Wednesday is International Women’s Day, and liberals are planning to mark it by forcing thousands of women to stay home with their children instead of work:
It’s being billed as “A Day Without a Woman,” but apparently only pro-union, pro-choice, anti-Israel women who can afford to skip work need apply.
The one-day “general strike” is coming under fire from the right and the left for its mixed political messages, as well as the havoc caused by the closure of some schools Wednesday driven by anticipated staff absences.
At least two large school districts — Alexandria City Public Schools in Virginia and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools in North Carolina — have announced that they will close in anticipation of hundreds of staff absences, igniting a backlash from parents.A possible reason for the absences? The U.S. protest is being led by the Women’s March on Washington, whose partners include the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions — the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, an arm of the AFL-CIO.
By the way, another partner of the strike is Planned Parenthood. Which means that this stunt doesn’t just ironically inconvenience working moms — it also hypocritically excludes pro-life women:
“Does Planned Parenthood, a main sponsor of the Women’s March, approve the closing of schools and putting unnecessary burdens on women, especially working mothers who rely on a regular school schedule?” said [Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life America]. “Are they OK with children from low-income families who will go hungry on Wednesday? Women’s empowerment shouldn’t rely on putting other women and children in precarious situations just to make a point.”
The fact that one of the international organizers is a literal terrorist is just the icing on the cake.
But as noted above, the idea is so asinine that even liberals are taking issue with it. Feminist writer Maureen Shaw pointed out that “most American women cannot afford to opt out of either paid or unpaid labor.” And as women are nearly half the labor force, Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum astutely observed, “All things being equal (which is what we’re after, right?), we are too essential to play hooky.”
But feminism is no longer about equality. Today’s feminism is about wearing vulgar genital hats and man-bashing and shaming women who believe that life begins at conception. And apparently now it’s also about taking money away from women who need it most.