WOMEN’S MOVEMENT IN MOTION
Here we are, on the cusp of the third annual Women’s March.
And the movement that began with so much promise in 2017 is suffering from a schism. Conflicts have been fomented by a distrust of its original leadership because several of the women had to be forced to repudiate the anti-Semitic diatribes of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
It’s astounding that the words and presence of a long controversial man have been allowed to undermine one of the most empowering movements for women in recent decades.
A founder of the original movement, Teresa Shook, made this accusation against her co-founders in mid-November in a Facebook post: “In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, antiLBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs.”
There are more concerns too. Questions have also been raised about finances and spending, and some have accused the movement’s leaders of being more about self-aggrandizement than uplifting all women.
Organizing committees in various cities have canceled events or gone to lengths to distance themselves from the questions surrounding four of the national cofounders. In cities such as Chicago, others have stepped in to quickly organize marches for Jan. 19, unwilling to let the day go by without some type of gathering.
I interviewed the Nation of Islam leader back in 1996 when he visited Kansas City. He was then much as he is now: a promoter of the self-empowerment of AfricanAmerican communities, with a strong track record of how his Nation of Islam has worked toward that end.
But he was and is unrepentantly anti-Semitic, homophobic and divisive in his diatribes. The positive aspects of Farrakhan’s messaging should never be used to shield his glaring hatred of Jewish, transgender and LGBTQ people.
The fact that a few of the leaders of the national Women’s March had to be pressed into admitting that is inexcusable.
But there is another factor equally, if not more, responsible for why this year’s gatherings likely will not generate the outpouring of women in previous years: It’s just not news anymore that the president of the United States is a sexist, racist liar.
For many original participants, the catalyst to march in 2017 was their revulsion at Donald Trump’s election and his subsequent inauguration.
The gatherings of an estimated 470,000 people in Washington, and thousands more in cities across the nation and around the globe, were held the day after his inauguration.
Backlash to Trump was always going to be a momentary motivator. The pushback, the so-called resistance, had to shift to remain relevant.
If a fraction of the women who have gathered in recent years show up, it shouldn’t be seen as indicative of a waning interest in female activism, nor as a failure of this movement.
Women’s successful candidacies in the midterm elections has already and will continue to fuel more activism. The need to come together for a one-day march simply isn’t the top priority for many.
The nature of movements, as the word itself implies, is that they shift, often evolving past their origins. Simply marching every year was never going to be a winning strategy, nor was it the original intention.
So, yes, women may not feel as obliged to turn out as coordinated throngs for a wide variety of reasons on Saturday.
And that, too, should be viewed as progress. Sanchez contributes to the Tribune Content Agency. Send email to msanchezcolumn
@gmail.com.