MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Women's March Waffles on Sex-Worker Rights, Disinvites Women Who Oppose Abortion

The Women's March claims to be for anyone "who believes women's rights are human rights." And yet...

Women's March logoWomen's March logoThe Women's March on Washington bills itself as a big-tent rally for anyone "who believes women's rights are human rights." Scheduled for the day after Donald Trump's inauguration as president, the Women's March goal, according to its website, is "bringing together people of all genders, ages, races, cultures, political affiliations and backgrounds in our nation's capital on January 21, 2017, to affirm our shared humanity and pronounce our bold message of resistance and self-determination." But recent actions by Women's March organizers suggest this tribute to inclusivity is little more than lip-service.

A statement of "Unity Principles" for the march formerly professed to "stand in solidarity with sex workers' rights movements." But as Kate McGrew first pointed out Tuesday, this line has since been removed from the Women's March platform. In its place, the platform now promises to stand in solidarity "with all those exploited for sex and labor." The switch makes clear that the Women's March now only stands with people exploited for sex, not those abused and exploited by the state for having sex. If you're a victim, Big Feminism is with you. If not, well... what do you think this is, a movement respectful of women's agency or something?

Update: Late Tuesday afternoon, the Women's March updated its position on sex-worker rights once again. (See screenshots of all three versions here.) The latest version of principles on the Women's March website states:

We stand in solidarity with the sex workers' rights movement. We recognize that exploitation for sex and labor in all forms is a violation of human rights.

Women's March organizers did not provide a reason for the change, did not respond to my request for comment Tuesday, and did not respond to the multiple people tweeting @WomensMarch for clarification.

On Monday, however, the organization was quick to put out a press release when it came under fire for allowing an anti-abortion group, New Wave Feminists, to sign on as one of hundreds of official partners. News of the group's inclusion spread after The Atlantic published an article about anti-abortion advocates at the Women's March. Some would be there to protest abortion, the article noted, while others were just "looking for solidarity. Many pro-life women felt just as outraged as pro-choice women about Donald Trump's conduct and comments," it said.

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, the leader of New Wave Feminists, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump. She told Slate's Ruth Graham that she viewed the Women's March as a way for "a strong, united female voice to say 'we're watching you and we're holding you accountable,'" and that her group was "really excited to be included in that voice."

But many Women's March participants and publicists weren't so excited to share in anti-Trump pro-woman solidarity with those who don't identify as pro-choice. "Horrified that the @womensmarch has partnered w/an anti-choice org," tweeted Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti, author of several books about feminism, on Monday afternoon. "Plse reconsider - inclusivity is not about bolstering those who harm us." Other prominent writers and activists in the progressive-feminist sphere shared similar sentiments.

By late afternoon, Women's March organizers had issued an official statement, noting that "the anti-choice organization in question" was no longer an official partner and that they were only "marching on behalf of individuals who share the view that women deserve the right to make their own reproductive decisions."

That's right: anything less than complete agreement about abortion and the group doesn't even want you participating in the rally. Nevermind if you're with the group on any or all of its myriad other principles—identify as pro-choice (but against sex-worker rights) or the cool girls don't want to sit with you.

Photo Credit: Women's March logo

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Women who oppose abortion aren't real women.

    Because real women are... wait, the transgend... ok... so real... well... carry on. We don't like them.

  • timbo||

    Protesters generally equal mentally handicapped Marxists. Marxists are morons.

    This group is assuredly a gaggle of dumb bitches.

  • Microaggressor||

    I've noticed the vast majority of these impotent-except-for-social-signalling protests and attention getting public demonstrations are for lefty causes. There's something about their delusional way of seeing the world that makes them keep signing up for these things even after the last one accomplished nothing.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    There's something about their delusional way of seeing the world that makes them keep signing up for these things even after the last one accomplished nothing.

    Their worldview is couched in "oppressed revolutionary" rhetoric. When you believe that there is an all-encompassing cabal of evil whites, men, and "prudes" systematically keeping all the minorities down, and that they're convincing everybody that there is no such thing through "false consciousness," you begin to believe that you need to alert everybody to your cause.

