There was a lot of outrage about Jones. Didn't twitter ban that Milo guy over it?
Women's March: Pink Pussyhat "exclusionary towards transfolk/PoC"
- Thread starter Chamomile
- Start date
- Status
I don't know. It's my word to have a problem with, it's theirs, and also not the point.
The point is people having words they don't like and making an argument against their use is nothing to be antagonistic about.
There is a social sense of comradery from visual markers. Seeing your friends, let alone other people wearing the hat is like a peacock displaying its feathers. It's not really that important (hence why you do not need to wear a damn pussyhat at a walk), but hey, social cohesion in the public sphere can take many forms. Many will probably still primarily be wearing the hat due to its strong ties to mocking Donald Trump, who is summarized a beacon of everything wrong in politics and with some men.
I argued what you're saying second earlier in the topic, no, you will not see 100% eye to eye with everyone, especially not literally thousands of people. All 30k+ of us on Resetera are never going to 100% agree. However, there is a spectrum of pointing out disagreements you might have with people and being very very generalized and casting your net incredibly wide from the getgo with remarks around such concepts as "you're not a proper ally/need to be a better ally". Such "buzzphrases" rather than more long-form questioning, debates, explaining and so on do very little to actually stimulate someone to feel a passion or desire to listen or take note of you. People should be getting to know other people whenever they can in life, not just looking at them and deciding I know what you are. Broken clocks can be right twice a day, and so can "blind" generalizations, but hey, they are also fucking wrong, a lot.
Look at how well topics like this usually end up, decent numbers of people walking away disliking each other even although the irony is we're supposed to actually be allies. Again to make it clear, not necessarily allies all 100% agreeing, but people that have some basic common biases and interests. Whereas some people almost approach this like you're either my best mate, or my enemy. I've got a good guess some are probably "marking up" usernames in this topic as "enemies" now. Great, I'm sure that serves a fantastic long term goal/purpose. You don't need someone to be your best friend, or even an actual friend, to know they ARE still an ally and fighting with many interests in common that you also are. A lot of people wearing pussyhats, especially 99.9% of those wearers that you know nothing of, will indeed be fighting common purposes. So, is the hat really a serious concern here?
Last edited:
While the rising tide certainly isn't guaranteed to raise all ships, i don't quite agree how it's any more productive to immediately - like one year in - try to redefine (expand / narrow) the movement.
I can imagine that there's plenty of well-meaning but relatively ignorant women among the supporters, who'd gladly march along, wearing that funny pink hat their niece made them. Upon being informed how "we don't do that hat anymore, because it's transphobic and exlusionary to people of color", i could see how some would be confused / irritated / deterred from that "fun anti-Trump protest" suddenly having become a way more divisive thing, and their attempts at showing solidarity could have actually offending someone. That'd be super intimidating.
Some people don't grasp the intricacies of progressive identity politics. - and not because they're unwilling to understand.
So while some would say "i don't need these kinds of allies", i'm not sure.
You are asking for a world where all arguments have validity and are immune to criticism?
Ya that's bullshit. Just asserting something doesn't make it so and doesn't overrule people who don't see it that way.
Leslie Jones received plenty of support and outrage to the point that Milo Yiannopolous was finally banned from Twitter despite having used the platform to harass many lesser-known white women in the exact same way for years without consequence.
Rose McGowan has been trying to talk about Weinstein's sexual abuse since 1997, sometimes publicly without name iirc, and to many people privately with names, and no-one listened to her, no-one cared, no-one defended her. If you hadn't noticed, it's left her slightly unhinged.
Milo was banned plenty times before that. This was just the final straw.
And even then, despite record breaking harassment, she still didn't much support from white feminists, generally speaking.
It's not exactly an argument in good faith if you're already finding ways, before I speak, to discount what I'll say, is it? Look at your framing - you're already assuming anything I provide will be fringe. You're already writing it off. Why? What do you lose by saying "hey, maybe there's some troubling issues around the Women's March?"
