All the women in the world seem to be on edge because “the” Donald is President of the United States. Such unprecedented furor: how can one man create such emotional upheaval among the global sisterhood? Exactly what set off a catalytic pink emotional cascade among liberated feminists? What prompted these women in the western hemisphere (because in third world countries they would have been stoned just for wearing pink!) to go out into the streets in mass hysteria? What happened to these progressives who for the past eight years held hands in a sixty-style “kumbaya”? What turned on the switch to fear? What catastrophic dialogue did I miss? Why didn’t I feel the burning urge to defy mother nature and join the vaginal throngs?
Last weekend, women declared war on Washington because overnight they feared “what might happen under Donald Trump.” Unless I missed something during the torrid and often vulgar campaign (on both sides), I do not recall Donald or anyone else talking about recalling women’s rights. Not even remotely. So who or what set off this alarm? Who indeed. I do have theories and hypothesis of my own that might shed a light on the complete feminist melt down. Those who marched claimed that they were sending a “message” to the president: any change to women’s rights will not be tolerated. Of course in between the now familiar “women’s rights” rhetoric creep the usual buzz words: equality, progress, pro-choice, sexism, feminism; the list is endless, mundane, and to some extent: ho hum! This cry for freedom was launched at a man whose daughter manages his global business, and whose campaign manager, another woman, won his campaign against all odds. Is this perhaps “the code?” Women who do not represent the intellectual progressive “us” of the women’s movement do not count as part of the sisterhood? Are women intolerable toward other women based on political affiliation and lines? Where is the equality and diversity cry of sisterhood outrage in support of these women who do not fit the feminist mold? Will there be a march for them as well? I never found the women’s movement enlightening. I never needed validation from another women to determine who I was and what I want. I find their superiority annoying and hypocritical. The movement embraces only one narrative and one agenda: theirs. The rest of us are inconsequential and unimportant goofs. This is the movement of the tolerant intolerant; inclusive only to those who walk the same walk and talk the same talk. Women who are not easily swayed by militant rhetoric are on the fringe of this elite circle. But what am I missing? What was the march really about? What great act of injustice was being perpetrated against my sisterhood? How come I did not heed the call? Why the angst?
Sifting through social media clippings and pseudo news, I found plenty to work with in my quest for the truth. Images of women carrying placards that “screamed” inequality, injustice, and the proverbial “production rights”, were in every amateur’s YouTube: a futile attempt at recording “news” for a ten-second call to stardom and social media fame. To an innocent bystander, “production rights” could mean anything from copyright infringement to proprietary information. So what are “production rights?” In one video clip a protester was costumed in a purple vagina. Why? Did she believe that the president is going to intrude on her vagina? So I concluded that perhaps I was missing the anguished cry of the downtrodden. The loud and incoherent call to justice by Hollywood celebrities like Madonna and Ashley Judd. I was distraught because I have obviously been missing the significance of “production rights”. So I asked myself: when did abortion morph into “production rights?” How did I miss that rite of passage? Why the subtle modification of the process? After all if women are secure enough to publically dress up as a vagina they should be intellectually safe enough to utter the word “abortion.” I have a theory. “Pro-choice” or “production rights” plays better to this generation of pseudo tolerant than abortion does. Abortion is an “in your face” word; one that people do not want to think about because they might change their minds and go to the dark side. The word is too blunt, too crude, too inhumane for those who see themselves as avengers for justice. The Millennial Generation would have a tough time dealing with such harsh reality; “production rights” is softer and more palatable for the trophy generation. So why the angst? It is a justifiable angst because the new administration does intend to enter the “production rights” sanctuary and cut federal funding to clinics that perform abortion.
But, what was the march about? What inequality was the sisterhood marching for? Western women are blessed with the same opportunities as men, and with stiff laws to protect them. So who were they marching for? Definitely not for me or for women who are eager to stay home and raise a family. Or those against “production rights”. Or those who want to follow their religious beliefs without being bullied. These women would not have been invited to cross the sacred lines of the sisterhood that marched on Saturday. We are the intellectual deficient. So who exactly was the march for? It was for money. Remember Jerry McGuire? Follow the money! The free flowing tax dollar taps will be shutting down on clinics performing “production rights”. Those “rights” will not be taken away, but the tax payer will no longer foot the bill. The silent cry of the march was: how is it going to be funded?
A few months ago, the popular Broadway show Hamilton was donating a portion of their ticket sales to Planned Parenthood. Among the usual social media diatribe, one woman bullied another because of her disenchantment with the show having aligned itself with the organization she happens not to support. A slew of insults were hurled at the deficient non-cooperative woman for betraying women’s “production rights”. I found myself obliged to solve the altercation and suggest that everyone should watch the play if only to get Planned Parenthood off my tax dollar payroll! This got me to think ways to fund “production rights”. How about asking all the pinheads in Hollywood to donate? Nothing makes them feel more worthwhile than supporting “victims”. Have an annual telethon for Planned Parenthood. Maybe Meryl Streep could be the host. Organize an annual marathon through New York City. The ideas are endless. Just stay out of my wallet.
The Women’s March was not about inequality and misogyny (the new 2016 word of the year): it was about money. The free ride is almost over: “daddy” is taking your pocket money away. The march had very little to do with equal rights. If equal rights was the prime objective: how come the western sisterhood does not march against Sharia Law? Why don’t we support women in Asia, Africa, the Gulf States, or the Middle East who suffer stoning, beatings, mutilation, and even death? Why don’t we march for all the girls under terrorist regimes who are not allowed an education or are married before puberty? Why didn’t we march when 200 Chibouk girls were abducted by terrorist thugs in Nigeria? Yes, this new president is a force to reckon with; but not because of his alleged anti-female stance, but because he has put everyone on notice. No more free lunch: if you want it and not everyone else does: pay for it yourselves. Ladies remember the song: I am woman hear me roar? Your march was a petulant whimper.