Women’s March on Steamboat Springs participants hold signs during a rally Saturday at the Routt County Courthouse.

Photo by Matt Stensland

Women’s March on Steamboat Springs participants hold signs during a rally Saturday at the Routt County Courthouse.

Women's March on Steamboat Springs surpasses expectations

Advertisement

Editor's note: This story has been updated.

Organizers were filled with pride as an estimated 1,000 people marched through downtown Saturday during the Women’s March on Steamboat Springs.

“I’m proud that we’ve come together as a community to show Northwest Colorado that we are diverse, we’re welcoming, we believe in freedom and choice, and this is beautiful,” organizer Helen Beall said. “I am emotional right now. Beyond expectations.”

Organizers were originally expecting about 500 people.

The Women’s March started at Bud Werner Memorial Library and went along the Lincoln Avenue sidewalks to Third Street. A rally was then held on the Routt County Courthouse lawn.

Similar marches were held in cities across the country.

The event came a day after Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, and many of the signs people carried reflected concerns and controversies surrounding his presidential campaign.

Andrea Wambach stood outside the Hungry Dog stand passing out free hot dogs while holding a sign that read “Grab him by the wiener,” a reference to a recording of Trump in which he talked about grabbing women by their genitals.

“I just wanted to spread some love to the ladies out there marching,” Wambach said. “I feel like women need to stand together.”

Steamboat resident Jenna Meier Bilbo held a sign that read “We will not go quietly.”

“I’m incredibly stoked about the turnout,” Bilbo said. “I’m just really excited to see all different sorts of people out here protesting and marching against the ridiculousness that’s been happening right now.”

Bilbo’s friend held a sign that read, “At stake is our bodies, our schools, our planet” and included U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner’s telephone number.

Noreen Moore, a self-proclaimed hippy who has always been a community activist, said she was marching for human rights.

“I think we really need to not go back 500 years,” Moore said. “This issue, I think, is about our whole human race existing. It’s deeper than just women’s rights.”

Moore was with her daughter, Megan Moore-Kemp.

She said she came out to support equality.

“I think it’s amazing,” she said as the group gathered on the courthouse lawn.

Organizer Linda May Morrison led the rally, which included music and poetry readings.

“I think it was amazing,” she said. “I didn’t expect this many people. There are twice as many people as we thought. Steamboat is terrific.”

To reach Matt Stensland, call 970-871-4247, email mstensland@SteamboatToday.com or follow him on Twitter @SBTStensland

Wish You Were Here, Steamboat 360 video: Women's March on Steamboat Springs

Comments

Scott Wedel 2 months ago

The 360 video demonstrates the weakness of that technology. Being in the middle of a crowd gives no sense of the size of the crowd. The 360 video makes it look like there were about 100 people. Presumably, if not so smitten with the 360 tech then there would have been pictures taken from a perspective that would have shown the size of the event.

0

mary walker 2 months ago

A huge shoutout to the Steamboat Springs community for showing up! I am in D. C. right now winding down from the march on Washington and I have never been so proud of my home of 30 years! We are one of the luckiest towns to have a Planned Parenthood right off Main St, not Back St. and we will fight to be sure that they continue to provide cancer screenings, STD screenings, birth control, and YES SAFE and LEGAL Abortion services and referrals for the women of our community, whether this administration likes it or not. IN the words of one of the performers in D.C. today, "A woman gave us Martin Luther King, Jr. A woman gave us Malcolm X. And yes, a woman gave us Jesus Christ". I marched because my mother marched for me. I marched because it was the right thing to do. I marched because womens' rights are human rights. Please call your senators and congress people and tell them how you feel. It matters. And run for office, and if you don't want to run for office, support the women who ARE running for office and fighting so hard for you.

10

John Fielding 2 months ago

On the occasion of t­he women's March

A statement in celeb­ration of women.

" we live in an ocean­ of subtle intelligen­ces" Henry David Thoreau­

Life is consciousness­ that has taken mater­ial form.

Life's purpose is to reproduce itsel­f, to nurture and to improv­e itself.

Life originally repro­duced itself only by ­cellular division. Bu­t as life progressed ­it became capable of ­the combination of ge­netic material from t­wo separate organisms­. Thus began sexual r­eproduction. That assures div­ersity which propels Life's progress.

As Life's progress to­ward Greater Consciou­sness continued it be­came necessary for th­e period of nurture t­o be longer and more ­intense for a more co­mplex creature to dev­elop. Nature in its w­isdom developed a gre­ater differentiation ­in the role of the se­xes.

The species with more­ specific roles for e­ach gender often enjo­y greater success. In­ the case of the huma­n, for optimal result­s, the woman is given­ the requirement to n­urture the young with­in her body for nine ­months and then at he­r breast for a number­ of years.

This strategy for pro­gress is successful o­nly when the woman is­ well protected and p­rovided for while in ­this vulnerable condi­tion. Thus the male d­eveloped enhanced cap­ability for the suppo­rt and protection of­ the family.

For those who hold re­verence for nature, i­t is therefore the sa­cred obligation of th­e Man to respect the ­wisdom of nature by p­rotecting, providing ­for, and cherishing t­he woman and their of­fspring. This is the ­dictate of existence,­ and those who perfor­m it well will prospe­r and those who do no­t may fail.

As men and women have­ been given the need ­for each other for re­production, so too ha­ve they the need for ­each other to form a ­complete unit of the human species. They h­ave supplementary spi­rits as well as bodie­s. We complete each o­ther.

One of the oldest met­aphors for life is th­at it is a circle. Bi­rth, reproduction, an­d death ever continui­ng.

But this metaphor lac­ks the element of pro­gress. When you move ­a circle forward in a­ third dimension it b­ecomes a spiral.

When male and female travel on parallel ci­rcles linked to each o­ther they make a perf­ect image of the doub­le helix, the most ba­sic configuration of ­life.

And when that helix i­s observed end on, lo­oking forward or back­ in time it forms the­ image of the yin and­ yang.

