What If You Held A Women’s March And Only Certain Women Were Allowed To Come?

“Bigger than Trump’s inauguration.” “The largest political demonstration since the Vietnam War.” The media hivemind has declared the “Women’s March” an unequivocal success — but what did it accomplish? And if it was truly a march by, for, and about women, then why were numerous women’s organizations prevented from participating? And, most importantly of all, who wrote the checks?


That last question is the easiest to answer: George Soros was almost certainly the funding source and not-quite-invisible hand behind the march.

Given that Mr. Soros has been a vocal advocate of population control (in Western countries, anyway) it’s no surprise that the “official platform” of the Women’s March was deliberately designed to exclude “anti-choice” feminists. Women who held pro-life views were still permitted to join the march, but they were not permitted to be part of the dialogue on the march’s platform or goals, nor were their organizations permitted to sponsor or partner with the march.

Of course, there was an anti-abortion organization at the very heart of the Women’s March — CAIR, the Islamic PR front group, was a major partner of the event, sponsoring free hijabs for all female attendees and offering free classes on how to tie a hijab right there at the march. The Islamic faith is anti-abortion according to CAIR, but Mr. Soros was somehow willing to turn a blind eye to that “anti-choice” position.

So, the question becomes: What if you held a “women’s march” where pro-life Christian women were unwelcome but “honor killings”, genital mutilation, death by stoning for rape, and the forced subjugation of women were not only welcome, but part of the actual platform? What if you held a “women’s march” to protest Mr. Trump’s “pussy-grab” comment, and it was supported by the female reporter who famously said “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs?

After some considerable thought about this, I’ve decided that the “women’s march” is best understood as an autoimmune response on the part of the Clinton Archipelago. The inhabitants of the Archipelago have become accustomed to life in the one-party state of Urban America, where there is but a single acceptable opinion about each and every possible topic from abortion (should be free, on demand) to immigration (should be unlimited but actual settlement of the immigrants should be Somewhere Else).

There’s no free and frank exchange of views on the Clinton Archipelago; you are part of the progressive panopticon and any deviation from the party line will render you an unemployed unperson. I’ve personally witnessed this in corporate America; you are free to express any political opinion as long as it adheres to the modern combination gospel of fiscal conservatism/social liberalism. If you fail to express the requisite amount of enthusiasm for these things, you may be called on the carpet: “You’re not for Trump… are you?” is a phrase I’ve heard multiple times in various offices over the course of the past year. And who would say “Yes!” under those conditions? You might as well be a gay man in Fifties rural America at that point; if they don’t walk you out the door posthaste they will at least put a parking boot on your career. The alert reader will recognize that our nation’s tilt towards “liberalism” has really just exchanged one kind of Puritan thinking for another. In 1817 they’d have driven you out of town for being gay; now they’ll drive you out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

No wonder, then, that everybody on the Archipelago thought the election was a done deal, a formality. Everybody they knew was #WithHer! The only question that anybody had: would this be a mere defeat of the “disorganized, disheartened” Trump, or would it be the “Wave election” that would ensure a permanent progressive mandate for limitless change?

Mr. Trump’s commanding electoral-college victory was no more understandable or comprehensible to those people than an alien invasion would be to a Victorian-era farmer. It felt unreal and therefore illegitimate to the people of the Archipelago. I cannot stress enough how different this was from Mr. Obama’s victory in 2008. A lot of people didn’t like that victory, but they understood how it came to pass. So while you had some resistance to Mr. Obama’s Presidency, to put it mildly, the vast majority of those who were opposed understood that there was no way to simply keep it from happening.

Making things even more difficult was the fact that the much-vaunted Obama (jobless) recovery has taken place almost entirely on the Archipelago. The market is up! Salaries in the city are up! Prices are up! Massive residential skyscrapers are darkening the skies above Central Park! How could anybody vote against that?

And finally we have the unpleasant but accurate fact that our society has raised a generation of women, most of whom are white, who have become accustomed to “having it all” and getting their way. As my black pal Rodney always says, “The greatest beneficiaries of diversity politics are… white women.” It’s true. Thanks to three generations of social change, women have the advantage over men. They are more likely to go to college, more likely to succeed in corporate America, more likely to be promoted for all opportunities below the C-suite, far less likely to die or be severely injured on the job. It’s a woman’s world out there, and those women are used to having their way.

