Women’s March leaders continue their evasion and antisemitism

The fact that I’ve posted so often on the Women’s March, Inc. (“WM”, the group headed by Perez, Bland, Mallory, and Sarsour) may make some readers think that I’m opposed to it or to its principles. But that is far from the truth, as I agree with nearly all the goals of the Women’s March, which to me boil down to providing all women with equal opportunities. And although the March has fractured along lines of the antisemitism of its leaders and the opposition of its leaders to anti-abortion views and groups, I still think there are unifying principles that all women (and I) should support: choice of abortion, access to birth control, an end to any discrimination based on gender (judged not by inequities in representation but by evidence of bias or barriers to entry), provisions for daycare and so on. (Yes, some religious women oppose abortion and birth control, but at least they should be able to march with other women for women’s equality.)

Why I post about this is because it seems to me a watershed moment in Authoritarian Leftism. In recent years, antisemitism not only disappeared as a sin in that ideology, but has become almost a virtue. True, the antisemitism is disguised in various ways, including approbation for the Nation of Islam and its leader, support of the BDS movement (which I consider antisemitic from its origins and its “right of return” stipulation), and criticism of Zionism, which really means criticism of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. (Seriously? What about all those explicitly “Islamic States”, some of which, like Iran, were established in our lifetime as avowed theocracies?)

No, I post about this because, for once, the cognitive dissonance of the Left produced by clashing principles (e.g., the support of anti-semitic blacks and of a Palestine that demonizes gays, infidels, and oppresses women) is starting to show—and cause problems. And, in my view, it’s resolving itself in a felicitous way: yes, women and oppressed minorities deserve a hearing and the same rights as everyone, but not by demonizing the historic minority of Jews. As the Authoritarian Left in both the US and UK toe ever closer the line of anti-Semitism, women are pulling away from this hatred of Jews, often disguised as criticism of Israel and approbation of Palestine. (Of course, not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but more than most people think!) The WM, Inc. is falling apart, and even Leftists like the Democratic National Committee are breaking ties with the March. Perhaps this heralds the Left’s realization that antisemitism is not in our interests or part of our principles.

On the television show The View last week, co-heads of the March Tamika Mallory and Bob Bland were grilled about their views by both Whoopi Goldberg and Megan McCain. Mallory, while paying her new lip service against antisemitism, refused to denounce the antisemitism of Louis Farrakhan, the bigoted loon who heads the Nation of Islam.  The WM leaders people are masters of evasion, though they’d condemn racism in an instant. As ABC News reports on The View conversation:

“Why call him [Farrakhan] the greatest of all time?” Sunny Hostin asked.

“I didn’t call him the greatest of all time because of his rhetoric,” Mallory responded. “I called him the greatest of all time because of what he’s done in black communities.” [JAC: Great backpedaling. She didn’t say this on the Instagram post, where she just referred to Farrakhan as “definitely the GOAT” (“greatest of all time”).]

“You’re talking about women, you should be talking about all women, including Jewish women and conservative women,” co-host Meghan McCain said. “Do you condemn Farrakhan’s remarks about Jewish people?”

“We didn’t make those remarks,” Mallory responded. “I don’t agree with many of Minister Farrakhan’s statements.”

McCain asked, “Do you condemn them?”

(My transcription):

McCain: But you’re associating with a man who does, publicly.

Mallory: What I will say to you is that I don’t agree with many of Minister Farrakhan’s statements.

McCain: Specifically about Jewish people?

Mallory: As I said, I don’t agree with many of Minister Farrakhan’s statement statements. (End of my transcription)

“I don’t agree with these statements,” Mallory responded. “It’s not my language, it’s not the way that I speak, it’s not how I organize … I should never be judged through the lens of a man.”

Right. She’d condemn Islamophobia or anti-black racism in a heartbeat. To echo Margaret Hoover (see below), you’d think that the best way to defuse criticisms of antisemitism would simply be to condemn antisemitism. Mallory can’t do that because she is too deeply wedded to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Note that Mallory also affirms that she won’t step down as head of the Women’s March because some people still want her to serve (yes, and some people still want Theresa May to serve, but a future vote of no confidence, such as Mallory and her co-Presidents have in effect received, would cause May to step down.)