Thus may we ever con­tinue, holding each o­ther's hand in the da­nce that leads us through eternity

0

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Even Reuters isn't buying John Fielding's pretentious­ homily. Saturday's wymin's jive is an anti-Trump tantrum. Nothing more, nothing less; and utterly meaningless. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to my loathing of Donnie Douchebag, but this ridiculous whiny conniption makes Sandra Fluke look like Phyllis Schlafly.

Slick Willie's serial predation is a matter of record. His wife's complicity in the campaigns to destroy the reputations of the women who presumed to complain is worse - by an order of magnitude - than anything (we know) Trump has ever done. That her supporters have never called her on in it (forget about repudiating her for it, fools) speaks volumes about their alleged "commitment" to social justice. Two-faced, hypocritical, and disgusting beyond measure.

Perhaps some productive fallout from all this bs would be ideologues - on BOTH sides - holding their own just as accountable as they do the opposition. Had that been the case this last time around, we might not have been saddled with the two most repellent candidates imaginable.

3

John Fielding 2 months ago

Brian, I have to agree with you regarding most of your statement. In my statement I had pretensions to truth reason and perhaps even eloquence. I certainly do maintain that support for women by men is Nature's dictate.

I wonder if there is any part of my presentation that you disagree with.

In attending the event myself I certainly was not there to detract from the presidency nor the person who currently holds it. I went in hope that there may be an open mic and an opportunity for the presentation of a moderate opinion.

I also went to assess the mood of the participants. I found it often to be reasonable and was pleased by the emphatic statements of support for the Constitution and the ovation they received. There were a few statements encouraging Resistance to to the government but no more so than I have seen at right wing rallies, just different specifics.

Steamboat's event was billed as nonpartisan and came close to fulfilling that promise.

0

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Hi John

I think your Thoreau citation couldn't be less relevant to the event, and its national oranizers' decision to exclude a pro life women's group from their main event in DC (along with the relentless anti Trump diatribes - I'll wager a year's pay we'd have heard nothing but adulation for President Clinton; despite the reprehensible treatment of her husband's victims) puts the lie to any pretentions to non partisanship.

I suppose your inclination to put a positive spin on it is a good thing. I'm too jaded to see it as anything but spin; with no real connection to the genuine motivations.

1

Eric J. Bowman 2 months ago

Anti-abortion, not pro-life. The women's rights re-movement in this country needs to assert their 70% majority as "pro-life" over three relevant points:

1) Rape/incest. Don't force these victims back into the back alley, or tell me they aren't victims, or somehow deserve to die for wanting abortions, or claim you automatically know "their best interests" to justify keeping them from being suicidal over said abortion, when the numbers (non-alternative facts) don't back that up vs. suicides vs. being forced to deliver, whether the baby's kept or given up for adoption. Let women choose what they believe to be in their own best interests, come what may -- women should have say over their own bodies, not politicians, even if the M:F ratio were somehow reversed and the outcome was somehow the same.

2) Health of the mother. Don't force someone who really wants a kid back into the back alley, because her Dr. tells her she'll likely die in childbirth. Or tell me it's your interpretation of God's plan that she should die trying to give birth -- not that I'll bother disagreeing with you as a fellow Christian, but as an American I'll cite the First Amendment if you try using government as an instrument to impose your particular religious morality upon free citizens of America who don't share your beliefs, or mine, or anyone else's for that matter. Freedom generates its own enemies, unfortunately, but I'll still fight for that cause on anyone's behalf, not just my own!

3) Birth control. See Monty Python's The Meaning of Life for the "every sperm is sacred" Catholic-bashing bit. I was raised Catholic but never confirmed, likely would've had Pope Frankie come along sooner, but JPII went to Mexico City on "World Youth Day" when I was in HS to give a dogmatic sermon in favor of abstinence to an audience more than half-full of youths that plea arrived too late to "help." ;)

Do your research. What few blue states remain in America, not only have barely-restricted access to abortion clinics, but also the lowest abortion rates in the country. Why? State-subsidized birth control. What do you want, the illusion that harping on abstinence will keep kids from doin' it? No, that just keeps 'em from doin' it with condoms.

0

John Fielding 2 months ago

I cannot speak for the national event I expect your assessment of it is probably close to the mark.

At the local event I recall no mention of Clinton or Trump or even Obama by name. The oblique reference was to resist any who would diminish human rights. By inference of course the left would characterize Trump as one who would do that.

The Thoreau quote was not relevant to the event it was relevant to my statement regarding the event. Among the subtle intelligences that surrround us is the intelligence of life which has highly differentiated the sexes.

In the case of the human of course it is the role of the male to protect and provide. The role of the female in nurturing the unborn and newborn is I believe a sacred duty. Hence I have great reluctance to countenance taking the life of the unborn. In my opinion that should require adjudication that carefully assesses the threat to the life of the woman posed by the continuance of the pregnancy.

In the larger sense of course it is not simply the duty of the man to support the woman. It is the duty of all men to support all women. When a woman finds that she cannot reasonably have another child it is the duty of society to accept that child and provide it proper family support. That duty also would extend to giving all the necessary support to the pregnant woman who may very well not have a man to provide for her.

I have two such young people living in my family and there are endless lists of people who would gladly take another child into their home should abortion be limited and thus have more children who could not reasonably remain with their mothers.

0

John Fielding 2 months ago

I honestly believe that there is a great deal of preferential treatment for women in the law. In the past there has been even more and I believe that that was appropriate. Its intent it was of course to strengthen the family by enforcing strict obligations upon the men.

I believe men in our society are much less inclined to pass laws that have the effect of reducing protections for women. I believe if men could get pregnant it would be much less support for abortion because civilized men are far more demanding of their own gender. A pregnant man would unsympathetically be told by other men to "do your duty". That is exactly how we regard those who become fathers and fail to fulfill their obligations.

Kipling's observations on the subject are perspicacious.

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw96.html

0

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Rachel Maddow wonders if Trump will ship her off to an internment camp.