Put all of that together, and it’s plainly obvious what the Women’s March was: it was a reactionary movement. It was a march to protest against change, a march to preserve the status quo. It was the belated response of a group of ultra-privileged, left-leaning, supremely successful women who want to keep things Exactly. The. Way. They. Are. Right. Now.

What appeal could Mr. Trump’s agenda possibly have for them? Let’s see:

  • Reduce immigration? But who would do my gardening or cook for me or keep restaurant meals cheap?
  • Bring jobs back to America? But all the media, finance, and university jobs are already here!
  • Tariffs on trade to encourage American production? Why would we want to reduce the cash flowing in from Seattle and other port cities just so we can send money and jobs to the redneck poors in Alabama or Ohio?
  • Get rid of Obamacare? But Obamacare makes us feel good about the poors, and anyway we all have “Cadillac” health plans from our employers!
  • Conservative Supreme Court? But what will happen when one of us wants a third term abortion?
  • Keep Islam out of America? But… Eat, Pray, Love! Those men are so much more interesting than American nerds!

You get the idea. There’s nothing in the Trump platform that remotely appeals to people who are already sitting on the top of the heap. And it explains why the DNC sabotaged Bernie’s campaign; he was no more palatable to the Manhattan junta than Trump is. The only acceptable way forward was “Stronger Together”, continuing the enrichment of the one percent at the expense of white trash out in the Midwest.

Well, turns out white trash can vote. Sorry about that.

History tells us that reactionary movements rarely succeed. The Women’s March will be no different. Nobody with any secure grasp of reality is going to be influenced by a bunch of spoiled brats demanding an election mulligan. Mr. Trump will conclude, correctly, that Middle America is horrified by the inauguration-protest buffoonery taking place across the country, and he will take care to campaign against the worst stereotypes of the marches in 2020. The people on the Left whose slacktivism can be satisfied by attending a one-day march (I’m not naming names here, but hint hint, look at things I’ve written recently on this site) will be satisfied.

In the end, the March will only impact two groups of people. The #BlackLivesMatter movement has been significantly diminished by comparison to the Women’s March; Mr. Soros will no doubt notice that he gets more for his money when he funds white women. And the “intersectional” feminist movement will have to think long and hard about the fact that some women truly are more equal than others when it comes to power and influence. Ten years from now, a lot of women, particularly those who are religious, rural, or lower income, will look back and say that January 21st was the day that the feminist movement cut them out for good.

Oh, and while you had your media-directed eyes focused on the March, the head honcho at Foxconn announced a potential $7 Billion factory in the USA. It’s not glamorous work, and it probably won’t even be pleasant. But it’s likely to be real — and as I always say, reality isn’t interested in your opinion, whether you’re wearing a pink hat or not.

71 Replies to “What If You Held A Women’s March And Only Certain Women Were Allowed To Come?”

  1. Tomko

    Having read your post I’m at a loss to make the connection to the image you chose to illustrate your point.

    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      Simple: in any other society than today’s debt-financed gynocracy, that xir-beast wouldn’t exist.

      Xe is the way xe is because xe was indulged by xir parents, allowed to go to school for a useless degree paid for by magic money that xe never really thought about repaying, and now probably working a job that adds no tangible value to the American economy.

  2. Jeff Zekas

    Thank you, Jack, for stating what is obvious to those of us who are blue collar. I was talking with some kids at work the other day, telling them about what it was like when I worked in a factory. They couldn’t believe it. Being urban, hip, cool and young, the idea of making good wages and getting your hands dirty was beyond their imagination. Instead, they work minimum (or near minimum) wage for a retailer with no benefits and no retirement and no promotions. When I tell them about union jobs that I held over the years, jobs that paid enough to buy a house and raise a family, it seems like I am talking about men on mars. What a brave new world it is! And yet, they and their liberal-LGBT-hipster-feminist friends still wonder why Trump won.

