Why pussyhat protesters may stay away
Women’s March tries to overcome a year of strife
For thousands of women across America, the first Women’s March on Washington was transformational. Many who had never participated in a protest were suddenly thrust into the heart of the “resistance” — pussyhats and all.
Those who attended the 2017 rally called the crush of people who filled city streets inspiring, the energy electric. It pushed them to keep protesting, to write letters, make phone calls and register voters.
This weekend during the thirdannual march, thousands of women again are expected in Washington. But while organisers wrote in a permit application that they expect hundreds of thousands, experts say they expect a fraction of that number.
It’s not unusual for social movements to have peaks and valleys. Off-years — like third anniversaries in non-election years — make it challenging to energise a base that has protested since US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, said Dana Fisher, a University of Maryland sociology professor.
But the Women’s March is up against more than just an off year. Allegations of anti-Semitism, secretive financial dealings, infighting and disputes over who gets to own and define the Women’s March have dogged organisers for months and led to calls for national co-chairs to resign.
Several high-profile supporters and progressive organisations declined to participate in the rally this year. Women who previously went out of their way to attend are opting to stay home and support independent groups. In some cities where groups wanted to separate from the national organisation, there will be competing marches. Organisers in some cities have opted out altogether.
Women’s March leaders are expected to unveil a 10-prong political platform the organisation has said will steer the group’s focus and give legislators a list of progressive priorities. The agenda will pinpoint “realistically achievable” priorities, such as raising the federal minimum wage, addressing reproductive rights and violence against women, and passing the long-dormant Equal Rights Amendment, officials said.
To some, the plan to issue a legislative agenda crafted by the group speaks to the rift at the centre of the women’s movement: What began as a grassroots collaboration by hundreds of distinct organisations and activists is increasingly defined by one group and its leadership team of four women: Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour.
“There were over 600 marches, and they were all organised separately. We did the Women’s March on Washington. That’s it,” said Vanessa Wruble, who helped organise the 2017 march in Washington and has since started March On. “It was always meant to be a movement, and . . . the best movements are run bottom-up, not top-down.”
A competing march calls itself the March for All Women. Carrie Lukas, president of Independent Women’s Forum, said: “We’re here to speak up, because women should not be hijacked for a political agenda.”
The accusation that the Women’s March has not been inclusive enough has dogged the organisation, particularly after Mallory posted images on social media documenting her participation in a Nation of Islam event. Several organisations have severed ties with the DC event. The Southern Poverty Law Centre and Emily’s List are absent from the list of partners this year. The Democratic National Committee also isn’t involved.
But women who have participated in Women’s March events said the controversies have barely registered. Several said they hadn’t heard about those issues — or if they had, it didn’t affect their decision on whether to attend. “I am very saddened by the split,” said Laura Brevitz, 56, of Tamworth, New Hampshire, who attended the 2017 march. “There is growth to be done by everybody, but I am not going to turn my back on the Women’s March.”