Silly girl. Unlike Preezy, 45 has never been compared to FDR.

0

John Fielding 2 months ago

                  Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
                       The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, 
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside. 
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail. 
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man, 
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can. 
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail. 
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws, 
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws. 
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale. 
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say, 
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away; 
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale— 
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,— 
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise. 
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact 
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
0

John Fielding 2 months ago

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low, To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe. Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame 
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same; 
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail, 
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast 
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest. 
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells— 
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great 
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate. 
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim 
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties; 
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!— 
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild, 
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights, 
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites, 
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw 
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer 
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her 
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands 
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him 
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him. 
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail, 
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.
0

Chris Hadlock 2 months ago

"I believe men in our society are much less inclined to pass laws that have the effect of reducing protections for women."

What a crock of malarkey John. Just look at the Republican platform as it relates to Women's healthcare needs, conception, Planned Parenthood or abortion law. Those old white men seem very inclined to pass laws that have the affect of reducing protections for women in my opinion. It is time for the good citizens of this country to reject that kind of backward thinking. My wife marched yesterday and I support her in those efforts.

We are not going back to the days of:

"The Good Wife staying home in the kitchen and raising the kids."

To paraphrase our local youth "Those days are gone dude!"

You can quote old poetry all you want, but if you listen to the young women in your life I think you would come to a different conclusion about the way they would choose to live their lives. Whether you agree with them or not is a different question, but you should at least be listening because quoting Kipling and Thoreau is not going to change their opinions.

3

Fred Duckels 2 months ago

This event represents much more than women's rights. Conservatives lost last time around and took the beating with dignity. They want back to the drawing board and worked to remedy the situation, today the democrats are in disarray as never before. These Halliburton type tantrums feel good but little else is accomplished.

1

Chris Hadlock 2 months ago

"Conservatives lost last time around and took the beating with dignity."

Sure if you call Mitch McConnell's meeting with Republican Leadership to "block all Obama initiatives at any cost and make him a one term president." dignity!

I think you could call yesterday's march a call for "going back to the drawing board."

1

Carl Steidtmann 2 months ago

I think the great Bard, William Shakespeare has the final word here as to the meaning of this all.

From Macbeth, which Bill Clinton has acknowledged as his favorite play. Macbeth upon hearing that his wife is dead announces:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Act V scene v:

0

Martha D Young 2 months ago

Thoreau (1817-1862), Kipling (1865-1936) and Shakespeare (1564-1616) are used as references to provide information about how women should live! Nothing like the words of three dead white men being used to define women in 2017. Thanks, guys.

0

Carl Steidtmann 1 month, 4 weeks ago

I suspect Martha that you have read very little Shakespeare or you would not make such an ill-informed statement. Shakespeare wrote for the ages.

At the library we are currently reading Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra. I challenge you to show me an author who portrays as strong a woman character trying to manage in a man's world better than Shakespeare's depiction of Cleopatra.

If Roman history is not your thing, then I would suggest reading Macbeth from where my quote was drawn. Lady Macbeth could teach you a thing or two about 'screwing your courage to the sticking place' and the price one can pay in doing so.

If it is comedy that you fancy, Much Ado about Nothing will introduce you to Beatrice a woman who views the dance floor as a battlefield in her very clever, funny and successful efforts to outmaneuver the men in her life.

And that is but three of thirty-seven plays written by Shakespeare and does not include any of his sonnets, poems or correspondence. The man is an unsurpassed genius. Instead of dismissing him as a dead white male, you might find that by reading him you would have much to learn. But that requires an open and curious mind.

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Hi Chris - As you know, both State and Federal law already forbids discrimination based on gender. While I always applaud the Right of like-minded people to organize and express themselves peacefully, this is more reactionary to the election than any serious concern over the Rights of American women in 2017.

I'll also point out that this was more about politics than gender as organizers in Washington DC only allowed women with "approved" political views to participate. Simply being a woman wasn't enough to be included in the "Woman's March" in DC, as noted by the NYT and US News. Hopefully, women weren't excluded here in Steamboat for having unpopular views.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/womens-march-abortion.html?_r=1

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-01-19/the-womens-march-on-washington-errs-in-excluding-pro-life-feminists

1

Carl Steidtmann 2 months ago

Chris Hadlock:

The McConnell quote you make is taken out of context, which is regularly done by those who are trying to find some equivalency between the traditional actions of the opposition party and the dangerous and as we saw on Friday violent attempts by the left to discredit the Trump administration before it even does anything.

The McConnell quote came from an interview with Major Garret that appeared in National Journal on October 29, 2010. That was nearly two years into President Obama's first term, not the day after he was elected. McConnell was trying to energize his base in anticipation of what would be a blowout win for the Republicans in the 2010 election, an effort that succeeded brilliantly.

McConnell went on to say that he hoped after the election that President Obama would respond to the loss as President Clinton had done after the Democrats' defeat in the 1994 Congressional election by moving more to the center and trying to work with Republicans which would make President Obama's presidency the kind of success that President Clinton had had.

I did not vote for Mr Trump but I am finding more sympathy for him having listened to the same people who lectured the country on the importance of accepting the outcome of an election in October, engage in a November to January primal scream about the legitimacy of the recent election.

From vote recounts, to efforts at creating faithless electors, to celebrities bemoaning that they are the most vilified people in America, to the red scare about how the Russians are coming, to the recent march they are little more than feel good politically correct virtue signaling which does not win elections. If anything its one of the reasons we have a Trump presidency.

Turn off the TV, step away from social media, take a deep breath. The perpetual rage is exhausting. Its going to be a long four years as it is.

1

Scott Wedel 2 months ago

Chris

Why reference an article mostly consistenting of quotes from another article? Here is the politifact article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/21/sean-spicer/trump-had-biggest-inaugural-crowd-ever-metrics-don/

Also, it was Kellyanne Conway who said "alternative facts" as being another way to describe lies. Spicer's contribution to social media is saying "Period" after a flat out lie.

