March for Life Obscured by Identity Politics

A.C. Gleason
5 min readJan 22, 2019

On January 18 the New York Times daily podcast, named arrogantly enough THE Daily, discussed the current state of the so called women’s march. Unfortunately what could have been a productive conversation about “Women’s issues” in America became bogged down in a discussion about intersectionality. It started off on an extremely bad foot as Michael Barbaro opened with:

“After the divisiveness of the 2016 election the women’s march became a historic symbol of unity.”

The women’s march was, if anything, the apotheosis of 2016’s divisiveness. It was the American left at its most Trumpian. Only an elite institution like the NYT could be this insulated from truth. Because the women’s march was a celebrity circus of nonsense. An incoherent rabble of moronic diatribes about “nasty women” “pussy hats” “period blood” and further perpetuation of the ubiquitous myth of a gender wage gap. The climactic moment, that encapsulated the utter bourgeois putrescence of the entire sordid affair, was surely when Madonna said:

“I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

Of course it was claimed that this had been taken out of context. Because she started her “speech” (if a rambling tirade from a spoiled privileged baby masquerading as a woman can be called a speech) with the words “revolution of love”.

No one seriously thinks these women are physically dangerous of course. But it just shows that the women’s march had nothing to do with unity and everything to do with the bizarre spectacle that was the 2016 presidential election. Regardless Barbaro thinks it was not only a symbol of unity but a historic one at that.

In any case he brought NYT reporter Farah Stockman on to discuss the rift that has developed within the women’s march. Of course this inevitably led to Louis Farrakhan, a major figure in the Nation of Islam. Because certain leaders within the March have ties to him. This criticism is not new and has been a near constant chorus within certain circles, i.e. not the ones NYT employees run in, for the last two years. Predictably though Farrakhan was not decried as the disgusting anti Semite he is. This controversy was presented as something of a mere intersectional complication focusing on how it’s caused a split between the March’s leadership. Specifically the trio of Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and Carmen Perez against Vanessa Wruble. Because the trio represents “people of color” and Wruble is Jewish.

Wruble left the women’s march and started her own rival organization: March On. She did so because of the alleged anti Semitism of Sarsour, Mallory, and Perez. Which isn’t just about Farrakhan. They’re also pro Palestine. And given Hamas’ open and ongoing endorsement of violent anti Semitism, being uncritically pro Palestine means aligning yourself with genocidal terrorists.

These power plays over intersectional identity do not bode well for the future of elite level activism like the women’s march. Every activist issue will now be a dogfight between who has more grievances, real or imagined. Of course to anyone paying attention this isn’t news. But it is still a very bad thing, especially in light of how the episode ended.

Stockman: This Saturday we have the second anniversary of that march. In New York City there’s gonna be two marches. In Philadelphia there’s gonna be two marches. And all across the country there’s talk of this division. And people really have to decide which march feels more right for them. And there’s a march that bills itself as being led by women of color and there’s a march that bills itself as being welcoming to Jewish women and against anti-Semitism. People are gonna have to decide which march they want to go to.

Barbaro: And in that choice they’re saying something meaningful…

Stockman: And there’s also the possibility that people will throw up their hands and say I guess I’m not gonna go to a march and that’s not necessarily a great thing for the women’s movement.

So this weekend was the second anniversary of Madonna saying she fantasizes about blowing up the white house. This was the second anniversary of the left turning a blind eye to anti Semitism (but not for the first time obviously). This was the second anniversary of the invention of the pussy hat. And the NYT decided it would be interesting to have a discussion about this utter nonsense. About how sad it is that a great symbol of unity has been rent asunder, a symbol that is 730 days old. About the complicated moral decision facing women over which march they will support. This by itself is remarkably stupid and a genuinely bizarre commentary on the privileged in this country. But there’s something else going on here. Something that takes this from the realms of dumb elite blindness and turns it into a vehicle for insidiousness.

Because there were two marches going on this weekend. But they weren’t March On and the Women’s March. That’s basically the same march, because they agree about the most important women’s issue in America. Both organizations are pro abortion. They are so pro abortion that they have actually excluded pro life women from associating with them. Didn’t matter if you were anti-Trump. The explicit pro lifers were denied involvement.

No the real alternative is a march that Barbaro and Stockman didn’t even mention. The other march going on this weekend will be celebrating, or rather mourning, its 46th anniversary. This is of course the March for Life. Hundreds of thousands of women will march on DC for peace in the womb. To give voice to those who literally do not have vocal cords yet. So picking a march does say something meaningful it’s just not the meaning that the NYT thinks.

That’s what makes this conversation insidious and not just carless. This is how the privileged enable demonic forces. Their blindness creates a shield against truth. Because they’re providing cover for Planned Parenthood. They’re misdirecting attention from the most important social justice issue facing these United States today. They’re causing people to look away from the horrific violence we perpetrate upon the innocent every day. And that is demonic, to put it politely.