Blog 2

The event that took place January 21, was large and impactful in nature but definitely had at least two very different narratives. In analyzing two different articles talking about this event there are a variety of differences. There is a larger picture when talking about the #resistance movement, however fir this purpose I will analyze two articles with very different view points on the Women’s March. The first article is called “The Pointless Paranoia of the Women’s Marches”. An interesting opening statement in this particular article talking about how the author is not a stranger to protesting was, “Now I’m not talking here about the Gloria Steinems and Michael Moores, for whom protest is so much a way of life they couldn’t exist without it. Or the Madonnas who, like other entertainment stalwarts, have businesses reasons for constantly reminding us they still have their “edge” even as they age, liberally dropping the f-bomb and speculating about bombing the White House in the process”. By the author starting the article with this they are setting a mindset for the reader that these women are the women that people were following in the Women’s March. The author goes on to talk about why they are confused about people’s motivations for marching. Saying things like, “Oh, right, Donald Trump, that vulgar misogynist who bragged about pu**y grabbing”. They say this by following it up with comparing it to the Bill Clinton incident. This is trying to prove that the people marching did not make a big deal about that but did about Trump’s comments, and that is why the march is hypocritical. I found it very interesting that the final comment in the article stated, “people who demonstrate all all the time should consider they risk morphing into a collective version of the boy who cried wolf”. The author is really trying to emphasize that the women who marched can not be trusted and trying to get people to not believe them in the future. Turning it around now and analyzing an article called, “The Trump Resistance Will Be Led by Angry Women”, there is a different narrative going on. This article tugs at the heart strings to get the audience feel a certain way. For example, it gives an example of a young girl asking her grandmother if the were going to be sent back to Africa because Trump won. When it starts getting more into the demonstration itself the author states, “The demonstrations showed how deeply and completely much of the country rejects its scowling, delusional new president”. This language is definitely trying to evoke emotion and it may not be accurate but it is making its point known. They also throw in a comment from women who says that her view on the world has become much darker. That is kind of the last punch in the article, trying to get across how defeated women feel and that is why they marched and needed to make their voices heard. Those are two completely different articles about the same event, both not completely factual but definitely got their views across.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/01/21/the-pointless-paranoia-of-the-womens-marches/

http://www.slate.com/articles/double x/doublex/2017/01/the trump resistance will be led by angry women.html