    Besides, what is harder? Listening to, debating, and convincing your ideological opponents? or smearing blood all over your face and screaming obscenities for 3 hours during a "protest?"

  • Microaggressor||

    It's kind of amazing that they think the general public just needs to be "educated" in order to be "woke". Never do they stop to consider that the public has heard their message, over and over and over again and it's just nauseating at this point.

  • Normandy||

    You mean how religious kooks keep telling gays they will burn? The left does need to educate most mindless religious sheep-your kind just follows the programming that was brainwashed into you-and youre most likely straight, white, overweight, in a trailer-right? You have no idea what discrimination looks like

  • Mike Schmidt||

    There's some more of that progressive tolerance we keep hearing so much about.

  • John Titor||

    It's telling that the poster accusing other people of being 'brainwashed' constantly spews pre-packaged propaganda statements about their opponents and constantly dehumanizes them.

  • Jimdc75||

    Wait, you mean muslims right?

  • Normandy||

    Its usually leftwing causes, dumdum, because the left fights for equality for all-blacks, women, gays, jews-how do you think all of those groups got equality? not from conservatives!!!

  • Number 2||

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Ask Carrie Buck how the left fought for her rights.

  • The Grinch||

    Maybe you should swoop in on a mostly abandoned thread and act like a cunt to conservatives on a conservative blog, which this isn't. Then again please don't, the commenters here would love to have another moronic leftist to smack around and it looks like you meet those criteria.

  • Christophe||

    Progressives pushed eugenics. If you want to disown that part of your history, you'll have to narrow your scope from "leftwing causes" in general.

  • John Titor||

    Do you perhaps have actual arguments, not propaganda and social signalling quips?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Member when trolls were entertaining? Member cytotoxic? Member Buttplug? Oh, I member.

  • Radioactive||

    I "Members Only" still got my epaulets!!

  • DarrenM||

    It's too bad you can't think past the slogans.

  • Matt3223||

    usually would be the operative word... things shift though, best to keep an eye on all parties!

    " gay men and lesbians weren't forced into the closet in the 1930s by the right. They were driven there by the left."

    from here: http://thearchdruidreport.blog.....trism.html

    bit of a long read, but interesting.

  • ||

    I've noticed the vast majority of these impotent-except-for-social-signalling protests and attention getting public demonstrations are for lefty causes.

    That's because even when conservatives do it, unless it's viewed through the histrionics of left-leaning media it's a non-sequitur.

    Remember when openly armed dudes were 'flash mobbing' local Starbucks and other businesses? In half the country, it would be Wednesday but, for a brief spell, it was a cause. Pretty much everyone I know barely remembers it and the main reason they generally do is because of news stories that were so concerned by things like "literal displays of violence" (despite no one actually brandishing or discharging a weapon).

  • BigW||

    And the left wonders how they lost so many Women voters who have children to Trump......

    Idiots....

  • Normandy||

    because they want Trump to grab their pu88y? seriously though, majority of women went with Clinton-those who weren't fooled by Trumps lies of course

  • The Grinch||

    What a bunch of stupid bitches, amirite?

  • gah87||

    A lot of women went with Clinton... Bill, that is. He did a lot worse things to women than talk smack on camera. And Hillary rabidly defended him, trashing his female victims. You're not a feminist, your simply a hypocrite.

  • Jimdc75||

    Yes, a rapist enabler is so much better

  • Normandy||

    women who oppose abortion are religiously brainwashed sheep, usually old who cant breed anyway-we dont need them to march. They can stay at home and make their men dinner

  • Pat (PM)||

    They can stay at home and make their men dinner

    While you open up a can of Fancy Feast for your 36 cats talking to yourself about the importance of abortion when you couldn't get a man to fuck you with a borrowed dick.

  • ||

    Normandy is probably a sock puppet.

  • Radioactive||

    probably???