  3. Ken

    You know, over the weekend I was honestly thinking, “Can’t wait to see Jack’s response to this on Monday”. And here it is.

    I do so enjoy your social commentary, even when its a little over the top and cherry picked. I doubt the point of the march was for to push for 3rd term abortions, a pro Islamic state, or anti-american jobs. Still, I didn’t really gather a cohesive message for it all, other than merely woman’s rights, which can be taken a number of different ways (as you’ve shown.) My take is this anti-movement was more against Trump’s misogyny and a reversion to 1950s women rights, rather than a rejection of America First policies.

    Though it can be a slippery slope, a swing too far in either direction isn’t good.

    • Yamahog

      Alright, lets say it’s just for “women’s rights”, exactly what rights do American women lack?

      • Ken

        As a white male, I’d venture to say not much is lacking. Like I said, my opinion was that the march was less about the advancement of “women’s rights” and more about the perception this presidency may retract the gains made over the last several decades, whether directly (via policy changes to reproductive choices) or indirectly (by promoting acceptance of misogynistic tendencies).

        Being a white dude I don’t really have a horse in this race. I’m definitely not a “social justice warrior” guy either, but I could empathize, given the dialog of the campaign, how a woman or a minority would be uneasy about what may or may come.

        I took the march more as a “Hey we’re here and will work to maintain our existing rights” rather than some big alternative agenda to feminism everything.

        I feel like this is completely blown out of per-portion, on both sides.

  4. CJinSD

    A number of my ex-gfs marched in San Diego. Another girl I knew from LA was on a charter flight full of womyn the world would be better off without headed to DC. Then there’s the one that marched in San Francisco. I doubt any of them would even understand what it means that they marched for Hamas and Soros. I recall a conversation with one that wanted to marry me. “It troubles me that we disagree about so much important stuff.” I told her I had faith in her that she’d come to her senses, that she couldn’t really be stupid enough not to figure out what path she was being led down. I didn’t really believe it for a second. It was just fun to condescend to a member of the elite participation trophy holders.

    The funny thing about these girls is that they parade their idiocy for all to see by being a part of Soros’ new narrative, created with some photos taken six hours before the inauguration contrasted with the peak-stupid of the HPV walk. The next day they’re posting their indignity over Devos’ selection for the education post. Sorry, but you twits’ credibility is at an all time low.

    • TAFKADG

      “I doubt any of them would even understand what it means that they marched for Hamas and Soros.”

      Aaaand this is the part that leaves me (as the crazy kids say) shaking my damned head. These Civil Rights Re-Enactors are protesting a democratically elected president whilst marching in accordance with the wishes of super-elite gazillionaire globalists. Yet, they think they’re the rebels.

  5. Orenwolf

    I wonder if the million man march was diminished through reporting after the fact as ineffective or not accomplishing anything. Probably, but I’m not interested in travelling to the US to look at a bunch of microfilm to verify. 🙂

    It was probably also funded by “the invisible hand” of local churches who organized transportation for the communities to get there. In a way I suppose you can blame “the church” for that one.

    It’s dangerous to try and put millions of people’s motivations around the world into one bucket. I know, they’re “mostly” female, which automatically gives them a “nothing will be accomplished” sheen, just look at the rhetoric that came from the women’s suffrage movement – it’s amazing that the same arguments made *then* are still being made now surrounding women’s movements.

    My sister and her friends marched here in Toronto, mainly because they’re afraid of losing the progress that’s been made towards women’s equality in the cacophony of righteous douchebaggery that seems to make up a not-insignificant proportion of online discourse today. I’d have gone with them if I wasn’t probably radioactively contagious from whatever the fuck disease I managed to get over the last week that had me with a 41C fever.

    I *love* all the Star Wars posters and reference to the rebellion that were present. This will be a fun next few years to watch, possibly reminiscent of the WW posters and slogans of yore 🙂

    It’s *easy* to wave your hands and be dismissive of wide swaths of the population as irrelevant, or motivated by something nefarious. It’s far more difficult to imagine a scenario where they may have a point, and analyze that. I’m disappointed that you haven’t even considered that possibility in your rhetoric above. I mean, of *course* many marched for the publicity – it’s publicity they’re trying to achieve, after all. And *of course* special interest groups (or people) will try and influence things. When has it been different? Those are the easy strawmen. The safe opinions. The “not my problem” position.