Here's one simple comment and response thread to consider, too:
https://twitter.com/alwaystheself/status/954842731955806213
The thread that follows it is an interesting read.
But - if you have access - I might suggest starting with "(Re)producing feminine bodies: emergent spaces through contestation in the Women's March on Washington," a rapid response by scholars published in Gender, Place, and Culture. The rapid response is meant to set a foundation for future scholarly arguments about these issues of erasure. Here's the abstract-
And from the piece itself:
WAPO reported on some of the back-and-forth around the marches last year:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.62b0803e3780
There's a good examination in this piece despite its length, but this is, I think, a choice quote for what you're looking for:
An article in USA Today of all places about efforts to make this year's march more inclusive, granting problems ongoing and in the past:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/01/18/womens-march-more-inclusive-year/1038859001/
Cincinatti's BLM group dropped out, I heard, but that was messy all around from what I read. Whatever the unofficial story is beneath that, I can't speak to it. There are also many arguments about the formation of the platform for the movement and many are quick to point out that trans/Indigenous/etc issues were being added in, that the platforms were expanded, that organizers from marginalized communities were added - why didn't they start there? Well.
Sydne Gray's story of her experience at last year's march was powerful and at the time (I follow her) there was massive pushback on social media from people saying she was lying, exaggerating, that none of it was a big deal, she should just let the march be a success - probably many deleted now, I'm sure - but the meat of her story can be found here, too. This story says she's private but I think she unlocked her account later. Like I said, I follow her, so I wouldn't know-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-women-you-can-do-better_us_58877b68e4b08f5134b624b0
There's more. There's much more. It's not hard to find.
Quoting for those that might have missed it.
OP
OP
Your post works in the context of a real-world setting because, ideally, no one's speech is going to be silenced and people can generally approach someone that appears to be wanting to learn in good faith. On the internet, however, a lot of the visual cues of whom to put effort towards actual education through linking peer-reviewed articles, online thinkpieces, social media collections, etc. is significantly blurred in that sense. As you can see from this thread, I am willing to speak in kind with people that are actually willing to learn and understand. But, most of my efforts have gone wasted and the onus is not merely on myself to engage cordially to come to an agreed consensus with someone with an opposing view.
OP
OP
You're free to disagree with an official statement from that sect of the Women's March, but I agree wholeheartedly with them and I implore you to not be so aggressive when all I did was link you to an official statement. I know your post was along the lines "well yeah the hat isn't an actual pussy...!" Well, yes... no one claimed that
You know, I never quite understood how a pussy hat twitter argument is comparable to black people being murdered in the South. But you really brought it all together for me with this clear as day apples to apples comparison. Keep it up!
All arguments? Asking for a world? I'm telling you, not the world, and probably not the forum either who perhaps seldom reads others' conversations. This is no idea of impossible grandeur. This isn't even an asking, like you're putting it, because i know this post will be discarded and left to rot, as many of my posts over the years arguing for more conscious use of language have.
What i'm arguing for is that there is nothing deserving of antagonism in people wishing others would avoid use of certain words. Not whatever immensity of a change you seem to be suggesting.
And by extension that you posting that in an attempt to discredit the OP is inconsiderate and needlessly antagonistic.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it transphobic but I can at least see the logic. To call it exclusionary towards women of colour seems more bizarre to me because in the creator's own words:
The colour of the hat has zero to do with the colour of white women's vaginas and, to be honest, if anybody's genitals look the same colour as the hats they should probably seek advice of a doctor. I mean you could argue that choosing pink just reinforces the gender stereotype that "pink is a girl's colour" in which case I could again see the logic but I'd recommend people who don't like it try to come up with a better alternative instead rather than just criticising people trying to make a positive impact.
