We all know if men marched with dicks on ther heads in washington they would be laughed and imo rightfully so.

And there would be cries about vulgarity and "what about the children?!" along with it.

Apparently the fly-over country is at least smart enough to notice the blatant hypocrisy, so props to them for that.

And how exactly are women treated poorly?

Specifically women's rights around their reproductive organs, between access to abortion, classifying sanitary napkins or tampons as a necessary expense, or sexual assault of those organs.

If men had women in congress debating over making ejaculation without intent to conceive illegal, if men were payed less for the same work on average, if men had powerful people talking bragging about grabbing them by the dick whenever they wanted, etc, maybe then you would have a point.

But as it stands, you're twisting my words into a false equivalence.

Women's rights are treated poorly. Women should have equal rights and should be treated equally if you believe they are equals to men. Women marching with pussy hats represents a different phenomena than men in dick hats. For that to be equal treatment the context has to be equivalent. And it is not.

I don't know why we need to get all squeamish about female genitalia now, as apposed to when we are talking about what rights women have with theirs and whether you can talk about grabbing them.

'For every hour that an American spent knitting a hat . . .'

Even a stopped clock....

Well, except that the MBTA keeps running, laws are enforced, we have decent public schools, and we don't all have lead poisoning -- a few things we've got over, say, Michigan.

I like Scott Adams, but this is silly. The 'N' word is not something to get energized over either, and neither is the 'Q' word. But those examples he ignores even though he mentions them himself earlier.

Another example: When the Dutch started their war of independence from Spain, the freedomfighters (terrorists?) called themselves 'Geus', derived from the french word 'gueux'. It means 'beggar', the lowest of social statuses. We turned 'Geus' into being a hero.

Same could happen to the color pink. So stop knit-picking (pun!) and join the fight.

"Trump is a master persuader and everything he does is on purpose. I know because I'm a master persuader, too.

Here's proof for his flawless persuasion technique (an anecdote follows).

Here's more proof, because one proof isn't enough (another anecdote).

Because I understand Trump and predicted his election, this is proof that I am really a master persuader.

So now go ahead and buy my book and my app."

I read quite a bit of Scott Adams blog and truth is: He didn't predict anything. He is a comedian. He could've spinned every outcome of the election in any direction in hindsight. He is in for maximum outrage and controversy, because that drives traffic and clicks and comments and ultimately, he makes money off it.

In his book, he even says that he did some pranks that lasted for years and he only did it for the lulz. This is exactly the same. If you think Scott Adams explains it all, you're being played.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2009/dec/12/pinkstin...

> The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger colour, is more suitable for the boy

That said, now is not the time to start infighting with people just starting to become politically aware/active. Most of the marchers have never done anything political before so mistakes/naivety are to be expected

edit: Is it just that it's more a missed opportunity to pick a more inclusive symbol?

A more inclusive symbol could have been chosen.

Q: The hats were meant more as a symbol of feminine solidarity...?

A: The solidarity excluded a major group that has historically been discriminated against even by progressive causes

We've got to pick our battles. It's looking like we might have done some serious damage to the climate.

Does this mean we should ignore some minorty or another? Probably not.

Inclusivity is all people working toward our collective betterment. Inclusivity isn't agonising over which symbol or colour or words includes all the freaks. There will always be someone who feels left out.

Inclusivity is all the freaks working the frontline with the normals and everyone getting on with the job, then having a beer together afterwards. Or whatever roasts your goat.

I am astounded by the negativity my comments have received for relaying long standing tensions and issues in the transgender community on relation to mainstream feminism. It's as if any time you ask the community here to look at historical context or complexity in social issues people just shut down, despite the fact that this site is made up of such a well educated, creative group of users.

No, it's that you're not suggesting useful, effective alternative actions. What symbol could people wear on their heads or bodies which would convey trans-inclusive feminism, and be recognizable easily by the masses?

Sometimes issues are complex, but messaging has to be simple. This is a painful, but necessary, trade-off: you can't expect everyone looking at your protest hat or sign to be "woke" and understand your complex beliefs. You don't get to issue moral condemnations against over-simplifying a good thing, provided that it does net good, without offering some strictly superior alternative. When you try to condemn an over-simplified good thing, you're basically just supporting doing nothing, which right now is unacceptable.

What you're saying also sounds, well, a lot like political hostage-taking. While I'm on board with trans-inclusive feminism (AFAIK), I don't see why feminism broadly should be held hostage by whoever's angriest or most judgemental about trans issues.

Would you cancel the Women's Marches just to dispute about symbolism? That would amount to telling cis women they're not allowed to have their feminism unless it conforms to your feminism. Political activism is about interests shared in common, not about hierarchies of wokeness.

> The symbol perpetuated a continued trend of trans-exclusion, in your example it would be as if people selected to march under the symbol of crosses when protesting on behalf of all religions.

I don't really think so. Women are women, after all, trans or cis. If you see cisgendered female anatomy as innately trans-exclusionary, well, that may be your problem, since after all the whole point of transitioning is to come as close as possible to actually having that very anatomy.

If I march for socialism with a hammer-and-sickle symbol, you would apparently be the person to tell me hammers and sickles exclude shovel-using construction workers. It's a symbol! It means whatever people want it to mean, and your interpretation has to carefully way your own prior experiences with those of the people putting forth the symbol. Language has to communicate, not merely carry moral connotation.

it's a non-issue, you're using it as a bludgeon for status by virtue signaling.

How is a public gesture, worn in front of everyone, supposed to target... actually, whom? The most intersectional possible audience? In fact, why should we rate the progressiveness of the message on which audience it seems to most precisely target, rather than assuming the audience (as ever, for politics) is everyone?

Instead of complaining that gestures aren't precise enough, we can acknowledge that this one gets its damn point across and talk about the policy question. Rape: for or against? Assault: for or against?

Personally, I'm against on both.