According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s female population size is 156,964,212. Somewhere between 2.01% and 3.19% of that number participated in the 2017 Women’s March in various cities throughout the U.S. Granted, only 116928594 of the nation’s female population are over the age of 19, but there were also men and children involved in the march. Remove men and children, and the march numbers would also go down. Percentages will have to include all ages and stand as estimates, probably estimates that are a bit on the high side.
The mission statement on the initiative’s website treats the recent election results as a threat to women and minorities, and the page’s unity statement goes right down the list of feminist positions, making it clear that this is not a women’s initiative, but a feminist initiative. Nonfeminist women’s interests need not apply, even though 82% don’t consider themselves feminist.
Almost the entire list treats human rights as a gender issue, as if human rights violations only matter when they happen to women or girls. The remainder treats progressive positions on environmentalism, immigration, and sexuality as women’s rights positions.
On the list are descriptions of the Women’s March positions on violence and reproductive rights.
Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of all forms of violence against our bodies…
…It is our moral imperative to dismantle the gender and racial inequities within the criminal justice system.
-https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/ (under the heading “Violence”)
The first part of that quote is in keeping with feminism’s gendered narrative on intimate partner and sexual violence, wherein organized groups and “interdisciplinary” areas of academia promote the belief that there is an epidemic of mostly male violence committed against mostly female victims. To preserve that narrative, these groups and academics have blatantly lied for years about both intimate partner and sexual violence. In truth, both major categories of violence are perpetrated by both sexes against both sexes, with variations in subtypes, but overall near-equal perpetration, and women initiate the majority of uni-directional intimate partner violence. However, feminist groups have spent years demanding a gendered approach to handling both, with law and policy that ignores male victims and infringes due process rights on behalf of female accusers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 More
Rather than leading to a reduction in gender violence, this has created a hostile environment in both the legal system and victim’s support systems for male victims 1 2 3 and resulted in facilitation of malicious prosecution based on false accusations. 1 2 3 4 5
And how did the women at the marches demonstrate an antiviolent position?
by showing how women use false accusations as a tool of harassment…
Video scrubbed – guess showing actual feminist behavior is embarrassing to feminists.
The second part of the quote insinuates that women are discriminated against within the criminal justice system. Available information tells a different story. Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, Jill K. Doerner of Bowling Green State University both found that within the United States’ justice system, other contributing factors equal, women generally receive much more lenient treatment over the same crimes. This includes every step of the process, from arrest to time served. If there is gender discrimination taking place in this system, it isn’t against women, yet feminist groups have spent years advocating for reduction or even elimination of criminal sentences for female perpetrators of all kinds, but more harsh treatment of some groups of male suspects and perpetrators. The underlying issue seems to be a disparity in the recognition of due process rights. Protecting that specific area of civil rights would go a long way toward remedying many of the complaints made by both feminists and men’s issues advocates.
So how does the Women’s March fit in to the due process/civil rights discussion?
Why, by having an ardent promoter of Sharia law with ties to Hamas as one of its promoters, of course! Who needs constitutionally guaranteed rights?
Linda Sarsour is not the only civil rights opponent on the site’s list. Among the honorary co-chairs is Gloria Steinem, whose publication and promotion of Mary P. Koss’s “research” led to the use of Koss’s work to persuade Congress to replace the gender-neutral Family Violence Services and Prevention act of 1984 with the gender-discriminatory, due-process-violating Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and later the even more due-process-violating Campus SaVE act. Koss’s dysfunctional methodology is now used in federal government intimate partner and sexual violence research that is also used to inform law and policy. Even the researchers using her methods don’t know why.
At least they’re consistent, right?
The women’s march website’s statement on Reproductive Freedom begins:
We believe in Reproductive Freedom.
-https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/ (under the heading “Reproductive Rights”)
Most of the statement is about abortion and birth control, as if women in the U.S. face significant barriers in these ares.
Currently in the United States, women have a wide spectrum of reproductive choices which men do not have, including legal abortion. Feminists’ real complaint is that the amount of taxpayer dollars used to pay for those choices and government interference in business arrangements to force businesses to pay for those choices does not suit feminist standards.
Meanwhile, feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women have a history of demanding the right to force fathers into paternal responsibility regardless of their choice.
Feminist logic holds that it’s discriminatory to expect women to foot the bill for their own elective birth control, but it’s not discriminatory to expect a man to foot the bill for a woman’s choice to become a custodial single mother after using his body to become pregnant, even if he did not want to become a noncustodial father. If reproductive choice is a human right, feminists apparently think one sex is more human than the other.
When faced with criticism of such blatant hypocrisy, double standards and promotion of violence and discrimination against men on women’s behalf, feminists point to the dictionary definition as evidence that “real” feminism is about equality… and somehow the non-feminist majority is supposed to believe that definition is not contradicted by the act of excluding men’s interests from human rights considerations.
Well, Oxford English Dictionary defines equality as “The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.”
If feminists want to live up to that, they’re going to have to change nearly everything they do.
Latest posts by Hannah Wallen (see all)
- Title IX: The changing dialogue | HBR Talk 81 - April 18, 2019
- Frailty, thy name is accountability gap | HBR Talk 80 - April 11, 2019
- Uncle Joe and the secret of the double standard | HBR Talk 79 - April 4, 2019