I found Conway's statements to self defeating by arguing that Trump at CIA and Spicer's press conference were comparable to the worst of Obama's administration false statements. Okay, so how does Conway arguing that Trump White already being as bad as the worst of the Obama administration help Trump?

0

John Fielding 2 months ago

The Good Wife stay in the kitchen and raising the kids is probably the most effective form of nurture for the first few years preschool.

You can let other people raise your kids for you and paid them to do that but in all likelihood it would be better for them to have a full-time parent at home.

The point I attempted to illustrate with the Kipling poem was that to a very great extent men allow themselves to be controlled by women and act out of fear of upsetting the women by not meeting their demands.

Allowing oneself to be controlled in that way is an act of participation in the nurture of the family unit. One submits one's selfish desires to what is better for the family unit. In most instances that would be applicable to the decision two limit ones family size bye termination of pregnancy.

0

Whitney Isabel 2 months ago

I hope you'll run for office Mary Walker. You'd have my vote. You have one of my all time favorite comments on this site. Left SB in 2008 but we are slowly making our way back. My family marched in Seattle yesterday. Was honestly one of the best days of my life!

6

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Women’s March Organizer Recently Met Ex-Hamas Operative, Has Family Ties To Terror Group

In all fairness, I know that whenever the rights of women cross my mind, Islamic fundamentalism instantly comes to the fore. Nothing says "gender equality" like Hamas.

If the women who took part in yesterday's tantrum really want to impress me, they'll duplicate their display in Riyadh, Islamabad, Kabul, Jakarta (all bastions of "moderate Islam," according to experts like Secretary Clinton), or hell - in any of the Muslim enclaves in Belgium, France, and all over Europe - the so called "no-go zones" - where even the local cops won't go. You know, places in the world where women find themselves under real subjugation, and in genuine peril. As opposed to America, where we celebrate the the Dem front-runner who greases the skids on behalf of her predatory spouse. Because equality.

1

mary walker 2 months ago

Well, thanks Whitney! But I don't have the cajones (and actually I do mean that totally literally) for elective politics. All that I can really say is that comments like some of the above are so demoralizing. If only women would chime in here, even if I don't agree with their comments, it would be a vast improvement over the monopolization of the discourse by these men above. To speak about what they presume to have been the tone, intent, content, of the March in Washington, or in Steamboat - well, enough said about that. If there are ANY women other than Whitney out there who want to know more about why advocacy for some of the issues is important, check out EMILY"S LIST, check out URGE, check out PLANNED PARENTHOOD, check out ACLU. I guess I can understand why the notion that "Womens' Rights are Human Rights" just totally gets under these guys' skins. Anything that doesn't directly advocate for the things that they think are important will do that. And thus it goes for how white American men will feel about issues that affect immigrants, Muslims, Muslim WOMEN (because their challenges are TOTALLY different from those that face their husbands, brothers, and fathers), etc. etc. etc. And Hey Brian - yesterday wasn't a "tantrum", it was apparently approximately 2 million PEOPLE around the world mobilizing (big difference) and by the way there WERE marches in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Kenya yesterday ( please don't fight me on this, I spend several months a year there). There is a difference between what you believe in strongly, and what you actually know. Its okay, We are all guilty of that inability to distinguish sometimes.

7

mary walker 2 months ago

Oops, sorry, make that 3 MILLION PEOPLE around the world mobilizing! Now, that is SOME kind of "tantrum" Brian! Youtube Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator from New York, speaking at the D.C. March - she's right, if the American national legislature were controlled 80% by women (instead of where it stands now, at 20%), we wouldn't be wasting any time arguing about whether family leave, equal pay for equal work, equal access to reproductive freedom, Violence against Women legislation, sanity around gun control measures, supporting public school systems, equal access to health care (do I really need to go on?) were important agenda items for our country. We'd be implementing real change - change that would benefit women AND men. I am just going to keep saying it, "Womens' Rights are Human Rights".

5

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Hi Mary

It's interesting that you characterize my take on yesterday's display as a “fight.” Although I suppose it's expected to get one's back up when confronted by an opposing view.

Thank you for the heads up on the marches in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, and Kenya. I admit that those demonstrations were unknown to me. So I googled (separately) “women's march Saudi Arabia”, "women's march Iraq”, “women's march Lebanon (although, to be fair: the Lebanon search did turn up a demonstration in Lebanon, PA; in the event that's what you were talking about)”, and “women's march Kenya.” My efforts confirmed a demonstration in Nairobi: it was labeled a “...protest against U.S. President Donald Trump during the Women's March inside Karura forest in Kenya's capital Nairobi, January 21, 2017.” Nothing there about “...family leave, equal pay for equal work, equal access to reproductive freedom, Violence against Women legislation, sanity around gun control measures, supporting public school systems, equal access to health care...” Just an anti Trump exhibition. Because clearly nothing is more important to Kenyan women than who's in the White House. I came up empty everywhere else (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon).

However, it could be that I'm an incompetent researcher, and I would LOVE to be shown up in that regard. As a fervent advocate of what is arguably the most powerful declaration in human history: All Men Are Created Equal, I can think of little that would encourage me more than to see any evidence that the repressed women in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Kenya, etc, were able to leverage any part of yesterday's demonstration to acquire even the tiniest fraction of the guarantees you enjoy here; freedoms that would see many of them beaten, tortured, or killed if they presumed to act as though they were as privileged as you are.

1

Whitney Isabel 2 months ago

Hi Mary, True story: I saw your comment and then scrolled straight down to the bottom to post my comment. I didn't read and I don't care what any of these men have to say about the Women's March.

Still over the last two days I have seen the new set of talking points coming from our more conservative citizen commentators so I can only imagine....something along the lines of..."these women protestors don't know how lucky they are to have the rights we've already granted them. They should just be happy with what they have. And they obviously do not care at all about the poor oppressed women of (fill-in-the-blank majority Muslim country)."