Now, the Daily Beast and other venues report on Mallory’s further evasions, this time as she refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Click on screenshot to read the piece, but also listen to Mallory’s comments below. This is a gem of doubletalk:

Watch for yourself: the clip is Margaret Hoover interviewing Tamia Mallory on “Firing Line” on PBS. An eel couldn’t get more slippery than this.

In response to Hoover’s question about whether she thinks Israel has a right to exist, Mallory responds, “I feel everyone has a right to exist.” WHAT?  Think about that. If asked about the “All lives matter” response to the statement “Black lives matter,” Mallory would (with justification) say that “all lives matter” is “whataboutery” that deflects from the question of police violence against blacks. But Mallory uses exactly the “whataboutery” tactic in her response. Then she says “I’m done talking about this.”

Here’s Hoover’s response to Jake Tapper tweeting about Mallory’s views on Israel (Tapper is a critic of the WM leaders’ osculation of Farrakhan)

Why is Mallory so intransigent? As I’ve said, she’s wedded to power and the limelight, and, along with Bland, Perez, and Sarsour, considers the WM to be her personal project. Also, according to Mercy Morganfield, a black feminist activist (no conservative, she!) who also ran the Women’s March D.C. but wants the WM leaders to resign, there are also financial considerations. Referring to Mallory on her Facebook page (I was supplied the screenshot, which I think was public but can’t find easily), she said this (please excuse the duplicated bits):

And Morganfeld (who by the way is the daughter of blues legend Muddy Waters) posted this on her Facebook page five hours ago. She says that Linda Sarsour posted this yesterday, but I can’t find it on Sarsour’s facebook page (she doesn’t post there often), and the quote is from an article on Rewire.News by Jodi Jacobson defending the WM organizers. If anybody can find where, exactly, Sarsour posted this, let me know. At any rate, at least Jacobson is saying that Jews are “warring” against blacks, which simply isn’t true.

I found Sarsour’s post on her FB page, which approves of the shameful Rewire News article but doesn’t single out the quote given by Morganfield. It does, however, give the title of the piece, which calls out both white Jews and progressives. (Most Jews are considered “white”, and I’d suggest that, as a group, they are less racist than Americans as a whole.)

Finally, I want to point out that many of the new “progressive” Congresswomen heralded as bringing a revitalized activism to the Left are also BDS supporters. This includes Muslims Rashida Tlaib (who endorsed BDS only after she was elected) and Ilhan Omar. BDS is an antisemitic movement, as I said above:  its aims are to obliterate the state of Israel while pretending that they’re simply pressuring Israel to treat Palestinians better. The “right of return” favored by BDS (and embodied in their cry “from the River to the sea, Palestine will be free”) is a guarantee of not just the elimination of Israel, but of a bloody Arab vendetta against Jews.

Although I can’t find an explicit endorsement of BDS by the Progressive Left’s new hero Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (whose views I often agree with, including the “green new deal” and a raise in the marginal tax rate for the rich), she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which does support BDS. And in the short video below Ocasio-Cortez joins the evasion brigade when asked what she thinks about the antisemitism of the WM:

I suspect that Ocasio-Cortez, while ducking the question, is indeed a BDS supporter, and some reporter needs to ask her, now that she’s in office, whether she supports BDS and Israel’s right to exist. She’s progressive, but she’s also an authoritarian Leftist, and the truth will out.

h/t: cesar, Malgorzata, Orli

54 Comments

  1. Serendipitydawg
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    Authoritarian Left in both the US and UK toe ever closer the line of anti-Semitism

    In the UK, I think that line disappeared from the rear-view mirror a long time ago. The straight left in the form of the Labour Party strays further and further over.

    • John Crisp
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

      I’m not too sure of this. Partly because much of the anti-Semitism accusations against Labour have been led by the Daily Mail which, let us say, has a long history of being remarkably relaxed about racism in general, and anti-Semitism in particular, until its expatriate tax exile owners suddenly got scared of the possibility of a Labour victory. Curiously, the other major newspapers pursuing the same story are in a very similar situation – The Telegraph, The Times, The Express – none of them historically great defenders of minorities of any kind, and all of them owned by expatriate tax exiles.

      It is also worth mentioning that when the current Prime Minister, Theresa May, was Home Secretary under her predecessor, she sponsored buses to travel around the roads of England with the message on the side saying “immigrants go home”. This is the woman who also once said that the Tory party needed to do something to remove its image as the “nasty party”.

