In January, it was a march. In February, it’s become a movement: a developing, inelegant phenomenon quivering with the latent energy of a post-march high. The covers of Time and the New Yorker recently featured a certain cat-eared pink hat. Organizers have developed 10 action steps for the first 100 days.

At USA Today, author Heidi M. Przybyla argued that “The march’s biggest asset — that it was completely organic and grass-roots — is now its challenge going forward.” Nascent march group organizers in New Jersey are hoping their collective acts as a clearinghouse on reproductive rights, climate change, and a free press.

 In a four-part series on the social science behind the Women’s March, the Washington Post asked whether a movement “embracing such wide-ranging goals — from protecting immigrants to stopping climate change, from racial justice and religious diversity to reproductive freedom — [can] channel its support into sustained political action.” The Post suggested that Marchers shared a “common elevating goal,” though really, they had none. The Post stabbed weakly at a unifying hatred of the new president as its cause célèbre.

The Women’s March Wasn’t For Everyone

As we may not be rid of the pink hats anytime soon, we ought to consider the incongruity of the worldwide Women’s Marches, which proved more than some of their attendees had bargained for. Marchers’ multiple, varied motivations could be precisely the blocks upon which local organizers find themselves now stumbling.

One Saturday in January, some five million feminists gathered across the globe, a sea of pink that roared from L.A. to Copenhagen.  They threw their fists in the air and chanted, “No Hate! No Fear!” The March’s siren song, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation,” was a palatable aphorism that spoke of no real agenda. That was not by accident.  The Women’s March was not a march for every woman.

Read more at The Federalist. 

Comments are closed.