Women’s-March Woes

Is the Women’s March on Washington cursed? The anti-Trump protest set for Jan. 21 keeps running into weird trouble. Start with the name, originally the Million Women’s March. The three white feminists who thought up the idea felt obliged to change that title after they faced charges of “cultural appropriation.”

No joke: An early comment on the event’s Facebook page complained of “white feminists taking the name of something that Black people started to address our struggles.” You see, 1997 saw a Million Woman March in DC for African-Americans — a follow to Louis Farrakhan’s 1995 Million Man March.

Even the new name prompted grumbles that it “appropriates” from the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.-led 1963 March on Washington. (Organizers’ dodge: Claim the whole thing is a tribute to King.)

And, as libertarian writer Shikha Dalmia notes, the event’s page is still plagued with “arguments about whether an event organized primarily by white women can be sufficiently ‘intersectional’ — or attuned to the issues faced by, say, poor minority women who reside at the ‘intersection’ of class, race, and gender concerns in America.”

The march, she charges, “is shaping up to be a feel-good exercise in search of a cause.”

But it’s The Washington Post’s debacle that makes us suspect a curse: Thursday’s edition of the paper’s free giveaway, Express, was all about the march — but the cover was dominated by a giant male symbol, rather than the female one.

It’s almost as if no one’s treating this thing seriously.