      On the other side, there is no doubt that Corbyn and many Labourites are no friends of Israeland probably includes many people who are not over the boundary between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. But then it is a long time since Israel had any pretensions to being a state with socialist leanings. Its current Prime Minister seems to be happily in bed with Hungarian and Saudi Arabian fascists, as well as Christian fundamentalists, and is under investigation for corruption. His predecessor would probably have been defined as a war criminal in a different world (and to pre-empt any whataboutery, there are plenty of other candidates from other societies and states).

      As for the BDS movement, our host is entitled to his opinion, and to state my credentials I have recently bought an entire dairy production plant from Israel for my business in Ethiopia, so I am not an adherent of the movement, but sanctions are a legitimate and nonviolent method of putting pressure on states to alter their behaviour. It may be that some or even many of the BDS movement want to see the destruction of the state of Israel, an aim that I totally oppose (for further credentials, I am a first-generation Brit, and my mother’s grandfather was a Polish Jew, which gave her a very uncertain life in Poland during World War II). But I also suspect that it has members who want to use economic pressure simply as a means to change Israeli policy. The existence of both currents does not justify the claim that the movement is inherently anti-Semitic, even if it success would bring about the destruction of Israel. Politics are complicated, and there are many well-meaning people who do not necessarily see the logical consequences of their best intentions.

      • Serendipitydawg
        Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        The Mail & Co are a given, but there is a fair bit of criticism from many other sources, including the various Jewish organisations inn the UK.

        So, yes, it is certainly whipped up by the rightist media, but that doesn’t mean that there is nothing behind it. Even mainstream news media like the BBC and ITV have had plenty to say in the past and there have been plenty of social media items and awkward videos of meetings that have subequently been deleted, both by members of the PLP and Momentum.

        Blaming rightwing conspiracy to discredit the left does nothing to address the issues within the party, and there are plenty within the party, including the Lords, who acknowledge explicit antisemitism.

      • Steve Pollard
        Posted January 20, 2019 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

        John, you make a number of powerful points, which I would not dissent from. In particular, given that Israel rightly considers itself to be a democratic nation, broadly within the Euro-US tradition, the rest of us are entitled to hold it to the standards of that tradition, and call it to account when we think it falls short.

        But BDS, applied solely to Israel, is rank hypocrisy. If Israel, why not Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc, all of which treat their minorities and other ethnic groups much worse than Israel does? In most other countries, we are told to engage if we want to change behaviours. Why not Israel?

        To say that Israel, uniquely, must be boycotted and isolated is, in itself, a form of anti-semitism.

        • wetherjeff
          Posted January 20, 2019 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          This is an excellent point Steve, and an opinion I have long held. Yes, the Israelis are not perfect by a long shot and have done, and continue to do, some very unpleasant things. However, the scale of oppression that has been inflicted on the Uyghurs in China is at least an order of magnitude higher. BDS applied to Israel at the exclusion of other nations is inconsistent, hypocritical and reeks of antisemitism. Anyone disagreeing needs to explain why the Chinese, and many other regimes should not be similarly castigated.

          • John Crisp
            Posted January 21, 2019 at 5:01 am | Permalink

            I don’t disagree with the above points. I haven’t investigated the history of the BDS movement (perhaps I should if I am going to comment here), and it may be that its leaders and instigators are anti-Semites. In any case, as I said in my original posting, I do not support it (and have put considerable amounts of money where my mouth is).

            On the point about hypocrisy and the focus on Israel, I also agree. However, the same argument could have been made regarding any historical boycott/sanctions policy. Was South Africa uniquely evil in its racism in the apartheid era? Is Iran objectively worse than Saudi Arabia? The world has always had plenty of “bad actors”. How they are dealt with depends on the geopolitical context, as well as other, less tangible factors. In another world, a political movement might arise over the fact that the US has 22% of the world’s prison population while accounting for only 4.4% of the global population, and that 37% of that US prison population are black…

            As is often the case, it is partly an issue of framing.

            On the one hand, if you look at a series of maps of Israel showing the steady (and illegal) expansion of settlements, you get a sense of what the BDS movement is opposed to, Israel’s steady and surreptitious annexation of Palestinian land. Similarly, Israel’s use of force, with media coverage of the shooting of stonethrowing Palestinians, or massively destructive bombing raids, entrenches the image of an all-powerful local bully wielding disproportionate force.