It's an ABSURD argument. I just can't even. Sigh. Of course WOMEN CARE. That's what WE DO. Anyone using that argument needs to SIT DOWN.

It's really not hard, say it with me: Women's Rights are Human Rights!

4

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Hi Whitney

You write: "I didn't read and I don't care what any of these men have to say about the Women's March."

How... inclusive of you! Dismissing/excluding people based on gender is a doctrine right out of the Dark Ages. It's awesome to see you 'moving forward, not backward,' lol.

Women's Rights are Human Rights! Unless you have the y chromosome, in which case shut up. Oh, and unless you're a woman who objects to abortion (half the women in the country), in which case shut up. And stay out of our Women's March, you stupid cows. Go back to the kitchen where you belong. Only the ideologically pure are permitted to proclaim that "Women's Rights are Human Rights!" It's exactly as Orwell illustrated in his famous allegory: We're all equal. But some of us are more equal than others.

Finally, let's look at the reason you cite for ignoring anyone who challenges your dogma: "I can only imagine....something along the lines of..."these women protestors don't know how lucky they are to have the rights we've already granted them. They should just be happy with what they have."

No one here has stated, suggested, or implied anything of the kind. I believe our Christian friends would call that "bearing false witness." Heathens like me might be inclined to dismiss you as a prevaricator at best, or a liar at worst.

2

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Considering that Whitney's comments focus on Women's Rights as Human Rights and it's already against the law to discriminate based on gender, can anyone offer a single example of a Right in 2017 that an American man has that an American woman does not?

Further, if illegal discrimination against women is so widespread in America that it warrants millions of people protesting in the streets, why didn't the Obama administration and Holder/Lynch address it over the last eight years?

2

mary walker 2 months ago

Brian, I didn't characterize what you said as a "fight", I used your word, "tantrum". As for Kenya, there is no such thing as paid family leave, equal pay for equal work, access to reliable family planning information, etc. Heck, 75% of Kenyans don't even have access to electricity, so expecting them to share the same concerns as in the American conversation is kind of lame. Undoubtedly what the folks in Kenya were marching about were the issues that matter to them, not us. And those are very very very very different things - clean water, enough food to feed their families, the "free" public education that their government has been promising for years now, etc. To think that the entire world shares the same concerns, issues, challenges, as the U.S., well that is just really really kind of silly. That people in countries around the world chose January 21 to "march", "tantrum", "protest", "speak out", or whatever you'd like to call it, is just plain amazing as far as apparently 3 million people are concerned. I'm signing off from this stream now. I would only suggest that you guys all spend a bit more time talking with (not to) your mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters and a whole lot less in your echo chamber.

1

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Hi Mary - As I've pointed out, it's already illegal in America to discriminate based on gender. Can you provide a single example of a Right that a man has in America in 2017 that a women doesn't also have?

In response to your suggestion, I've discussed this with my wife and sister and they couldn't come up with an example. Can you?

2

John Fielding 2 months ago

women's rights are human rights. Mens rights are human rights. Children's rights are human rights.

In all likelihood that next great advance in protection of Human Rights will be extending them to the human child in utero

There is no doubt that it is human and alive and after about midterm viable.

In many places causing the death of an unborn child through negligence or assault is a crime.

Of course the rights of the other person involved must be balanced. If the continuation of pregnancy will result in economic hardship that must be compensated. If caring for the infant would cause hardship that must be accommodated. If the mother's life is genuinely endangered by the pregnancy it must be ended but all necessary measures should be taken to assure that the Unborn Child may have its life preserved in the process.

A great many abortions are performed on unborn children who are perfectly capable being removed from the uterus in a manner that will preserve their life. That should not be allowed.

By far the majority of Americans agree that a viable infant in utero deserves legal protections.

These are human rights too.

0

Scott Wedel 2 months ago

"A great many abortions are performed on unborn children who are perfectly capable being removed from the uterus in a manner that will preserve their life."

That is simply not true.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks. Only 1.2 percent occur at or after 21 weeks (CDC, 2013)

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 2 months ago

In 2013 it appears that of the over 660,000 abortions performed almost 8000 were done after week 21. Is it possible that it is OK for John to think that 8000 is a great many?

0

Scott Wedel 2 months ago

Dan K.

When down to 8,000 compared to over 3.9M live births then the great majority of abortions after 21 weeks are due to live threatening medicals issues. That is within the range of fetuses with fatal developmental issues that have no chance of being born alive or woman with dire medical issues that will result in death in days.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Scott, Why are you comparing abortions to live births. The point I made is that it is OK for John to state that to him, 8000 is a great many. By who's authority are you allowed to tell anyone that they are wrong on stating that they believe 8000 is a great many I have no idea what your point was. Can any body in this forum make a point with out you challenging, criticizing, or voicing your opinion.

0

mary walker 2 months ago

Thanks for speaking to some women, its always a good idea. But, Oh my. Drunk driving is illegal, so it never happens, is that right? Domestic violence, is variously illegal depending on what state you live in, so it never happens, is that right? Calling, "Fire" in a crowded space is illegal (look it up), so it never happens, is that right? Kidnapping, murder, arson, fraud, identity fraud, theft, child abuse, sex trafficking... So okay fine, in the U.S. discrimination based on gender is illegal - so it just never ever happens. I am not going to be able to change your mind about that. But here is one for you - men have the absolute right to absolutely never be forced to bear, or take responsibility for, a child. And please don't counter that women have the same right if they just wouldn't have sex - that rules out rape, incest, and whole world of reasons that women get pregnant when they really really don't want to. Men have the absolute right to have sex, without any consequences if they so choose. Women absolutely do not have that right, because of the consequences.

1

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Hi Mary - Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate the civil discourse. Men are far from having the Right to have sex without consequences, however; see: child support laws.