  • Dadlobby||

    The people, perhaps, are sick of pampered snowflake women crying the victim and demanding their rights while taking no responsibility for themselves. Here's a thought, share parenting, pay your 50% share of child support (instead of getting welfare), you have a baby and you figure out how to provide daycare, sign up for the draft and serve if called on to do so, stop whining about your reproductive rights when you deny ANY reproductive rights to men, stop whining about campus rape being 1 in 5 as it's a myth, stop whining about "equal pay" as women account for 65% of college graduates and make 104% of what men make and men are 95% of workplace deaths, and when you commit a crime give up your pussy pass of an excuse for doing it and suffer the same incarceration for the same crime, admit you are 50% of domestic violence PERPETRATORS but mostly, stop whining about having the right to live off of daddy guvmint and the nanny state and passing the bill to the taxpayers for your decisions in life. Enjoy that rally where you can be in a safe place and whine to each other about who is the greater victim, pampered white women or pampered "women of color".

  • Jimdc75||

    Yup, muslim women are sheep.

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    So, it's the typical "women's rights are positive rights that embody progressive ideals" thing. Not as pithy, I suppose.

  • Free Society||

    Women's March Strikes Sex-Worker Rights From Platform, Disinvites Women Who Oppose Abortion
    The Women's March claims to be for anyone "who believes women's rights are human rights." And yet...

    A woman doesn't have any rights at all if the right to kill an unborn child/fetus/clump-o-cells is not among them.

  • Paulpemb||

    Except in the case of sex-selective abortion. Those women don't even have a right to be born!

  • Normandy||

    keep your religious nonsense out of our wombs, Jeebus freak!!

  • Mantis Toboggan, Jr.||

    Suppose you were pro-life but unwilling to make that particular choice illegal? I suppose that would be insufficiently feminist as well.

  • timbo||

    In the eyes of the psycho women, all men are the devil. So yes, you cannot have any opinion of any sort because no matter how you say it, who you say it too, and with whom you agree or disagree on any subject, there is an army of complete lunatics clamoring to rip your head off because, as previously demonstrated, morons only like to fight and argue and complain.
    By morons of course I mean, feminists, SJW, race baiters, leftists, government workers, i.e. any group of losers who spend there lives bitching about there lack of success.

  • Normandy||

    ohmygod, stfu. Most men support right to an abortion. Those against it are overwhelmingly religious dolts that cannot be reasoned with. So we have to make sure we keep abortion safe and legal. No gods in law!!!

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    You go girl !!!!

  • John Titor||

    Necroing the thread, but just to unpack the stupidity of this comment:

    No gods in law!!!

    ...Which is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is morally wrong, or if it should be illegal, or how it should be regulated if required. There's anti-abortion atheists for a reason. You don't have to be religious to view murder as morally wrong, you don't have to be religious to view abortion as murder. Actually think out your statements before you write them.

    Perfect summary of the idiocy of the abortion debate, people just argue against the made-up caricatures and ignore actual positions.

    Most men support right to an abortion.

    Logical fallacy, appeal to majority. Irrelevant to the discussion.

    Those against it are overwhelmingly religious dolts that cannot be reasoned with.

    As opposed to say, internet posters who spew logical fallacies, emote and can't actually back up their statements?

    So we have to make sure we keep abortion safe and legal.

    You've provided no arguments as to why this is the case, you've just dehumanized your opponents and engaged in a Two Minutes of Hate against them.

    ohmygod, stfu.

    If you want your position to be taken seriously, I suggest writing less like a semi-literate teenager.

  • Radioactive||

    could be very difficult, since he/she/it is very likely a semi literate teenager or maybe just a complete fucking moron...same difference

  • redfish||

    "Most men support right to an abortion"

    Most men (and women) agree with abortion restrictions after 20 weeks and a larger majority support bans in the third trimester. So deal with reality, first.

  • Dadlobby||

    You missed this part in the Declaration I suppose. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", just saying. So you support a man's right to choose and walk away from a pregnancy? My body my choice should allow me to not be placed into forced servitude and harder, more dangerous work to pay for a child I didn't want. And a man's right to choose to have the pregnancy go to term so he can have his child? Because it's about EQUAL rights, isn't it?