    • MrGreenMan

      The million man march was not dismissed as they had a platform. Mr Farrakhan, for all his craziness, can articulate a position and a list of demands. They took a pledge to act in a certain way and to advance certain goals, and then they went home and did that.

      The women’s march wasted their reputation for a rah-rah moment. They could not articulate a position, but instead were the giant mishmash of every liberal cause that took an 8 year vacation. The only woman I saw on camera willing to talk for the march and not say, “We want equal rights!” (never getting an enumeration of what those rights are…) had quite the laundry list. She claimed that the US had “never” given women anything. (Was her complaint really about Mr. Obama?) She demanded her employers give her children paid sick days, too, and that she be compensated for having a family. Or, in short, she wanted free things provided to her without obligation or responsibility.

      As an FYI, Woodrow Wilson pushed through the 19th Amendment as part of his goal to break the GOP stranglehold on the White House. Between Lincoln and Taft, there was only one Democrat elected as president, #22 and #24 Grover Cleveland. The Democrats were wanting to be free of being the perennial junior party, with their perennial loser Williams Jennings Bryan. A better example of organized women demanding things would be the white feather movement in the UK. They got the bloodshed they demanded; they got more dead British boys, which they demanded. US women’s suffrage wasn’t brought about by marching in the street except as part of a cynical street theater put on by Woodrow Wilson; it was window dressing, not the cause of it.

    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I’m saying that they do have a point — they want to keep things the way they are.

      The problem is that “business as usual” is killing the American economy below the neck.

      • Orenwolf

        One hopes we can imagine a North America that can manage both good jobs for fair wages AND equal rights for all.

        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          I suppose the question at hand is:

          What rights do men in the US or Canada have that women do not?

          What rights will be taken away by President Trump?

          Right now, if I had to measure out the balance of power between men and women in the US, I’d say that it’s tilted towards women. Women are getting educations. Women get a higher percentage of white-collar jobs. Women are relatively safe from violence; most assault and murder victims are men.

          • VoGo

            That’s 2 questions.

            I think the question at hand is: “Why are the Baruth boys so threatened by some women marching?”

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            Do you have to feel threatened by something in order to disagree with it, or even to have an opinion on it? Was Robert Farago threatened by the Chevrolet Celebrity?

          • VoGo

            Jack,
            I think we can both agree that the question is NOT: WWRFD?

            All I’m saying is that you and li’l bro sure doth protest a boatload.

            Let the women have their march. Let them exercise their rights to free speech and assembly. The vast majority of it was peaceful and well intentioned.

            And I think most men did what I did. We hit the ‘like’ button on all those facebook posts of friends and family out marching, and then we watched football.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            Would you have done the same had there been a men’s march on Washington for, say, equal rights in child custody, equal access to college education, and equal protection from high-risk employment? Or would you have held the men to a different standard?

          • VoGo

            Jack,
            Interesting question. There are some areas where American men legitimately get the short stick, and I think custody rights deserves attention. On college education, women tend to do better because they are more qualified (i.e., get better grades and test scores), so I don’t have an issue there.
            On protection from high risk employment, obviously I am a fan of federal regulations that protect workers. I am not aware of men being singled out and forced into these professions against their will – do you have something specific here?

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            “On college education, women tend to do better because they are more qualified (i.e., get better grades and test scores), so I don’t have an issue there.”

            This cannot be true. If it is true, it is probably due to a racist or sexist policy.

            If it is true on the merits — if women are simply better-suited to higher education, and that’s why they get in — then why don’t we have affirmative action for men who can’t make the grade, the same way we have affirmative action for African-Americans who can’t score as well as whites or Asians on entrance exams?

            Men are tracked into high-risk jobs, from construction to military service, because of societal preconceptions and stereotypes. If we really care about sexual equality, we need to mandate sexual equality in everything from the Special Forces A-teams to offshore oil rig work.

