Women’s March 2020: The March for Only Some Women

On Saturday, January 18th, 2020, “some 4,000 community members counted by the number of stickers handed out, took to the streets of Bakersfield in the event’s third year to, as organizers said, ‘celebrate the power of diverse women'”.1

The Kern County Women’s March website states, “Our mission is to bring attention to the struggles of marginalized communities and all attacks on human rights. Women’s March Kern County recognizes that there is no true peace, freedom or inclusion without equity for all….”2. Their Unity Principles unequivocally begin, “We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights”3. The site is replete with individual testimonials ranging from, “Everyone deserves dignity!”4 to “I march for the ending of violence against women and their marginalization in our society, and that every man, woman, and child would have the freedom to pursue their own hopes and dreams and live the lives of their own choosing”5. One testimonial proudly proclaims who the march is for, “black women, for queer women, for trans women, for indigenous women. For survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking. For homeless women and differently-abled women. For ALL women”6.

It would seem that this march is all-inclusive. After all, the answer to the question “Is this march only for women?” is ” Not at all!  All genders, identifications, orientations are welcome.  At our core we stand for diversity and inclusion”7.

Except for the unborn women.

The Unity Principles leave no place for ambiguity,

“We believe in Reproductive Freedom….This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education”8.

Domestic violence, racism, freedom of speech and of religion, among others are general topics that carry with them valid concerns. Certainly, to condemn injustice, true oppression, violence and crime are things intrinsic to our human nature. We are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). God is life, therefore He abhors murder (Ex. 20:13; Prov. 6:16-19). God is just, therefore He hates injustice (Ps. 89:14; Prov. 8:15; Micah 6:8; Romans 13:4, see also Matthew 25:31-46, James 2:1-13, Acts 6:1-7). God’s moral and eternal law is built into the very core of human beings. It is for this reason that we yearn for justice and seek to expose injustice. But the fall of man into sin (Gen. 3) has distorted that image that informs our sense of right and wrong, good and evil.

On the one hand, this march claims to stand for the rights of all women, to further their lives and allow each and every one to live their lives and achieve their potential. On the other hand, this march stands for the murder-on-demand for any reason, at any time, at any place of the most marginalized and weak of all: the unborn.

I had the distinct privilege of joining my friends from Arks of Bulrushes Ministry at this march to speak for the unrepresented minority, those “being led away to death…those staggering toward slaughter” (Prov. 24:11). We stood alone. With the same vigor that the March stood for a diverse group of women, they railed against their unborn neighbors and our speaking on their behalf. Year by year, the March needs little convincing to support any and all groups of people and add them to their cause. When it comes to the unborn, however, there seems to be an active railing against any notion of their shared humanity. They are an enemy to be eliminated at all costs, for an illusory and vacuous common good based on an irrational, unscientific, utilitarian and pragmatic worldview.

In an article titled “Germans Against Hitler: The Witness of the White Rose,” David Novak states,

“The German people under Hitler were not so much desensitized to the simple humanity of the Jews as they were over-sensitized to presumed traits in them that seemed to make the assumption of a common humanity impossible. The Nazis did everything they could to emphasize those things about Jews that made them appear different from Germans, that allowed them to be placed, indeed, in the category of the subhuman. The designation of Jews as ‘the other’ lay at the heart of National Socialist doctrine”9.

But why? Novak goes on to quote Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, writing in 1942 in America as an exile from his native France, then under Nazi occupation,

“Nor in the racial type of community . . . is there an object, a common task to perform. . . . It is not for an objective purpose that they assemble, but rather for the subjective pleasure of marching together (zusammen-marchieren). . . . Because [the community] is not defined by a work to be done, it will only be able to define itself by its opposition to other human groups. Therefore, it will have essential need of an enemy against whom it will build itself; it is by recognizing and hating its enemies that the political body will find its own common consciousness”10.

While the March seems to build itself on the premise of equality and fairness for all, it cannot do so to the extent they desire without creating a common enemy to unite against: the unborn. Truly, as wise King Solomon once said, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Novak continues,

“Maritain understood that the Nazi project required the fabrication of enemies. Hate was its very elan, and that is why, as events soon made clear, the regime was more devoted to the death of others than to saving the lives of its own people”11.

To claim that the March is for future daughters, granddaughters and sisters while at the same time and in the same list of principles actively advocate the slaughtering of future daughters, granddaughters and sisters is the very definition of “cognitive dissonance.” The American Psychological Association defines it as “when a person holds two contradictory beliefs, or when a belief is incongruent with an action that the person had chosen freely to perform”12. This incongruence, in turn, “produces feelings of discomfort, [therefore] the individual strives to change one of the beliefs or behaviors in order to avoid being inconsistent”13.

The latter part of this definition was clearly exemplified in our many conversations with people at this event. Every single person we spoke to who affirmed murder in the womb tried to give reasons or justifications for it, even reasons that appealed to their God-given sense of fairness and justice. Thanks to a blessed inconsistency, no one advocated for the murder of children already born due to inconvenience or the desire for freedom. Many indicated they would never have an abortion, but that they stood for the right of other people to have them. This is a clear example of hypocrisy, defined by the American Psychological Association as “a special case of cognitive dissonance, produced when a person freely chooses to promote a behavior that they do not themselves practice”14. Without fault, every one who believes in abortion at this march had an answer, a retort, and fallacious appeals to emotion, authority, or experience. Pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational arguments abounded. The age-old dichotomy between life and personhood pervaded every conversation.15

Given the clear emphasis of the March’s Unity Principles on the fight for the equality, freedom, and justice for all women and their potential and, at the same time, advocating for murder of women in the womb, a cognitive dissonance is identified. According to this theory in psychology, it is assumed that all humans strive for consistency. Therefore, in the light of this incongruence, discomfort arises. The way to alleviate this comfort is to propound a belief that will resolve that problem. In this case, the blatant contradiction is resolved by denying the humanity and personhood of the unborn. However, that does not resolve the conflict because it is not based on facts. It is an unsubstantiated argument designed to alleviate a cognitive dissonance that exposes the inconsistency of their argument. Saying “we march for all” and at the same time “destroy the unborn” is like mixing water and oil.

