Here are pics I took of some of the edgier signs from today’s Women’s March, which had a much larger turnout than expected. Some of the protestors seemed a bit testy. Others are belatedly recognizing that the presidency has too much power.
update: I have an Flickr album of other photos from the march posted here.
[…] day was by all reports more peaceful (and ideologically diverse), the displays captured by Jim Bovard and others show how much of today’s radical left can’t help but let their freak […]
Jim
Thanks a lot!
timmy taes
The Two and Only is my favorite podcast on the Int
David Smithson
Right you are. Retired now, I worked for many yea
Ron Redrift
Sorry to hear of your tiff with Mr. Wilson; hope i
timmy taes
Well, at least you didn't need a costume for
Great photos, Jim! “Testy” seems somewhat understated – somehow, looking at these photos, Sam Kinison’s standup routine on marriage comes to mind.
Did you see any arrests or violent clashes with counter-protestors representing the oppressor point of view? Come to think, I don’t see any photos of counter-protestors, unless the woman with the inflatable phallus on her head is one. (She looks like she took a wrong turn on the way to the Kanamara Matsuri festival.)
Thanks, John! I wasn’t trying to pick out testy looking photos but — well, there was a lot of that there. When the crowd started chanting, they seemed especially ill-tempered.
Did not see any arrests or violent clashes – I think there was assumed unanimity of belief — except that there wasn’t, and many women had complained ahead of the rally about how they had been sold a bill of goods – that the rally became more left-leaning (or hard left) shortly before it started. Also, women who were not pro-abortion were disinvited.
Someone on Twitter if I saw a lot of antiwar sentiments there. Almost none. The antiwar movement continues in the hibernation it commenced 8 years ago.
<>
Bring back the draft. That oughtta stir up the COs and other future Canadians….
Unfortunately, many folks would like to bring back the draft – but not for themselves. I agree – that would spark turnout at demonstrations
Most of the women I spoke with seemed utterly uncritical towards Hillary, liberal piety, and the march itself. One exception – a somewhat heavyset 50ish woman who I saw leaning up against a tree as the marchers passed by near the end of the event. I asked why she was there – she said ‘to express support for equal rights.’ I said that practically everyone except people living in Mississippi support equal rights these days. She said she was also ther to oppose Trump. I asked what she thought of Hillary – and, unlike almost everyone else I talked to, she ripped into her – esp. for bombing Libya, messing up Syria, etc. She was both well-informed and non starry-eyed as far as what marching & chanting could accomplish that day. She did not share the prevailing euphoria.
The knit pink “Pussy Hats” looked kinda goofy – especially when rows of women were wearing them with the same triggered anger or exaltation on their faces, depending on what the speaker had just said. But some people probably thought the hefty brown waterproof hat I was wearing looked quirky, too. Happily, nobody accused me of being a Mennonite yesterday (which has happened before when I wore that hat I bought in the rain forest of Portland, Oregon).
From the Facebook thread on this post – https://www.facebook.com/jim.bovard/posts/10210302816440197?comment_id=10210311720342789&reply_comment_id=10210320894052126¬if_t=feed_comment¬if_id=1485178543295160
Phillip J. Crincoli Sr.: I am sure there were a bunch of people who looked around once they got there and said, I really wish we didn’t come here.
Jim Bovard: “I agree – I don’t know if it was 2% of the crowd or 20%. Wash Post this morn touting the march as a huge boost for the Democratic Party – but if it had been advertised that way ahead of time, turnout would have been sharply lower.
And then there were the women who were happy to come and then heard Madonna talk about blowing up the White House. I have been to rallies or meetings where folks start talking about blowing up government buildings – and my instinct is always to locate the nearest exit. It is understandable that many women would have a visceral reaction against Trump. But that doesn’t mean endorsing all the speakers or the dogmas of some of the march organizers.
Not all the attendees at the march looked perturbed. Here's a photo of a happy Catholic protestor -
I wonder if the one holding the sign about outside election influence recognizes the irony in regard to US interference in Russian (and many other places) elections.
Or maybe that’s what the sign meant?
Irony was not a strong suit of the attendees that day.
Kinda sexist to suggest they were irony-deficient, isn’t it?
I think the hats were the boundary line for the humor for many of the attendees