Marching for the Right to Kill

As a rule, I do not care for mass marches. Some, admittedly, are conducted and headed with discipline, dignity, and a sense of purpose, e.g., MLK, Tea Party, General Sherman. Most, however, prove unruly, unfocussed events that leave behind trash, and attract the weird, the bored, the sad loser, and, of course, the so-called "A-List" narcissist celebrity who jets in, delivers some bombast, and then jets back out. In most of these events participants say mean and little things, and the march produces mean and little things of no lasting impact--except, perhaps, to the small businesses that have had their windows broken and premises trashed.

The "Million Women March" falls into the same category as most of these events. To their credit, these marchers did not trash businesses but, as typical with leftist marches, left behind piles of trash for others to clean up. From what I saw of it, and its companion marches in Europe and elsewhere, this was, perhaps and at best, some vague expression of unhappiness with an election that didn't turn out the way the marchers wanted, and so . . . they march. OK. They have that right. Doesn't bother me at all. Other than that, what was it about? We heard and saw marchers exhibit girlish delight in using "grown-up" profanity and coarseness, and we read pompous statements from the organizers bragging, "They said it couldn't be done!" Who are "they"? What "couldn't be done"? Are we to swoon in amazement over the organizers' ability to solicit and obtain a marching permit from DC authorities? Hate to break it to the marchers, but it's been done before--many, many times--and will be done again. This is neither the first nor last rodeo, ladies, not at all. For that, you can thank the Constitution, and a lot of men who have marched to war to defend it for you.

Still, we have the unanswered question: What was this really about? I, for example, never understood the march in Paris put on after one of the Islamic atrocities and wrote about my disgust that,

It was a very typical, in fact, an extremely typical leftist/progressive/narcissist manifestation akin to so many others we have seen over the years. It was replete with the usual trademarks of progressivism: prancing and preening; empty slogans and rhetoric; and equally empty gestures and cartoonish props, e.g., giant pencils, rakishly worn bandanas, silly make-up, etc. . . In sum, the "march" was a call to do, what exactly? Simple: It was a call to do exactly nothing. The march was about nothing.

We can say much of the same about the January 21 festivities: a lot of mostly white middle and upper class women, wearing funny hats, claiming to be "oppressed" in some way, and giving "notice" that they will "resist." They said nothing about the real oppressor of women today, Islam, and, in fact, went out of their way to make nice with Islam; a prominent Muslim pro-Sharia "activist" had a major role in organizing the event. I am surprised that CAIR did not put on a Sharia-approved honor killing demonstration, or one on how to throw acid in the face of girls who "dishonor" family, or how to perform a clitoridectomy on a screaming girl, or how to hang gays from construction cranes: well, maybe next year, along with one on how to drive a truck into a crowd . . .

The only concrete theme was abortion. That seems to serve as the sole unifier of today's feminism, i.e., preserving and expanding the right to kill the unborn with no restrictions. That seems to define bravery for these folks; that's the core impetus behind the move to "resist."

So, in the end, I guess I am partly wrong. Unlike the march in Paris, this march wasn't about nothing. It was a march for the right to kill.