Killarney

That's just a vacuous back-bite.

What specifically about my post "spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards"?

And putting aside the womens' marchers sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards, what specifically were they marching for?

It's almost like I've got to post 'misconception corrections' for the benefit of everyone who accidentally falls for the never ending barrage of misleading news articles that are thrown at us all on a daily basis.

It's disheartening to see how often so many people get so many of the facts wrong, but I can hardly blame anyone for it.
There's a strategy to deliberately try to manipulate people who take the news on face value and don't check other more reliable sources.

Whats the latest news?
Well that depends on where you get it...

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

Also some info in there about Linda Sarsour, womens march organiser who supports Sharia law.

Hey runner,

‘No Place In Feminism For Pro-Life Women’
http://www.infowars.com/no-place-in-feminism-for-pro-life-women/

JKJ

'What specifically about my post "spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards"?

How about this ... 'They spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards, all the time demanding that women should have all protections, provisions and privileges of patriarchy *and* feminism, while men should have the downsides of both, and be insulted and vilified into the bargain.'

I count about 10 howling examples of sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards in that paragraph alone. Several more in all the other paragraphs, e.g. 'Why do you think women are entitled to political benefits and privileges just for being women?' and 'The one that really gave me a good belly-laugh was the one holding up the sign saying "Respect". What a joke!'

Hate, bigotry, lies, hypocrisy ... it's all there in your own little post.

Armchair Critic

How on earth could a march of that magnitude be organised and paid for without financial support from high places? And it was always a protest against Trump, so why all the 'gotcha!' squeals when it's obvious that a lot of organising and funding came from Democrat affiliates?

As for the pro-life dig, a lot of feminists are pro-life. The work of pro-life Melinda Tankard Reist is highly respected among both feminists and conservative women's advocates. And a lot of women's rights advocates are religious fundamentalists of one sort or another, including Islam. Also, my son lives in New York and he knows three Trump-voting women who went on the march (because, while supporting many of his policies, they don't support his policies on women).

No ... you, JKJ and all the other pundits here and in the MSM and alt-media are pulling out every tiresome, overworn anti-feminist/anti-women trope in the book to 'prove' that the march was on some kind hypocritical ideological collision course with something that it never was to start with, or ever pretended to be.

Killarney:

“What was the point of having the march, before knowing whether the regime would win?”

So these are all brand new policies which women had not thought of until Trump won? The point of having it before the election would be to try and win the election. That is how elections work. You state your case for your preferred candidate and try and convince others to agree with your case. You do not wait and see who wins and then start organising a movement against them. It just looks like these women are trying to save face. Their whole ‘strategy’ points to nothing else. You cannot impeach an elected president because you do not like his policies. It is pointless.

“The idea that women can organise politically and can fully articulate the political issues important to all women everywhere is dangerous thinking.”

Dangerous to whom? Had women been this active before the election they could have changed the result of the election and no matter how ‘dangerous’ they were they would have had every democratic mandate to claim the ascendency in terms of women’s issues. Had this march taken place before the election men would have had no right to be derisive of it.

But no - let’s turn this into a women versus patriarchy issue. Just as many men were embarrassed as women. Perhaps they are a bit more careful about drawing attention to it.

Hey Killarney,
I honestly wasn't trying to have a dig at you in any way.
Earlier in the thread commenters mentioned not knowing who the groups were or what they represent.
I found that article which had a bit of info with a link to the 400+ groups, thought I'd add it.
The last comment runner made questioned whether women who are pro-life are welcome to join these groups, and my response to him included a link to an article on that topic.

I did see where you earier said "rubbish" in regards to women's support of Sharia law.
I don't know how true that claim is, but I did want to point out the one of the organisers is supportive of Sharia law, which maybe where this topic of women / Sharia originates.
Whether or not she has spoken out supportive of Sharia during this womens march I couldn't say.

Whilst I usually would say these women are a bunch of deranged libtards doing the work of Soros or something like that I honestly didn't catch too much of the Women's March footage so really don't wish to comment too much on it..

Feminism seems to have its adherents 'think' a certain way and if one has an opinion outside of their 'group think' they are attacked by their own.
My opinion is that it's really a kind of 'Women's cult' where they focus on misleading facts and rile each other up into a frenzy...