THE SHOW GOES ON

The allegations of violation of human rights (particularly the women's rights) become the main tool in hands of Donald Trump’s opponents. You have probably heard the statements that the Women’s March would result in permanent protest movement. Whatever the case is, it is likely that we are witnessing yet another political show, where the protection of human rights is employed merely as a handy tool for manipulating mass consciousness.

The recent presidential campaign was full of scandals and frustration of millions of Americans unhappy with the outcome of elections, who could not help themselves but express their feelings protesting the Inauguration Day of the 45^th president. And this happened. A few protesters have been seen around administrative buildings, breaking windows of a couple shops, knocking several police officers and getting calmed down with tear gas and more than 200 people arrested before, during and after the transfer of power on January 20^th in Washington. Apparently, the Washington Maidan did not happen even though some people could have hopes for it. The Americans, as a nation admiring different shows and highly appreciating the ability to express themselves in any imaginable way, came up with a better idea. Dissatisfaction with President Trump was expressed using a bright pink color and sexual innuendo. Hundreds of thousands of women and men from more than 500 American cities have not come together to bang pots pig-headedly but put on hats looking like a female sexual organ (hence the name of the movement, the Pussyhat Project, or "the most influential hat in the world") and took part in the Women’s March. The protests have become the most ambitious in the history of the USA. In addition, the fellow protesters in Australia, the UK, France, Spain, New Zealand, Japan and other countries supported the American women. Participants chanted many creative slogans (some were quite offensive to the new host of the Oval Office) and called for decisive actions. "The revolution starts here. But the changes require sacrifice. My question to you today is: are you ready?", proclaimed the famous singer Madonna, whose performance in the march caused the greatest effect.

Currently, Mr. Trump is accused mainly of his sharp statements, although he is also known for his past actions. Firstly, it is about his statements regarding the attitude of famous men toward beautiful women. Secondly, during the election campaign, Mr. Trump has promised to stop government funding of abortions. The organization Planned Parenthood provides reproductive health services, including abortion, to millions of patients not only in America but around the world. As a result, the nickname sexist (the one who feels hatred toward women (misogyny), has firmly stuck with President Trump. Sara Paretsky, a long-term activist for civil and reproductive rights and a writer best known for her series of books about a female private eye (and a strong single woman V I Warshawski), has summed up the general dissatisfaction with Trump in her speech in Chicago's Grant Park. Paretsky has reminded the famous feminist slogans and voiced the achievements of American women such as equality, sexual life, freedom from the opinion of men, clergymen and the government, the right to decide about pregnancy. Now it turns out that Trump, who also hates the Muslims, migrants, health care system, the environment, and LGBT rights, encroaches on these liberties.

However, it is still not clear why the American women are so up in arms against Trump. Indeed, on his third day as the president, Trump signed a decree, which abolishes federal funding of international organizations contributing to abortions abroad. But it was not his idea. In fact, the first such decree was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and followed by the last Bush administration. Later, the Democrats Clinton and Obama have canceled these decrees. That is part of a long tradition. In other words, the Republican Party sticks to this stance for forty years, although the American women were reluctant to demonstrate mass indignation somehow in the past. Also, the recent decree concerns the federal budget without restricting money inflow from private sponsors. The Planned Parenthood has huge incomes, which incidentally are used to sponsor the election campaigns the Democrats.

It seems that the American women woke up only this January. You look at the slogans of protesters and think that Hollywood is possibly located in a different country. As if none of the studios have ever made films where the woman appears as a sexual object. As if all these celebrities in the Women’s March including Madonna, Cher, Alicia Keys, Katy Perry, Julia Roberts, Ashley Judd, Scarlett Johansson, Emma Watson, Jane Fonda and others make their living reading the Sunday sermons. As if it is not the United States, which produces 98% of all the pornography globally and where the porn industry is a significant source of tax revenue total the billions of dollars, especially in California - the main stronghold of the Democrats. In early 2009, after the American adult entertainment industry faced the financial crisis also, the representatives of largest porn companies have appealed to the Congress and the government requesting for state support and the allocation of funds from the federal budget. The statistics show that the major portion of pornographic content is based on the domination of men over women and 88.2% of porn scenes hitting the top ranks by popularity demonstrate aggressiveness. It turns out that the exploitation of women is one of the income generation mechanisms for the replenishment of federal budget.

So, why the same ban on abortion receive such an indignation from the protesters? Why the American women never protested at such a large scale against the US maternal health policy, which is one of the worst in the world, next to the level of Papua-New Guinea, Swaziland and Lesotho? In accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the American workers are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave commencing no earlier than 2 weeks before the expected date of delivery, and only working in companies with more than 50 employees. Of course, such acts vary depending on state but on average, the situation is identical. There are no benefits to or after the delivery. And this happens in a country where (according to statistics) the woman is the sole or main breadwinner in almost 40% of families. Let us take an article published in The New Republic in 2014, which tells a story of Peggy Young, who works as a driver for UPS. When she asked for a light-duty work during her pregnancy, the company put her on unpaid leave instead, which cost the young woman medical, pension and disability benefits. By the way, pregnancy is equivalent to disability, as it makes breastfeeding impossible, thereby threatening the health of the women and their children. One can only shrug at such selectivity of American activists.

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump is apparently not that worried about the events. "Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote?" he wrote on his Twitter page. In addition to the law on abortion, the Trump administration has already started work on the revision of immigration laws. The new president has not given up the idea to build a wall on the border with Mexico and to limit the entry of a number of citizens from the Middle East and Africa into the US, which will affect the refugees, as well as some people who have already obtained US visas. In his inaugural speech, Trump called his electorate "a great movement" united "without distinction of race, religion, origin and beliefs. Millions of working men and women who want a better, brighter future for themselves and their families." Well, it turns out Trump said quite the opposite: he does not discriminate but helps the victims of discrimination. That he does not undermine the foundations of democracy but leads his country to its clean and original form: "we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people."

As a result, when one tries to bring all pieces of the puzzle together, it resembles an online show starting from the conservative chorus of the University of Missouri to a cursing pop-diva. It seems on January 20, all of us watched the next series of a long-standing soap opera, where a coordinated team of familiar characters (the Clintons, the leaving Obamas, George Bush fighting with his slicker, silent Cheney behind him, the Hollywood actors) have introduced new characters, the Trumps family. Moreover, a day before the celebrations, CNN made a remarkable flashforward about what would happen if Trump and his associates were killed right at the time of taking the oath. In short, it is not surprising that the episode entitled "Inauguration" has collected 31 million viewers around the world (Trump was happy to share this on Twitter) and in the coming months promise the same good ratings and a costume ball with pink hats blew social networks.

Then what’s the human rights got to do with it? The above examples show that the freedom to do something is often very far from the actual possibilities. Yes, there are women in the United States who are free to decide when they become pregnant but in reality there can be situations when wearing a cap cannot help better than a salary. In a world where everything is ruled by money, when it comes to protecting human rights in the first place did not put economic and social rights. But for some reason, no one marches on this occasion - neither in Washington nor anywhere else.