          • VoGo

            Jack,
            Affirmative action was put into place because as a nation we kidnapped millions of people, enslaved them for centuries, and then subjected their kids to apartheid for another century. Sorry, white boys who prefer xbox to studying don’t compare.

            Yes, men on average take more dangerous jobs, often because women traditionally weren’t allowed in those jobs, e.g., combat. But I don’t see how this gets fixed by federal law. I like what the NFL does in directing teams to at least interview African Americans for open positions. Maybe next time you have work done on your house you can ask your contractor to consider hiring a female apprentice.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            “Sorry, white boys who prefer xbox to studying don’t compare.”

            You’re not white, are you? Do you really feel comfortable making that statement in public?

            What if I responded with,

            “Sorry, black kids who prefer gang-bangin’ to studying don’t compare.”

            And, of course, you’re misrepresenting the issue; it’s young men from lower-income households, of all races, that are disproportionately barred from college entry.

            My son, for example, is a double legacy from a decent school, eligible to inherit a little bit of money from the two generations above him, and he’s already a couple of grades ahead of his class in most subjects. If he wants to go to college, he’ll be able to go. What about the boys in West Virginia and Alabama who get tracked into construction or military work? Is that fair?

          • VoGo

            Jack,
            I’m pretty sure I’m white. After all, I grew up in a town 10 miles from you, with a single black family in the entire town. Not sure how its relevant. I’m comfortable making the statement about boys and xbox, because I have 2 sons, and they really would benefit from more homework and less CoD.

            I’m not sure what to tell you. Are things equal in America? No. But to characterize women as having all these advantages not available to men seems… unlikely. I look at my own life: I left home at 17, moved to NYC, got into Columbia, put myself through school, got a job on Wall Street trading bonds, and went on from there. It’s America. If you are willing to work hard, you’ll do OK.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            I was under the impression from your discussions with Ronnie that you’re Jewish. That’s why I asked. It would be poor form to criticize a stereotype of “white people” if you’re not white.

          • VoGo

            Jack,
            I am a true mongrel. My parents, step-parents and pretend parents have been from all over the globe. But my mother is Jewish and she raised me that way. As a young Jew, I was never quite sure whether that qualified as white. I think it does today, mostly. My kids tell me they’re Asian. Or Asian-American. Depends on the context.

            I regret writing that white boys prefer xbox to studying – I should have left race out of that discussion. I really meant to focus on gender. But I wrote what I wrote.

            That still doesn’t mean that the quickest car in the world is anything other than a Tesla.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            I’m not here to grind you on random word choices.

            The truth is that the education system, as currently constituted, seems to favor women. A lot of young men being medicated for no reason. That sort of thing.

            My son and I were playing chess this weekend and he was having trouble behaving, staying still between moves. So I made him do a hundred and ten jumping jacks, which didn’t seem to tire him physically but did allow him to finish the game. That’s the kind of thing they used to do with boys in school. Now they medicate ’em into feminine compliance.

            More here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19331

          • VoGo

            I definitely agree with you there, Jack,
            I would take it a step further: school as we know it is really challenging for kids, but especially for many boys. Anyone not able to sit still for 8 hours in a little chair and stair at the chalkboard is labeled ADHD and medicated.
            We can do better.

          • yamahog

            @Vogo

            “Affirmative action was put into place because as a nation we kidnapped millions of people, enslaved them for centuries, and then subjected their kids to apartheid for another century. Sorry, white boys who prefer xbox to studying don’t compare.”

            Very few white people actually captured blacks and enslaved them, that was primarily done by costal tribes in Africa (which may or may not have been Islamic).

            The constitution was ratified Jun 21 1788 and slavery ended Dec. 6 1865, that’s 77 years or a 1/3rd of the USA’s history.

            Maybe affirmative action hurts white boys who like playing Xbox, maybe not. But it really hurts asians who study hard. Go back to Columbia and ask American black students what they got on their SATs and their high school GPAs, ask Asian students the same question, and you’ll find that the average asian student did significantly better.

