Aw no.
It says women’s march in the url, but…
THE MARCH – January 19
We kick off a the anniversary of the first Womxn’s March on Seattle with a RALLY. Hear from the region’s most powerful progressive womxn leaders as they speak about the greatest threats and most inspiring triumphs our communities have experienced in the past year. After the rally, we will MARCH to Seattle Center, where we continue our day of service and learning. At Seattle Center, attend one of several “Activism 101” WORKSHOPS designed to energize, illuminate, and activate our marchers for the work to come in 2019 and beyond. See the most recent updates about the march on our website.
But it wasn’t the first Womxn’s March on Seattle – it was the first Women’s March.
Comments
20 responses to “Oh no you don’t”
This one says “womxn” in the url:
https://www.seattlewomxnmarchingforward.org
I’m sure that’ll make you feel better!
Clicking around the march sites on the main site, Seattle seems to be the only one doing this.
Have they issued a self critical prediction of how diverse (or not) the marchers will be? I’ve heard that’s a thing, now.
It gets better and better. They link to a slideshow explaining “womxn”:
https://prezi.com/g-q64tlrrw3k/womxn/
I didn’t realize it was a direct reaction to “womyn”. Apparently (and I am not making this up) the y does not account for marginalized groups and is, and I quote, “a very white liberal way to look at feminism”.
I’d love to be able to go back in time to the early ’80s and tell the womyn’s groups at my uni that they where bourgeois liberals who didn’t care about non-white and marginalised women. Not sure I would get out of that conversation with my skin intact.
Maybe they should call the event a marx.
There are two competing marches in Washington DC. Ditto New York City. I think both of these splits are about antisemitism, but it’s a demand for viewpoint purity that seems similar to that of the gender identity split. I don’t know if any of the competing marches will have Lesbian groups like Get The L Out.
Hopefully you’re not talking about privileged white skin…
They are SO FUCKING DISHONEST!
As a cerifiably Old Broad who remembers the Olden Days, I can attest that African-American women were a loud and proud part of feminism in the ’70s and ’80s. Audre Lorde, Ntzoke Shange, bell hooks, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker…
What this is about is rejecting the Second Wave because it centered female humans. What this is about is including males as “women.”
And if that’s your intent, SAY SO. Don’t appropriate the struggles of African-American women to prop yourselves up.
AAARRRGH.
But, Lady M! I have it on good authority (a young, white, 25-year old male) that I, another certifiably Old Broad (or Broaf, I’m okay with that), do not know what it was like to be a woman in the 1980s as well as he was, he who has never been a woman (does not identify as woman, either) and was not even anywhere near being alive in the 80s, since he was born in 1992. Nor do we apparently know who we were working with in feminism, or who was writing in feminism, or what the issues were in feminism, because we did not yet have wave-whatever multidefinitional multiintersectional multidimensional multidelusional young feminists to explain to us exactly what it is we were thinking, doing, or saying, or who it is we were thinking, doing, or saying them with or to…nor did we center our movement around male-bodied men with “girl dicks” and male pattern baldness. So we were clearly evil.
Skeleton, since I’m an over 50, tall white male I think we can say without a shadow of a doubt that I have some degree of ingrained privilege in my worn out hide. Growing up poor in a single parent home and getting beaten up for being gay (I was actually quiet and liked books) doesn’t add sufficient disprivege to compensate.
Lady Mondegreen, quite.
Iknklast, you really need to be giving that young twerp some chill him to the marrow stares.
The whole women of color thing is as always a red herring that gives other white liberals a permission slip to beat on women.
While I am sure that some women of colour don’t feel adequately represented as far as I can tell it’s white people doing most/all of the complaining.
So… they want to be women, but don’t want to be called women so they won’t be mistaken for women, because women are yucky. Or something? Also, black women aren’t women and need another name? Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick.
And we’re the ones they call “exclusionary”.
I was thinking same thing about them being called women. Then, I remembered they were defending the transsexual men. I couldn’t remember because I’ve never once heard a transsexual man rage about…anything. Hmmm, curious.
Rob #11
Me too. Its an odd category to be stuck in. Thank goodness the trans-police weren’t around to tell me that surgery and hormone treatment were obligatory.
Rob, John – my husband had similar experiences. Everyone assumed he was gay because he was single and a librarian (oh, the horror!). Once we got married, things seemed to equalize, and people who had run the other way when he was around actually stopped to speak to him on the street. Weird how that works, isn’t it? He had dated a woman (the same woman) for 20 years, but they never got married, so…gay.
It’s all part of the same mess isn’t it. Meet society’s current gender expectations or else…
Applause for Athena’s joke @ 5, by the way.
Wasn’t Obama a Marxist? He had that whole Death-Panel thing going for a while, didn’t he?
Just out of interest, assuming ‘womxn’ is the plural, what’s the singular? Also, again assuming that ‘womxn’ is pronounced as ‘women’, how does one tell in conversation whether we are speaking of ‘women’ or of ‘womxn’?