Unlike the flagship event in Washington D.C. Saturday the Women’s March in San Jose was met with clear skies and warm weather. Yet, like many of its sister rallies in scores of cities throughout the U.S., the third-annual South Bay march for equality suffered from lower turnout, possibly from fallout over internal power struggles and charges of anti-Semitism roiling the national organization’s leadership
Marchers were assured from the get-go that Women’s March San Jose is independent from the national group, and that the local chapter condemns anti-Semitism.
“In no way, shape or form do we condone any form of hate on our community,” said Karina Dominguez, a member of the San Jose chapter’s advisory committee and vice mayor of Milpitas. “We are working hard as a chapter in San Jose to make sure that everyone who wants to get involved is involved.”
Despite the muted tone of the event, marchers who spoke with San Jose Inside exuded optimism. Fresh off the heels of the largest female delegation ever elected to Congress, attendees stood united in their opposition to President Donald Trump.
New for this year were signs and speeches critical of the president’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Allegations that he sexually assaulted Palo Alto professor Christine Blasey Ford when they were both in high school rocked his confirmation hearings and, though Kavanagh was ultimately confirmed to the high court, it was by only a slim margin.
Saturday’s pro-women march began at San Jose’s City Hall with a small rally. Participants then trekked nearly a mile to convene at Arena Green, across from the SAP Center. The main-stage lineup featured Dominguez, California Treasurer Fiona Ma and Stanford law professor Michele Dauber of the Enough is Enough Voter Project.
Speakers emphasized the importance of getting involved in the community, especially in such a divisive, high-stakes political climate.
“I live right behind City Hall, so there I had no excuse not to go,” said San Jose resident Mary Jacob-Oviatt, who marched with her husband. “I feel like it’s important to be a part of it, be a part of something.”
The event’s advisory committee made a point of making sure that men and women of all backgrounds felt a se se of belonging at the march, Dominguez explained.
“It was really important to us to share to everyone at the beginning of the march that everybody’s welcome,” she said. “We collectively need to stay together and stay organized because this is a strong movement that needs to continue its strength.”
Below are some photos of the South Bay march shared online by attendees.
-
- (Photo by Christy Irineo)
-
- (Photo by Nicki Moffat, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by Nicki Moffat, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by Nicki Moffat, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by Nicki Moffat, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by San Jose Women’s March, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by Nicki Moffat, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by Nicki Moffat, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by Char Bear, via Facebook)
-
- (Photo by Char Bear, via Facebook)
100 years on June 4 1919 the US passed the 19 amendment to the constitution guaranteeing women the right to vote.
Ironically this year we have sworn into Congress a bunch of women that want to get rid of the constitution and Bill of Rights as being to radical because it was written by a bunch of racist, misogynist, homophobic, dead white men.
Maybe it’s time we rethink the 19th amendment!
> and Stanford law professor Michele Dauber of the Enough is Enough Voter Project.
Ummmm. That would be fake law professor Michele Dauber, professor of law “by courtesy of sociology” at the dubiously accredited “Stanford University Law School”.
As an interesting historical reference point, Roman Emperor Caligula’s horse Incitatus was rumored to have been named Consul of the Roman Empire by Caligula “by courtesy of horseyness”.
While “Consul of the Roman Empire” may not be equivalent in clout and gravitas to “Stanford Law Professor”, it does illustrate how far you can get in the world without actual credentials but just by having the right politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus
Michele Landis Dauber
Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
Professor by courtesy of Sociology
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/michele-landis-dauber/
By the way, does anyone know of any case where a person has been awarded a PhD in sociology “by courtesy of a law degree”?
What the hell do lawyers know about sociology anyway?
What the hell do sociologists know about lawyering?
Why did Stanford just settle for giving her a law professorship? Why not give her a professorship in brain surgery or rocket science?
Anyone contemplating engaging the services of a Stanford trained lawyer might want to consider hiring a Stanford trained sociologist instead. I’ll bet their rates are a lot cheaper.
> Thousands Flood Streets of Downtown San Jose for 3rd Annual Women’s March
Thousands of women, and none of them marriageable.
I see the solution to two problems here:
1. A sharp decrease in child marriages;
2. Huge progress toward population control.
Non-marriageable for you! I am very sure you have way too much time to spare online and a very little you know what! Some of the women there have grand-children, and others there are too young. Others like me already have children. Good luck to you bubble head…
One person wearing a MAGA hat would have destroyed the entire March.