Consider this in regard to consensual sex: women are at a tremendous advantage where the decision to have a baby and subsequent consequences to the father are concerned. The women will have a number of weeks to determine if she will impose the financial consequences of her choice to have the baby on the father. She may also choose to indemnify herself (and the father) of the natural consequences of having consensual sex through terminating the pregnancy. At no point in this process does the man have the choice to indemnify himself of the consequences of consensual sex - only the women can make that choice. If a woman has 12 weeks to decide that she won't bear the consequences of her chosen behavior, shouldn't a man also have the exact same 12 weeks to make a similar decision? Not to terminate the woman's pregnancy, of course, but to go to the Probate Court and declare "I hold no responsibility" for this child. The only difference would be that the baby would live long enough to realize it's father didn't want it, rather than being terminated in utero by the mother. If anything, allowing a man the same 12 weeks to deny responsibility for his chosen behavior would represent equality. Do you agree, or do you think that the woman should be the final, unilateral authority regarding consequences when both the man and the women engaged in consensual sex?

In response to your suggestion that people break the law all the time (which I agree with); can you point to what the Obama administration did to hold these gender-discriminating law-breakers accountable and how could President Trump do a better job of enforcing the law regarding gender discrimination?

0

Chris Hadlock 2 months ago

Harvey, that was one of the most obnoxious things you have ever written and there are a few doozies from your past comments. Good luck explaining that one.

Keep digging boys. I will make some popcorn and watch.

1

mary walker 2 months ago

As Meghan Kelly (surely a favorite of most of you guys) would say, "Sigh". I made a mistake trying to enter this conversation. By the way, I didn't use the word "consensual", so your pregnancy analysis is meaningless to the point I am trying to make, and I'm not going to get drawn into it any further. You guys are really something, parsing when its useful to you, ignoring when its not, hyperbole when its useful to your argument but disdain when its not, obsession with "gotcha" moments, mistating, overstating, just plain ignoring facts, but if it gets you thru the day, so be it. Whynot instead, use all of this time and energy of yours registering voters?

3

Chris Hadlock 2 months ago

No Mary, your voice is important to this conversation and topic. While you cannot expect to change the hearts and minds of those that already have their minds made up, rest assured that there are many people that read these forums without ever commenting. Those are the hearts and minds you are responding to.

1

John Fielding 2 months ago

Thank you Dan, I do think 8000 terminations of viable infants is a lot. It could almost repopulate this town.

The other part of this story is the degree to which a woman has the right to choose to abused the child in utero. In some places it is a crime to do so even where it is legal to end its life. My boys we're both abused in utero by drug use as well as severely neglected in infancy. Many would say they were ideal candidates for abortion.

But there is an excellent Prospect of them recovering from that and going on to become great Men. They are already wonderful human beings. How fortunate for them that their mother had a moral compunction against killing them even though she could not bring herself to stop the behaviors that led to their injury.

1

John Fielding 2 months ago

And lest we forget approximately half of these aborted children are female. That seems to play into women's rights somehow I think

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Hi Mary - I mentioned consensual sex because that's the focus of my comment and thoughts on abortion. I recognize that not all abortions result from consensual sex. I'll stipulate that abortion is reasonable in the instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother in response to your comment in hopes that you'll not ignore my ideas regarding equal protection, abortion and consensual sex. Certainly you understand that many abortions result from consensual sex and I'd like to know your thoughts on equality in that regard.

0

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Hi Mary

You write: “So okay fine, in the U.S. discrimination based on gender is illegal - so it just never ever happens.”

Assuming facts (or ascribing assertions) not in evidence. Of course discrimination takes place. Right along with kidnapping, murder, arson, fraud, identity fraud, theft, child abuse, and sex trafficking. Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to suggest that acknowledging the illegality of gender discrimination equates to turning a blind eye to it. Again, unless I've misinterpreted what you're driving at, I'm confused how you get from point A to point B on that one - since everyone is opposed to discrimination; right along with the other crimes you've mentioned. That's kind of why there are laws against all of it.

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Brian - It's also worth pointing out that nobody supporting the Woman's March, including Mary or Whitney, have identified a single Right that American men have in 2017 that American women do not also have in 2017. Not. A. Single. Example.

0

Matt Hannon 2 months ago

Ken, that is the most ridiculous overstatement: ". . .nobody supporting the . . . March . . . have identified a single right . . " So you have spoken to every single marcher and confirmed this? Easy to throw something out there that is baseless and demand somebody disprove it. My ten year old uses that same logic when he's frustrated.

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Hi Matt - Nice deflection. I thought it was obvious I was referring to the people contributing to this thread, drawing specific attention to the women that were vocal supporters.

To remain focused on the point I was making, can you identify a single Right that you have as a man that a woman doesn't have? I suspect you can't, or you would have included it in your retort.

0

Matt Hannon 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Ken I actually find your question to be deflecting and not worthy of an answer. I don't agree with the protesters but don't think that your assertion means they are pointless. My point was that not answering your question doesn't make the protesters wrong.

0

Lock McShane 2 months ago

Men have the right to have their reproductive system left out of our laws, which women don't have.

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Lock - Men's reproductive systems are most certainly addressed by our laws. Get a woman pregnant with your male reproductive system, and if the woman makes the unilateral decision that she's having the baby, you'll find out how the law applies to your male reproductive system. It won't exactly be a lesson in equality, of course, because as the man you won't have any voice in the matter, but, you'll find out how wrong your assertion is that a man's reproductive system is "left out of our law." Perhaps asking a friend that's done that may be a better way to find out how it works.

1

Chris Hadlock 2 months ago

Here the whispers? Those are the students killed at Kent State, the injured and beaten from Selma Bridge and the participants from the 1963 March on Washington telling you that history can be changed.

"Ohio" Neil Young

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

0

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

"Guilty as sin, free as a bird. America - what a country!"

~ Bill Ayers

Let's hope you're wrong about the repetition, Chris. The recent ravings of Madonna and Ashely Judd to their cheering throngs are not promising.

0

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

"What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the Women’s March? Turns out, it’s quite significant."

From the NYT; hardly a right wing echo chamber. The Kochs throwing their money around is bad. When Soros does it, it's good. Duh.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that this weekend's tantrum was anything other than carefully scripted political theater; deliberately crafted to exclude any women condemned as lacking the required ideological purity.