  • Jimdc75||

    "Religious dolts who can't be reasoned with"

    Muslims and jews righr?

  • Krabappel||

    No you'd have to be willing to get an abortion and be proud of it just so you can have leftist cred.

  • Normandy||

    no one is proud to have an aborition, you freak

  • Mike Schmidt||

    no one is proud to have an aborition, you freak

    At least one of your Sisters disagees with you

  • Radioactive||

    I thought Lena Dunham was really put out that she hasn't the opportunity to have had an abortion...

  • Ron||

    she will never have the opportunity since no one will f her but she is stupid enough to go the artificial route and then abort which she will post online for all to see.

  • Citizen X||

    Abortions for some, giant papier mache heads for others!

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    No one has given me my giant paper mache head. Have my rights not been violated?

  • Paulpemb||

    "We must go forward, not backward! Sideways, not forward! And always twirling...twirling...twirling toward freedom!"

  • DJF||

    The greatest political speech ever!

  • Ska||

    You people are a pack of fickle mush heads!

    He's right! Give us hell, Quimby!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I bought stock in Hobby Lobby and Michael's. The Paper Mache head industry is going to quintuple after historic lows between 2008-2016.

  • Drake||

    All right thinking people think just like me!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Horrified that the @womensmarch has partnered w/an anti-choice org," tweeted Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti,

    Jessica Valenti looks like someone who always has a stuffy nose.

    That's right: anything less than complete agreement about abortion and the group doesn't even want you participating in the rally. Nevermind if you're with the group on any or all of its myriad other principles—identify as pro-choice (but against sex-worker rights) or the cool girls don't want to sit with you.

    At least they are not playing up to a stereotype.

  • timbo||

    Your vagina has to be a politically brainwashed vagina in order to be a woman seeking equal rights.

    And what country do these women live in where they have unequal rights?

    Christ, if you are a woman in construction, you automatically get the right to be considered for the work with a legally guaranteed advantage that a woman, black guy, indian, or a vet gets the work over all other bidders, regardless of price. How much more equal than someone do you want to be?

    You get contracts because you have a vagina and men beg for sex from women all day long. What else do you want? I have a strong suspicion that they want other people's money too.

  • Mantis Toboggan, Jr.||

    On the plus side, that's a good logo they've got. Especially the color scheme.

  • Ska||

    Jawohl, herr Oberst!

    OK, I want to watch the Great Escape now.

  • dschwar||

    Looks like something from a James Bond movie in the '60s, or maybe Matt Helm.

  • Microaggressor||

    I disagree. It's extremely othering to women who happen to have adam's apples.

  • Paulpemb||

    I notice there is no yellow woman in the Women's March logo, I guess Asian women aren't really women, either.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Asians are white.

  • The Fusionist||

    And whites are cauc-asians.

  • ant1sthenes||

    That's why they're inherently patriarchal.

  • timbo||

    Asian women know how to do math. They are working.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    They don't embrace their inferiority correctly, truly disgraceful !!!

  • Rebel Scum||

    So tolerant. So woke.

  • The Fusionist||

    At least prolifers should see what Donald Trump does with the Supreme Court and the federal courts before writing him off.

    I was predisposed to think he was a prochoice Republican in the Giuliani mold, but now I'm reserving judgment, based on (a) his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, (b) his prolife allies, and (c) the freakout from the choicers at the idea of him being President.

  • The Fusionist||

    And, yes, it would be great to have a President who would bring a bit more dignity to the White House, but with Trump v. Hillary that wasn't happening in any event.

    And Hillary of course wants to kill girls in the womb. So there's that.

    Why would prolifers want to march alongside a bunch of people who are weeping bitter tears that Hillary lost?

  • Normandy||

    sad that you believed all of the lies about Hillary
    Fortunately, trump is very liberal

  • Radioactive||

    I heard Hillary gave great giant paper mache head...you gargle girl.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    (c) the freakout from the choicers at the idea of him being President.