Women receive the majority of advanced degrees and are more likely to receive scholarships than are men. Before a man can even apply for a scholarship, a man must register for the draft, and a woman does not. Men get in-demand degrees in engineering, while women have the choice and luxury of getting degrees in French literature, or the Arts, or such, and many do.
Statistics show that women and men with equal experience and qualifications, doing the same job, for the same hours, under the same conditions-get paid the same. In fact, a woman who has never been married and has no children, earns slightly more than a man who has never been married and has no children. The former is considered ambitious and independent. The latter is considered unmotivated and unable to commit.
Why do men sometimes earn more than women? Men work longer hours at more dangerous and disagreeable jobs. They more readily accept night shifts, hardship postings to oil rigs, and entrepreneurial risks. Female librarians earn less than garbagemen, not because of discrimination, but because so many applicants compete for the safe, clean, comfortable, convenient, fulfilling jobs women prefer. Men predominantly occupy all of the most hazardous professions, the miners, firefighters, construction workers, loggers, meatpackers, but most particularly soldiers. Women whine about wanting to be placed in combat. That’s exactly the point. Women want the “option” of combat. Men have never had a choice. The more hazardous the job, the more likely it is to be occupied by a man.
Men are society’s sanctioned prostitutes. Men sell their bodies (to their employers) for money. Consequently, men have higher rates of heart disease, cancer and other stress related illnesses, a higher suicide rate and a shorter life span than women. Instead of giving their money to a pimp however, men hand over their paychecks to a woman. Women control spending in almost every consumer category.
Stoic, self-sacrificing men are hard-wired to shower beautiful women with free dinners, gifts and home repairs and society has no stigma about women who “”marry up”” into cushy lifestyles paid for by workaholic husbands.
Women are allowed to discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty and to make uncorroborated, even outrageous, accusations against a man who is then presumptively guilty, no matter how rationale and coroboratable the rebuttable. Examples abound.
If a woman had to promise to provide for a man for a lifetime before he removed his veil and showed her his smile, would we think of this as a system of female privilege?
In anticipation of the standard, tiresome, Lysistrata, “not gettin’ any” reply, you’re wrong. I’m just fed up with these spoiled, ungrateful, generally unattractive, “vaginistas” who have no alternative but to use feminism to bully politicians to get what they want, because they lack the natural feminine wiles to persuade men to give them what they desire.
Show me the stats and your sources. Too much bla bla bla and little substance!
RESPONSETOXYNONEURON,
Whose numbers and whose database are you willing to accept? Should we use numbers provided by The Duke Lacroisse team, Tawana Brawley, Brett Kavanaugh, Brian Banks, and so many more we can’t count them all? How many male names are on the grave markers in Arlington National cemetery, or the Viet Nam war memorial? How many women died on D-Day? How many women died in every war this country has ever fought compared to how many men? You want to count those up too? Women have the privilege of freedom without ever having to fight for it and that is EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE! So stop whining! War is male genocide yet I don’t see women protesting not being required to register for the draft. Why? Because men are the disposable gender
Statistics won’t ever matter to someone like you because you will find credible only those “studies” that support your preferred beliefs and preconceived conclusions and then only because you believe that statistics are the only valid form of argument.
And now the tired refrain: But what about domestic violence? While it is true that men are more often arrested for domestic violence, this should not be misconstrued. Women are just as violent toward men as men are toward women. The difference is that men are larger and stronger so when a women hits a man, she is much less likely to injure or kill him while a man striking a woman is likely to injure her and police have been trained to treat the male as the “primary aggressor” and arrest him no matter who started the fight. Men are less likely to report domestic violence, not because of some ridiculous feminist myth of “machismo” but because they are less likely to be injured when attacked by a women and less likely to be believed.
I will have to admit though, in all honesty, that when I see a woman slap a man across the face, I find it humorous but if a man so much as pushes a woman, it angers me to the point where I am inclined to offer violence to the man. I was once dining with some friends and a male, I’m assuming intoxicated, at another table patted a waitress on the behind and said something I’m sure he believed was flattering. The waitress responded by throwing a drink in his face and slapping his face so hard it practically echoed. The other drunk idiots at his table laughed, and every male in the place looked stern-faced toward him. The Maitre D’ asked him to leave and every male nearby was obviously ready to back the Maitre D’s play if the offender had refused to go.
I don’t have the statistics on many times a man protects a woman but by any objective measure, as well as simple common sense, it would certainly be that men are much more often killed protecting a woman than is a woman protecting a man. A woman as victim attracts men. A man as victim repels women.
