pussygrabsbackprotesters.jpg
ASK

March 8 is International Women's Day, a holiday that's been celebrated since the early 1900s. This year, there are numerous festivities happening in Seattle, including a reproductive rights rally led by Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant, the premiere of Russian punk group Pussy Riot's psych-rock musical Revolution, and a vigil walk in Othello to confront street harassment and violence against womxn. The lovely Stranger Things To Do crew collected even more events here—check 'em out!

One of those events, the Women's March-organized "Day Without a Woman" strike, however, is raising some eyebrows.

The "Day Without a Woman" strike calls for womxn to take the day off from paid and unpaid work, avoid shopping at non-women- or person of color-owned businesses, or simply wear red in solidarity. The idea is that, if womxn don't come in to work, they'll show their bosses that their workplaces can't function without them. And according to the U.S. Department of Labor, that's true: As of 2010, women age 16 and older made up about 59 percent of the U.S. workforce. Another DOL study showed that about 71 percent of those women were working mothers.

While celebrating the contributions of womxn is crucial, some activists are taking issue with the strike's inclusivity. Rather than including all womxn, some activists said, the Day Without a Woman strike is a show of white privilege.

“What’s the purpose of a strike when you can’t afford a day to not work?" Angie Beem, the state director of the Women's March told The Seattle Times. "Women who could possibly do this are in an executive-type position. Life will go on for them. Their career is more stable. This screamed ... white privilege."

Beem told the paper that when the national organizers announced the strike in February, she didn't like the idea.

“It was just two women who decided it was going to happen. They put this out on social media without discussing it,” says Beem.

“Facebook blew up. There were a lot of people like myself saying, ‘This isn’t right.’”

She says she had the same misgivings about “A Day Without Immigrants” that took place Feb. 16 — that there’s too much risk. News reports said a number of protesters were fired for not showing up for work that day.

Beem isn't alone in that feeling. Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum described the strike as "A Day Without a Privileged Woman." While we can't give her points for creativity there, she makes a good case:

The precursor to A Day Without A Woman was A Day Without Immigrants, a boycott/strike that occurred on a large scale in 2006 in response to anti-immigration measures proposed during the George W. Bush administration. It was repeated, quietly, last month. Galvanizing as these events may be, they are not like union picket lines, choreographed to achieve a specific goal, which is why the question of how much meaningful change was effected by the 2006 protests is still a subject of debate. A Day Without a Woman seems especially poised for unquantifiable results, given the diffuse nature of its platform. ...

Meanwhile, for the millions of women who have no choice but to show up and meet their responsibilities on March 8 (and every day), it will be business as usual. ...

That’s why the idea that women should take a day off en masse to make a political point is both self-defeating and vaguely insulting. It’s meant to highlight how crucial we are, but its very premise also suggest the opposite: Women are expendable.

Organizers with the national Women's March responded to this, at least somewhat, on their frequently asked questions page:

It is evident that the intersecting identities of women mean we experience widely different degrees of privilege or lack thereof. Everyone has a role to play. Women and allies with greater privilege are called to leverage that resource for social good on March 8th. However, everyone’s involvement signifies an equal commitment to the day, especially those who experience greater vulnerability to discrimination and exclusion. Even wearing red may be a great act of defiance for some uniformed workers.

It is possible that some women may be fired, as there were about a dozen instances of firings over the Day Without Immigrants strike. Nothing comes without a sacrifice, yet we also recognize that women of color, women with disabilities, LGBTQIA and gender nonconforming individuals, Muslims and other vulnerable groups are at a much greater risk of employer retaliation. We must be diligent and look out for each other, using our privilege on behalf of others when it is called for.

Social activism is not a privilege. It is a necessity born out of a moral imperative and an imminent threat.

Regardless of how you decide to participate (or not) in the Day Without a Woman strike, try to keep this one thing in mind: Feminism must be intersectional—we must listen to and fight for the rights of women of color, Muslim women, indigenous women, transgender women, and queer women, too.