A working woman I know well admitted that she would not be participating in the ‘Day Without A Woman’ strike, due to her obligations to her current project and her lack of clarity as to the protest’s goals. She felt some guilt and unease about this due to the offended reactions of her liberal-minded friends. “I love them to death,” she said, “But I have to be so careful with them.”
What are the goals of the strike? According to The Two-Way, Breaking News from NPR:
“To show their economic importance and impact on society, women are being encouraged to take the day off from paid and unpaid labor and not to shop — except at women and minority owned and small businesses.”(sic)
How this strike is to translate into improved conditions for women (and apparently minorities) remains unclear to me after reading multiple accounts of the strike’s intent and goals in NPR, Rolling Stone, Vox, Jezebel, CNN, Fox.
After perusing all these sources, it appears to me that the main point of the strike is for women to express: “I’m fed up with misogyny, lower pay, having my homemaker/caregiver status not valued, the President, (insert your beef here), so I’m taking my ball and going home, see how you like doing without me for a day! So there!” Notably absent is any attempt at an articulate plan to address the above concerns. Is this just another case of Sound over Substance?
What about women that choose not to participate? Janaye Ingram, co-organizer of the strike and of the Woman’s March, speaks in Rolling Stone about those who can strike, but don’t know whether they should:
“Women don’t earn the same amount as a man for equal work, even when they are equally qualified. To not do anything about that means that we are acknowledging that it’s OK. We are giving permission to those people to say women don’t need to be paid as much as a man when we choose not to participate in things that will create that parity.”
Well, baloney. Choosing not to participate may mean that you think the strike is poorly organized, has no real plan to achieve its diverse goals, or you just decide not to take a day off. Or maybe you just flat-out disagree with the premise of the strike. How arrogant and coercive to tell women that non-participation in the strike aligns you with the “enemy”.
So who are these women who aren’t participating in the strike? In my morning walk around my hometown this morning, I saw:
- A female firefighter, testing firehose to make certain it was leak-free and functional.
- A mother with infant in stroller, cutting her father’s hair on the sunny porch of his assisted-living apartment.
- The female manager of our local fruit and vegetable stand, assisting a homeless man to pick the best of what was offered on the “$1.00/basket” table.
- The female short-order cook of a local restaurant preparing breakfast for 4 truckers, whose vehicles were parked outside. Oh, and one of the truckers was a woman.
These women clearly understand that we can’t do without them, even for a day. They have simply chosen, whatever their reasons, not to try to prove it.