If the march truly sought to promote the flourishing of all women, surely they would stand for their unborn neighbors with little to no convincing. Surely it took little to no convincing for the March to represent women of all races and backgrounds. The perceived suffering and injustice was convincing enough. The reason for this dissonance is that the destruction of the unborn is the rallying cry, the “elan” of this new feminist movement. It exposes one of the many realities of this movement: Narcissism. As long as a specific type of woman does not interfere with their pursuit of themselves, they can join their movement. But if they get in the way, they must be eliminated. During the 2020 Golden Globe awards, actress Michelle Williams stated,

“I’m grateful for the acknowledgement of the choices I’ve made and I’m also grateful to have lived in a moment in our society where choice exists, because as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice. I’ve tried my very best to live a life of my own making, and not just a series of events that happened to me, but one that I could stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over. Sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise. But one that I had carved with my own hand. And I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose. To choose when to have my children and with whom, when I felt supported and able to balance our lives as all mothers know that the scales must and will tip towards our children” 16.

These words speak a thousand more words.

The Nazis sought to reach their Aryan perfection atop the emaciated, cremated corpses of their victims. Today’s feminists pursue their Ideal atop the dismembered, burned, starved, and decapitated victims in the womb. The hostility is not directed only to the unborn, but to men as well. “If men aren’t forced to carry babies to term,” so the argument goes, “women shouldn’t have to either.” They are willing to take the most defenseless and slaughter them to reach a twisted perception of equality with men. The price of admission to true equality is the head of a child on a literal platter.

There is an obvious problem. Men are not the real enemies of those who espouse the views above. The fact that men cannot carry babies is not their fault. There is not a human being in this world who can escape or deny the fact that they have been made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), and that “male and female he created them” (Gen. 5:2). The fact that men cannot biologically carry babies and women can is a biological, scientific, empirical fact. Thus, transgenderism further exemplifies human rebellion against God by living in a world of fiction in which biology is denied and subjectivity embraced. Maleness and femaleness is an established genetic fact. To be sure, humans are not mere biological organisms, but we are not less than that. Pseudo-science is appealed to when trying to justify murder in the womb, but subjectivity is simultaneously championed when justifying things like abortion and transgenderism. It is a self-defeating worldview. Thus, the March ultimately and primarily stands with a raised fist against God and secondarily against their neighbors, the latter being men and the unborn, specifically.

The problem is not feminism itself. After all, the early feminists were predominantly pro-life.17 The problem is not the cognitive dissonance itself. The problem is hatred of God and neighbor. God sacrifices his Son selflessly for the sins of the world (John 3:16), the March calls you to do all you can to not sacrifice your dreams and aspirations, even if that means sacrificing your own offspring selfishly. Christ sheds his blood on the cross out of love for those at enmity with God (Rom. 5:8-10), the March calls you to hatefully shed your children’s blood for the sake of a deceptive sense of self-fulfillment. Truly as Jesus said, “Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it’ (Luke 17:33). God’s call is to give your life for others. The March’s call is to preserve your life from others and dispose of them, if necessary.

In closing, Arks of Bulrushes stood for the truth that the March inconsistently claims for itself,

“We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us”18.

Works Cited:

1. Wilson, Quinn. “’Celebrate the Power of Diverse Women’: 3rd Annual Women’s March Kern County Sends Strong Message.” The Bakersfield Californian, 18 Jan. 2020, www.bakersfield.com/news/celebrate-the-power-of-diverse-women-rd-annual-women-s/article_4db98d1c-3a47-11ea-861a-0bc9eb777fa6.html .
2. “Unity Principles.” Womens March Kern County, womensmarchkerncounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/unity_principles.pdf.
3. “FAQ.” Womens March Kern County, https://womensmarchkerncounty.com/faq/.
4. “Why Do You March.” Womens March Kern County, https://womensmarchkerncounty.com/why-do-you-march/.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. “FAQ.” Womens March Kern County, https://womensmarchkerncounty.com/faq/.
8. “Unity Principles.” Womens March Kern County, womensmarchkerncounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/unity_principles.pdf.
9. Novak, David. “Germans Against Hitler: The Witness of the White Rose.” First Things: America’s Most Influential Journal Of Religion And Public Life, Apr. 1990, www.firstthings.com/article/1990/04/germans-against-hitler-the-witness-of-the-white-rose.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. O’Leary, Ann. “Teaching Tip Sheet: Cognitive Dissonance.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/education/dissonance.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Salazar, Ben. “On The Intrinsic and Extrinsic Value Of Human Life.” Saints Edified, 24 Jan. 2020, https://saintsedified.com/on-the-intrinsic-and-extrinsic-value-of-human-life/
16. Arrambide, Aimee, et al. “How Abortion Storytellers Feel About Michelle Williams’ Golden Globes Speech.” Rewire.News, 7 Jan. 2020, 10:41 am, rewire.news/article/2020/01/07/how-abortion-storytellers-feel-about-michelle-williams-golden-globes-speech/.
17. Kilano, Chloe. “The Original Feminists Were Pro-Life.” Human Defense Initiative, 4 Feb. 2019, 12:57 pm, humandefense.com/the-original-feminists-were-pro-life/.
18. “Our Mission.” Women’s March Kern County, Facebook, 7 Apr. 2019, www.facebook.com/womensmarchkern/.