Women's Marches 2017

[rubytuesday]

I'm going to reply to just two things posted for now, as I am pressed for time and way too sleepy atm to construct a fully fleshed out argument, ha. The rest of the stuff I'll probably respond to in the near future. (Apart from maybe RedCardinal's stuff, because frankly, their arguments are kinda giving me Youtube comment vibes...)

"This is what my general impression of the women's march contrasts. It's not a singular goal or idea that binds people together to act, there's a whole slew of ideas and community principles you need to buy into and adapt to in order to be part of a group."

This... well, it's not wrong. The thing about any group or religion or movement is that there are going to be people you disagree with. Likewise, there are feminists that I definitely disagree with. You've got your racist feminists, your TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), your SWERFs (Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists), and more. Despite being labelled as feminists, I disagree with the mindsets of all the aforementioned.
And in a PRIDE parade I'm sure it's the same. I'm sure that there are a great number of biphobes who participate in the march. I'm sure there are racist members of the LGBTQIA+ community. And so on and so forth. My point is that differences in views do not and should prevent people from coming together. Everyone is different, and everyone has different reasons for being a part of the march. Some joined because they want to protect their human rights. Some joined because they disagree with Donald Trump. Some joined because they are supporting friends or family or coworkers. Some joined because they believe that those with a uterus deserve bodily autonomy just like everybody else. And yes, maybe some joined because they hate Donald Trump, although I seriously doubt that this hate stems purely from Trump's rich whiteness. It probably has more to do with Donald's blatant lack of morality.

"Clearly child-killing is more important to them than real women’s health."
Obviously we're not going to agree with what abortion is, so I'll tamp down my frustration with that and push it aside. As you said, there's another thread for that. However, to make a claim so, ah, bold, I would hope you'd provide a bit more insight into why you think this way. Firstly, I'm going to just out and say it- taking away safe abortions will ultimately result in a greater increase in mortality rates. Because it won't stop people from getting abortions, it will instead only push people to get unsafe abortions.

"68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications"
"Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws. The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions.4 Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths)."

So really, you could argue that anti-choicers are putting a potential life above an already existing one.

Okay, I lied, I'm going to argue three points, not two. Sorry not sorry.

"There were only two things they marched for; hatred of Trump simply because he was a man, or more correctly a rich white man..."

Um. Yeah. No. You're really going to need to back up a statement like that. Because it's super, super wrong. Like, factually incorrect. I'm not sure if you watched any coverage of the march, or heard the speeches, or even had a fully-fleshed discussion with a marcher, but if you did, you would probably be aware that there are a multitude of reasons that the marchers marched. Not just a hate for Trump (although this is indeed a reason, albeit not quite in the way you state).
Some of the reasons are as follows:
Fighting for health care and reproductive rights
Fighting against racial injustice (particularly the injustice directed towards women of colour)
Families and education (particularly in support of public education, which Trump's administration threatens the future of)
Fighting for religious freedom and against xenophobia (Islamophobia is strong in the US right now, and Trump is very content with fanning the flames. Like, an muslim registration? Does that not ring any alarm bells??)
Fighting gender-based violence, harassment and abuse (you know... that thing Trump bragged about doing and was accused of doing by multiple women? And yet still got elected?)
Fighting for LGBTQIA rights
Fighting for immigration rights (Trump built his campaign on his anti-immigrant views. And, horrifically, people loved it)
Fighting for gun control (Because how many mass shootings has the US had in the past, say, ten years? Want to count them? No? Probably because there's too freaking many to count, right? Well, here's a small snippet: in the first week of 2017, there were 315 incidents of gun violence in which someone was either killed or injured. Again, alarm bells, anyone??)
Fighting for environmental justice (Trump's elected head of the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't. believe. in. global. warming... Trump just ducked out of the Paris Climate Accord... we are literally going backwards, somehow)

abortion stats
women's march reasons
gun violence stats
gun violence stats

[Kestrel]

This... well, it's not wrong. The thing about any group or religion or movement is that there are going to be people you disagree with. Likewise, there are feminists that I definitely disagree with. You've got your racist feminists, your TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), your SWERFs (Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists), and more. Despite being labelled as feminists, I disagree with the mindsets of all the aforementioned.

This is basically the not-a-real-Christian-argument. Which TERF will also throw at other branches of feminism.

And in a PRIDE parade I'm sure it's the same.

Except the pride parade had a defined goal that brings people together, which you later go on in your post to repeat the women's march had several different ones.

My point is that differences in views do not and should prevent people from coming together.

I agree with that and I still don't want to be part of the women's march. Because;

Everyone is different, and everyone has different reasons for being a part of the march. Some joined because they want to protect their human rights. Some joined because they disagree with Donald Trump. Some joined because they are supporting friends or family or coworkers. Some joined because they believe that those with a uterus deserve bodily autonomy just like everybody else. And yes, maybe some joined because they hate Donald Trump

If a march stands for all of these things and someone in it would say for example want to protest the presidency, but are at the same time pro-life, why would they join a pro-choice endorsing march? If someone is pro-choice but doesn't want to be associated with all the hate thrown Trump's way, why would they join the march? If both abortion and political stances are strong, but one of the two disagrees with the march, that is a barrier for entry.

The way I see it; the problem doesn't lie with people not being willing to speak up or fight for their beliefs and rights, the problem lies with the very structure of the women's march being exclusionary because it's trying to cover too many subjects. A singular goal can bring different people together, a myriad of goals not only makes people like me not support it, it also holds less persuasive power. You may say it's a-okay, but I mean, would you join a TERF march, even if it was anti-Trump and pro-choice? Likewise I am sure Fyretiger and you would both support a women's shelter in any more shariah part of the middle east, but despite sharing that belief I think it's quite evident that the points you disagree on make it so Fyretiger wouldn't want to be found dead at a women's march.

I'm not here to argue or change your beliefs. I am here to elaborate my stance on the topic as requested in the OP, so that you may understand my position even if you disagree with it.

[Aniihya]

FyreT1ger: I just read your response. I actually didn't know that agencies actually offer full compensation in the US. That is a good thing though. Yes, if people weren't so ignorant about it, maybe there would be less abortions.