What did the Inaguration protests and the Women's March protests accomplish?

Really? You doubt those women marching?

Obviously people go on different protest rallies all the time, but you know there is something up when hundreds of thousands of women and men do that.

And for those who say: Why did they not vote against Trump or vote at all?

Trump got beat by 2+ million votes and still got elected because of that fabulous voting system.

 

Commodore posted a great reminder on how many beautiful images there were of children of all ages marching on Saturday. Wonderfully inclusive. Hopefully inspiring them to be actively engaged in the political process. Here are a few more:

 

Simply put... the women's march accomplished the following: got people thinking and talking about issues of importance to women. These issues include (but not limited to) choice, health care, jobs, equal pay, children's issues. It appears organizers and marchers believe the incoming administration and especially the President don't share the same positions they do.

Based on the overwhelming success of the women's march, measured by the number of participation, media attention, and the amount of discussion that resulted, I'd be shocked if these marches and other activities are not repeated.

 

Since they are completely separate and unrelated, grouping them in a thread seems curious. I am also guessing you are solely focused on the few protests that were violent or involved destruction of property. My guess they were misguided protests against the incoming President and administration that would have been served via better more appropriate means. Unfortunate that people so passionate about the leadership of our country could not find better ways to channel their passion. Has happened in the past (eg extreme conservatives protesting Obama's inauguration). Wasn't right then, wasn't right last Friday.

 

These women also carried signs:

 

Let's just say what it really is.

 

You mean the right to kill their unborn children? That choice?

Women have more access to healthcare than men, and thanks to the PPACA, they cannot be charged more for insurance, despite being more expensive to insurance companies.

It has been illegal to discriminate against women in hiring for decades, and women are statistically more likely to be considered for a job than an equally qualified man.

The pay gap is a myth. It doesn't account for the choices women make in terms of educational fields of study, hours worked, field of employment, leaving the workforce for maternity, etc.

Why would children's issues have a special appeal for women. Both men and women were children once and both can be parents.

Yes, one generally does not protest against something they agree with.

Based on the generally whiney nature of the left, I would also be shocked if these marches and other activities are not repeated, just like BLM keeps going despite all the evidence that it was built on lies.

 

What has this thread accomplished?

 

Yep. A right they should have.

That's a function of biology.

Not true.

Not true.

Because women generally care for children more than men.

More BS.

You're just another man who is upset they only have most of the power instead of all of it.

 

Women gotta know their place libtards. Gawd don't you want a great America? Why do you guys hate freedom?

 

No, a right no one should have.

Being more expensive to care for is a function of biology. Not being able to charge them more is a function of legislation. Ferraris are more expensive to repair than Fords by their nature, but the government doesn't mandate that insuring each must cost the same amount. If women cost the insurance company more money to cover, then the insurance company should be allowed to charge them higher premiums.

Yes, true.

Yes, true. What a productive argument we are having.

I think there are many fathers that would disagree with that assessment.

Nope, more facts.

I'm not upset at all. You are just another crybaby feminist that has believed all the feminist talking points for so long that you think facts are misogyny.

 

Eh, not really.

The thing is though that for many it isn't even about that, it's about punishing women for their sexual decisions. Proof? Some of these anti-abortion nuts are ALSO against Birth control. This is really some Christian religious stuff, if they are so against abortion then why not at the very least encourage birth control?

This whole issue is a religion one, we had a rep the other day saying it quite plainly that women needed to be punished for being promiscuous.

Here are some interesting facts about abortion in a quick and nifty video.

 

idiots blocking the street in Portland, crowd cheers when cops take them down

 

You trolling us here?

This is equivalent of those mullahs who know how to meme posting those 'women are better wrapped like our candy memes'. Women didn't chose to be women. The fact they were born women shouldn't mean that they have to pay for more experience healthcare. Yes it should be subsidized by the government. No one forces a Ferrari upon you.

Health care is an inelastic service. A Ferrari isn't.

 

awareness of their issues (maybe) and their strength... initial accomplishment

the inaug protest isn't a part of the women's march and shouldn't be grouped together

 

No.

I am unaware of this meme. I don't really follow the twitter accounts of radical mullahs.

Uh oh, you are missing one of the social justice warrior talking points. People can choose whatever gender they want. (That was trolling).

No, the fact that they cost the insurance company more to cover should mean that they have to pay more for health care. Someone born with their heart on the outside also doesn't choose to be born that way, but insurers should also be allowed to charge them more, because they are going to use more services and thus cost more to cover. Same for people born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or any other malady that is going to make them a more expensive patient (through no fault of their own).

Neither is perfectly elastic nor perfectly inelastic. I chose not to have health insurance until the government mandated that I do so. The price of insurance changed relative to not having insurance, which drove my decision to buy it (this is a sign of elasticity, in case you were not aware). I don't know if the same relative change in effective price would get me to buy a Ferrari or not, so I can't say for sure that the Ferrari is more or less elastic. I will agree that a Ferrari is not an inelastic service though.