    They would freakout about any Republican president.

  • Normandy||

    Nope. Trump is a very dangerous choice. No experience, narcissist, egoist. Hates women. We will have to watch him very carefully.

  • Nunya||

    Do you have anything to say with any substance, or do we have to be continually lambasted with your vapid talking points aimed at masturbatory equivalence?

  • Tyler.C||

    Your delusional if you think the left would ever react to a Republican president in any way that can't be considered 'freakout'

  • Pat (PM)||

    No experience, narcissist, egoist.

    Well that will be a weird change of course after the last 8 years.

  • Pat (PM)||

    Also, you probably meant egotist, not egoist. Although being an anti-individualist shitstain, you'd probably be equally offended by either, even if you actually knew the distinction.

  • John Titor||

    No experience, narcissist, egoist.

    If you're a time traveler like me, you're in the wrong year, you should be in 2008.

    Hates women

    Given the election scandal and his divorce record, it seems the opposite is true.

  • gaoxiaen||

    It's Hillary's experience that scared voters away.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I see no indication that he cares one way or the other on the abortion issue.

    -jcr

  • Just Say'n||

    This Women's March is a parody unto itself. They've already had arguments about who gets to go where on the 'Pyramid of Victimhood'

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....story.html

    And now they're dropping pro-life participants, because it's not 'hip'. I think this march pretty well sums up why Trump won and will continue to win until Democrats begin embracing reality again.

    Intersectional morons.

  • timbo||

    The fact that women ever bought into the war on women theme is an extreme black eye on the perceived advancement of women in the intellectual marketplace.

    That crap cemented a ridicule that smart people realized and stigmatized women as a group of psychotic complainers making shit up out of thin air - kind of like all dems and other leftists.

    I hope these assholes keep up the lunacy so we can know who they all are without having to try.

  • XM||

    I learned about "intersectionality" in college. It was required reading from the Dimension of Culture courses at UCSD.

    Intersectionality basically means things like race, gender and class intersects and overlaps in a way that defies binary opposition and dynamics. For instance, an Asian male discriminated in the white world may enforce his sexist old world values on his wife. A black man might prefer the company of a lighter skinned black woman, even as they make race an issue. An educated, Americanized Asian female in business might find FOB Asian male workers boring and abuse them in the workplace.

    In this scheme, the women's march effectively take on the role of oppressors even as they see themselves as victims and activists. That's because they EXCLUDE other women based on political ideology and race. White participants, they're told to check their privilege. Sex Workers and pro lifers, they have no role in the movement.

    Trump's dedicated base stuck with him even when he trashed the Bushes and waved the rainbow flag. They were NEVER going to kick out Milo or Peter Thiel just because they were gay. White people in the center right typically hail from a single culture and speak the same language and live among themselves for generations. They'll easier to unify than a bunch of difference races and genders who typically live among themselves in balkanized zones.

  • DarrenM||

    I suspect "Intersectionality" makes more sense and is less important than the vocal proponents make it out to be.

  • Dadlobby||

    Well I'll just sit my privileged white redneck ass down and drink a beer, shoot off a few guns, and think about this pontification from a 22 year old with a degree in women's studies. Maybe I can break out of my "center right" mind set. I mean I was a (Kennedy) democrat but quit the party because of oligarchs like the Clinton's who sell guvmint power but I'm sure I moved "right", not the party moved left. I learned about life by living it, and the lesson is life is hard and people treat you like shit for their own purposes. Get over it and stand up for yourself.

  • Rhywun||

    Anyone who thought this was going to be anything other than a shitshow of leftist virtue-signalling. I can't wait to not read the Facebook entries of some of my friends and acquaintances who are participating.

  • Rhywun||

    *is delusional

  • Krabappel||

    Being too close to DC, some of my partner's female coworkers are planning to attend to "tell Donald Trump he can't take away our rights" whatever that means.

