Jessica De Gree, San Clemente

Just one day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, men and women worldwide participated in what they called a Women’s March. These marchers claimed to raise awareness of disrespect toward women. However, instead of a march for all women, this march was clearly a march for progressivism.

Pro-life groups such as Students for Life of America and New Wave Feminists, after asking to be partners or sponsors of the event, were declined. By excluding these groups from sponsorship, the Women’s March was much less of a protest for all women, and more of a protest for pro-choice progressivism.

These marchers equated the ability for women to be able to choose to abort pregnancies with women’s rights. By falsely doing so, they withheld the platform’s message of inclusivity and solidarity from people who do not support abortion.

In the Women’s March platform, found on their website, the protesters encourage healthy familial environments for women. They rightly argue that women should not accept violence toward their bodies in any way. But the platform also calls for the continuation of federal funding to Planned Parenthood—an organization that provides abortion services. So, although the platform initially seems to have a great message (of women’s rights), the specific policies within the platform (pro-choice) suggest otherwise.

It seems strange that this event happened right after Trump’s inauguration. If it was truly a march that highlighted real problems women have been facing for a while, why had it not happened sooner? Why had it not happened after Bill Clinton’s scandals? Or Chris Brown’s domestic violence? The march was much less than a march for basic human rights; it was a political scheme directly attacking both Donald Trump’s presidency and conservative values (both different things).

Whenever politicians take advantage of natural disasters for their own benefit, people always seem to be dismayed. They argue it is wrong to use the victim’s experience to better the politician’s own standings. In the Women’s March, the organizers used the abuse of women—the emotions women have been holding inside—for a progressive political ploy. This abuse of women and of their emotions contradicts the march’s end. It is a sad thing that this march has misled some people from expressing their pain.

About The Author Staff

comments (2)

  • “By falsely doing so, they withheld the platform’s message of inclusivity and solidarity from people who do not support abortion.”

    AND

    “The march was much less than a march for basic human rights; it was a political scheme directly attacking both Donald Trump’s presidency and conservative values (both different things).”

    AND

    “This abuse of women and of their emotions contradicts the march’s end. It is a sad thing that this march has misled some people from expressing their pain.”

    Jessica De Gree,

    Outstanding observations…spot on!

  • No, Jessica, it is sad that you are equating ALL women’s marches to be directed, managed, and the same as some that asked pro-life groups to not protest. Perhaps if you were in attendance at the San Clemente march (where the estimated 50 turned into several hundred) you would have seen that no one was excluded. It is too bad that your background and perspective finds a woman’s choice and the real dilemma of overpopulation to be so easily dismissed. Next you’ll be telling us that birth control is a “progressive ploy” and abusive to women and you would be wrong. Millions of women decided to march. A progressive ploy didn’t cause it…..a misogynist, narcissist, and serial philanderer who was (and continues to prove in abundance with each passing day) completely ill-suited for the job was the cause.

comments (2)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>