The Real Reason the Women’s March Failed
The First Women’s March occurred on January 21st, 2017, and it is estimated that up to 5 million people were in attendance, including many prominent celebrities and sponsors.
As of last January, The prominent pink pussy-hat wearing protesters of the ‘Women’s March’ were left without a Parade in Humboldt County, as the event was cancelled.
So what happened?
The event has faced a litany of controversies, namely beginning in October 2018, when the Women’s March founders Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, and Tamika Mallory refused to disavow Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan, who had made several anti-Semitic remarks on his twitter. This led to numerous sponsors pulling out of funding.
This was then followed by the cancellation of January’s Women’s March, which comes from prominent activists and figureheads within the Organisation who deemed that there would be “too many white women” at the event.
Given the difficult recent months faced by the group, this may be the final straw.
While this may seem to be a whirlwind of chaos for the Women’s Marches, and it is, the events have been dwindling rapidly over the past year.
Though is it purely these controversies that have left event-goers feeling detached from the cause? Well, let’s take a deeper look.
In order for me to fully grasp the depth of the Women’s marches, I went to their website and had a gloss over their ascribed ‘Unity Principles,’ and their H.E.R.S framework.
H.E.R.S stands for Health, Economic Security, Representation and Safety.
The Unity Principles are:
Ending Violence, Reproductive Rights, LGBTQIA+ Rights, Workers’ Rights, Civil Rights, Disability Rights and Immigrant Rights.
While this all sounds quite well and good, it is precisely the ambiguity of these principles that has led to the current downfall of the Women’s March.
Let’s take a closer look at some of these Principles.
Civil Rights? Sure! Of course women should have equal civil rights to men. But what civil rights aren’t afforded to women? And what can be done about it?
I could very easily say I want to end world hunger, or bring about world peace. I could even set up a website to do so. But a goal is achieved through precision, not by having the largest, most vague aspiration possible. Given the fervour held by many of the Women’s March protestors, surely there are some easy examples of violated civil rights for women? Moving on…
Let’s move on to Immigrant Rights.
While this may sound quite nice, the description found on the site states;
“We believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin. We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.”
This kind of rhetoric, in my mind, is why the Women’s march has been failing.
Firstly, it’s pretty obvious judging by the principles espoused on their website that the Women’s March is really just a thinly veiled anti-Trump rally. Right off the bat, this isolates women who have supported Donald Trump, or those who simply believe in having a sovereign nation.
Without borders, and without border control, countries themselves would quickly dissipate by process of osmosis, eventually blurring their own lines to the point of having no nation at all.
Having open borders isn’t practical or realistic, it’s ideological. The only reason the Women’s March mentions immigration is because Trump did too.
Lastly, and most ironically (in the saddest way possible) is the fact that there are women’s issues occurring precisely because of illegal immigration.
In a Huffington Post article from 2014, it was revealed that a majority of women crossing through the Mexican border were being raped or sexually assaulted.
This is a serious issue, and one would think that such an issue would be at the forefront of the minds of those in charge Women’s March.
In fact, one of the other principles is Ending Violence “in the form of rape, domestic abuse and trafficking.”
It seems there is some cognitive dissonance occurring.
It seems the Women’s March wishes to use the event as a political volleyball, ignoring the issues which affect women most closely, choosing to instead argue for the sake of disagreeing with Trump.
Also mentioned under the heading Ending Violence is the mention of tackling Islamophobia and anti-semitism, allowing women to practice whichever religion they see fit.
While I am not religious myself, I definitely agree that people should be free to practice whatever faith they see fit.
Though I must ask, what of Louis Farrakhan, who recently likened Jews to Termites? Where was the defence for Jewish women from the Women’s March?
And Islam? While there may be some very beautiful parables and passages within the Islamic faith and Koran, there are also some very antiquated ideas, specifically pertaining to women.
As excerpted from the Centre for Inquiry, here is some of the prophet Mohammed’s views on women as found in the Hadith.
“A woman cannot fulfil her duties towards god without first having accomplished those that she owes her husband.”
“The woman who dies & with whom the husband is satisfied will go to paradise.”
“A wife should never refuse herself to her husband even if it is on the saddle of a camel.”
These excerpts perfectly illustrate to me the issue with the Women’s March. The notion of tolerance has been pushed to its limit, forcing march-goers to be “tolerant” of ideas that literally go against what they are preaching for.
To me, this serves as the litmus test for determining whether ones ideas are logical or ideological. I’m afraid to say the Women’s March falls under the latter.
Now let’s touch upon the R in the H.E.R.S framework, which stands for Representation.
Representation, according to the site, refers to “Women having fair and just representation locally, nationally, and internationally, in government, on boards and at work, particularly at the executive level.”
This part seems a tad confusing, given the fact that the most recent Women’s March was cancelled due to there being “too many white women.”
Instead of making a comment, I would like to quote Martin Luther King:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
I’ll just leave that quote there.
In summary, it’s clear that the Women’s March cares more about diversity in appearance than diversity of thought. Women who might be on the conservative end of the spectrum, perhaps women who see issues within Islam, or even simply women with white skin have been hung out to dry by the Women’s Marchers, all apparently in the name of female empowerment.
Perhaps this is why we are seeing fewer and fewer women protesting in the streets, as the marches exclude many of their own supposed allies.
Or perhaps fewer women attend these protests because they’ve asked themselves one crucial question:
In the few years the Women’s March has been running, what have they actually achieved?