            Heck, go look at medical school admissions. There are blacks getting into med school with 1.9 undergraduate GPAs and bad MCAT scores, and there are 3.8 GPA asians getting rejected with good MCAT scores. Don’t you want the most academically qualified students becoming your doctor? And lets say that black person with a 1.9 GPA becomes a fine doctor, don’t you think it violates the notion of equal protection that many Asian students with identical or greater academic merit don’t get a chance to become a doctor?

            A while back there was a news article – some person had a medical emergency on a flight and a black woman presented herself as a doctor. The flight crew told the woman, “we’re looking for a real doctor” or something to that effect. Surely we can agree that’s racist. And some white guy was also a doctor and the flight crew let the guy treat the patient.

            If I were a patient and I had the choice between a white or asian male doctor and a black woman doctor and knew nothing beyond what ethnicity box they checked on their med school application, I’d be a fool to chose the black woman doctor – there’s an insanely high chance she had lower academic merit than the white or asian doctors. And there’s serious information asymmetries in selecting doctors, why shouldn’t a patient use skin color as a proxy for capability since blacks seem to be held to lower standards when they learn to practice medicine?

          • Matt

            Jack, I totally agree with and understand this question and where it comes from. I hosted a bunch of marchers in DC, and put the same question to them. They focus heavily on “reproductive rights” or access to birth control, feminine-oriented healthcare (planned parenthood) and abortions because they don’t want to be relegated to the role of being the child-rearers. They don’t want to subvert their career goals to the “tyranny” (my word) of being the only gender that is forced to live with the consequences of child-birth. That is why they view “pro-life”/anti-abortion women as anathema to their cause.

            We had some extensive discussions and I posited that it isn’t social oppression by white men that women are the biological child-bearers, and how it is difficult to expect small business and the like to pick up the slack when women employees go on maternity leave and deprive the employer of a substantial amount of the income-generating capacity of the business. But it was helpful to understand by “privileged” position as a man to never have had to justify my career goals to educational institutions or employers that I might not be worth the investment because I was going to quit to have babies someday.

      • Ken

        I’m with you that “Business as usual” is killing the American economy, but I’m at a loss as to how this has to do with women. If the point is that the over arching liberal agenda, of which most of the women who marched buy in to, is the cause – I could somewhat understand that logic leap.

        But from an economic perspective I really don’t think the rights women want (OK, maybe more days off for advancing the human race – but equal pay for equal work is only fair) is strangling the American economy. Looking broader to the liberal agenda on immigration, you may have a leg to stand on. E.g. H1B Visas.

        Still, its more tax & trade policies that favored (or did nothing) to stop the oversea manufacturing of American goods. The skilled labor force that moved to Mexico, India and China. The blue collar union jobs that once made a good living wage that have vanished, not because of the woman’s movement – that had little to do with this – but because of these policies.

        The economic issues are just as much a republican caused problem as a democrat one, that’s been decades in the making. Trump is as much a traditional Republican as Bernie Sanders was a traditional Democrat.

        I see this election more as a rejection to the economic status-quo, of which Hilary embodied, and less a rejection of progressive movements on racial and female equality.

        Hell, I’m actually on board with Trump’s economic “talking points” involving policies that favor American goods and services. I just don’t necessarily believe that his actions will back up his statements. (His cabinet appointees and trickle down economic policies have done little to further persuade me.)

        Trump’s appealing economic message aside, he does lack clear support, or rather lacks the devotion of time, to diversity issues. Understandable since the true issues facing this country aren’t diversity related*. Couple this with the fact that a small, very vocal minority of his supporters do devote plenty of time against diversity. Add to it that when Trump does bother to comment on woman or minorities those comments are often ill conceived off-the cuff remarks. At best, he’s “telling it like it is” at worst its in poor judgement. So yeah, it makes sense that these groups are at least anxious about what might happen.

        While I can understand the apprehension woman and minorities have in this climate – its all noise. All of it against the backdrop of economic issues, which should be the focus of this country, is utter useless noise. The Woman’s march was more to say an in-cohesive message to say “We’re here.” and less to act as a determent against the American economy. Most everyone want’s back the hey day of the 1950s in terms economics; not the lack of social rights.

