Are you taking off for the Day without Women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I'm going to refuse to take care of my kids all day. That'll show my husband! And maybe he'll tell Donald Trump and the republicans!

(Wait, that makes no sense.)

Your H thinks taking care of his children is a type of punishment?

You're not getting the sarcasm. The point of the day is to show everyone (i.e., men) how much we do and how much they'd miss us if we weren't around. Like the immigrant day. As a form of protest. (Can't say it makes much sense to me either.). PP is making fun of this idea.

Okay, who exactly has proposed that we eliminate women from the public sphere? Why do men need to see how much they'd miss us if we weren't around? No one has asked women to go away...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. The logic behind this and the recent immigrant day escape me. You are inconveniencing and "making a statement" to people who presumably support and care about you (spouse, children, employer) and no one else cares.

The march made a statement but these days are grasping at straws.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

I'm in a fed in the trenches, so going to be working, but wearing an awesome red dress.

FWIW, a national day without women was highly effective in Iceland in the 1970s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Icelandic_women's_strike

"The women achieved their goal of showing Iceland their value by essentially shutting down the country for a day.[1] The Day Off “opened the eyes of many men” who referred to the it as “the long Friday.”[3] The 1975 demonstration can be watched to on this link 1975 demonstration.[5]

The next year, “Iceland’s parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal rights for women and men.”[1] Although this 1976 law “did little to change wage inequality and disparity in wages and employment for women”,[1] it was a large political step towards true equality. The strikers had achieved their goal and demonstrated the undeniable importance of women and their hard work in Iceland. The strike also paved the way for the election of Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the first democratically elected female president in the world five years later in 1980."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in a fed in the trenches, so going to be working, but wearing an awesome red dress.

FWIW, a national day without women was highly effective in Iceland in the 1970s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Icelandic_women's_strike

"The women achieved their goal of showing Iceland their value by essentially shutting down the country for a day.[1] The Day Off “opened the eyes of many men” who referred to the it as “the long Friday.”[3] The 1975 demonstration can be watched to on this link 1975 demonstration.[5]

The next year, “Iceland’s parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal rights for women and men.”[1] Although this 1976 law “did little to change wage inequality and disparity in wages and employment for women”,[1] it was a large political step towards true equality. The strikers had achieved their goal and demonstrated the undeniable importance of women and their hard work in Iceland. The strike also paved the way for the election of Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the first democratically elected female president in the world five years later in 1980."

So this is about Hillary? You want a law to elect Hillary?

[Anonymous]

Heck no. I am an ER doc. Things would not be pretty if I didn't show up...

[Anonymous]

A luxury neither of us can afford and frankly, this is a first world protest.

I was unemployed for a month, not a crisis and we could easily afford it, but I just started a new job 5 weeks ago. In 5 weeks, my wife will be going in for surgery. If unsuccessful, she may lose one eye. I will be taking at least one week of leave without pay for her surgery. The leave that I am currently accruing is committed. We have in-service days at our preschool for which I'll need to take off (my wife is saving her leave in case she needs extra time after surgery to recover). Plus my parents will celebrate their 60th anniversary this summer and we are committed to a couple of special events out of town for the celebrations. So taking a day of leave for a protest is a day of leave neither of us can afford right now.

And we are in the top 10%, so we count ourselves fortunate to have decent paying jobs and savings to afford being unemployed and medical leave. But we still can't afford a day of protest.

[Anonymous]

No. My husband is on travel on Wednesday, but when he is here he does around 70 percent of the housework and 50 percent of the child care, so from the perspective of unpaid work, I have little to protest. Work is fine and don't feel I have much to protest there personally.

[Anonymous]

Nope.

I despise our current President and his agenda, and am extremely supportive of women/women's rights/gender equality/etc. but these marches aren't going to do a damn thing except make their participants feel good. And, I dislike the fact that low-income women - women who face significantly more barriers than affluent, educated women - are unlikely to be able to participate.