    *shrug*

  • Microaggressor||

    Tell that Donald to keep his hands off our access to birth control!

  • Rhywun||

    I might be seeing some of the rest of my circle on the same day. I intend to follow my usual strategy of steering all conversation away from politics but it might not be so easy this time.

  • MarkLastname||

    I try to just not talk about it. I want to ask people who say they're going, 'what exactly do you think this will accomplish?' Like, it's not gonna change anyone's mind; it'll only aggravate Trump and his ilk. It's a purely masturbatory excercise.

    But even questioning it would get me tarred and feathered by the hipsters that surround me.

  • Pompey: Ho Class Mothersmucker||

    Maybe get cooler acquaintences?

  • MarkLastname||

    Well, that takes time, and I work a lot and would rather just watch porn.

  • Radioactive||

    beer goes great with porn...

  • ||

    My thoughts and prayers are with any of you guys who are going to the Women's March with the hopes of hooking up.

  • Ska||

    Could you also refer me a good defense attorney?

  • MarkLastname||

    I'll give Gloria Allred your number

  • Pat (PM)||

    Watch the abortion episode of It's Always Sunny for pointers.

  • Calidissident||

    I wonder what the stance of these groups is on working with pro-life women in Muslim countries. Considering that in virtually everyone Muslim country, the vast majority of the population thinks abortion is morally wrong. 15% of respondents in Uganda thought it was morally acceptable, and that was the highest number. (A breakdown between men and women isn't provided, but even if every man thought it was morally wrong the numbers for women would still solidly lean towards thinking it's morally wrong).

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0.....-morality/

  • XM||

    "If you're anti choice, you're not feminist"

    Then by that definition, these women aren't feminists at all.

    Funny story - Trump base didn't abandon him when he help up the rainbow flag.

  • josh||

    unique catch-22 isn't it? pro-lifers can be feminists because they're against allowing someone to choose an abortion, and supposed feminists aren't really that at all because they don't like people choosing to be pro-life.

    and people wonder why we're doomed....

  • Mad Squirrels||

    The image of a feminist I immediately get in my mind is that of a perpetually dissatisfied woman who has an ever- wagging finger pointing at everyone but themselves.

  • ||

    What a hot mess this march thing is. Jeezus.

  • Pompey: Ho Class Mothersmucker||

    Yeah I hope one of the CSPAN channels carries some "live stream."

  • Radioactive||

    a real e-ticket if you ask me...gonna grill some animal and wash it down with cheap beer and watch the stupid flow...

  • Radioactive||

    should be better than Rogue 1!!!

  • ||

    Who is foolish enough to still think any feminist movement has anything whatsoever to do with women's rights? Or anyone's rights for that matter?

  • Zeb||

    Lots of people, apparently.

  • Microaggressor||

    Self-described feminists?

  • Zeb||

    I'll be damned. Kate McGrew was a cute hippy chick I sort of had a crush on in college. Now she's... I''m not sure what to call it. Not what I would have predicted.

  • Calidissident||

    Were you also the guy who knew Lin Manuel Miranda in college? Or did I get you mixed up with someone else?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, that was me too. Weird day for me that way.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm now interested to see if anyone I knew in school becomes famous, and whether or not I'm surprised by it for any who do.

  • MarkLastname||

    I suspect if anyone I knew becomes famous it won't be for something good.

  • MarkLastname||

    And now you fraternize with Reason commenters. How the mighty have fallen!

  • one true athena||

    Chucking pro-lifers to the curb doesn't surprise me at all, since "inclusivity" means the same as tolerance does for these people, but I'm surprised about the sex-workers part. Most of my lefty prog feminist friends are for de-stigmatizing/legalizing sex work on that same choice basis (that they then freak out about school choice is so maddening)

    There are some who find sex-work exploitative, no matter what, so maybe that's where it's coming from. Some feminists get very puritannical in intent, if not words.

  • Zeb||

    The notion that all prostitutes are trafficked victims seems to be gaining traction with the lefty set, sadly.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    There are some who find sex-work exploitative, no matter what, so maybe that's where it's coming from. Some feminists get very puritannical in intent, if not words.