            On the other hand, if you pan out to encompass the region as a whole, you get a different picture, a sense of the world as Israel sees it. A tiny country surrounded on every side by implacable foes dedicated to your destruction on both political and religious grounds. You can understand, if not approve, its courting of an Islamo-fascist state like Saudi Arabia, its readiness to get into bed with anti-Semitic forces like Hungary or the US’s Christian right. You can sympathise with, if not endorse, its desire to neutralise potential enemies within.

            At the moment, these two framings correspond to two competing narratives, both of which seek to give a black-and-white image of a situation that is fundamentally grey. When you fly into or out of Ben Gurion airport, the security is surprisingly relaxed (certainly by comparison with Ethiopia, where I live, where you go through one full security gate to enter any airport, and then another before you enter the departure lounge). At my last visit I was early for my flight out, so sat at a cafe table working on my laptop. Within the space of an hour, I was approached by two different uniforms and grilled about the purpose of my visit and asked to show what I was typing. I guess they thought I might be a journalist, and their remit was presumably to control the narrative. For the moment, the war is over those narratives.

            • Roger Lambert
              Posted January 21, 2019 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

              ” if you look at a series of maps of Israel showing the steady (and illegal) expansion of settlements”

              I do not want to derail the thread or your comments, but the idea that Israeli settlements are illegal is, AFAICT, a claim manufactured out of whole cloth. Let me just say that there are two sides to that question.

              • Roger Lambert
                Posted January 21, 2019 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

                If anyone is interested, a rather vehement article for the other side of the question:

                http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=189

                TL;DR: (The West Bank has always belonged to Israel under International law. The idea that there are “Occupied Territories” and that they are “illegal” is based on a series of UN Gen Ass. resolutions, which have zero legal standing.)

        • BJ
          Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

          Israel doesn’t even treat its ethnic minorities differently. Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists…all have the right to vote and have representatives in the Knesset (Israeli parliament).

          • BJ
            Posted January 20, 2019 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

            Actually, I don’t know if there are any open atheists in the Knesset, but that’s certainly not because of any discrimination toward atheists.

      • BJ
        Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

        There’s an enormous amount of evidence for the antisemitism of the Labour Party: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/labours-pockets-of-anti-semitism-the-evidence/

        • John Crisp
          Posted January 21, 2019 at 6:46 am | Permalink

          Yes, BJ, there is. It is depressing. However, it is worth recalling that the last leader of the Labour Party, and the last Labour prime ministerial candidate before Jeremy Corbyn, was Ed Miliband, a Jew. Moreover, he was the favoured candidate of the left when he won the leadership. The same newspapers that are now so exercised about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party missed no opportunity to refer covertly to his origins as the son of a Jewish refugee from the Nazis, a socialist who, it was implied, owed allegiance not to his adoptive country but to Moscow. The classic dog whistle theme of the cosmopolitan Jew…

          At the risk of “whataboutery”, I suspect that one could collect a goodly number of examples of anti-Semitism in other parties. However, to stick to the point, it is nevertheless true that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism, and certainly a problem with maintaining the boundaries between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The IHRA definitions of anti-Semitism that Labour has signed up to, after initially rejecting some of them (and which, by the way, despite claims to the contrary, are not included in Tory party rules, which make no reference to anti-Semitism, despite claims to the contrary), are also unclear with regard to those boundaries. One or two of the definitions come very close to declaring any criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic, a fact recognised by their author himself.

          In conversation with Jewish friends who have a very strong attachment to the state of Israel, to the point of seeing all its actions as uncritically justified, I sometimes find a definition of anti-Semitism which is entirely subjective: a remark is anti-Semitic if somebody Jewish experiences it as anti-Semitic, even if that remark is itself made by a Jew (“self-hating”). This also shuts down engagement and totally polarises the debate.

          While I am sure there are genuine anti-Semites (i.e. people who dislike Jews) in the Labour Party, as there are elsewhere in society, it is also very hard to hold a rational discussion that separates the concepts of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, when your interlocutors have themselves blurred the distinction.