The colour of the hat has zero to do with the colour of white women's vaginas and, to be honest, if anybody's genitals look the same colour as the hats they should probably seek advice of a doctor. I mean you could argue that choosing pink just reinforces the gender stereotype that "pink is a girl's colour" in which case I could again see the logic but I'd recommend people who don't like it try to come up with a better alternative instead rather than just criticising people trying to make a positive impact.
I added a bit more to that post as I usually do because I'm always far too quick to hit reply and then add more. It's a fault of mine. This addition doesn't really answer what you've proposed to me, but it's food for thought due to you ending with cordial agreement and feeling a sense of waste as presumably what you'd like to see happen isn't happening
It appears such a topic begins on the premise to try and change minds, and okay, that is the basis of lots of activism/questioning/debate. As I said above, it needs to be constantly contextualized that this is all happening over a hat, and as a consequence of that and an insatiable desire to have what I assume the mass of white women wearing that hat to accept, they aren't being the best ally they can, people will be arguably unnecessarily frustrated/flustered/on the defensive.
I doubt sabrina for one poster is feeling too chuffed right now, and without offering any opinion on those exchanges as they weren't mine, what do I know of sabrina? I'll take it on face value she is doing all she can, and is arguably one of the "better allies", yet she is still getting caught in this wide net, all because of a hat she seemingly wants to wear. Is that really worth it? That's not for me to decide, everyone has to have their say, as they should, but my eyes see a hell of a lot of conflict over what I cannot help feel is really pushing it for being an actual serious issue. A hat, which has a very clear intent from its creators.
To me it seems like other issues are being projected onto the hat, and that isn't arguably how said other issues should attempt to be honestly spoken about and tackled.
edit: Just to add, why has your ability to openly speak and share you mind gone to waste? It hasn't. People are speaking to you. I'm speaking to you. The power of spoken word starts with being able to speak and being free. I know that sounds "high school philosophy" nonsense, but, you seem to be being hard on yourself for the wrong reasons. Don't be hard on yourself, as you already said to me, not 100% of people are going to agree with you. Some might, some won't. Take the most satisfaction from your own opinions and the confidence in them you strive to have.
Last edited:
They're claiming that the pink of the hat doesn't look like their vaginas so it's exclusionary. But the hat itself doesn't look like anyone's vagina. Because it's a symbol.
If someone wants to knit it white, brown, green, brown, orange, or rainbow in celebration of LGBT, all the power to them. But the fact is that there were volunteer groups of women mass-knitting these hats and handing them out. It would've been a hell of a lot more awkward to knit hats to match the genital skin colour of participants, handing dark hats to black women and pink hats to white women, and squinting at hispanic women to determine which colour hat they should get. This kind of hyperfocus on shade of skintone is like a Brazilian census and does not have the positive effect of making people more open to other people. It has the effect of making people focus primarily on skin colour before anything else.
As for the argument from a subsection of the trans community... it's a 'pussy' hat because Trump said "grab em by the pussy". It also has to do with the Republicans' attempts to control uteruses and vaginas. If you want to be a good ally, it'd be nice to not make it all about you. Men were wearing it without problem.
It's telling how the reaction to PoC and transfolk trying to explain their perspectives isn't to listen, but to act like you are being attacked.
User has been warned: dismissing the views of transwoman and WoC.
In a patriarchal society, women's actions and attempts to assert themselves have always been subject to hyperfocused scrutiny and criticised, mocked, dismissed, or been accused of just 'making things worse'. So yeah, some women are going to be fed up with being told what to do, told to sit down and listen, told to smile and smooth things over and bend over backwards to make everyone else comfortable and put their concerns last, when they've been told that their whole lives and are trying to protest against it.
I can't wait for you to provide the sound logic that leads from a pussy hat feminist movement to transmurder. I await your strong statistical correlation studies.
It's telling how people constantly confuse listening with agreeing as if the two are the same word.
"Not now, minorities, you need to take a back seat while we work out some issues the majority is having. Don't you dare blame this on the majority though."
Given that this thread does not appear to have been made in good faith and the discussion here has not been productive, this thread is now locked.
- Status