Short Response: Because We’re Angry

Ed. Note: I offered my friend and commenter Jake the opportunity to speak his mind and write a post. He took me up on it. Here it is.

Recently, our host opined the 2017 Women’s March was cool, but then wondered: Why? However, as I will demonstrate, the content of his post fails to address the question of why by ignoring the obvious answer, substituting the opinions of individuals for the purpose of the march, and changing the question. The net effect of all this pretense leaves me thinking: Cool story bro, but why?

As for why the 2017 Women’s March took place, a simple trip to their website reveals a clear and concise mission statement.

The mission of Women’s March is to harness the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change. Women’s March is a women-led movement providing intersectional education on a diverse range of issues and creating entry points for new grassroots activists & organizers to engage in their local communities through trainings, outreach programs and events. Women’s March is committed to dismantling systems of oppression through nonviolent resistance and building inclusive structures guided by self-determination, dignity and respect.

This statement opens with a well-crafted statement of the ultimate mission of the march: harness the political power (convince more women to vote) of diverse women and their communities (all women and the people who care about them) to create transformative social change (supplant conservative politicians so we can finally make some real progress in society).

It goes on to list additional, supporting objectives like education and establishing a framework for organic growth. These are strategies to achieve the aforementioned goal. If anything, I would suggest the final sentence of their mission is an unnecessary flourish but it qualifies their woke bona fides in a way which does not cloud their clearly stated mission.

This is both the obvious answer to Scott’s original question and the most appropriate, as he asked ‘but why’ of the Women’s March, not individual marchers. However, he goes on to cherry pick quotes from the NY Times which communicate the responses of individual participants which, while interesting in their own right, obviously do not speak for the entire march.

New York marchers said they felt empowered: ‘I feel like the revolution is now.’

That’s what Vanessa Medina, a 32-year-old nurse, said prompted her to participate this year, even though she didn’t march last January. Ms. Medina, of Clifton, N.J., cited the Time’s Up campaign against sexual harassment and Republicans’ attempts to defund Planned Parenthood as her reasons for protesting.

“I want equal pay,” her 11-year-old daughter, Xenaya, chimed in. “And equal rights.”

In my opinion, Scott further degrades the authenticity of his perspective by changing the question. The first time, just a few sentences into his post before addressing the original question.

Amazing, indeed. What will it (a smile, wave, and a tip of the pussy hat) do?

This was his new question of an individual marcher’s perspective on her experience. It seems to be more along the lines of: What do you hope to accomplish? Instead of: Why are you here? Later in the post, without addressing the original question, more new iterations of his curiosity emerge:

But there’s one nagging question. What are they marching for?

and

So aside from hating Trump, what was the point of the march?

As I mentioned, all of this pretense leaves me questioning the point of the post at all. Whether it’s Scott’s intention or not, his post resembles and includes tactics often used to criticize the Occupy movement.

Interestingly, as much as it fails to address the easily answered question of why the entire movement exists, it also fails to ask the original question of individuals: Why are they marching? I suggest the answer for most is the one they will be least comfortable sharing as simply as: “Because I am angry.” I say least likely because, after all, it is a women’s march and women have been trained not to share their emotional state in public.

However, I also think this is a shame because it is the most important answer to the question why. Society is angry right now. Many phenomena are evidence of this anger. I believe Trump is one. Marches are another. Criticism of policy brutality or extra-judicial prosecution of ‘sex crimes’ are others.

I think it is important to recognize this anger because history has much to teach us about what can happen next when lots of people are angry enough to march on the streets, and their concerns are not addressed.

Perhaps the most important question is: What are you angry about?

I’m Jake, frequent commenter and critic of SJ. I am not a lawyer, but I have more than a passing interest in the politics, law, and society because I believe it is a basic responsibility of citizenship to be informed. I hope to contribute to the conversation here at Simple Justice from time to time so I can learn more from all of you about your perspectives on these same issues. 