      • Roger Lambert
        Posted January 22, 2019 at 6:24 am | Permalink

        “but sanctions are a legitimate and nonviolent method of putting pressure on states to alter their behaviour.”

        It is my understanding that the so-called anti-BDS legislation does not ban BDS or any other boycott association or boycott activity.

        What it does do is to identify BDS as discriminatory, and to then clarify the policy that governments are allowed, if not obligated, to refuse to grant state monies to discriminatory institutions.

        Personally, I would take issue that Israel is guilty of heinous behavior deserving a boycott. The more I learned about the specific issues, the more it appeared to me the exact opposite is true.

  2. BJ
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    When I went to that video of Mallory last week, all the comments were about how Meghan McCain is a conservative and so all her questions and points were invalid. Nobody cared about Mallory or the WMI’s antisemitism.

    • BJ
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      Also, regarding that post from Mercy Morganfield: I appreciate her stand against antisemitism, homophobia, etc., but I don’t understand what any march is supposed to do if 75% of the people who show up are white. They made the leadership diverse (at least when it comes to skin color). Are they supposed to stop letting in white women once they reach a certain number to ensure that the march is more diverse? You can’t just blame them for other people not showing up in enough numbers. There was never anything in the Women’s March agenda that somehow made it non-inclusive for non-white people. And yet she called the marchers “a majority white mean girl population.”

      • Jonathan Dore
        Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

        Yes, that puzzled me too. Assuming “white” means non-black and non-Asian, 75% pretty much reflects the proportion in the US population as a whole — if anything, perhaps a little on the low side.

  3. Eileen Kosiner
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Read Michelle Alexander’s Op ed in the NYT’s Sunday Review.   Disheartening to say the least.

    ⁣Sent from TypeApp ​

    • Historian
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      Michelle Alexander, described as a civil rights lawyer and activist, tries to argue that being pro-Palestinian is not necessarily anti-Semitic. I suppose she is correct, but she neglects to state that being pro-Palestinian can very easily be anti-Semitic. She concludes by saying that “In this new year, I aim to speak with greater courage and conviction about injustices beyond our borders, particularly those that are funded by our government, and stand in solidarity with struggles for democracy and freedom. My conscience leaves me no other choice.”

      Her naiveté is striking. She seems to believe that if a so-called oppressed group overthrows an oppressor group that the former would suddenly institute democracy. She draws parallel between the struggles of the Palestinians and the Vietnam War. Does she think that when the North Vietnamese won the war that democracy suddenly flourished in that country? What happens more typically is that one oppressor replaces another. The French, Chinese and Russian revolutions come readily to mind.

      As I’ve stated before, the root of the problem is that two different peoples, with different cultures and traditions, lay claim to the same piece of land. There isn’t the least bit of evidence that they could co-exist equally (the one state solution). One group will dominate the other. One group will always be second class citizens at best. As such, there is little likelihood of a peaceful resolution on the horizon.

      • BJ
        Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

        The most amusing part is that there’s only one democracy between those two factions; only one place where people are equal are under the law, all have votes and representatives in the government, and where gays, women, and religious minorities aren’t oppressed.

        That side is not the Palestinian side. I have no idea how someone would fight for Palestinian democracy.

        • Roger Lambert
          Posted January 22, 2019 at 6:29 am | Permalink

          The Palestinian Authority is so democratic that Abbas is serving his fifteenth year of a four-year term.

          The PA also spends five times more supporting the families of terrorist bombing “martyrs” than it spends on the Palestinian poor.

  4. rom
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Judeophobia for anyone?

  5. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    The evasions of the questions about BDS or support of Farrakhan reminds me of how Trump tries to evade questions about open racists who support him.

  6. Diana MacPherson
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    I would have liked to know what exactly she was doing in those prisons and how that is the same as hanging out the Farrakhan and calling him the GOAT.

    It’s sad that I think the majority of women going to these marches don’t understand what this leadership is about and if they do know, they are willing to overlook the antisemitism.

    • Blue
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

      as in re ” they are willing to overlook
      the … … ” .all. ( colors of )
      woman – hating by Michael King, aka
      Martin Luther King, Junior, by his cohorts and
      by his fans, … … since long and long after
      as well as before there was put in place
      some 33 years ago a celebratory holiday
      in his misogynist name. Tomorrow.

