Happy photos of the event
Farrakhan gave another anti-Semitic speech last weekend.
Minister Louis Farrakhan engaged in a series of anti-Semitic remarks on Sunday.
Farrakhan has led the black nationalist group Nation of Islam since 1977 and is known for hyperbolic hate speech aimed at the Jewish community.
During the speech in Chicago, Farrakhan made several anti-Semitic comments, including, “the powerful Jews are my enemy.”
“White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” he later said.
Yeah that’s no good. Whatever you think of Israel, that’s no good.
Women’s March co-chair Tamika Mallory was in attendance, CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter after she shared an image from the event on Instagram.
Mallory has posted on social media about Farrakhan in the past — on February 21, 2016, she posted an image of him from a stage at the Joe Louis Arena with the caption: “The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan just stepped to the mic for #SD16DET… I’m super ready for this message! #JUSTICEORELSE #ForTheLoveOfFlint.”
No good.
So Tamika Mallory, one of the four Women’s March leaders, goes to Farrakhan’s rally the other day, where he rambles on about how the Jews run the world and invented trans people and also pot that feminizes black men. She posts happy photos of the event, which Carmen Perez gives a thumbs up to. Questioned about this on twitter, she doubles down with some weird words about leaders who have the same enemies as Jesus.
Why is it so hard to say, yes, Farrakhan is a bigot and I dissociate myself from him? Obama did it. Instead, she doubled down. You can’t represent a mass movement if you’re going to be so divisive.
No good, no good, double-plus ungood.
Don’t forget, the Women’s March is just fine, as long as you don’t wear those transphobic pussy hats (they’re transphobic because some women don’t give birth through hot pink cat ears on their heads.)
Women know that ‘pussy’ has two meanings. Cat and female external genitalia.
Women wore hats representing the first meaning, as a not-at-all-subtle reference to the second, on world-wide women’s marches in protest at the election of a serial assaulter to the highest office in the US, and (arguably) the most important political position in the Western world (certainly the best-armed one). Those hats were almost all pink, because that is the colour which has become associated, in the last couple of decades or so, exclusively with femaleness.
Women know this. Women of all races and ages know it. It simply isn’t a difficult concept to grasp, if you’re female.
So, TiMs* can either embrace the hats and everything that they mean, or drop the claim that ‘transwomen are women’. They can’t have it both ways.
…Oh, who am I kidding? The whole new transactivism relies on people not noticing the glaring contradictions, the worst of them being the cry that little boys must be first chemically castrated, then surgically castrated, or puberty will spoil them forever – but a grown man must still be accepted as entirely a woman even if he doesn’t bother to shave, let alone have any surgery.
_____________
*TiM = Trans-identified Male.
Are you kidding? This is Amurrika, that’s how OUR ‘mass movements’ operate.
The extent of this probleme has been downplayed for years.
The current mania for denouncing *White Privilege* is but an entrée. That complaint will morph into vociforous denounciations of *Jewish Privilege* in very short order..
That some of America’s Black leaders express anti-semitic and anti-white views is an open secret, a thorny issue that’s been willfully side-stepped for decades now.
Apparently it is for some, who have not only claimed that the pussy hats represent female genitalia, but white female genitalia. The only time white women are that color is when they have a bad sunburn.
And they don’t even get that anatomic argument right. All vaginas are pink – because the word vagina properly refers to the birth canal, which is lined with mucosal membrane. The word they are looking for is vulva.
(Repost from an earlier thread, because this one is more current and appropriate.)
I’ve been thinking about the conflict between gender-critical thinkers and trans-allies of the sort who throw around the label ‘TERF’ so liberally, and it seems that there is a discrepancy along the idea of gender-as-class going on. Gender-critical people believe that women, as a class, face oppression, and that the best (or at least a very good) way of combating and correcting this oppression is to dismantle the women-as-subordinate-class (and the more extreme ones think it’s a good idea to dismantle women-as-class and men-as-class altogether).
Trans-allies generally seem to accept the notion of gender-as-class, but their solution seems (or, to gender-critical folk, appears) to be to inject the concept of class mobility into the gender-as-class framework. I think this point, and the differing language that the ‘camps’ use in reference to it, is a source of great tension. I’m not patient nor versed enough to elaborate on it further, but I think there’s something of an analysis to be had, there.
Exactly, PieterB.
But it is amazing, and tragic, how some people – yes, including women – will ignore what they know to make agreeable noises to any kind of nonsense, in order to get social points from a clique.
There have always been two ways to deal with other people having a disproportionate amount of power. The first is to challenge it, in an attempt to make society more egalitarian – that can take a very long time indeed, and those who take up the challenge are unlikely to see their society become equal in their lifetimes. The second is to flatter those in power in order to get a little power by proxy. It does nothing to improve the lot of the powerless in general, but can improve the lot of that individual. Both ways have major drawbacks, of course.
The Romans?
Oh, right. “The Jews”.
Has the Women’s March movement particularly got anything to do with Jesus, or is that an overlay that Tamika Mallory has added all by herself?
Wasn’t it the Womens’ March organisers that refused to allow a Jewish LGBT group to march, ostensibly because the group, by dint of being Jewish, were responsible for the genocide of the Palestinian people?
Seth
I would use some different phrasing and add a bit to what you said, but I think your post is accurate. Both camps are attempting to combat the various areas of disparity between men and women, but differ in approach when it comes to the ‘behavioural boxes’ the sexes are placed in.
Gender critical feminists – aka feminists – attack the idea that women are naturally meek while men are bold, that women are suited to social sciences while men are are suited to STEM fields, intuitive thinkers versus logical thinkers, emotional versus stoic, nurses versus surgeons… in short, that there are personalities, hobbies, aptitudes, hell even colour and clothing preferences innate to women and their opposites innate to men. In attacking the idea that people ought to like certain things and be treated certain ways based on their sex, this approach attacks the very idea of gender.
The transactivist feminists on the other hand appear to accept the existence of these behavioural boxes, arguing instead that people should be free to choose the box by which they are constrained; the ‘class mobility’ you noted. But they go further than that – they have also invented a large number of additional behavioural boxes, a dizzying array of ways in which our behaviours can be categorised. They reject the idea that behavioral expectations can be imposed on an individual from without… by claiming that people can simply relabel themselves.
My usual rebuttal to this idea is: if a woman is being heavily underpaid and denied advancement because her boss believes she needs to spend more time caring for her kids, will anything change if she calls herself male? Or to go to an extreme, if she travels to one of the Islamic theocratic nations, are they going to let her travel unchaperoned and unveiled if she says she’s actually femme-leaning genderqueer rather than woman? These I think demonstrate that gender is something that is foisted on people whether they want it or not.
Inventing new boxes doesn’t change the fact that people are still in caged in them.
For what little this is worth, the NOI has allied itself with Scientology for some years now, and also is allied with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in his anti-vaccine nonsense (also, Scientology and NOI worked together to try to stop the tightening up of vaccine exemptions in California). What does Mallory think of Scientology and vaccines?
AoS @ 11 – no, not quite. It was the Chicago LGBT Pride march. Newsweek last June:
On that argument, we need to ban crosses. We need to ban hijabs. We need to ban atheist t-shirts. We need to ban so many things, that everyone will show up wearing the same drab gray t-shirt and pants so no one anywhere is offended.
There is very little that marks one individual’s identity that no one will find offensive.
Ophelia, thanks. Got my marches mixed up.