay in their homes with things as they now stand. But, if we create safe zones for them in Syria. They would be much safer there than trying to flee. And most of them want to stay in their homeland. We don't need to re-litigate this as you and I actually discussed exactly this issue in our prior blog.
Stephanie:
Honestly, it sounds like border patrol was told to give Christians and Trump supporters priority evidenced by these tweets and also given that the only people held in the airports were Muslim.
David:
I believe your father would describe your last comment as false equivalency. I don't know who Trita Parsi is, but he isn't the POTUS.
So, by bring up the refugees, are you now saying that the women's march was for Syria? Are the women's marchers all going to airports to support Syrians? Or are they just protesting something else this administration is doing? Because now your argument sounds strangely similar to my comment that this seems to be a group of Democrats protesting anything and everything this President does. Is there anything you'll support from President Trump?
Stephanie:
As I said earlier, people in this country have the right to fight for what they believe in. If those who are protesting believe that this administration is doing something wrong (wrongness that looks eerily similar to Nazi Germany days --U.S. did not accept Anne Frank as a refugee back then-- I mean seriously take a look around), then they will fight to stand up for that belief. I will support any president if they do not threaten the lives of my fellow Americans. My friend at school may never be able to see her family in Iran. If that seems okay to you, I seriously question what your breaking point will be. So I ask you, is there anything you won't support from President Trump? Where do we draw the line? Golden M's on all Muslims? Criminalizing all immigrants? Concentration camps?
David:
You started out that last comment strong. But Nazis? Concentration camps? Golden M's? (Do they have to be gold?) You've really gone completely over the rhetorical line. Perhaps you've been reading fake news from guys like Trita Parsi?
You may want to review history a bit more before you play the Nazi card. Perhaps your liberal upbringing left out some very important concepts. Your father and I did an entire blog debunking Trump as Hitler. In that blog, your dad indicated a study showed conservatives are authoritarian, and Trump can be compared to Hitler. After that blog was posted, the study's authors released a disclaimer that they evaluated the results wrongly, and it was actually liberals who are authoritarian. If any party can be claimed to be Nazi-esque, it turns out to be the Democrats, according to the research.
You say you will not support President Trump because he is threatening the lives of your fellow Americans? Whose lives has he threatened? As far as I can tell, the only lives he's threatened are ISIS terrorists. To say he's threatened Americans is just not true.
Stephanie:
I said: "I will support any president if they do not threaten the lives of my fellow Americans."
David:
So, you support President Donald Trump. Glad to hear it.
Does your friend's Iranian family consist of terrorists? If not, then she will certainly be able to see them again. And very soon if she wishes. Why wouldn't she be able to do that? There is nothing in President Trump' executive order that would preclude that. (You do realize that it was the Obama administration that targeted those seven countries? There are over 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world. Only seven are on the Obama list that Trump is following. This is not a Muslim ban.)
Stephanie:
People from countries on the list are not allowed into the country at this moment. Do you not realize that there is no way to tell if someone is a terrorist or not? What's the test for that? (Obama's vetting was not similar to Trump's.)
David:
"At this moment" is the key phrase. Earlier you said, "never". She will be able to see her family and friends. The argument is moot.
There are certainly ways to tell if someone is a terrorist. Many use social media to communicate their thoughts and actions. If they draw up plans to kill people, I'd say they're a terrorist. If they are communicating with similar-minded folks, I'd say they are terrorists. That's why the FBI is searching social media sites for tips.
I'd advise you to tell your friends to do exactly what you would have requested of Republicans if Hillary Clinton had won the White House. DOn't just go crazy and protest everything just because you don't like her. If you protest everything, the people you want to convince will dismiss you. Focus your protesting (or fight, if you prefer) on the issues you feel need to be protested. Again, is there anything you will support from President Trump? Anything at all? Making America the world leader for democracy? Anything?
Since you are my favorite niece (named Stephanie), I'll give you the last word.
Stephanie:
Protest the issues that need to be protested... What do you think has been going on? That's what the airport protests are doing. How would you make America the world leader for democracy? Get rid of the electoral college and truly put the vote in the people's hands? Again, I will support any president that does not threaten the livelihood of my friends, neighbors, etc. Again, is there anything that you will not support from President Trump?
Thanks for making the effort to make this blog.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the appreciation! It is harder to write than it is to read, and I know it can be painful to read. So thanks for the visit!
DeleteI have a son named Duncan! It's not a popular name, and we don't see it very often. Glad you appreciate the blog!
DeleteHuh, there you both are in the comments. Doug and David. I know Doug through the GRAMPS genealogy software. For a while I thought this blog was fictional until I notices after the Trump election that the rhetoric was more pointed than necessary for a purely fictional intellectual exercise.
ReplyDeletePurely practically, how do you write these blogs?
That sounds like the topic for a blog!
ReplyDelete