Yesterday James Connor asked me to write something about the “International Women’s Day Walkout and Celebration,” or something like that. I was a bit surprised; I hadn’t heard anything about it. I thought March 8 was famous as the birthday of Simon Cameron, the great Pennsylvania state boss who once famously defined an honest politician as “one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”
Cameron died in 1889. I’m clearly behind the times. A quick Internet search brought me up to speed, sort of. Some sites called it “A Day Without a Woman,” leaving it unclear whether it was supposed to be a celebration or not. The Guardian clarified that what this slogan meant was that women were supposed to go on strike, close down the schools, refuse to tend the farm, etc.
This general strike made sense (or maybe not) because of UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ observation, in his International Women’s Day Message, that “when women participate fully in the labour force, it creates opportunities and generates growth.”
It reminds me of the time when, somewhat quixotically, I headed the Federalist Society at U.C. Berkeley’s law school. Whenever the Coalition for Diversity didn’t like a speaker, or otherwise felt disrespected, the first thing they would do is boycott their classes — exactly the opposite of what students struggling with their coursework should have been doing.
Likewise, if women are really struggling at their jobs, not showing up to work might be counterproductive. But that wasn’t the point of the strike, was it? I mean, who cares about the women who can’t afford to skip a day of work for a UN-sanctioned holy-day?
The International Women’s Strike was not meant for women who need to work. It was meant for prosperous Western women, preferably American, to march against Trump, though perhaps they were just bored.
George Soros donated $246 million to fund the Women’s March, and you can bet he didn’t put up that kind of money to combat female circumcision, child slavery or rape.
Come to think of it, how many of the sanctimonious marchers know anything at all about Third World women’s issues? Do they know what FGM is, what exactly gets cut off — do they even want to know?
Of course not. To know is to have to picture it. What these pink-hatted activists know about, or think they know about, is equal rights.
And therein lies the rub. For what possible equal rights can American women demand that they don’t already have? No laws in the United States discriminate against women. Women are equally or over-represented in law schools, medical schools, most professional schools and universities in general. There is no glass ceiling or gender wage gap. Hillary did not lose the election because she was a woman. “Women’s Liberation” is an anachronism: women are liberated.
But they’re not all liberals. The notion that women comprise a uniform, legitimate grievance class is nonsense. But it is not aimless: the divide-and-conquer method of the George Soros leftists is a dangerously effective tactic in the service of socialist anarchy.