There were some generally valid critiques of the Women’s March on Washington this weekend; primarily, the centering of white women in the media and amongst themselves. The notion that the need for protest has “just begun” with the election of Donald Trump, too, was deserving of critique, particularly considering A) the Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock movements of the past several years and B) the entire history of the United States. (As Indigenize OU cofounder Sydne Gray wrote after being repeatedly disrespected by white women during the D.C. protest, “Our ancestors have marched since 1492. This is our whole lives. This is who we are.”)
However, there were other critiques of the Women’s March that both amazed and baffled in their voracious efforts to be the worst take. Several of these were published in mainstream, well respected, ostensibly liberal publications. Most either leaned nakedly contrarian for poorly articulated reasons, or were expository efforts to remind us that men cannot handle not being the center of attention for a single weekend. Here are a few of these great, just great points about the Women’s March.
In which a bus full of wealthy women find protesting distasteful. [WWD]
Voting? For Hillary Clinton? [The Daily Beast]
What! About! The! Men! [New York Times]
Same story, different (but no better) headline. [New York Times]
Then they quietly changed the headline.
Man who took umbrage with the marches being characterized as “Women’s” because he felt left out (even though all men were invited, just not him) proceeds to write extremely basic take that does not once include the word “women.” Babe, no one cares. [New York]