32 thoughts on “Short Response: Because We’re Angry

    1. Rigelsen

      You underestimate yourself, I would wager. Incoherent rage is far easier to articulate than you might imagine, easier than coherent rage, at least.

  1. B. McLeod

    Of course, as with many unfocused “marches” a plausible alternative answer is “because they’re none too smart.” Marching around, shouting and waving signs, because various marchers are angry about dozens of different things is as moronic as it is pointless. Everybody is angry. Go sit down.

    1. Patrick Maupin

      Venting can be cathartic if done properly. OTOH, it is somewhat amusing that Scott’s headline, which at first blush appears to be a sarcastic or cynical take on the post, is actually just an accurate restatement of the post’s conclusion.

      [Ed. Note: Jake picked his own title, so I can’t take credit for it either way.]

      1. B. McLeod

        It is for this purpose that Everlast created the 75-pound heavy bag. Those who need more can scream while they are punching.

    2. Fubar

      … a plausible alternative answer is “because they’re none too smart.”

      After rousers of rabble have thundered,
      Learnèd pundits have scratched heads and wondered,
      Just how well endowed
      Is any great crowd?
      Their average IQ is one hunderd!¹

      FN 1: But can they spell?

  2. Billy Bob

    Some men are angry too, but we’re not marching. We have work to do, families to support and enemies to fight. Furthermore, not all women are angry, satisfied as they are with their respective lots in life. How do you like them apples?

    Generous of you to offer Jake the opportunity to express a countervailing opinion. We note in passing the loss of women amongst the readership. Although it’s not always easy to tell who is a woman, a gaylord or a trans. You know, comparing apples with oranges is verboten. Separating the sheep from the goats is an ongoing challenge.

    [Ed. Note: There are quite a few female readers. I would estimate about a third of all readers. Most don’t comment regularly, but commenters comprise a very small percentage of the readership. I can’t imagine why.]

    1. Billy Bob

      We imagine, women readers fear being taken to the proverbial, well-known SJ woodshed! Those of us who are gluttons for punishment comprise the,… tah dah, ONE PERCENT? Now we know what we always suspected! Watch out: Trump might show up here someday. And then what will you do? Make a Deal! Accept an offer you cannot refuse? As he hits the Donate button and contributes millions and millions of $s. If Melania or any of the offspring show up, please treat them kindly. With undue kindness, if that is your preference.

  3. Dan

    The mission statement you quote is neither clear nor concise; it is in fact an utter word salad, bereft of any real meaning. Your paraphrase is much better–though it’s roughly three times as long as the first sentence of the original, it’s much clearer and more concrete. “Transformative change” doesn’t identify an objective, just the desire for a change.

    1. David Meyer-Lindenberg

      It’s not really a paraphrase, is it? It’s more of a dub. There’s nothing in the text to hang Jake’s interpretation on (or do you see a link between, say, “convince more women to vote” and anything in the original?) Worse, jake’s explanation of the march’s goals doesn’t mesh with what actually happened (or do you see a link between, say, “convince more women to vote” and stomping around in public?)

      1. Dan

        If I’m being exceptionally charitable, I can see the faintest of connections between “harness the political power” and “convince to vote” (the assumption being, of course, that they’ll vote progressive). But as to the rest, you’re right–it just isn’t in there. I believe he’s correct that that’s what they want to do, but it isn’t what they said.

  4. Lee

    But does a “sense of empowerment” do anything? If all the marches did was make women feel better, but they don’t do the real hard work of political organizing, weren’t they just exercises in virtue signaling?

  5. Paul

    I like your analogy of the occupy movement. What ever came of that? Did they meet any of their nebulous ill defined goals? Obviously the 1% saw the moral bankruptcy of their ways, their heart grew ten sizes and they donated all their money to charity and influenced politics to establish socialist wealth distribution policies right?

