Like any effective protest group, the Women’s March has gone from being an organic response to what they deemed unfavorable political conditions to a legitimate, organized group. This is step #2 on the staircase to complete irrelevance -one day I may lay out all the steps in a separate op-ed. We’ve seen it over and over again.
The Tea Party, Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Black Lives Matter…all groups that began as a genuine, passionate response to a perceived problem. Once the passionate protestors figured out you can actually make a lot of money from outrage, all these groups began to peter out and pare down to those willing to make a career out of fundraising and pot-stirring.
The Women’s March began as nothing more than a web page to help organize a well-attended but completely useless march on Washington for women stuff or against Donald Trump or for abortion or something. It was hard to tell what the main goals were, but the result was to take that little web page and turn it into an actual think-tank.
Now the organic-turned-corporate agitators are planning on moving on to step #3 on the staircase to complete irrelevancy…over-saturating the market with useless rage. The “Women’s March” is now planning what they are calling a general strike – a day without women. The site only says more details are to follow, but obviously the intent is self-explanatory.
The will of the people will stand. pic.twitter.com/SKJCRLhRKn
— Women's March (@womensmarch) February 6, 2017
I had to giggle when I read the call to action on this “strike”. It reminded me of a movie I once saw called “A Day Without a Mexican”, about what would happen to America, particularly California if every Mexican suddenly stopped working for us. It was hilariously self-righteous and void of any self-awareness whatsoever. Who will cut the grass if Mexicans leave? Who will clean the bathrooms? Who will do the dirty jobs we Americans won’t do?
Well golly gosh gee whiz, Sergio…I suppose we’d just hand those jobs off to teenagers and other minimum wage employees starting out on the bottom wrung of the workforce the way we pretty much always did it until unchecked illegal immigration changed the employment landscape.
This Women’s March general strike is similar nonsense, the type proposed by people whose own self-imposed cultural bubbles inoculate them from the reality of most Americans. I’m not even sure what the point of such a strike would be.
Is the point to “stick it” to President Trump? I doubt he’ll notice because women who work at the White House and the upper echelons of government don’t take days off to protest. They’re actually doing important work.
Is the point to prove how much women do in daily American life? If so, this proves my point about that cultural bubble these ladies are living in. It tells me they don’t have good men in their lives. I don’t need to go on strike for 24 hours in order for my husband to value me. He put a ring on my finger and goes to work every day for our family without complaint, which pretty much tells me he values me and our children above anything else. Because we are partners in the endeavor of marriage and family, he is intimately familiar with how vital my “womanly” presence is in our home. He is no exception, either. There are millions of American men like him, but I guess when you’re an overdramatic, constantly outraged crankypants you don’t necessarily make a lot of space for yourself to be appreciated by good, principled men.
Is the point to prove that men can’t survive for 24 hours without women? They do it all the time. What exactly is it that women do for men that is so “woman-centered” that a man can’t do it himself – outside of child birth and heterosexual intimacy? Answering this question would entail laying out “woman’s work”, a concept I’ve been told is sexist and outdated.
And what about women who aren’t women physically but identify as women in their spirit and conscience? Should they strike too? What is it that would be missed about their presence in the workplace/home that day if they aren’t even living as physically female?
What exactly do these organizers think will be missed in American society if a few hundred thousand women take the day off? Now, a month…yes. That would have an impact, but who can spare a month of their lives for a vague strike with no pay-off and no endgame? Even a day sounds frivolous. Clearly no one organizing this “strike” depends on their job to put shoes on their kids’ feet. For a young, single mother going to school and picking up as many hours as possible at her entry-level job, taking 24 hours off when no one is sick or hurt is not even a consideration in her world.
This is nothing more but the virtue-signaling of the cultural elite – people who have never really known the pain and strain of daily life in a part of the country that isn’t an international metropolitan box. The long, slow climb up to the attic of irrelevancy is inevitably aided by the arrogant belief that most Americans want to live their lives in a perpetual state of angst and rage. They do not.
Outrage fatigue is a real thing. The ladies of the “Women’s March” have made a grave error in thinking that the women who showed up to march last month represent all women in the United States. They don’t even make up half of those women, and likely not even a third.
A 24-hour “general strike” will probably do nothing but add more fundraising dollars to their growing bank accounts.
But I suppose that’s really the point, isn’t it?