Anyone who has followed the news on the Women’s March has seen that the organization is in serious trouble. Over the past year, there have been numerous reports chronicling the apparent collapse of the movement. Infighting, lawsuits, and various scandals have plagued the movement, and it appears that it is a crisis of their own making.
But why is this happening?
The answer is simple: The Women’s March is falling victim to its embrace of intersectionality — that is, the politics of victimhood — and their reliance on this philosophy is leading to its logical conclusion. It’s a story that reveals the destructive nature of one of the progressive movement’s most cherished ideals and demonstrates why it is prone to cause damage to those it is intended to help.
The Beleaguered Women’s March
A series of news reports have been published over the past year detailing the travails of the Women’s March. Recently, the organization lost the support of two of its staunchest allies. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Democratic National Committee have revoked their support due to blatant anti-Semitism.
The Women’s March is falling victim to its embrace of intersectionality and the politics of victimhood…
Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), two of the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential candidates, stated that they would not participate in the next event. Both have headlined for the movement in previous years, but now it appears the brand may have become too toxic.
The Women’s March has also been the subject of an ongoing lawsuit over its use of the name. Four groups that were previously connected to the movement are suing the organization, arguing that no one entity should own the activist moniker. Others wish to rebrand the movement to purge itself of scandal.
Many might point to the group’s issues with anti-Semitism as the primary reason for these woes. But could there be more to this story?
The leadership of the Women’s March is made up of feminist activists who previously advocated for a variety of left-wing causes, and like other far leftist organizations, they place a strong emphasis on victimhood. Their theory is that members of particular minority classes are subject to different levels of oppression based on their immutable characteristics.
In each of these instances, the villain in the tale of intersectionality is typically white Americans, who supposedly have a penchant for oppressing everyone around them. It was likely this line of thinking that prompted the group to cancel an event in Eureka, California, as the audience was made up of predominantly white women. Of course, the Women’s March did not consider the fact that the city in which they intended to hold the event has a mostly white population.
Needless to say, the residents of Eureka that wished to participate in the event were not happy about the cancellation, and some expressed their disappointment with the movement’s leaders. “I understand wanting a diverse group,” Amy Sawyer Long told the Washington Times. “However, we live in a predominantly white area … not to mention how is it beneficial to cancel? No matter the race people still want their voices heard.”
By relying on an intersectional approach to its operations, the Women’s March has managed to alienate white and Jewish women, and it is likely that it repulsed other minorities in the organization who are less fixated on race and sexuality. For this reason, some of the group’s branches either dissolved or separated themselves from the parent organization.
Indeed, the women in Eureka have decided to go forward with their own spectacle on January 19, the date of the original march – though the parent organization has declared a boycott of the event.
Intersectionality might make an effective political weapon when one needs to hurl baseless accusations of bigotry at their political opponents. But it is terrible as a platform for a nationwide movement. The natural result of a large group of people who are more intent on proving that they are bigger victims than the other is a total collapse. Some groups are bound to be marginalized, and it is not easy to grow a movement by promoting an ideology that is inherently divisive. There are great lessons for progressives in this, though history and today’s political climate hint they will go unlearned.