The reaction to my first blog post was rather extreme.
What’s that old saying? If you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target.
Apparently, a woman can “identify” as anything she likes these days. Anything, that is, except Republican.
Republicans up for election or re-election, take note: Your record, your individuality, your integrity, your very essence mean nothing to the women (and men) who are marching in the streets today. You have been reduced to nothing more than a Donald Trump stand-in. He won’t be on the ballot for another three years, so until then, every candidate and every election will be against him in proxy.
Don’t believe me? Check out the comments section on my article posted here, at Gordon Glantz’s blog. I’d like to direct you to the “Indivisible Mid-Montco” facebook page, pictured left, except I don’t have access to that closed site, which is so inclusive, it makes you answer an ideological questionnaire in order to join. If you are surprised that such a site would post an opposing point of view, don’t be. The purpose was not to inform, or, heaven forbid, introduce an alternative point of view into the feminist echo chamber. It was posted as a feminist punching bag, which is awesome and safe for them when they don’t have to worry about this female punching back, since I am excluded from their exclusive club.
This prejudice against all Republicans is not only surface deep, it is celebrated in liberal feminist circles. But Republicans are not the only group excluded by Liberal Feminists. Apparently, the litmus test gets more rigid and exclusive with each passing day.
For example, take the New Wave Feminists, a pro-life group who were excluded from the Women’s March last year. NYTimes:
“If you want to come to the Women’s March you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman’s right to choose,” said Linda Sarsour, the co-chair of the event.
This year, as they did last year, the New Wave Feminists are going anyway. But there are still folks unhappy about that. Wapo:
Among many abortion rights advocates, “pro-life feminism” is not a thing.
Pamela Merritt, co-founder of Reproaction, an Alexandria-based activist group that works to expand access to abortion, said she “understands the attraction to feminism” for many in a movement that helped elect a president “who has been accused of sexual assault, is attacking immigrant communities, saying racist things on a daily basis, going after access to health care, and who may have colluded with a foreign power to get into office.”
She said being a “pro-life feminist” is like saying you are a “vegan who likes chicken.” “It’s just not possible, if you don’t believe a woman has the human right to make decisions about her body and her health care and her future.”
This year’s Women’s March in Philadelphia ignited so much controversy over the city’s proposed security measures for the event, more than a few activists were calling for a boycott of the event. Philly Mag:
Several transgender individuals, such as black queer activist Giana Graves, have also raised concerns online about how the march’s security measures “intimidate trans women from even participating.” “I think the first issue is that there’s no trans women organizing the march when it’s supposed to be about having a voice and seat at the table — it seems ironic considering there are no seats for trans women or non-binary folks and the POC voices that are involved appear to be tokenized,” Graves said. “If a trans women was sitting at that table, there would be no police check points for stop and frisk protocols that put us at risk since we are often profiled as sex workers. These measures are also not safe for sex workers considering that a lot of them have been profiled, assaulted, harassed or even raped by cops, with such check points giving them an opportunity to become further traumatized victims of police brutality.”
It’s so easy to get triggered these days. More and more folks keep getting excluded from the new inclusiveness.
So how do Republicans, already completely ostracized as a party and as a movement thanks to the Circus Maximus surrounding POTUS, make inroads into this angry, often irrational, group? How do you even begin to get them to listen? Then, how do we get our candidates recognized as individuals, with impressive accomplishments and respectable resumes?
Is it possible? Or do we just need to wait until this anger burns itself out?
2 thoughts on “Exclusive Inclusiveness”
You seem to be under the impression that Indivisible was set up to be all “inclusive” or a group for debating opposing political views? It is a national organization and you can look up the principles on which the group is based, they are not conservative. But I’m sure you can find other groups that more closely align to your views.
Not at all. I thought I was very clear in my previous post that I thought Indivisible was a shallow, one note movement bent on keeping women angry. The anger here is focused solely on POTUS, and I get that, I just wonder how angry women would be about the bad behavior of men if Hillary Clinton had been elected. Clinton and all of the Democrat party happily enabled this behavior for decades because shining a spotlight on it would have crippled Bill Clinton politically. I think the anger propelling Indivisible is hypocritical and cynical and I think that the movement’s refusal to recognize the elements within it are the very factors that are going to continue to keep women from actually holding the reigns of power, except superficially.