Of course it's a thing. Spike Lee made a movie and everything.
I think Lebanon predates Spike Lee.
One of my departments is fully behind this, and everyone plans to attend a teach-in. The other has scheduled a very important faculty meeting (and no one is canceling class, of course).
"A day without women" is ... like ... a bicycle without a fish???
Gender-essentializing the strike seems weird to me. Why exclude >50% of the workforce? Is there a long-term strategy I'm not seeing here?
It feels weird to me, too, in a way that the Women's March didn't. Especially since this seems harder to get a critical mass of people participating.
What was the alternative? "A Day Without Liberals"?
Everybody Spend A Day Under the Covers.
I considered taking a furlough day on Wednesday for this, but I ultimately decided to take it today instead.
Alexandria VA decided to close school on Wednesday because so many teachers (300ish?) had requested leave. Word is other school districts in the area are considering doing so as well.
It's probably a lot easier for a day without X to get traction than a general strike, and it can be repeated for many values of X.
Trumpists can do "A Day Without Racists."
I'm taking Wednesday off. Does that mess the thing up?
I have a doctor's appointment at the same time as the faculty meeting, so I get the best of both worlds.
None of the women in my office seem to be taking part in the strike, but I am supporting it by pretending I can't see or hear them. Because I'm a feminist.
So did the Day Without Women actually materialize anywhere? It's been a big nothingburger where I am.
We're all at work but wearing red and someone brought in a ton of food.
General strikes of whatever gender can't be called from above. We're a couple of years away from a general strike even in a major city, never mind the entire country. They should have called it a solidarity day, which would have made it an automatic success.
(I put the Day Without Immigrants in a different and more useful category.)
20: I'm missing two key people and am suffering for it.
That is, they should have called it a solidarity day from the start. I know they are now, sorta, but it's hard to get away from the "Day Without Women" name.
It's surprising and cool teachers are pulling it off, though. (Go P.G. County and Alexandria!)
So we screwed up politicalfootball's plans. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Except, p.s., obvs, it jams up families, especially single moms of young kids.
It's unclear to me what the day without women was supposed to say: that some nebulous group of people was proposing to do away with women? A day without immigrants at least made sense on this front.
Work seems mostly or entirely occupied. There's maybe a half dozen people wearing red, myself included, but (modulo one sweater that I'm not sure signifies anything beyond it being cold in the office) we're all guys.
My wife is taking a half day off in recognition of the day. We're going to go to a rally/protest outside the city government building taking place after the "walkout" time. (here if any of the Pittsburgh contingent haven't heard and are interested)
I do like the framing that RyanCare is a gigantic tax on women.
Eh. While I'm a fan of any large-scale mobilization, most women can't afford to take a day off simply because they're women. This seems a bizarre sort of action: those most affected by anti-women policies on the part of the GOP are just those who risk losing their jobs or being unable to afford, financially, the day off. You need to be asking for (or demanding) something. Strikes tend to do that, no?
Plus the employers who will be most affected are largely the ones who are most women friendly anyway, because they're the ones with most women! My office is mostly male; if all the women had decided to take today off, I probably wouldn't have noticed.
31 seems comically optimistic unless "women friendly" means "pays below market wages."
Comparing like for like, I mean. Within the same industry.