The Rejection of Social Reality by Some Women in the Occident Social Imagination!

‘Day Without a Woman’ strike seeks to continue legacy of massive D.C. march...

Is it because of a hormone imbalance that some women reject the social reality of being a woman in the everyday social interaction of the social imagination and thus want to be men socially or at least made equal with men? That is the question we should ask in the social imagination. Today, another march goes on. And, what do they want this time? Do they want to be socially equal? What???

Now the group behind (organized by elites in order to disrupt societies to create the society they want) the march is looking to showcase women’s workplace and purchasing power through their absence. Today's "A Day Without a Woman" action involves a retreat from engagement with the world as a way of highlighting women’s central roles within it. Which are? Exactly, that is the question they (whoever the organizers) circumvent. The central roles in a stable society are for women to be what they were designed to be which is the social workplace as: a mother, a wife/partner, a care giver, a nurse, a teacher.  This march does not spell out any 'central roles' other than wanting the social workplace of men while at the same time shopping as women do.

According to the article, the 'central roles' they advocate are really a rejection of the workplace they have. But its not entirely clear what they reject. As the march calls for women - Not going to work. Not spending money or shopping, except at small and women-owned businesses and no unpaid work. But, maybe they are calling for recognition of their designed 'central' roles but that is not as highly visible as the rejection of them. Even if it were the case, given that they do mention unpaid work, as as part of their nobility, one could be supportive but they don't and they also don't seem to realize that unpaid work is a sacrifice made for the good of society and that is noble. And, yet they reject that.

Its the spending of money that they highlight the most... how ironic. Spending their own money or their husband's? I suppose they would say and some do say that its their own money. Really, because the icon they still love Barack Obama said that "you did not do that". So, given that men are still in the world and doing some really amazing and positive things, whose money are they spending.

Whatever and whoever 'owns' the money, they still protest...“Protesting itself is not enough, which is why we stepped to the next level of asking people to sacrifice, you know, being a part of the strike,” Tamika Mallory, co-chair of the Women’s March organization, said in a video posted to Facebook. “All of these things work together. We can’t do one thing and expect that the walls are going to come tumbling down. It’s going to take multiple levels of action, activism and resistance in order to insure that democracy is preserved in this country.”

What is wrong with that, right? Well, protesting as in demonstrating a social pitfall is a good thing but they are part of that social pitfall by rejecting their central roles in society. Sacrifice as called for by the 'co-chair' is something that is a key aspect of their central role and yet they reject that. So, how could they call for sacrifice and know what it means?

The best thing about today's strike is that there are some people criticizing it as an action available only to privileged women who have enough workplace flexibility to take time off without risking their finances or their jobs.  Yes, the privileged women who have husbands footing the bill for their business or time off from their job. Where is the appreciation for that?

This person says, “The idea behind the strike is a noble one. Who doesn’t want economic equality for everyone? But in practice, most American women cannot afford to opt out of either paid or unpaid labor,” wrote Maureen Shaw.

What is wrong with that, right? Well a strike can be a noble action like the one Lech Walsea did in Poland in 1981. But to strike as in take time off to show 'whose the boss' as a form of rejection of social reality then its not noble. As for the question posed, "Who doesn't want economic equality for everyone"?... that is impossible simple because in a functioning economy there will be better products and services. That means some things won't be as good quality as others. This applies to people too; and believe me, women know the difference between a good shampoo/conditioner or lipstick or any other cosmetic bra, hairdresser, handbag...etc. They know that some are just not as good or as competent or as skilled or as savvy as the next person. So, why pay more for crap?

The truth that this woman and those marching protestors (and the organizers) reject the fact that there is economic equality and it is applied fairly with regard for for those that do the job their boss/corporate head office demands and do it they way their want it done... regardless of gender.

So, why do they march? There is a global agenda which the left has jumped on board with. That agenda is to create a one world order. So, they stage events to disrupt societies in order that they can recreate it. 

A day without these kinds of women might just be what the social imagination doctor prescribed; and they would go back to their central roles as was the 'real' agenda, right ??? (if organized by villainous men). But, then did the organizers (again the bad guys) fully consider is that the economy might just collapse without their purchasing power!