It wasn't a Women's March. It was a Liberal Women's March.

I suspect I'm not the only one whose eyebrows are raised at the irony of an old white guy like Soros working the role of puppet master to all these strong, loud, women. Nice job on the %+$$y hats, by the way. Nothing says "take us seriously!" like wearing crocheted genitalia on your head.

3

mary walker 2 months ago

My absolutely last comment... I've been flying home from D.C. where 500,000 women, men, and children marched on Saturday.

THE PINK HATS had nothing to do with denoting genitalia, they had to do with deriding OUR -NOW PRESIDENT'S CHARACTERIZATION of female genitalia in that lovely lovely video. A HUGE (no pun intended) difference! Which clearly to most of you guys is totally lost on, because you simply lack the ability to understand sublety, humor, or empathize with anything outside of your own personal sphere. But not all of you guys, I'm thankful for that. As I said at the start, I've never been more proud of my Steamboat community of over 30 years.

0

rhys jones 2 months ago

Troll got his teeth in your pants, Mary? Caught in a cesspool eddy? Every petty snipe does not require a comeback. Some people have nothing positive to contribute, ever. With nothing better to do, they're looking for a fight.

Casual observers know the score. The last word is not necessarily the winner.

Walk away from it. You're a better person than that.

1

Eric J. Bowman 2 months ago

"Reply" failed me (again) so here's pt. 2 of my post waaaay up above:

Or fewer abortions? The lesser of two evils, in my book. Pass enough restrictions and you'll drive your official State abortion numbers down, eventually, by driving women out-of-state unless Roe v Wade gets dismantled in which case even the blue states will suffer... point being, at this particular time, we have the knowledge, experience, and statistics to prove (for those who even give a crap about the real facts vs. the "alternative" facts anymore) that the best ways to reduce abortions, are not restricting abortions, and subsidizing birth control.

Just sayin' I understand why the Women's March wasn't inclusive of the "pro-life" minority. "If you get pregnant, you must have a baby OR ELSE!!!" couldn't be further from the message being expressed around the globe, in response to Donald Trump being inaugurated, last Saturday. The only hypocrites I see, are the ones who insist on being referred to as "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion" and even anti-birth-control, when their policy solutions lead to the deaths of not only more mothers, but also more aborted babies? Because they can't begin to compromise even on birth control?

If the Women's March doesn't want to fade into irrelevancy i.e. Occupy, then they must claim the "Pro-Life" branding mantle for themselves, with plenty of justification. IMHO, IANAW lol.

Yeah, gals, I get the pink-knit-hat thing, OK? Whatever my religious/moral views may be, which I'm scrupulously keeping out of this, they're on the "list of things" you want me to keep up out from up your uteruses without your say-so. Got it!

Even if I feel inclined to bring up my one misogynistic belief in rebuttal:

The exclusion of the anti-abortion crowd from the Women's March smacks of the cliquey, you-can't-sit-with-us teenage girl behavior I just hated growing up, even if I was captain of the Swim Team and later a Frat Boy who as Social Chairman just always struck out with a coupla campus sororities who were just too snobby for me & my brothers. We didn't let it bother us, or ever have any allegations of any improprieties while Chi Phi even existed at CU-Boulder.

But in this case, yeah, I get it. Telling the anti-abortion gals "you can't sit with us" makes all kinds of sense to me. Nutshell, it'd maybe make more sense to others if y'all would please appropriate the "Pro-Life" branding moniker unto your cause. Because abstinence-only, beg for contraceptives, no-abortions visions of America are demonstrably Anti-Life.

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 months ago

"I have two such young people living in my family and there are endless lists of people who would gladly take another child into their home should abortion be limited and thus have more children who could not reasonably remain with their mothers."

Because their mothers died in childbirth, knowing full well that would be the outcome, but abortion was a choice forbidden to them? How is that "pro-life" when foster care's already just a darn mess with too many unwanted children? Unless you solve the problem of not enough families out there happy to take another child into their home, how do you propose society warehouse the rest? And what kind of existence is that, in exchange for a dead woman who might just have contributed to society if she hadn't been forced to carry to term knowing full well it'd be the end of her? How that's somehow YOUR decision to make for HER is what befuddles me.

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 months ago

"Considering that Whitney's comments focus on Women's Rights as Human Rights and it's already against the law to discriminate based on gender, can anyone offer a single example of a Right in 2017 that an American man has that an American woman does not?"

Howzabout the right to not get raped on campus at a public university?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_Ground

Of course it's a controversial documentary, but the criticisms I've read of it don't discredit the facts surrounding it. Campus rape was starting to become an issue when I was in college, then it appeared to have been dealt with and gone away, but as it turns out that was kindof a buch o' BS and it was really being covered up for various reasons pertaining to fundraising, liability insurance, and prestigious enrollment opportunities.

Using Title IX to combat this, is ingenious. I may love watching Jameis Winston play QB, provided the Bucs are losing to the Broncos, but he seems to have roofied that classmate back in College and that's as reprehensible as it is every time it happens in a Steamboat bar. Because unless you're in an utter state of denial, yeah it does happen, and in the not-so-recent past all a gal had to do around here was convince Detective Mumboza that she wasn't just a slut.

Or have you forgotten, or conveniently decided to just not remember, any of that? Seriously dude, the evidence is staring you in the face on a daily basis even locally, so you must just choose not to see. Or maybe you think dudes get roofied in SS bars on a regular basis, like the gals. Not sure if you're in a state of denial, or suffering cognitive dissonance, or what?

I don't recall stories of SSPD officials making sexist comments about little boys... but thanks for asking your question, as if any disparaties are somehow "made up" despite recent, local precedent proving otherwise!

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 months ago

"Calling, 'Fire' in a crowded space is illegal (look it up), so it never happens, is that right?"