      Blue

      • BJ
        Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, screw that guy from a different time period who led the movement for black people to be treated fairly and equally under the law! He had some views that we don’t find acceptable. He should never be celebrated ever again!

        /sarcasm

        • Blue
          Posted January 20, 2019 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

          Yeah, not black “people,” Mr BJ: only males.

          in re humans who are girls and women, this
          reactionary stance reflects how it is I have
          for long and long felt and believed in re
          Michael ( aka Martin Luther ) King, Jr, and
          the whole of the men and quite a few women of
          the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
          As well as .a n y. fans of MLK, Jr.

          ALL of these people including his immediate
          family members know, and knew, of Mr King’s
          blatant hatred but massive ‘uses’ (as in
          ‘used – up’) of women yet there is tomorrow
          a ‘holiday’ to ‘celebrate’ how it is
          that not only did he use up human beings
          who are its female ones but he did absolutely
          squat … … from a bagazillion freakin’
          pulpits, no less … … to ( even start to
          try to help ) end femicide, infanticide of
          only the human beings who are the female ones
          and clitoridectomy violences, most all of it
          perpetrated by men of color against women of
          color because … … religion.

          Speeching and other works “forgive” this
          do they ? O, n o t with me do they. There
          are plenty, plenty of good people including
          my own father ( from the earlier timea of
          y1919 ) who do or did literally a l l
          that they can or could to try to help a l l
          others throughout a l l of their times
          breathing. With that man, MLK, and his gangs
          ? All that I see is hypocrisy. And you,
          Mr BJ, because of free speeching, can
          continue, as you have for eons now, to try
          to shut up this radical feminist. It idn’t gonna work.

          /.no. excuses

          Blue

          • BJ
            Posted January 20, 2019 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

            “Yeah, not black “people,” Mr BJ: only males.”

            Yeah, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • BJ
            Posted January 20, 2019 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

            ” And you,
            Mr BJ, because of free speeching, can
            continue, as you have for eons now, to try
            to shut up this radical feminist. It idn’t gonna work.”

            You have some kind of persecution complex. People responding to you is not trying to “shut [you] up.” If you think being able to post comments on public forums without receiving any criticism or pushback is somehow equality, and that lacking this is somehow oppressive, and that I’ve been doing it for “eons,” when I’ve probably responded to your comments less than ten times over the years (usually because I find most of them incomprehensible, and those I don’t I think are too crazy to bother with), then you are deluded.

          • Blue
            Posted January 24, 2019 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

            … … and as well, “because religion” including
            MLK’s solid anti – woman / pro – life years of oppression:

            http://www.twitter.com/FFRF/status/1088496806219210752

            Blue

  7. Malgorzata
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    sub

  8. Randall Schenck
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Blindness in bigotry takes all forms and the Woman’s movement certainly has their’s. It is very hard to run an anti-bigotry movement when you are a bigot yourself. In other examples it seems to work just fine but probably not this one. Eventually either the movement will die or the leadership will have to change. Meanwhile the Donald Trump experiment rolls along just fine, full of bigotry that is accepted by his followers and nearly all the republican party.

    Bringing attention to this prejudice is all we can do but we should never let up. When you shut down the government fighting for a bigoted wall your country has surely hit bottom.

  9. Posted January 20, 2019 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    If Mallory did condemn Farrakhan’s antisemitism (and racism) or if she did state that Israel has a right to exist, would anyone believe she meant it? I wouldn’t. I, for one, am glad she is sticking to her true beliefs.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      It would be nice if she just honestly stated them instead of side stepping the questions. Just say she’s against Israel, doesn’t like Jews or white people and whoever else and that she isn’t stepping down because she likes the position.

      • Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        Yes, but because she likes her position she won’t do the former.

        • rickflick
          Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

          So, I’d say she likes her position better than she likes truth, justice, and the American way.

  10. Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Mercy Morganfield does seem to be downright racist herself though. She starts her rant by berating Mallory for being the paid servant of whites, even berating the WM for being 75% white (about the same as the ratio of people with European descent in the USA, so what the hell is her problem?)and later in her rant also insist that Mallory can be in her position (despite her antisemitism) due to the will of the evil whites. She is a textbook racist intersectionalist.
    Well, at least she recognizes the inherent contradiction of trying to be feminist and pushing Islamic traditions in the same time. That is definitely an improvement compared to Sarsour.