    On another note, I disagree with your fisking of that first diverse in their mission statement. The follow up of intersectional, and history of these marches, suggests the other less kind uninclusive reading IMHO.

  6. Miles

    Ah, Jake. While your mansplaining of their mission does a far better job than their meaningless mission statement, the same mission statement would do just as well for a march of women against abortion, for the right to keep and bear arms and against illegal immigrants. You insert the word “conservative” before politicians, but they don’t. Maybe you’re seeing clothes on the Emperor because woke people are supposed to?

    But you neglect the key point. The NY Times didn’t get any message (did you read the articles linked in SHG’s post?). The marchers didn’t get any message (their signs and stated purposes were all over the place). And, I suggest, “society” may well be angry, but everybody is angry about their own thing, and often angry at each other as well.

    And would it be rude to add, angry is an emotion. Being angry at the nail isn’t the same as pulling out the nail. Then again, on what planet have women been “trained” not to reveal their emotions? That appears to be their favorite thing to do in the world: emote, pat themselves on the back for being so “strong” for emoting, then posting their instagram pics of them being powerful.

  7. Matthew S Wideman

    Jake, I see your point. The anger is coming from a real place and real issues. I wouldn’t hang any hat on that extremely nebulous mission statement which could mean just about anything. But, being angry and having an opinion does not make someone above reproach. As American citizens it is our right….nay our duty to criticize….suggest….poke the bear….and burn the flag of any cause we agree/disagree/kind of agree with. It’s especially what lawyer’s do….we eat our own and criticize in a way that is snarky and endearing in it’s nakedness.

    My interpretation of SHG post is….feelings are nice, but actions are nicer (SHG is free to tell me how dumb I am for my poor interpretation). Virtue signalling has become all of the rage, but has it produced any tangible legislation…action?

  8. Beth

    I’m not really surprised by some of these comments. I told Scott that I’d struggled with answering why. I still do. But to completely discount the march or the movement or however you want to refer to it is unfair and rather narrow minded.
    I live an extremely conservative town in an extremely conservative district in an extremely conservative state. Most of my friends would never set foot at anything that could be deemed a protest. What would people say?? And a few even privately said their husbands would never allow it. Many were shocked i would attend such a thing. My own mother said she was disappointed in me and embarrassed.
    But… since that time i have seen a change. I can only judge what i can see and i can see it. People who never before took an interest in anything outside of our little bubble are now speaking up. There has been greater engagement in local civic functions. There are more people running for office – from both parties. Jake is right. People are angry. And some are channeling that anger to do good. I have friends who are volunteering for campaigns. And others who are doing more for our community.
    Whether that’s a direct result of a women’s march i can’t say. But you can’t definitively say that it’s not. At least in my circle it has effected a small change.
    You’re right. Yelling and whining and crying and making signs and wearing pink hats doesn’t do much if that’s all there is.
    I have three kids in their 20s. I’d rather they do something besides sit at home and whine online. If that means going to a march to get inspired to get off their asses and do something then so be it.
    For me that’s better than nothing.

    1. Mile

      What march? What movement? What are your personal pronouns?

      Civic involvement is wonderful, but you don’t explain what they’re involved or what side of the issues they’re on. Are you for or against abortion? Are you marching for transgender bathrooms? I have no idea from your comment what you are except angry. At what? Why? What did the march have to do with it?

      So your kids got off the internet and marched to “do something”? Do what? I sincerely have no clue from your comment what you’re talking about.

      1. Joseph

        If the goal of the march is to increase civic involvement, then an increase in civic involvement is a success, regardless of the specific issues that said involvement later ends up being about. I don’t see why the specific details are required for you to measure whether the march had an effect or not. A generic campaign to get out the vote is measured as a success if voter participation increases, not by figuring out what specific candidates and measures were helped or harmed by increased voter participation and judging it on that basis.

        1. Miles

          If the only purpose of the march, and the only reason people went to it, was to foster non-partisan civic engagement, that would be true. Is that what you’re contending?

