On January 20th thousands of women’s voices were heard. However, in the article “Women’s March Baffles Women Attending Trump’s Inauguration” written by Vera Bergengruen, we hear the quiet voices of the opposing view. Bergengruen interviewed 15 women, all of which had no part in the women’s march. She then puts together the article by capturing the important viewpoints of the women that are not in agreeance with the march. Believing that Bergengruen’s skepticism of the march led her to the interviews she finds thoughts of anger, confusion, and ambivalent. Anger varies in form, whether it’d be through actions, words, or thoughts. However, in Bergengruen’s article, many of the interviewees showed this through words. For instance, a woman by the
…show more content…
Bergengruen’s article continued to interview more women. Some of which were entirely confused. Susan Clarke, a woman that attended the inauguration ball, stated that she did not understand what they were trying to get across. Although, to be more specific she was wondering “what rights are being taken away from any women” (Bergengruen)? Throughout the article, unfortunately, we encounter more people who have become confused because of this march. A lady who took care of neighbor’s children and pets became “deplorable” (Bergengruen) due to supporting Trump. Bergengruen then made a clear point that these were not the only women confused on to why women were marching. As Bergengruen continued to interview a few more people concerning the “Women’s March” each had a different opposing view. However, many of the interviewees were either confused or angry, there was one side that was in unison with the two making them ambivalent. The interviewee, Jacqueline Anderson was furiously stating that “the average person doesn’t understand why they have that level of anger.” She felt as if “they need to figure out their mission” (Bergengruen). The article makes clear sense of these feelings and the opposing view through all the interviews. Each unique, yet all in …show more content…
Whether you stand with the Woman’s March or supporting Trump, we must consider that there are always two sides to an argument. I believe that people are beginning to fade away from this fact. For instance, the women that were interviewed in this article were all biased, however, having knowledge in this current event led me to see both perspectives of the argument. Now seeing both views I have a greater understanding onto what is truly being fought, and that is the future. However, it is going about it the wrong way. The right way, however, is extremely touchy due to people having an opinion to their own
Bergengruen’s article continued to interview more women. Some of which were entirely confused. Susan Clarke, a woman that attended the inauguration ball, stated that she did not understand what they were trying to get across. Although, to be more specific she was wondering “what rights are being taken away from any women” (Bergengruen)? Throughout the article, unfortunately, we encounter more people who have become confused because of this march. A lady who took care of neighbor’s children and pets became “deplorable” (Bergengruen) due to supporting Trump. Bergengruen then made a clear point that these were not the only women confused on to why women were marching. As Bergengruen continued to interview a few more people concerning the “Women’s March” each had a different opposing view. However, many of the interviewees were either confused or angry, there was one side that was in unison with the two making them ambivalent. The interviewee, Jacqueline Anderson was furiously stating that “the average person doesn’t understand why they have that level of anger.” She felt as if “they need to figure out their mission” (Bergengruen). The article makes clear sense of these feelings and the opposing view through all the interviews. Each unique, yet all in …show more content…
Whether you stand with the Woman’s March or supporting Trump, we must consider that there are always two sides to an argument. I believe that people are beginning to fade away from this fact. For instance, the women that were interviewed in this article were all biased, however, having knowledge in this current event led me to see both perspectives of the argument. Now seeing both views I have a greater understanding onto what is truly being fought, and that is the future. However, it is going about it the wrong way. The right way, however, is extremely touchy due to people having an opinion to their own