The USA held a democratic election in which the majority of the people elected a new president.
Is it then permissible for protesters to act against the will of the people? – Let me explain this in terms of democracy.
Women marched and protested the result. The reasons given were the new president was accused of many actions not acceptable to women. Now there is no disputing the role of women in the world. They are very intelligent and command respect and admiration for their leadership in changing today views on all the major important factors in society.
Democracy by vote is the will of the majority. Now we must ask, if they refused women the vote was it for a reason, and did they understand that a majority vote can be disrupted challenged…even though overturned by just one section of the community?
Women are different in not accepting the will of the people. You may say but women are the people. That they do have misgivings about the results and the person chosen as president. There are sometimes preconceptions that women have a more personal approach to Democracy. The result must be changed if women protest the character of the winner.
Would you say the demonising of the winner by a relentless media attack, had an influence on how women perceive their new president. Did the attacks by actors and actresses ,who hold a large sway over the public because of their TV and Movie stardom ,cause women to believe the media stories. Should these actors who live their make believe lives in wealth and comfort, have an influence on working men and women???
Seen on screen not seen to mislead and judge the more than four million voters who voted for the new president. The protesters against the elected president in Washington and the USA are entitled to voice their views. But why should women in England and Australia march in protest against an American for whom they did not and could not elect .
Which brings us back to the Greeks – was it foresight to deny women the democratic vote? There is no denying the capabilities of women. They have more sense than the majority of men, and the sense allied to intelligence makes them more than capable of running the world.
But do they know when to accept the will of the majority, and are they swayed by personalities and not facts?
Do they really believe actors receiving awards can turn their acceptance speech into an attack on an elected official?
Do they think a walk in January will change the world. .It is more likely to divide a nation , and perhaps encourage the gunmen or women to take matters in to their own hands?
The Greeks were not as the Oracle predicted safe from murders, assassinations and wars. But perhaps waiting nearly two thousand years to give the vote to almost everyone , was a warning of protests in the future.
Personally, I think women are fully entitled to vote in all democracies, but women are easily swayed by emotions. Men, on the other hand, after years of listening to politicians are filled with apathy – but they lack the emotion to switch from sports to boring promises which are always made and seldom actioned.
In time the marchers will see the light and also turn to watching sports…unless they change the world.