          1. Joseph

            There were probably a soup of purposes for the march and a lot of reasons people went, but successfully achieving a single one of those purposes means it wasn’t just one big waste of time for everyone, which is the narrative a lot of people seem to be pushing.

      2. B. McLeod

        At this point, I would certainly be wary of engaging in any conduct that might lead them to even suspect me of possibly approaching any of their food (as the food-related explanation seems the most plausible at this point). So, they have accomplished that, and to the extent they feel more secure about their food supply, they can continue to grow ever larger and stronger (or “more empowered,” if you prefer).

    2. Suzi

      I know what things I’m angry about. I have no idea what you’re angry about. When I’m angry about something, I deal with it. When you’re angry about something, you wait for someone you don’t know to call a march for a purpose that doesn’t actually mean anything and march because you’re angry about something.

      I’m beginning to see your problem. If you’re angry, maybe you shouldn’t wait for someone to call for a march for reasons that may have nothing to do with you or what you’re angry about.

    3. Matthew S Wideman

      Beth, I am happy for you. Take that energy and make a policy change or improve your community! That is an honest idea and I hope you follow through.

      The cynic in me thinks most of those people won’t do anything and they probably won’t. Cynics and dreamers are the yin and yang of politics.

      [Ed. Note: This is a very sweet comment, Matthew, and Beth is very dear to me. Thank you.]

    4. Nemo

      Beth,

      After stopping to reconsider my thoughts, it has occurred to me that those who talk about doing things will always garner more attention than those who are actually doing things.

      Those who go out and do the things that make our world a little better deserve more credit than they get. So thank you, Beth, for the reminder of the importance of the little folks who toil away with little issues (if you take my meaning).

      Best regards,
      Nemo

  9. Joseph

    In a conversation I once had with a pro-Occupier, where I criticized their lack of a unified platform and the fact that the whole thing seemed like it would cook off into nothing, I was told that that one of the biggest “benefits” of public protest was not to capture the hearts of mainstream America, nor to issue a list of demands and hold the streets hostage until they were enacted, but to raise political awareness among casual participants and create contacts between those who were genuinely politically active and those who were not. Reinterpreting the whole parade as an overglorified meet-and-greet rather than a means to a specific end helped me understand better why people would take time out of their day to otherwise jump up and down and accomplish very little.

    Women who “feel disempowered” are likely to sit on their asses and do nothing. Women who “feel empowered” might also sit on their asses and do nothing except tweet about how empowered they are, but they might also channel that feeling into actual political engagement, whether it’s organized political action or simply contributing to political conversations in daily life.

    I think that assessments of the “usefulness” of the march are colored by the fact that a lot of people here think that most of the causes being championed by march leaders are kool-aid. If a million people were to take to the streets in the name of criminal justice reform, even if most of them were easily swindled idiots only in it to feel good about themselves, some of them would eventually find their way into the trenches.

  10. Gretz

    To me, it all seems an exercise in “Keeping the Rage Alive!”, rationalizing the irrational, and demanding the impractical, while refusing to acknowledge the loss of victimhood, seeking more bizzare rationale, and splitting victimhood into ever finer and finer quanta.

    Oh, and demanding free stuff, from “Rich people”.

    For some, rage and Santa Claus are the only way to get the base to show up.

  11. Sacho

    It’s impossible to judge whether the march actually accomplishes any of the goals it set out to do(as they are all long-term effects that have plenty of confounding variables). Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the march is immediately effective at its goals as Jake lays them out:

    – it convinces more women to vote
    – it convinces them to vote against conservative politicians so we can make real progress”in society

    Now, Jake does what he blames Scott of doing – cherry picking quotes to fit his narrative. Under the mission statement is a set of Unity Principles, outlining the “intersectional platform known as the Unity Principles”. There are some issues with the Unity Principles:

    0. Intersectionality does not work. I want to start with this because I feel this is the strongest argument, but it’s the least targeted at the Women’s March, so YMMV. Intersectional feminism ensnares new recruits by claiming that a utopia will happen if we all just get along and listen to feminist activists. When you get down to the actual changes that need to happen, infighting invariably happens. Even within feminism itself there are competing lines of thought that cannot co-exist; what happens when you co-opt people from outside the movement who have differing views altogether? Intersectionality is doomed from the start, because it sells a fantasy that you can help everyone without compromising anyone.

