In Defense of "Vulgar" Women
By Anna Lampinen
Braving cold weather and chilly winds, we headed to Foley Square on Saturday to rally for women’s rights and equality. The crowds were smaller than we expected, but the atmosphere was electric: inspiring speeches, powerful music, bright pink hats, and hilariously poignant cardboard signs. Although the general mood was one of sisterhood and unity, there were some who disagreed with us protesters – and our signs. Our Kota team even made it to the pages of the New York Post, with a picture of our smiling faces above the headline ”’Curse’ of the Vulgar Women.” In the article accompanying the picture, Miranda Devine condemns the ”crude obscenities and general puerile smut on display” on some of the signs at the rally, and suggests that we should focus on the good old-fashioned values of chivalry, marriage, and motherhood instead of marching for a better and more equal future. The conservative idea that women should be quiet and polite has been a way of controlling and silencing women for centuries; indeed, one of the purposes of the bold chants and signs at these rallies is to challenge those antiquated ways of thinking, although Devine may have missed this point. The New York Post article also criticizes the illustrations of female body parts on some of the protesters’ signs, perhaps suggesting that the female body is somehow offensive to society – but why?
Many diverse causes were represented under the umbrella of Women’s March 2020: we saw signs advocating for transgender women’s rights, women’s unions, women of color, and action against climate change, to name but a few. What Miranda Devine describes as ”white victim feminism” and ”privileged big city women wailing about their victimhood at the hands of Trump” was actually a diverse group of people using the power of protesting to make a real change in the world. One of Devine’s arguments against the march is that it was politically charged, which it obviously was. Many joined the march because they feel that their human rights are being threatened by the current political situation, and they want to do something about it. But implying that a crowd of people raising awareness, giving speeches, singing, stomping, chanting, and marching for their rights on a freezing cold January day in New York City are simply ”playing the victim” is a truly baffling point of view.
The exaggerated tone of the article is also a sign of bad journalism, and seems like an attempt to misinform the public; Devine’s claims that the protesters were supporting ”unlimited abortions”, ”economy-crushing climate action” and ”open door immigration” are, as the saying goes, fake news. Wishing to give women back the ownership of their bodies and to help the planet and those in need is basic human decency, not some fundamentalist idea of the ”radical left.” Furthermore, Devine’s main criticism against the Women’s March – that the protesters were too loud, too angry, too vulgar – suggests a serious misunderstanding of what we were protesting for. In situations where human rights are under threat, silence is compliance. The idea that a woman’s anger is somehow automatically repellent, even when it’s directed at legitimate causes, is deeply misogynistic: women should be allowed to be loud and angry when the situation calls for it – and it certainly does.
”If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention” - Heather Heyer (1985-2017), killed while protesting for racial equality at the Charlottesville rallies.