        Sadly, if Trump would devote just a little bit of time to squelch the uncertainty, to show that his true focus is on America’s economy first, for all Americans (even the whiny liberals). That he has no interest in wasting time on less pressing non-economic issues – either advancing them OR taking away advancements – we’d all be better off. Iit would go a long way to further unify the divide this campaign has caused.

        *Spoken from a true privileged white dude, who knows nothing of racism, sexism, age-ism, or really any -ism.

    • Sseigmund

      “t’s *easy* to wave your hands and be dismissive of wide swaths of the population as irrelevant, or motivated by something nefarious.”

      Yes. It certainly is.

  6. MrGreenMan

    I knew she was going to fail when Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper asked her in the Dem debate when there were at least three candidates what she offered. She smirked, she bounced, she demured, and then said, “Geez, Anderson, I don’t know what could possibly be different than all these *men* who have come before?” Mr. Vanderbilt Cooper, to his eternal credit, asked a follow up: “Are you saying that you offer nothing but that you are a different gender? If that’s not the case, what are your policy differences?”

    She huffed and she puffed, but she couldn’t name a policy. She pretended to be offended at the claim she was offering only a Presidential Pudendum.

    Yet, that’s all she had at the end of the day. Other than abortion “cheap, fast, and easy”, there was still no coherent message of the tattered remains of the Hillary coalition, because it was a cult of personality. They were just supposed to walk in and cash in their ticket after Mr. Obama slew the Republicans for all time – relying on the man to clear the path, do the heavy lifting, and then hand over the keys and move out.

  7. Yamahog

    I think the CAIR / Islamic stuff is manufactured consent / astro-turf. Most 20-something, feminist, Clinton supporters I know aren’t thrilled about the idea of a ton of Islamic fundamentalists (or any religiously conservative people) coming over. I don’t think any of them are opposed to it and most of them don’t seem too aware of the Sharia going ons, but if they heard about it from someone who was otherwise a right-thinker, I”m sure they would be appalled.

    There’s a new (insincere) pro-Islam, pro-Sharia current going on in the right wing basements, we’ll see whether it gains any traction (probably not in the mainstream) but at least it sheds some light on child marriage, female genital mutilation, punishment for being gay, punishment for adultery (rape victims), et. al.

  8. Foxtrot Alpha

    There’s only one right that American women have that men do not: to murder an unborn child.

    • Matt

      Make no mistake: in any case of a woman who is pregnant with an unwanted child, there is a man who has at least 50% agency in that situation. It’s just the woman who will be forced to live with the child, while the man can walk away.

      • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

        True, but on the other hand, the man has no ability to prevent the abortion as things stand now.

        Which is another way of saying that men are utterly powerless to have a child without complicity on the part of a woman.

        I only mention this because I know a lot of men who would be great, involved, committed fathers but who will never have that chance because they don’t excite or interest women.

  9. VoGo

    Thanks Jack for the entertainment. It’s fun to watch you and your brother try to cope with the idea of women marching for their rights.
    #triggered
    #whitemaleandafraid
    #mustattackwhatifailtounderstand
    #hemanwomanhatersclub4ever

    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      Let me ask you a serious question:

      Did you have a big sister who made you do stuff to her and her boyfriend?

      • VoGo

        No, Jack, not everyone who disagrees with your politics and morals was molested as a child. Both of my sisters are much younger.

    • Foxtrot Alpha

      Decided to create an account today to see what predictable VoGo will say: was not dissapointed

    • Ronnie Schreiber

      Rights?

      Do Jews have a right to be sovereign in their homeland? Do Jews have the right to pray on the Temple Mount?

      #judenratjew
      #wouldn’tknowauthenticjudaismifitbithimonthetuchas

      • Rambo Furum

        I think we’ve seen that the only way to keep the Jewish State from causing eternal wars is to make that state an island with no access. There are three or four continents that I would be glad to offer them.

      • VoGo

        Does Ronnie have the right to turn every discussion into a forum to broadcast his right wing Israeli politics?

      • Ronnie Schreiber

        Vogo, you’re the one who brought up rights. I want to see just how little regard you have for your own people’s rights.