    On to the Unity Principles.

    1. Ending Violence(Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of all forms of violence against our bodies.). I believe Scott has eloquently described the effectiveness of the Ending Violence branch of feminist movements(see criticism of Title IX, MeToo, and the Sentence-O-Matic).

    2. Reproductive rights – intentionally skipped because it is their most coherent ask. As with most political stories, it says “we want to spend money to do X” but it doesn’t describe where the money should come from(clashing with 0’s point on compromise) – but this isn’t specific to progressive talking points.

    3. LGBTQIA rights – this is, as far as my understanding goes, either a wokeness flourish(as Jake calls it), completely meaningless(goals already achieved) or actively dangerous(wanting the government to *solve* the issue of discrimination rather than police it in narrow domains – that way lies tyranny). The government is a crude tool for social engineering, and adding more and more draconian measures that affect the whole populace, just to ease the minds of the 0.1%, is going to be a disaster(and fail 0’s compromise test again – for example, intersectional feminism rapidly loses free speech radicalists once it tries to “progress” on this front). Scott has also written about this plenty.

    4. WORKER’S RIGHTS – Let’s assume that they use the word ‘equitably’ to mean ‘fair and impartial’. This puts them at odds with literally every feminist explanation of “equality vs equity” I’ve seen, where they demonstrate that in order to achieve equity, you must be discriminatory towards “suffering” groups and pay them more than you would with a ‘fair and impartial’ test. Again, this is well-wishing but the actions taken under this banner are deplorable. Companies are shamed if they cannot achieve women and minority quotas, even if the interest in those jobs is not ‘equitable’. Blind interviews are tried and scrapped because they are too ‘fair and impartial’ and don’t produce equitable outcomes.

    (the points get worse here from on out, so I’ve reduced my commentary on them)

    5. CIVIL RIGHTS – This is meaningless tripe and I hope I don’t have to argument myself here.

    6. DISABILITY RIGHTS – See 2)

    7. IMMIGRANT RIGHTS – Ha! Good luck with that. This will absolutely break the back of intersectionality if it happens.

    8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – again, see 2)

    The Unity Principles are not actually uniting. Achieving many of them will divide the “intersectional base”, because they never tell you that you’ll need to compromise to achieve them. Also, as with many other progressive movements, this one treats all issues as stemming from a “system”, and sets its goals on dismantling it, not realizing that the people they want to recruit are active participants in that system. Once the movement realizes this, it turns from touchy-feely “let’s all live happily ever after” to “kill all cis white men”.

    There are externalities that the Women’s March might achieve despite its utopian fantasy goals and the destructive actions taken in their name. It might make people feel better for a while, more energized – that’s definitely something worthwhile, but we call that entertainment, not political activity. For your entertainment, you advance the destructive policies which are counter-productive to your movement and actively harmful to innocent bystanders. I hope you’re happy.

    1. B. McLeod

      The ones who eat more food will be more energized. Some of them may get buckets of cookie dough (stay out of their way, for sure).

  12. John Barleycorn

    Is this a 2017B – 6?

    You could have taken a bit of his lung, No?

    Don’t be such a pusy next time!

    P.S. I just throw tantrums not seen. Anyway, work up up a full head steam next time and take part the estemed ones lung.

    He wants. But hard for him to see….

    Backwards compliment I guess. Anyway, think bits and pieces of his lungs.

    I wouldn’t even hesitate and only accept the edit if he ate it live on Skype for cause.

Comments are closed.