Historic. Moving. Inspirational. Unity. Those are the legacy of the Women’s March. Or so, I thought…

If you google images for women’s march, you will see that the first images are of drawings of historical all female protests that took place in 1800s. On January 20, 2017, nearly half million men and women of all different background and political beliefs gathered in Washington, DC – just one day after the Presidential Inauguration of Donald J. Trump. After a heated and divisive election, its assumed that massive crowds gathered near the nation’s capital to oppose the election. However, the purpose of the Woman’s march states:  “We stand together in solidarity with our partners and children for the protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families – recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country.”

I find it interesting that an women’s march, garnered so much support from so many groups of individuals. However, I think that has less to do with people recognizing the intersectionality of women, but the lack of other outlets for people to productively express their dissatisfaction with the political climate. This march was so inclusive that it included many female Trump supports. While this may be surprising to may. This wasn’t shocking to me at all. Being a trump supporter and a feminist aren’t mutually exclusive. While many would argue otherwise, let me make this clear: your opinion of what qualifies a man or woman as a feminist has no barring on how that individual identities themselves. But for many women who voted for Trump, it wasn’t a vote for him, rather a vote against Clinton. They wanted a new political regime or a breath of fresh air in the White House. But that doesn’t disqualify them form sending a strong message to the president that they will not stand for the toxic and destructive language.

Just as inclusive as this march was, it was equally exclusive. The organizers of the Women’s March closed its doors to pro-life activist. I found it distasteful that a movement would count people out because they stand on two different sides of a position, while most likely agreeing on many other points. I found it ironic that a feminist movement rooted in anti-abortion, would disqualify women who’s message aligned with the feminist movement.

During the dinner conversation with Rose residents and GRFs, it was brought up that many people who are pro-life, are actually pro-birth, meaning they are actually for the birth or babies, rather than the care and support of children. However, I found that position to just demean the arguments of pro-life activists. I think its this type of behavior which erects walls between women activists. I brought up the point that the “patriarchy” breeds off of disenfranchisement of minorities. If women want to begin making more of an impact, they need to be united. There needs to be a dialogue. And I was surprised to hear that many people didn’t think conservative women were worthy of that. I can’t help but think this is why there was such a surprise this election. People aren’t willing to listen or talk to one another.

While the impact of women’s march is to be seen, there are a few things that I can do that will help more my own personal political agenda forward. Firstly, I will start by researching how other in oppressive times combated the oppressive force and what techniques they used. And secondly, I want to start organizing small community projects that can impact the communities who Pres. Trump ignores.

Overall, this dinner conversation sparked the question: Do you have to check every box of a the principles to be considered part of the movement or even political party or any affiliation?