        Since when is the right of Jews to be sovereign in their homeland a point of right wing Israeli politics? That’s certainly the position of the Israeli Labor party. It’s in Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, “Lihiyot Am Chofshi B’Artzeinu”, “To be a free nation in our land”, but I didn’t have to translate that for you, what with your being such a Hebraica and Judaic scholar, did I?

        As for the Temple Mount (btw, it’s called Har HaBayit, not that any media talking heads can get their tongues around that while their busy learning how to precisely enunciate Haram Al Sharif as they think a native Arabic speaker would), do you think Jews and Christians should be barred from praying there? If so, why?

        Regarding me turning every conversation into a forum to broadcast my politics, once again you provide a textbook example of psychological projection.

        I’d bet my left testicle that a smaller percentage of my discussions revolve around right wing Israeli politics than the percentage of your discussions that revolve around your own religion, progressivism.

        I have quite a full life and many varied interests. Now if you will please excuse me, I have a 3D printer I have to attend to.

        • VoGo

          Ronnie,
          Do you have anything better to do than invent a bunch of lies about me? Why not ask me direct questions, rather than make all these silly strawman assumptions, the vast majority of which are ridiculously untrue?

          I will give you a hint: MY people believe in democracy.

  10. hank chinaski

    CH nails it today.

    A few of our local SWPL housewives marched and of course posted to Facebookagram to virtue signal with their silly hats and signs, their husband/eunichs loyally standing by holding their purses and iPhones.

    At least they won’t be shooting cops afterwards.

    As another Jack has said: “….I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.”

  11. Felis Concolor

    Hey Jack, I’m certain you enjoyed reading about the craftsman who sells his bespoke guitars for $6,000, who assaulted a young woman reporting on the Women’s March this weekend before fleeing back across the border to his digs in Edmonton.

    Or has that story not yet gained traction?

  12. mopar4wd

    The majority showed up to march because Trump is well Trump no need to go further then that. As to it’s effectiveness it got Trump to go on at least 2 loony rants, so I would say it’s pretty effective. It obviously got under his skin and that’s the point.

  13. Jim

    I have an honest question to anyone still reading this post.

    If a guy knit himself a pink hat, positioned himself perfectly within the march, and made disingenuous conversation with the right womyn at the right time, do you think it could have turned into an evening to remember a la the Owen Wilson character in Wedding Crashers?

    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I’d wondered about that.

      In my experience, women find “feminist ally” behavior to be a turn-off. You’d have to play it exactly right.

      PICK-UP ARTIST: Why is everybody wearing these hats?
      THE ONE OUT OF FIFTY WOMEN’S MARCH PARTICIPANTS YOU’D REALLY WANT TO FUCK: It’s the march, stupid. Why are you wearing it?
      PUA: I was on a Tinder date last night. Stayed over at her place. It was cold this morning so I stole this hat off her nightstand for the walk home. Imagine how freaked out I was when I realized you were all wearing them! Looks at her accusingly Is this a cult?

      • CJinSD

        I couldn’t read that without imagining one of my best friends, the one I used to crew a yacht in the Caribbean with, saying those exact words to a hot girl who would have just spent the previous two days saying how much she hates guys just like him… Which means they’re definitely how one should play this. Most of the time, I could merely keep my mouth shut until it was really necessary to impart that, “that’s a lot to deal with,” which was so efficient and efficacious that I rarely even needed to know what was being said by the night’s entertainment until that point. It really works with anything girls say. “My roommate let my cat out!” That’s a lot to deal with. “My boyfriend got arrested for possession with intent to sell.” That’s a lot to deal with. “My parents said they won’t pay for my last year of school now that they know I changed my major to basket-weaving.” Etcetera…

  14. chrysalis

    Direct hit. My sister-in-law is a comfortable Bethesda professional who participated in this misguided offense to rational thought. I offered to send her cans of soup and mace for those tough years ahead.

    I had been fuming over a bit over Jack’s class warfare language and references to a mythical past with humble, skilled, 3-pedal supercar drivers who came by their wealth honestly. Perhaps I need to re-read in context.

    His eyes are clear and writing superb.

Comments are closed.