Everything The Women’s March Movement Wants You To Believe About It Is A Lie

The worldwide event had very little to do with uniting and defending women—and everything to do with promoting a progressive, radicalized agenda.

In January, it was a march. In February, it’s become a movement: a developing, inelegant phenomenon quivering with the latent energy of a post-march high. The covers of Time and the New Yorker recently featured a certain cat-eared pink hat. Organizers have developed 10 action steps for the first 100 days.

At USA Today, author Heidi M. Przybyla argued that “The march’s biggest asset — that it was completely organic and grass-roots — is now its challenge going forward.” Nascent march group organizers in New Jersey are hoping their collective acts as a clearinghouse on reproductive rights, climate change, and a free press.

In a four-part series on the social science behind the Women’s March, the Washington Post asked whether a movement “embracing such wide-ranging goals — from protecting immigrants to stopping climate change, from racial justice and religious diversity to reproductive freedom — [can] channel its support into sustained political action.” The Post suggested that Marchers shared a “common elevating goal,” though really, they had none. The Post stabbed weakly at a unifying hatred of the new president as its cause célèbre.

As the pictures and footage surfaced, it became clear that the feminism of the Women’s March was a grotesque caricature of its origins.

More