Red Mosquito

Malloy wrote:who would have thought pearl jam bros could be so reactionary

Hey, I resent being referred to as a Pearl Jam bro.

Bi_3 wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: What was their point?

What specific aims were the protests trying to achieve, except for an anguished howl against a democratic process that didn't go their way?

There was no legislative goal, if that is what you mean, but the point was not that one dimensional. Ignore the incoherent ramblings of Madonna and Judd or other rabid anti-Trumpers for a minute and you will see this was a show of political strength to a man that seemed quite comfortable with long obsolete gender roles. Scarlet Johansson summed it up nicely:

"President Trump, I did not vote for you . . . I want to be able to support you. But first I ask that you support me, support my sister, support my mother."

It's that simple

I get that and, as a husband and father of daughters, I wholeheartedly agree.

I think Trump's behaviour is morally questionable (to say the least) and he's shown himself on many occasions to be vulgar, crass and somebody I would want to spend as little time around as humanly possible.

Not that I think that necessarily disqualifies him from the Presidency, mind you - his actions in office might, but it hasn't happened (just) yet.

My largest issue with the march was that I don't think things of that nature are appropriate or helpful for kids for the reasons already explained. I'd feel differently about a 12 or 13 year old but if your child who is 5, 6 or 7 knows who Donald Trump is, something's gone terribly wrong in my view.

That aside, the march itself seems pretty harmless, if kind of trivial and vague. How are women specifically threatened by Trump's administration? Is it just because they find him so personally objectionable? If so, is it reasonable to extrapolate one from the other? As with much social activism, I suspect it's less about the stated issue and instead motivated primarily by a desire to share in a feeling of connectedness with other people who share similar values in a society where we often feel fragmented.

Spenno, I've been meaning to write a response to your views on protesting with children but I haven't had time, I'll try to do that soon.

Unfortunately, I think parents in America would pretty much have to lock their kids away to avoid them knowing who Donald Trump is by this point. And I think since that is the case, I completely understand why parents would take pains to try to point their children in the direction of Trump being a clear example of how someone should not conduct themselves, and a clear example of how someone still learning how to interact with people should not treat others.

digster wrote:Unfortunately, I think parents in America would pretty much have to lock their kids away to avoid them knowing who Donald Trump is by this point. And I think since that is the case, I completely understand why parents would take pains to try to point their children in the direction of Trump being a clear example of how someone should not conduct themselves, and a clear example of how someone still learning how to interact with people should not treat others.

digster wrote:Unfortunately, I think parents in America would pretty much have to lock their kids away to avoid them knowing who Donald Trump is by this point.

I find this very difficult to believe.

As I said, my issue is with children who are quite young. If not through the efforts or inattention of their parents, how would they know? Are they reading the paper or watching the news?!

Birds in Hell wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: What was their point?

What specific aims were the protests trying to achieve, except for an anguished howl against a democratic process that didn't go their way?

There was no legislative goal, if that is what you mean, but the point was not that one dimensional. Ignore the incoherent ramblings of Madonna and Judd or other rabid anti-Trumpers for a minute and you will see this was a show of political strength to a man that seemed quite comfortable with long obsolete gender roles. Scarlet Johansson summed it up nicely:

"President Trump, I did not vote for you . . . I want to be able to support you. But first I ask that you support me, support my sister, support my mother."

It's that simple

I get that and, as a husband and father of daughters, I wholeheartedly agree.

I think Trump's behaviour is morally questionable (to say the least) and he's shown himself on many occasions to be vulgar, crass and somebody I would want to spend as little time around as humanly possible.

Not that I think that necessarily disqualifies him from the Presidency, mind you - his actions in office might, but it hasn't happened (just) yet.

My largest issue with the march was that I don't think things of that nature are appropriate or helpful for kids for the reasons already explained. I'd feel differently about a 12 or 13 year old but if your child who is 5, 6 or 7 knows who Donald Trump is, something's gone terribly wrong in my view.

That aside, the march itself seems pretty harmless, if kind of trivial and vague. How are women specifically threatened by Trump's administration? Is it just because they find him so personally objectionable? If so, is it reasonable to extrapolate one from the other? As with much social activism, I suspect it's less about the stated issue and instead motivated primarily by a desire to share in a feeling of connectedness with other people who share similar values in a society where we often feel fragmented.

I am technically fallible, so someone else can embed this, but I thought this was appropriate. Just watching a freaking commercial of kids watching this stuff nearly brings me to tears. Unfortunately, unless "Peppa Pig" is the only time TV is on in your house, 5-year olds are most definitely exposed to this stuff on a fairly routine basis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA

Birds in Hell wrote:

digster wrote:Unfortunately, I think parents in America would pretty much have to lock their kids away to avoid them knowing who Donald Trump is by this point.

I find this very difficult to believe.

As I said, my issue is with children who are quite young. If not through the efforts or inattention of their parents, how would they know? Are they reading the paper or watching the news?!

From a very young age, American children are taught about our nation's history in the schools. They go to school with other children whose parents discuss politics at the dinner table. In this country it's smart parenting to engage your children so they don't grow up having been sheltered - or worse yet - unable to form critical thinking skills.

track11 wrote:Unfortunately, unless "Peppa Pig" is the only time TV is on in your house, 5-year olds are most definitely exposed to this stuff on a fairly routine basis.

