Protests, Rallies, and Reckoning: How Movements Shape Us

Protests, Rallies, and Reckoning: How Movements Shape Us

Lately I've found myself reflecting deeply on what it means to truly support a movement. Are we showing up just to feel better, or are we genuinely committed to driving real, lasting change? Can we stick with it long enough to actually make a difference, especially when momentum slows or the discomfort grows? True commitment means staying engaged beyond the initial energy surge—it means regularly challenging ourselves, holding ourselves accountable, and ensuring our actions consistently match our values. In our recent episode of the "White Women Wake Up" podcast, Karen and I unpacked precisely these questions, digging into the difference between protests and rallies, the impact each has on societal change, and the particularly nuanced role we, as white women, play.

Protest vs. Rally: More Than Just Words

Words matter—deeply. This realization struck me after reflecting on recent events that many participants labeled protests, only to find myself uneasy with their true nature. As Karen and I discussed, protests and rallies serve fundamentally different purposes, despite often being conflated.

Protests are disruptive by design. They're meant to interrupt daily life, demanding attention to injustices and immediate change. Think of the iconic Civil Rights protests that halted buses, sat defiantly at lunch counters, and marched across bridges. Their power lay in disruption, in making it impossible to ignore the grievances of marginalized communities.

Rallies, on the other hand, build unity and camaraderie. They're gatherings of solidarity, important for community building, raising awareness, and strengthening morale. The Women’s Marches across the country served largely as powerful rallies, unifying voices but rarely pushing direct, immediate policy demands.

I've been particularly stuck on my discomfort with labeling the recent Hands-Off movement events as protests. It's not that the Hands-Off movement doesn't serve a valuable purpose—they undeniably do—but did they truly intend these gatherings to be disruptive protests? Or did our ingrained white "niceness" and desire to avoid discomfort transform potentially disruptive actions into performative gestures? After doing more research, it seems clear the Hands-Off team's goal was always to gather, stand up, and speak up as a unified front. Their intention was evidently always to build rallies across the country. So where did the word "protest" come in? It seems that the labeling as protests emerged through social media, predominantly from white progressive circles. Again, this raises the question: was this choice of words an attempt to make the gatherings seem more impactful or approachable? Misusing these terms isn't harmless—it risks diluting genuine activism and confusing participants about their role in the larger struggle for justice.

Performative or Powerful: Unpacking White Women's Roles

As white women, our roles in these spaces are uniquely complicated. We navigate a proximity to power—particularly through relationships and workplaces dominated by white men—that simultaneously offers us protection and complicates our participation in genuine resistance. In our podcast episode, Karen candidly discussed how, throughout her career, she often unknowingly reinforced patriarchal systems by leveraging her access to white men. As she shared:

"I had to deliver those rules and then I was kind of like, 'Hey, lighten up. Can't you go along with this?' Not realizing that, especially when you're someone in the margins, these policies and rules make a difference."

This inadvertent complicity is something many white women struggle to recognize. It’s crucial that we see our roles clearly—not to shame ourselves, but to acknowledge that true allyship involves discomfort, sacrifice, and risk. It involves disrupting systems from which we directly benefit. When reflecting specifically on the Hands-Off movement, recognizing our complicity helps us question whether our participation in these events truly challenges existing power dynamics, or if our actions inadvertently maintain comfort and performativity. For instance, some white women even took the time to review these events afterward, requesting more kid-friendly aspects, completely missing the core purpose of why they were there and what they were advocating for. This misunderstanding highlights how easily performativity creeps into activism when the primary intent shifts toward personal comfort and convenience rather than genuine disruption and systemic change. Understanding this difference empowers us to move beyond symbolic gestures and toward genuine, lasting change.

Historical Impact of Protests in the U.S.

History shows us repeatedly that sustained, disruptive protests can reshape our society profoundly. The civil rights movement, women’s suffrage marches, LGBTQ+ rights protests, and even recent Black Lives Matter protests have each played instrumental roles in creating the rights many of us benefit from today.

The book "Why Civil Resistance Works" by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan outlines the transformative potential of widespread protest. They discovered that movements engaging at least 3.5% of the population significantly increase their chances of effecting lasting political change. Historical examples like the Civil Rights Movement, the Solidarity Movement in Poland, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. all demonstrate this threshold in action.

Although recent gatherings have mobilized only about 0.9% of our population, this number reminds us that meaningful change is within reach. By mobilizing more community events to gather broader support, we can build momentum toward achieving the critical 3.5% threshold needed to create lasting political impact.

White Women's Complicated Relationship with Activism

This distinction is important because it highlights the difference between symbolic gestures and impactful actions. While participating in movements like Hands-Off can build valuable community solidarity, real allyship extends beyond these events. It involves consistent and meaningful actions, like sustained corporate boycotts of companies such as Target and Amazon, which have proven to genuinely impact corporate practices and raise awareness.

Reflecting on recent events, Karen noted how many white women enthusiastically

participate in symbolic acts yet struggle with sustained efforts like corporate boycotts:

"These boycotts have actually made me think more. I've had to redirect my shopping patterns because of these boycotts. That, to me, isn’t performative—it's disruptive to my routine, and it’s uncomfortable."

These types of ongoing, deliberate disruptions are precisely what elevate activism from symbolic to powerful, and from performative to truly transformative.

What's Next for White Women?

Recognizing our positionality and how easily our activism can slide into performativity is the first step. The real test is what comes after. Will we commit to the sustained discomfort required for genuine change? Will we engage in uncomfortable conversations with family and friends who resist recognizing systemic racism and sexism? Will we maintain the inconvenience of boycotts and actively support marginalized communities—not just in visible moments, but consistently?

Movements shape our country profoundly. But for white women, our true test lies in how deeply we're willing to disrupt our comfort zones, consistently and authentically. Let’s ensure we show up, not just visibly, but powerfully.

Stay curious, be open and keep waking up!

-Jonelle