    • Posted January 20, 2019 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      Agreed.

    • Jenny Haniver
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      While I see nothing racist in Morganfield making the observation that the WM is 75% white, and I find your cavil captious since the Women’s March is supposed to be about diversity and inclusiveness, I do think that she should have specified just which particular group of whites Mallory is the paid servant for, because her use of the broad brush does leave her open to being called a racist. If there is a certain specific group of white people (or any group) that Mallory is beholden to, Morganfield should have specified.

      However I find you quite quick on the trigger, eager to dismiss Morganfield out of hand as a racist, and I wonder if you think that any non-white person can criticize a white people about anything relating to race without you branding them racist?

      • wetherjeff
        Posted January 20, 2019 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

        I think you miss the point, the criticism of white people is not racist; the criticism of those people because they are white is.

        What if a prominent person in the ‘white’ community wrote that first paragraph of Morganfield’s, swapping black for white? Would that be racist, or not?

      • Posted January 20, 2019 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

        “…and I wonder if you think that any non-white person can criticize a white people about anything relating to race without you branding them racist?”

        Wonder no more, the answer is of course no.

        You made quite a beautiful conjecture here for somebody who harshly criticizes me for allegedly doing so. 🙂

        The observation that WM is 75% white could be simply a matter of fact statement, it is the context of her writing that makes me think otherwise. Yes, she should have specified what group of “whites” she is against if that were a specific group only. But she did not not. The least I can say that such a distinction is not very important for her.

    • XCellKen
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

      Because if you’re intersectional, its ALWAYS the White Man’s fault. A Black woman is a bigot towards Jews? Its the White Man’s fault !!!

  11. Diana MacPherson
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    And I’m sure everyone has seen the irony of leading a women’s movement while costing up so a misogynist.

  12. Jenny Haniver
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    An aside: Mercy Morganfield is the daughter of Muddy Waters (McKinley Morganfield). She does have a way with words, and doesn’t mince them.

    • Jenny Haniver
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      Oops, that was noted in the body of the post.

    • Vaal
      Posted January 21, 2019 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

      Hi Jenny, hope you don’t mind a quick off topic question.

      When I originally saw your screen name I assumed you had taken the name from Jenny Haniver, the character in the extremely rare cult film Bermuda Depths. (Hey, a fellow fan!)

      But then I recently found out via google that a “Jenny Haniver” also means:

      “The carcass of a ray or a skate that has been modified by hand then dried, resulting in a mummified specimen intended to resemble a fanciful fictional creature, such as a demon or dragon.”

      Is THAT where you got your screen name? (In the case it isn’t your real name, presumably).

      In either case, it shed some light on why the writers of the Bermuda Depths named their character that, so I learned something either way.

      Cheers.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted January 21, 2019 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        LOL. I’m so naive. I thought that it was because that was her name.

        • Vaal
          Posted January 22, 2019 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

          Looks like the answer to my query will forever remain a mystery.

  13. DrBrydon
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    I found the agenda document online [link]. I am all for equal justice for all women (all people actually), but as always seems to be the case, the organizations that lead the charge bury their message in a laundry list of objectives that are at best tangential to the core goal. In the case of WML, alongside the topics that are clearly related to women’s justice are:

    -Ending state violence
    -Racial justice
    -LGBTQIA+ right
    -Immigrant rights
    -Economic justice & worker’s rights
    -Disability rights
    -Environmental justice
    -Universal health care
    -Ending war

    It seems as if these left organizations all say the same thing under different names. All they are doing is establishing another litmus test for belonging, rather than trying to build a broad consensus.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

      I thought that too. How can you include everyone when your goals are so broad? You need to focus and then you will find you can be more inclusive.

  14. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    All I wanted to say is “Nation of Islam” is one of those things that sounds _so_ serious, it must be laughed at.

    I know that idea is not new, but I discovered it recently and I love it. I know Neils Bohr said something _similar_.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

      I think it was Oscar Wilde who suggested that trivial things be treated seriously, and serious things with a sincere and studied triviality.

  15. harrync
    Posted January 21, 2019 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    I absolutely support the right of return of Palestinians, just like I support the right of return of the Cherokee to come back and take my condo here in western North Carolina – oh wait, maybe I don’t.


Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: