Last night I spoke with a friend who went to the DC Women's March, and her description reminded me of that touchstone event from the 1960s. Organization was totally inadequate. Cell phone comms went down due to overstress. The march was canceled because, given the security barriers up for the Inauguration, there were too many people to physically do it in a safe manner. The mobs did it anyway, at great personal risk of stampede (fortunately avoided, but only by fortune). There wasn't adequate food, water, sanitation, transportation, or anything else.
I assume the people who went will be as proud of it as those who attended Woodstock were to have been there. Like Bilbo at the Battle of Five Armies -- his favorite experience to recount, Tolkien tells us, 'though he played little part in it' -- having endured and survived such a mass event will become not just a point of pride, but a permanent part of one's identity.
What will be interesting to see is how the anarchistic spirit of the event plays out in what is not an anarchist movement. Apparently women were violating all sorts of laws governing trespass, climbing monuments to decorate them (or 'deface' them, as opponents might say), and pushing security personnel into a defensive -- or defenseless -- stance by sheer numbers. Police couldn't use tear gas to control them without risking killing them by stampede, and the crowd was too full of women, children, and the elderly for that to be a conscionable risk. There was not enough jail space for so many protesters anyway. They did whatever they wanted, and though there were many men with guns, there was no one who would stop them.
That would be exhilarating for anyone, but especially for someone whose movement was directed at defiance of overweening government. What this movement will come to represent is unclear, but early inclinations are that at its heart are big-government aims. It wants a government that will guarantee that women are treated with courtesy and deference in the public space (as indeed these women really were, it should be noted, by the agents of the state). It wants a government that will enter into their relationships with employers to judge whether or not they are being paid fairly. Being built around Clinton's loss, it presumably wants the things she ran on: publicly-funded day care, family leave, health care.
In other words, it seems to want to be provided with a sense of safety and security. How sharply that contrasts with the pleasant and joyous anarchy it provoked for a few hours on Saturday afternoon.
8 comments:
"Few hours."
They want to play at being strong and free, like children sent to summer camp. The FB friends who posted were mostly embarrassing in this way.
Curiously, that Woodstock analogy will bear some reflection. Woodstock considered itself a founding, but turned out to be a farewell party instead.
That could certainly end up being the case here, too. The marchers here are also roughly united by a kind-of approval of Obama/Clinton, and a strong disapproval of Trump and his ilk. Rather than the beginnings of their power, this could be the high water mark just after the turn of the tide.
All they were missing was mudslides and PA warnings about bad acid.
But I wasn't there. I was 13. Looks like I missed my chance at the revival.
It wants a government that will guarantee that women are treated with courtesy and deference in the public space.... It wants a government that will enter into their relationships with employers to judge whether or not they are being paid fairly.
So, these women demand special treatment, guaranteed by government. These women don't want to form their own unions to maximize their bargaining power, they want government to do for them.
These aren't the feminists and women's liberation activists with whom I grew up. These are girls who want desperately to be put back up on their precious pedestals and protected there by Protectors.
Eric Hines
Apparently, Gloria Steinem, who was there, has gotten too old to be embarrassed by this display of organized women's helplessness.
Where' Betty Friedan when you need her? Oh, wait....
Eric Hines
Humans cannot judge evil, they lack the jurisdiction. They also cannot prevent humans from utilizing free agency, other than Slavery 3.0 which was Lucifer's idea probably.
All humans can do is make others angry or afraid and thus manipulate them into this false consciousness of "morality" and the "rule of law" which is merely another name for the rule of Human Judges and Kings.
"[the women in this movement seem] to want to be provided with a sense of safety and security."
This used to be what women expected from their husbands or fathers. It's what men provide for their wives and children and themselves. It seems to me that these women who claim they want their equal rights really want is not independence. What they want is for the government to substitute for a father or husband.
They should've just called it "Emoticon".
Post a Comment