Marching Forward

On Saturday, January 21st, 2017, the Women's March became the largest protest in US history. People from all across the country and from all seven continents came together and marched on President Donald Trump's first day in office, not to protest him, as many believe, but to protest essentially all inequalities and injustices in our nation. The Women's March on Washington's official Guiding Vision and Definition of Principles based the march on the idea that women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights. This leads into their incorporation of various other social, economic, racial, and political justice movements such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, acknowledging that women's rights affect people of all genders, races, socioeconomic standings, and other such different groups.

Whether or not people agree with what the Women's March stood for, no one can deny that it was an impressive protest. Many people celebrated the strength and passion demonstrated in the march, and media outlets lauded Americans' effort to stand up for what they believe in. However, this is not the time for these same people to sit down and say, "Look! We made a good show, we got noticed, our work here is done." The Women's March should only be the beginning of the conversation.

Before delving into some of the issues at hand, I would like to first remind readers that feminism is the belief in equality of the sexes. Feminism is not and should not be about hating men. I would also like to remind readers that, despite the fact there should not be any confusion about what feminism means, people do disagree on how it is achieved or applied. And while conflicting opinions within a movement do not invalidate it, and while opposing viewpoints are only to be expected in such a large movement, these points of conflict should not be ignored. While the Women's March is a great start for revitalizing progressivism, it is crucial to discuss where people have differing ideas in order to create a more comprehensive, clear, and far-reaching message.

The first issue: intersectionality. A pressing shift in feminism that has been gaining more traction, intersectional feminism is the inclusion of other interconnected categories besides sex and gender in the fight for equality, recognizing that, as one article put it, "systems of oppression all intersect; to consider the issue as a whole, we have to consider all the moving parts that belong to it." Fighting for only one type of equality is a) hypocritical, since in only fighting one system of oppression and disregarding others, one is essentially saying that one group is still superior to others and b) not the way towards a sustainable solution for equality in general. The concept of "white feminism," which is support of gender equality only within white people, is a prime example. Achieving gender equality only amongst white people is not gender equality at all if women of color still have to suffer from unequal rights, standing, treatment, privilege.

Despite the necessary nature of intersectionality for feminism, many have criticized women of color and other minority groups for causing seemingly unnecessary conflict within the movement and compromising unity. But what is unity if people feel left behind? Numerous articles have cropped up on this very issue following the march, saying that despite the intentions from the creators of the Women's March, many women still do not feel included in the feminist movement. This article highlights instances of this very problem. The point of intersectional feminism is not to have "competing victimhood narratives and individualist identities jostling for most oppressed status." The point is to bring attention to the fact that women of other oppressed groups are often not included in the feminist conversation and then are condemned for pointing out that they are not included. What intersectional feminism then asks for is that women who do experience some privilege from being white or upper class or cisgender or straight or any other status that society deems as "superior" commit to true unity, to protecting women of every other group that they may be identified with. Some examples of those who need to be better included in the movement mentioned in the Mic article and one by Feministing, a feminist online community, are: women of color, sex workers, Muslims, immigrants, queer women, and Native Americans.

The second issue: pro-life versus pro-choice. A critical tenet of feminism is the idea that women should have as much control over their bodies as men do theirs. People apply this idea to general access to health care, prices of pads and tampons, contraception, abortions, and many other areas, so it is no surprise that people customarily think of feminists as being pro-choice. Many feminists feel that being pro-choice is not just an important but a requisite part of being a feminist, and although more women have been coming forward as pro-life feminists, they felt unwelcome at the march.

Intersectionality seems to be much more clear-cut than the debate of pro-life versus pro-choice, especially when considering that there are pro-life women who are not religious, support access to health care and birth control, and even voted for Hillary. In hopes that this will become better discussed in the future, I ask to pro-choice feminists who believe pro-life women do not belong in the feminist movement: what if a pro-life woman agrees with you on every single issue except abortion (including matters such as contraception)? Does she still not get to say she wants gender equality, and would you still not want to see her in another Women's March? Does not excluding someone who wants to ardently support feminism weaken the movement and weaken its aims for inclusion, sisterhood, and equality? To pro-life feminists, I ask: how is eliminating the choice of getting an abortion beneficial for gender equality? What if the person who is pregnant is not an adult, was assaulted, has serious health issues, or cannot afford to be pregnant?

I ask those questions not to say that there is an answer to this predicament or that I expect pro-choice and pro-life people to abandon their differences and align on every opinion. What I do hope for from every single person who reads this, progressive or not, feminist or not, woman or not, is that you can inform yourself. Ask questions. Discuss the issue. Debate your opinions. Listen to what the opposite side of the argument has to say. And in this kind of push and pull between people you initially may staunchly disagree with, hopefully, some middle ground and mutual respect can be found. So, pro-choice and pro-life feminists, what can you agree on?

Obviously, both in concept and by definition, no one wants an unwanted pregnancy. It would certainly be terrifying to find that you are with child when you are not in a stable circumstance and are not ready for or ever wanted children. Secondly, no one wants to want an abortion. It is a difficult, if not the most difficult, decision a woman can make, and if women only got pregnant when they wanted to and were capable of having and raising the child, no one would pursue an abortion. Thirdly, everyone wants abortion rates to be low. Even if abortions are administered safely and legally, having a huge number of abortions is not a happy situation for anyone. Pro-life and pro-choice women therefore can stand behind factors that decrease unwanted pregnancies and increase the likelihood of women feeling secure in their ability to have and raise their children. This can be a number of things, including better sex education, better general health education, better sexual assault prevention, better access to birth control, better access to health care, better support programs for women of low income, all things that feminists traditionally are in favor of.

Finally, maybe most importantly: where was everyone during the election cycle? Before Election Day, perhaps a post or two a day were shared by my personal Facebook friends, posts that were largely flung into silence. Either people assumed Hillary Clinton would win or people did not care. In my own personal experience, the majority of people I came across knew little to nothing about Clinton's or Trump's platforms. All people could talk about was the spectacle of it all: how funny SNL's skits were, how comical the debate was, Clinton's emails, Trump's leaked audio. And when November 8th descended upon us, how many of those same people were shocked? How many of those people actually voted? Decide to protest? Suddenly start paying attention to policies and appointments? This is a lesson for everyone, in all aspects of life: complacency is the worst state to fall into.

Moving forward, all Americans need to be more politically aware and civically engaged. If you have anything to be upset about in politics, you have more than enough opportunity to get involved. Isn't that the whole beauty of democracy? My critical eye aside, I am glad that the American people are coming together to exercise their rights to protest and express. I am in awe of the organizers of the march, of the turnout, of the nonviolence, of the compassion. I am overjoyed that people are having important discussions with friends and family, in the media, on the Internet. However, if the feminist movement is to sustain the momentum from the Women's March, if the progressive movement in general is to find successes in the coming years, they must absolutely address, if not the issues that I have presented, the fact that they are far from having finished their work.