Hahaha!!! Boston guy was arrested in the wee hours yesterday morning for pulling the fire alarm in the Steelers' hotel. Not free speech!!! ;)

0

Brian Kotowski 2 months ago

Mary says (in all caps): "THE PINK HATS had nothing to do with denoting genitalia..."

Interesting how none of the women wearing one calls it THE PINK HAT. Every one of the women wearing it identifies that particular garment using the most popular sobriquet denoting female genitalia (google Pink Hat. Then google what all the Liberal Women Marchers are calling it; you may find it instructive). It's not about female genitalia, even though it is. Thanks for warning us never to accept at face value the provocative language you've chosen to deploy, Mary. You have perfectly illustrated Orwell's definition of "doublespeak."

As far as Donnie Douchebag is concerned, you're preaching to the choir (at least as far as this right-wing Libertarian is concerned. I consider myself to be in good company: Glenn Beck, George Will, Mary Maitlin, Jonah Goldberg, etc, - they are at least as disgusted with POTUS as I am). What irritates me about you and your ilk is the virulent hypocrisy. I'll wager a year's pay that had we inaugurated Hillary Clinton last week, we'd have been drowned out by the adulation from your side of the aisle. Hillary's complicity in the destruction of her husband's victims would have been swept under the rug; the rights & dignity of those abused women would have been EAGERLY sacrificed in the name of politics over principle, and they would have been even more unwelcome at your Liberal Women's March than the women who dare to disagree with you on abortion.

I said it earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again because it's worth repeating: perhaps the most positive fallout from this childish (& simultaneously perilous) drama would be ideologues - on BOTH sides - holding their own just as accountable as they do the opposition. Had that been the case this last time around, we might not have been saddled with the two most repellent candidates imaginable.

0

John Fielding 2 months ago

Eric, if a woman knows full well that she will die in childbirth there would be little difficulty have a medical professionals support that knowledge in a presentation to a judge. I certainly do not claim the decision making ability but our society can produce a system where a well-informed decision can be made. Perhaps all the doctors and judges involved in that process should be women?

Anyway it's a ridiculous assertion, in our society the access to sophisticated medical procedures has virtually eliminated the risk of a mother's death in childbirth through procedures such as the cesarean section.

A C-section could be performed on a woman at six or seven months and have the child suffer relatively little consequence for having had a shorter period in utero. Technically that is still aborting a pregnancy. So in that regard I believe abortion should be legal but simply have the requirement that it attempt to protect the life of the infant.

As far as the problem of unwanted children I personally advicate adopting from foster care as did we but if you want an infant you have to go to an agency wait in line and pay tens of thousands of dollars. To me that indicates a high demand

Whatever other argument one cares to make regarding it the fact that we kill infants must have some consequence on the conscience or there is very little that would affect us. It is the cheapening of human life that is the most severe societal consequence.

0

John Fielding 2 months ago

The fact that there are relatively fewer abortions now than when they first became legal is a good thing and a very interesting question arises as to the factors that caused the decline. Many are quick to assert that it is because they are legal but it is hard to make that connection as far as causality. It is much more likely that it is access to birth control that is a larger contributing factor.

Another factor is likely reflected in survey results that indicate fewer women favor abortion even though they may not wish to see it made illegal. Could it be that the result of more thorough education about abortions has caused many to regard them as undesirable to the point that few will consider them as an option and us be more diligent in their efforts to avoid pregnancy?

When legal abortion was new there were far fewer women who would willingly discuss the various personal consequences of having made that decision. It may have been regarded then as something that does not carry a significant consequence of conscience. Most of the material I have read indicate a very high level of remorse by women who have used that method to avoid having an unwanted child.

And therein lies the great unspoken component of this debate. It has become highly Politically Incorrect to discuss the personal trauma of abortion. It is considered to be a cruelty to the woman to do so. I have to agree that it would be unkind but it ought not to be disregarded as one of the very real consequences.

If we were as a society to instead celebrate that procedure in order to lessen the trauma to those who endure it, (as it appears some people who have the attention of the media have done), would there be a clear line any longer about other forms of taking of human life?

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months ago

Mary says (in all caps): "THE PINK HATS had nothing to do with denoting genitalia..."

I agree with Brian; this statement is an obvious lie and Mary knows good and well that the hats were expressly designed and named after female genitalia.

The original, common name of the hat is vulgar, and I imagine that Mary suspected that it wouldn't be allowed in this forum, hence her confidence in telling such a blatant lie in a public forum.

I couldn't find a report that didn't refer to the hats as female genitalia. See here for the truth about what the pink hats represent:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/21/510932265/demonstrators-gather-early-to-kick-off-womens-march-on-washington
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-pink-hats-womens-march-20170115-story.html
https://www.pussyhatproject.com/
http://people.com/politics/pussyhats-galore-inside-the-pink-toppers-thousands-will-wear-to-the-womens-march-on-washington/
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/pussyhat-project-washington-march-trnd/
http://www.businessinsider.com/pussy-hats-womens-march-washington-trump-inauguration-2017-2
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/inauguration-2017/women-s-march-washington-echoed-cities-around-world-n710156
http://www.esquire.com/style/mens-accessories/news/a52493/pussyhat-womens-march-protest-fashion/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315576-dc-police-wear-iconic-womens-march-hats-during-protest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thousands-are-knitting-pussy-hats-for-the-womens-march-on-washington_us_586bb22ee4b0d9a5945c636a
https://www.yahoo.com/style/pink-pussy-hats-unite-millions-slideshow-wp-172143981.html
https://www.rt.com/usa/374610-womens-march-washington-trump/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/womens-march-on-washington-pink-pussy-hat-500000-donald-trump-resist-latest-a7540396.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/womens-march.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-first-day-in-the-white-house-bubble-no-mention-of-protesters-outside/2017/01/21/436edac0-df6d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.818db5dc33d3

0

John Fielding 2 months ago

An etymological note:

in the language of the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest, nook or nooki was the word meaning sea otter Pelt. Its use was expanded to mean something that was highly prized and or soft and furry. Beaver pelts were the other highly prized fur of the era.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.