Rather, I'll continue to do actual work to effect change - volunteer for PP and my local women's shelter, call my representatives, donate to pro-equality organizations, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Ridiculous, privileged, and missing the point as usual.

I agree, its ridiculous and I look down on those participating. Go do your damn job like everyone else.

If they have one to return to. Remember what happened on immigrant day: many returned and found themselves without at job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. The logic behind this and the recent immigrant day escape me. You are inconveniencing and "making a statement" to people who presumably support and care about you (spouse, children, employer) and no one else cares.

The march made a statement but these days are grasping at straws.

+1 to this whole this is ridiculous.
-1 to thinking the march made a statement. We all think you are still being ridiculous. Nobody cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope.

I despise our current President and his agenda, and am extremely supportive of women/women's rights/gender equality/etc. but these marches aren't going to do a damn thing except make their participants feel good. And, I dislike the fact that low-income women - women who face significantly more barriers than affluent, educated women - are unlikely to be able to participate.

Rather, I'll continue to do actual work to effect change - volunteer for PP and my local women's shelter, call my representatives, donate to pro-equality organizations, etc.

And in fact, situations where schools are shut down, may disadvantage those women more since they will then have to miss work or pay for child care they hadn't prepared for. I'm really hoping APS doesn't close. I'm a working mom, and guarantee that based on my and DH's schedules, I'll be the one to have to take an unplanned vacation day tomorrow if DC's teachers decide not to work.

This is lovely symbolism, but this is not an administration that will be swayed by it, or frankly even notice. Fox News also likely won't cover it, so a large swath of the right-leaning nation won't notice either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope.

I despise our current President and his agenda, and am extremely supportive of women/women's rights/gender equality/etc. but these marches aren't going to do a damn thing except make their participants feel good. And, I dislike the fact that low-income women - women who face significantly more barriers than affluent, educated women - are unlikely to be able to participate.

Rather, I'll continue to do actual work to effect change - volunteer for PP and my local women's shelter, call my representatives, donate to pro-equality organizations, etc.

And in fact, situations where schools are shut down, may disadvantage those women more since they will then have to miss work or pay for child care they hadn't prepared for. I'm really hoping APS doesn't close. I'm a working mom, and guarantee that based on my and DH's schedules, I'll be the one to have to take an unplanned vacation day tomorrow if DC's teachers decide not to work.

This is lovely symbolism, but this is not an administration that will be swayed by it, or frankly even notice. Fox News also likely won't cover it, so a large swath of the right-leaning nation won't notice either.

Exactly. I don't think that marching or protesting doesn't anything to endear these causes to this administration; it'll just harden their hearts. Different tactics are needed.

I'm a woman, an immigrant, and a minority and I will be at my job.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Fed. I'm too creeped out about Donald Trump to walk off the job or do anything that makes my beliefs easy to identify.

This will sound funny, but I also don't know how I would do it. I'd have to file some type of leave slip. But then I wouldn't be walking off the job. But our time keeper won't know what to do without the paperwork...

I don't think you can go Leave Without Pay for a single day.

Too much confusion. Too little coffee.

[Anonymous]

No because I have a job and I work

[Anonymous]

Isn't the point of the Iceland protest that it was in fact a time when women didn't have equal rights? Today we can talk about the pay gap or the fact that the ERA never passed or access to healthcare/abortion, but women have equal rights under the law and, perhaps more importantly, culture has evolved such that women generally have a choice about whether to work or SAH. To the extent they don't have a choice, it's based more on economic realities. So, I can see why the quasi-socialist aspects of the Women's March platform resonate, but I do not see how those aspects are advanced by encouraging women in the professional class to take the day off in solidarity with lower income women who will almost certainly not be able to take the day off.

This concept made a lot more sense to me w/r/t a day without an immigrant. That is a group of people, particularly the illegal immigrants, for which it is being implied our society either doesn't need them or would be better off without them. I don't get that as applied to women. Can anyone explain a different way to look at this?