I realise that's an exaggeration but is that actually that unreasonable?

I would never have the TV news on when our kids are around (for reference, our eldest is 7).

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:In this country it's smart parenting to engage your children so they don't grow up having been sheltered - or worse yet - unable to form critical thinking skills.

Oh brother.

I thought this was pretty funny, considering Spicer stated that a lot of viewers he cited the other day were in person and the Internet.

Birds in Hell wrote:

digster wrote:Unfortunately, I think parents in America would pretty much have to lock their kids away to avoid them knowing who Donald Trump is by this point.

I find this very difficult to believe.

As I said, my issue is with children who are quite young. If not through the efforts or inattention of their parents, how would they know? Are they reading the paper or watching the news?!

I can appreciate this for myself, but what if you were Muslim? Black? I guarantee you that Black children are exposed to racism before they hit 12 years old. There is an arabic school in town, Pre-K to High School, that has had picketers several times in the past year with nasty signs. Is it the parents' fault if the child sees those signs or hears the shouts of those people? You must be living in a very protected sanctuary to think that all it takes is to avoid the news to insulate your children from this.

Birds in Hell wrote: How are women specifically threatened by Trump's administration?.

Here's one reason for you: There was a threat to de-fund domestic violence against women programs within the Department of Justice.

Birds in Hell wrote:

track11 wrote:Unfortunately, unless "Peppa Pig" is the only time TV is on in your house, 5-year olds are most definitely exposed to this stuff on a fairly routine basis.

I realise that's an exaggeration but is that actually that unreasonable?

I would never have the TV news on when our kids are around (for reference, our eldest is 7).

I mean, if your kids go to school they're impacted by the outside world. The presidential election permeates our country for about a year-and-a-half. And if a child is exposed to Donald Trump at a school or in a situation where the parents aren't present, I think it'd be all the more important that parents step in and address it with their kids. God forbid a kid sees Trump being Trump and thinks it's the right way to act.

Kids absorb a lot more than you think Spenno.

digster wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

track11 wrote:Unfortunately, unless "Peppa Pig" is the only time TV is on in your house, 5-year olds are most definitely exposed to this stuff on a fairly routine basis.

I realise that's an exaggeration but is that actually that unreasonable?

I would never have the TV news on when our kids are around (for reference, our eldest is 7).

I mean, if your kids go to school they're impacted by the outside world. The presidential election permeates our country for about a year-and-a-half. And if a child is exposed to Donald Trump at a school or in a situation where the parents aren't present, I think it'd be all the more important that parents step in and address it with their kids. God forbid a kid sees Trump being Trump and thinks it's the right way to act.

I'd admit that this may reflect my experiences of elections in another country with another system of government but it's very difficult for me to grasp the election being that pervasive. I'd like to imagine most people go days, weeks without thinking much about politics or politicians (I envy these people).

All of this sounds like a great argument for home-schooling, frankly.

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: How are women specifically threatened by Trump's administration?.

Here's one reason for you: There was a threat to de-fund domestic violence against women programs within the Department of Justice.

Is this it?

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/trumps- ... grams.html

It sounds as though certain grants currently administered by the Department of Justice may be cut or reduced as part of a wider push to reduce Government spending.

Is it fair to describe that as a "threat", as though its motivated by malice or targeted against that specific program?

Birds in Hell wrote:

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: How are women specifically threatened by Trump's administration?.

Here's one reason for you: There was a threat to de-fund domestic violence against women programs within the Department of Justice.

Is this it?

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/trumps- ... grams.html

It sounds as though certain grants currently administered by the Department of Justice may be cut or reduced as part of a wider push to reduce Government spending.

Is it fair to describe that as a "threat", as though its motivated by malice or targeted against that specific program?

They have been going after abortions, womens right to choose, etc...for as long as i can remember. This is why some people have voted for trump and can overlook his obvious lack of competency and down right awful behavior. So they can get their party in control and go after these issues. These are the beginning measures.

These same people also dont really believe in birth control. The religious right is a huge contingent of the republican party.

Birds in Hell wrote:

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: How are women specifically threatened by Trump's administration?.

Here's one reason for you: There was a threat to de-fund domestic violence against women programs within the Department of Justice.

Is this it?

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/trumps- ... grams.html

It sounds as though certain grants currently administered by the Department of Justice may be cut or reduced as part of a wider push to reduce Government spending.

Is it fair to describe that as a "threat", as though its motivated by malice or targeted against that specific program?

No shit, Sherlock? You aren't enlightening me at all. You're preaching to the choir, sir. Now imagine that a good portion of women that march, march out a concern that this action will put more women at risk.

You just seem to like to reason away things and dismiss them as trivial. That's laziness. Women's rights have been trivialized historically. So congratulations on justifying their march!

But...but that's how they do it. If they introduced a bill to defund domestic violence programs everyone who votes for it has to explain to their constituents why they don't want to help battered women. But if you put it in a bigger package that does lots of other things lawmakers can then say "I voted to help reign in government spending, sure there were things in it I didn't like but overall it'll get us back on track towards fiscal solvency". In the meantime, battered women are (even more) fucked.