    I think the current wave of SJW-oriented feminists also consider women to be victims, always fighting against the patriarchy, so a woman who chooses - by their own free will - to sell her body is anathema to what they think a woman should be. The only way a woman would willingly use her body to make some money is if a man made her! I don't know how a sex worker differs from an actress doing a nude scene for an additional fee in their mind, but I don't think they put much thought into how similar those two examples are.

  • MarkLastname||

    Too late. Feminists already decided that Miley Cyrus exploited when she was twerking onstage, nevermind the millions she made doing it.

    Feminism is deep down a puritan movement that basically wants chivalry on steroids plus women in positions of power. The prospect of a woman having sex with a guy who isn't 'good enough' or having to do actual work for a living are both anathema, so Of course they despise prostitution.

  • ||

    I don't know how a sex worker differs from an actress doing a nude scene for an additional fee in their mind, but I don't think they put much thought into how similar those two examples are.

    Initially, I was dubious of your over simplification. Having considered it a moment, I'm pretty sure I've earned at least a couple of Ph.D.'s researching this topic and could probably tell a few Women's Studies Professors a decent lecture on the topic.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    There are some who find sex-work exploitative, no matter what,

    They're getting paid $200 for an hour's worth of work. Who's exploiting whom?

  • DarrenM||

    The Pimps?

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I beginning to think that anyone apart of any group is a person not worth knowing. In fact one risks their own well being by associating with any person in a named group.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yes, 'identifying' as something is a sure sign of neurosis. Normal people just are what they are, they don't waste mental effort constantly trying to categorize themselves.

  • josh||

    to paraphrase oscar wilde....

    "How can a woman be expected to be happy [when we] insist on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being."

  • Mad Squirrels||

    How would Oscar have known? He was gay.

  • Tyler.C||

    It's telling about how much thought a pro-choice person has put into their arguments, that they are affraid to label their opponents as pro-life.

  • Nunya||

    So 1/3 of the parties involved in the decision absolutely make 100% of the decision 100% of the time, and this too is settled and cannot be questioned without the most severe excoriation (which is a sweet contradiction of the age when abortion was illegal). However, that this is posited as freedom is laughable to me. A choice of freedom does not immediately require harm on every other party. The baby is obviously harmed in the procedure. The man too is harmed in myriad ways.

    What I find so perplexing is how we can do blithely say the man has no decision in abortion. Sure, we state the man can lend his opinion, but he is only there to provide financially, as currently defined. How is a man that declares no wish to provide for a child and requests an abortion still obliged to provide for that child? Yet a man that doesn't consent to abortion is still without decision with no renumeration from the female. The hypocrisy required to negate all parental rights prior to birth but later enforce only the remuneration of the male to the female after birth is the highest order of intellectual dissonance.

    For the record before certain crazies go off on me, I fully support abortion. I support government funded abortion because it is fiducially sound. Your emotional attachment to "my body, my decision" is rejected as unimportant and pointless.

  • Akira||

    Ok, personally, I believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion (as long as they pay for it themselves) but this is strange to me: so-called feminists imply that females are so ditzy and easily manipulated that they can't possibly keep their legs shut, get on the pill, or insist that the man wrap his tool, and therefore we need to make abortion availability as widespread as possible to help these helpless dames correct their sexual mistakes... Yet, the people who are against abortion are the misogynists??

  • NoVaNick||

    Yep-another prog clown parade. So glad I will be over a hundred miles away from DC this weekend. Wonder how many sensitive hipster type dudes will be at the march trying to pick up chicks.

  • Radioactive||

    curious as to the number of unintended pregnancies that will result from this march...

  • NoVaNick||

    Depends on the time of month and the ratio of true man-haters to those who can be persuaded by the right guy.

  • Radioactive||

    multiplied by the beer coefficient...

  • machinephilosophy||

    Bitch-scamming is a TOTALLY bipartisan favorite, dude! Let's go!

