Senior analyst at the Women's MarchReason Foundation, Shikha Dalmia, in her compelling article, The Pointless Women's March Against Trump, describes her perspective on the purpose of the women's march in Washington DC against President Trump. Damila's aim is to persuade the public that the women's march was to get attention and nothing else. The aim is to demonstrate that the march was all a joke and not serious. She takes a cynical tone to convince her non-feminist audience of how feminists act and react by distorting the opposition and making their arguments seem absurd, using post hoc fallacies, and appealing to ignorance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Dalmia opens by oversimplifying the purpose, implying that the Women's March against Trump was pointless and believes it was all just to get attention. He appeals to the audience's confused emotions by admitting that "[t]his particular demonstration promises to be a feel-good exercise in search of a cause" (Dalmia). Dalmia believes that since the Women's March served no purpose, they just wanted to do something to get attention and needed a cause to do so. It tries to connect with the audience to make the reader understand that because it was a good cause, "plans to bring together women from all walks of life began to emerge on social media the morning after the election, partly out of disappointment. that Hillary Clinton was not elected America's first female president, and partly out of revulsion that a loud sexist who berated women had done so” (Dalima). of women, they all brought women of different ages and it is partly because Hillary Clinton was not elected as America's first female president and partly because of the disgust that Donald Trump did the march would be much more difficult combat violations of original rights under the Trump presidency. This outpouring of emotion from the writer conveys a cynical tone that shows non-feminist audiences that their confusion is understandable and correct. Dalmia goes on to argue that Donald Trump's election as president caused the Women's March. She appeals to the public's confused emotions by admitting that “plans to bring together women from all walks of life began to emerge on social media the morning after the election” (Dalima). He also doesn't just think they're not taking the march seriously. She believes that because they tried to plan all of this through social media, and "arguments over semantics weren't enough, the event's Facebook page is full of arguments about whether an event hosted primarily by white women can be sufficiently" intersectional” — or attuned to the issues faced, for example, by poor minority women who reside at the “intersection” of class, race, and gender concerns in America” (Dalmia). Although the women who planned the march on social media, it was not adequately planned and it was poor minority women who reside at the intersection of class, race and gender concerns in America who thought it was not fairly planned Saying this because the election of Trump caused the women's march and it wasn't planned well it's a valid argument but not valid. Dalmia goes on to appeal to the ignorant by saying the protests were just for fun and wanted all the attention and no one took it seriously. He states that the march is also reaching a certain level of stupidity that is ethical to man. He states.