First, it was “A Day Without Immigrants.” Then came “A Day Without a Woman.”

Up next? “A Day Without a Whole Bunch of Other Stuff We Take for Granted, Like Pizza Delivery Persons and Those Annoying Movies Starring Characters from Marvel Comics.”

I realize that liberal Democrats across the country are pretty darned giddy with this new-found freedom of suddenly not having to be in charge of anything anymore (Kris Kristofferson was right: Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose), but we might want to think about pacing ourselves. After all, provided President Donald Trump goes the minimum distance here, we’ve got at least another 46 months’ worth of righteous outrage to express. And at the rate these day-without protests are going, it won’t be long before we’ve jumped the shark into demonstrations like “A Day Without Mimes” and “A Day Without That One Guy Who Stands at the Bus Stop Every Morning and Yells Up at the Clouds.”

The long and noble profession of civil protesting is getting dangerously close to overplaying its hand here. We may soon be longing for “A Day Without a Day Without.”

Truth be told, these “days-without” are beginning to remind me of that Ice Bucket Challenge fad that went viral back in 2014. After most of us dumped buckets of cold water on ourselves to raise awareness and/or funds for ALS research, suddenly every worthy cause was trying to figure out how to make lightning strike twice. There was The Rubble Bucket Challenge to highlight Israel’s invasion of Gaza. The Rice Bucket Challenge to fight hunger in India. The Trash Bucket Challenge to save the environment. And The Bullet Bucket Challenge to draw attention to the problem of gun violence.

On Feb. 16, “A Day Without Immigrants” protested the new president’s plans to build a wall on the Mexican border and deport anybody who couldn’t trace their lineage directly back to the Mayflower. Then, on March 8, the attention turned to protesting the administration’s policies affecting females, with the oddly individual-sounding “A Day Without a Woman. Although no one bothered to mention which woman, specifically, we’d be going without that day.

Personally, I’d hoped it would be Kellyanne Conway.

There’s an ongoing argument over whether these two boycotts had much of an impact on today’s society. I mean, it’s not like they were declaring “A Day Without Netflix.”

This is not to say these special protest days haven’t been of some use, as they did manage to focus a certain amount of media attention on immigrants and women. However, some people are making the case that these two protests — less than three weeks apart — were more about white privilege than anything else. Many immigrants and women couldn’t afford to miss work on their respective days; there were some reports that those who did boycott got fired.

The real danger in these day-without protests is that if you’re going to give the world a day without a particular group of people, you’d better hope it makes an impact. Because if either no one notices the absence, or they suddenly realize they can get along quite nicely without them, you’ve kind of defeated the purpose.

Trouble is, the wrong folks are boycotting. If we really want to make an impact in this country, we need to show people an alternative reality of what life would be like without a particular subset of people. Which is why I’m advocating for a new national boycott, “A Day Without White Dudes.”

Let’s face it, we white males have pretty much single-handedly gotten us into this predicament, so maybe giving the rest of the country a day off from us would actually be a refreshing change of pace. We could all just go camping or fishing or something, while everybody else works on cleaning up our centuries-long messes.

And who knows? If “DWWD” goes well, we might think about expanding it to an entire week. Maybe longer.

Contact Mark Saal at 801-625-4272, or msaal@standard.net. Follow him on Twitter at @Saalman. Friend him on Facebook at facebook.com/MarkSaal.