  • Mad Squirrels||

    Having met a few protesters in my day, I'd say most of the women will probably be lesbians who'd like to dictate policy to the rest of the world, man haters, people whose main social outlet is protests, a sort of protest partier! Some of the man-haters will probably have good reason for it - the bad divorces, the former married to wife beaters or child beaters, women who have failed to leave the nest or failed to find suitable partners, the rich kids and aging rich kids who got sent off to boarding school and still favor same sex parties as if they were still in school, the ones whose husbands turned out to be gay, the lesbians who used to be straight and married and are cruising for dates, people who want to see their photo in the paper, chicks trying to live their parents's descriptions of hippie protests in the '60s and still don't realize it's been overdone and no one cares anymore about protests, and for some, it's their only social outlet and gives them a story to tell their friends or post on facebook so they can be heroes in their own minds.

  • NoVaNick||

    Just saw on derpbook a friend of mine post something about "feminists for climate justice" sub-protest at the event. In other words, this, like most prog protests in recent history, is basically a generic protest for any and all aggrieved leftist groups.

  • Mad Squirrels||

    It's because they are fun challenged and don't know how to give parties.

  • Dadlobby||

    How many hours of sex work did the poor exploited thing have to endure to make $8075?

  • Dadlobby||

    And another exploited sex worker giving BJ's to the tune of $64,000 a year.

  • machinephilosophy||

    I'll be at the event handing out about free fried-chicken sandwiches in a special shape. McFetus!

    Someone's gotta stand up for recycling, dude. Plus, we need to feed the poor! An idea whose time has come.

  • Dadlobby||

    A chance to post my favorite rant about women's lack of responsibility! Cuckolds, white knight, and mangina men need also not apply.
    The people, perhaps, are sick of pampered snowflake women crying the victim and demanding their rights while taking no responsibility for themselves. Here's a thought, share parenting, pay your 50% share of child support (instead of getting welfare), you have a baby and you figure out how to provide daycare, sign up for the draft and serve if called on to do so, stop whining about your reproductive rights when you deny ANY reproductive rights to men, stop whining about campus rape being 1 in 5 as it's a myth, stop whining about "equal pay" as women account for 65% of college graduates and make 104% of what men make and men are 95% of workplace deaths, and when you commit a crime give up your pussy pass of an excuse for doing it and suffer the same incarceration for the same crime, admit you are 50% of domestic violence PERPETRATORS but mostly, stop whining about having the right to live off of daddy guvmint and the nanny state and passing the bill to the taxpayers for your decisions in life. Enjoy that rally where you can be in a safe place and whine to each other about who is the greater victim, pampered white women or pampered "women of color".

  • Mad Squirrels||

    I'll bet you believer every word of it too.

  • Mad Squirrels||

    Good, now you can pay taxes.

  • Mad Squirrels||

    It's a good thing the marchers will be wearing their pink pussy hats so we can all see who the feminist hypocrites are, those "feminist" groups such as N.O.W. and its ilk, if you remember, who were so enamored of the Clinton's that they thought it was more important to keep Willy's willy in the White House than to support his going to prison for multiple sexual assaults. Remember Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Hilly Dilly saying to believe women who speak of being sexually assaulted why she herself trashed them? Next time a feminist group and their leaders, a Betty Friedan, a Gloria Steinem and the like try to tell you they're working for the welfare of women, they most definitely are not and never have been. They are proponents of that nasty practice, progressivism, whose intent is to destroy freedom where ever they may find it.

  • TheGreatCommenter||

    Sadly emblematic of a lot of liberal movements these days... women telling other women how they need to support women. Thanks for Trump, liberals!

  • SheThinks||

    Why does Reason, a libertarian publication, use the term "pro life" instead of "anti-abortion"? Also, if you think a woman doesn't have agency over her own body, if you afford a fetus equal rights as a living, breathing person in the world and think government should have a say in what happens to a woman the minute an egg in her body is fertilized, don't tell me you are a lover of liberty.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online