So, go have your protest and shout how women are oppressed. Men died so you could and I’m sure men will be there to protect you if needed.
Scholarly data and sources not Wikipedia…
> Some of the women there have grand-children, and others there are too young. Others like me already have children.
Yes. So what.
As i’ve said before, we live “in an era where progressive social policy has all but erased the concept of “marriage”.
“Marriage” no longer has anything to do with “having children”. Ask the black community.
“Single mother” is a resume enhancement for Democrat political activists:
https://tableau.the-pdi.com/t/CampaignTools/views/AssemblyDemocrats/Dashboard1?:embed=y#1
Progressives think that society without marriage is “positive change” and “liberation of women from patriarchal” bondage,
Feminism is gender tribalism. Marriage is just collusion with tribal enemies.
Search: war on marriage
About 528,000,000 results (0.50 seconds)
We must better define “anti-semitism”. To many, ANY disagreement with current Israeli policy equates to anti-semitism. I, for one, very much liked the political positions of Yitzak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Simon Peres, and Trigsby Livse (Sp). I do not like the policies of Bibi Netanyahui, Avi Lieberman or Naftali Bennett. Does that make me an anti-semite? A person should be able to disagree with a policy without being branded as opposed to all people of a particular ethnicity.
If you disagreed with anything Obama did you would be instantly cast as a racist, so yes your now an anti-Semite too welcome the to the KKK.
That’s stupid!!
I’m glad you agree Rosalie, that’s the entire type of response we get from the from the left when the just lost the argument.
So, Yitzak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres are KKK members? Sorry but that is a stupid statement. They are not Klansmen.
> Does that make me an anti-semite?
Kind of a moot point, now. Bernie has dragged us over the line by declaring that President Trump is a “racist”.
We already know from Hillary that at least half of the people who voted for Trump are “deplorable”. Bernie has completed the equation by making it explicit that they’re “deplorable” likely because their “racist”.
If you vote for a “racist” for president, how could you NOT be a racist?
So, we all now live in a country with a “racist” leader, selected by the people. Probably, then, it’s a “racist” country.
Since, residence and citizenship in America is voluntary, the people living here CHOOSE to live in a “racist” country.
So, if you’re already a “racist”, how could you not be an “anti-semite”, too?
It seems to me that if a person is “moral” and “ethical”, the obvious thing to do would be to broadcast some virtue signals and depart the territory as soon as possible.
“Ugly accusations of anti-Semitism appeared first in the online publication Tablet and then in the New York Times, and they have only been exacerbated by the refusal of Women’s March co-president Tamika Mallory to distance herself from the anti-Semitic statements of the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan.”
In his own words, 2018,
“I’m not mad at you because you’re so stupid,” Farrakhan continued. “So when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you do what they do, call me an anti-Semite. Stop it, I’m anti-Termite.”
Speech at anniversary of Million Man March, 10/14/18
“Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.”
Sermon, 5/27/18
SPLC dropped the Women’s March. DNC dropped the Women’s March. Tamika Mallory won’t drop Louis Farrakhan.
Wow!! A rational response. All racism is negative. We must recognize that all humans are equal under the law and must be accorded equal opportunity.
More #MeToo news:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/brenda-lawrence-harassment-bill-aide-244617
“Congresswoman tolerated abusive behavior by top aide, female ex-staffers say”
Did anyone notice? Was Rep. Brenda Lawrence among the thousands flooding downtown San Jose streets?
> Thousands Flood Streets of Downtown San Jose for 3rd Annual Women’s March
Most of the women I know are very nice people.
It’s a travesty to call this street flood of angry dyspeptic people a “Women’s March”.
Maybe, a “March of the Divorced, Pre-Divorced, and Unmarriageable”.
SJOBubble,
Thanks a lot. After reading your last line describing the protesters, the truth of it caused me to do a spit-take and I got coffee all over my shirt and tie.
Hmmmm.
I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would have to say about Stanford University Law School and their Professor of Law by courtesy of rocket science:
‘I urge you to study law. A man who never graduated from school might steal from a freight
car. But a man who graduates as a lawyer might steal the whole railroad.”
– Theodore Roosevelt
SJOBubble,
T.R, as he so often was, is right on the mark. As well, Rudyard Kipling, a contemporary of T.R, said something that is even truer today than when he first uttered it; However today, no feminist would ever be able to decipher its meaning, to wit : “…a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke”