Reading this clarified what I thought was…. ill-conceived about the Pussyhat March.
Unlike last weekend’s Women’s March, which promoted a broad, intersectional agenda, the March for Life was intentionally one-note.
There is no such thing as a “braod, intersectiona agenda” because intersectionality (not the original idea but the current dysfunctional nightmare) removes the ability set priorities. There is no way to effect any kind of meaningful change without prioritizing and setting some goals above others.
Trying to follow an intersectional agenda is like trying to fry chicken, boil potatoes and toss a salad and do the dishses all in the same pot at the same time. You end up with an unappetizing mess that doesn’t make anyone happy.
The way you make a difference is be being one-note consistently for a long time. That’s what the Civil Rights Movement did. It’s also why separate movements formed for similar issues. It’s one thing to be allied with groups with similar goals, it’s quite another to say that anyone that supports you has to support every other group.
I’m firmly pro-choice but abortion is not a hugely important issue for me personally. Still, I might contribute to or do something for a pro-choice movement (since in principal I support it). Why on earth would I want to support some amorphous agenda that requires me to support eight other issues (one or two I might vehemently disagree with)?