Difference between revisions of "The Darkness of the Women’s March"

Revision as of 09:44, 18 April 2017

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
The Darkness of the Women’s March
by John and Andy Schlafly
January 24, 2017

President Trump’s inaugural address was well received by the people who voted for him, but the media reacted with predictable hostility as the plain-spoken non-politician repeated the themes he used so successfully during the campaign. Newspapers called the speech dark, a word that was repeated by almost every reporter.

Trump was certainly blunt about the challenges facing our country, but his address was sweetness and light compared to the truly dark rhetoric of those who demonstrated in Washington the following day. It was billed as the “Women’s March” on Washington, but it featured every kooky cause you ever heard of (and several you probably haven’t).

Speakers at the “Women’s March” were consumed with the grievances of those who think they are oppressed by institutional prejudice. They were obsessed with the rights of illegal immigrants, Black Lives Matter, Muslims, refugees, and unusual sexual preferences.

Abortion was repeatedly celebrated at the march, which was co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood. Most speakers used the euphemism “reproductive rights,” although one speaker, Kierra Johnson, said “I am unapologetically abortion positive.”

A speaker named America Ferrera announced, “As a first-generation American born to Honduran immigrants, it has been a heart wrenching time to be a woman in this country. Our rights have been under attack. Our freedom is on the chopping block for the next four years.” Doesn’t Ms. Ferrera realize how fortunate she is to be a woman born in the United States, instead of Honduras?

Muriel Bowser, the self-proclaimed “chick mayor” of Washington, D.C., “soon to be the 51st state” (not!), said: “Mayors have to stand up for immigration rights, for reproductive rights, for LGBTQ rights. We have to stand up to fight climate change from the mayor’s office.”

The next speaker, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, seemed out of place as he told the mostly female audience to “call Congress on Monday and tell your Senators we do not accept Betsy DeVos as our Secretary of Education.” Conservative women were not welcome at the Women’s March.

Actress Ashley Judd kept repeating “I’m a nasty woman” among other vulgar chants. “I feel Hitler in these streets,” she continued, as she raged against “racism, homophobia, trans-phobia, misogyny, and white privilege.”

Zahra Billoo, speaking on behalf of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said: “I am an American Muslim woman, a daughter of immigrants, a person of color, a community organizer, and a civil rights lawyer. I am proud to be among Donald Trump’s worst nightmares.”

She went on: “Our liberation is interconnected. When Muslims are harassed by the FBI, when our LGBTQ friends are attacked in hate crimes, when our black brothers and sisters are gunned down by police officers, when what is left of native land continues to be stolen, and when undocumented individuals among us are targeted, we all hurt. But we are also fired up.”

The next speaker was Janet Mock, who proclaimed: “I stand here as someone who has written herself onto this stage to unapologetically proclaim that I am a trans woman-writer-activist-revolutionary of color.” Janet Mock, it turns out, used to be Charles Mock before he had surgery in Thailand to mutilate his male anatomy.

By her own account, Janet Mock’s Siamese surgery was financed with money that Charles had earned as a teenage prostitute, or as Janet now says, a “sex worker.” Do American women really have something to learn from that bizarre experience?

“Our approach to freedom must be intersectional,” Mock continued. “My liberation is directly linked to the liberation of the undocumented trans Latina yearning for refuge, the disabled student seeking unequivocal access, the sex worker fighting to make her living safely.”

Mock was referring to the trendy doctrine of intersectional feminism, which defines the feminist movement within a general theory that all minority groups are victims of oppression by white men. That explains why 82-year-old Gloria Steinem was almost the only non-minority on the program.

Signs proclaimed “refugees welcome” and many speakers referred to them. Why refugees at a women’s march? These things don’t happen by accident: a tax-funded refugee contractor helped sponsor the march.

“If you are coming to the March, join our HIAS delegation and speak out in support of refugees. HIAS will provide signs and stickers,” according to the website of an organization that receives more than half of its income from U.S. taxpayers.

Other tax-funded agencies were there, too. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards organized a mass call-in to members of Congress to keep the funds flowing to her organization from which she draws a salary of well over $500,000 a year.

One demonstrator, who apparently didn’t get the memo about intersectional grievances, carried a homemade sign that read: “Women are foolish to think they are equal to men. They are far superior.”

Yes, women are superior to men in some ways, because only they can bring us the future by bearing children. But to make that future a brighter one requires defense of motherhood, something that a real women’s march (the March for Life) does this Friday.