International Women’s Day 2017: #DayWithoutAWoman

It’s been 108 years since the first National Women’s Day was declared in the U.S.; in 1911 it became International Women’s Day.

It would be another nine years before American women’s right to vote was enshrined in the 19th Amendment, and another 68 years after IWD 1911 before women’s suffrage was deemed a fundamental human right by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

In spite of women’s enfranchisement, they are under-represented in elected office; they have not realized parity in employment or pay across most industries. Their work is devalued more often and more deeply if they are engaged in emotional labor. They are far more likely to be under paid if they are women of color.

And now they fight to change this continuing inequity in spite of a world leader whose words and actions further denigrate their innate value.

The International Women’s Day 2017 theme is Be Bold for Change — but after a couple lifetimes, more than slogans are called for. The Women’s March movement, bolstered by its January 21st event and in concert with the International Women’s Strike organization, called for A Day Without A Woman to emphasize the role of women in the economy as part of their

As part of A Day Without A Woman, women are on strike when they can afford to do so. If you see a woman on the job, consider how challenging it is to support a family making wages which have not only stalled over the last two decades, but are on average 20% less than men make in the same jobs. Depending on whose study one reads, it will take 60 to 170 years for women to reach parity. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Today, women are wearing red to show their solidarity with their striking sisters. If you see women not wearing red, consider how their individual right to free speech has been degraded by corporatism in spite of their enfranchisement.

Today, women are avoiding purchases. If you see women buying goods or services, consider how difficult it is for some women to buy what they need in advance because of pay inequity in spite of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Families are deeply impacted by economic precarity based in gender pay inequity.

Today, consider how women’s freedom to make decisions about their reproductive health; will they be forced to quit their job because of unexpected pregnancy or inability to obtain adequate health insurance?

Today, consider the importance of women — regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, cis-/trans-/straight-gay-bi-sexuality — to a healthy economy and a thriving country.

Blogger since 2002, political activist since 2003, geek since birth. Opinions informed by mixed-race, multi-ethnic, cis-female condition, further shaped by kind friends of all persuasions. Sci-tech frenemy, wannabe artist, decent cook, determined author, successful troublemaker. Mother of invention and two excessively smart-assed young adult kids. Attended School of Hard Knocks; Rather Unfortunate Smallish Private Business School in Midwest; Affordable Mid-State Community College w/evening classes. Self-employed at Tiny Consulting Business; previously at Large-ish Chemical Company with HQ in Midwest in multiple marginalizing corporate drone roles, and at Rather Big IT Service Provider as a project manager, preceded by a motley assortment of gigs before the gig economy was a thing. Blogging experience includes a personal blog at the original blogs.salon.com, managing editor for a state-based news site, and a stint at Firedoglake before landing here at emptywheel as technology’s less-virginal-but-still-accursed Cassandra.
9 replies
    • Rayne says:

      I was pretty surprised and impressed by both those moves. Would love to have seen Liberty in the dark — a sad commentary about more than gender inequity alone. Thanks for the links.

  1. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Austerity budgets, a sacrament for neoliberals, are not just anti-middle and working class, they are inherently and inescapably sexist. They are similar to the artificially low wages paid by Wal-Mart and its ilk, which are possible only because they rely on taxpayer-financed social services. Austerity budgets are worse. They are possible only by relying on the backs of women and others who perform the unpaid work that economists ignore: the personal, child and home carers, the cleaners, carters, builders, growers and shoppers, who do much of the world’s working and paying and living and dying. Without them, no one else could work, or wold live long enough to do so.

  2. bloopie2 says:

    Thanks. It’s sad, though, that when I saw the title of the post, I was able to guess (before looking) that you were the author. Anyhow, the new statue of the Fearless Girl staring down the Wall Street Bull is great. It was put up by State Street Advisors, which manages over $2 Trillion in assets.

  3. Evangelista says:

     

    WHAT A DAY FOR MEN!!

    All the women stayed at home!

    It was like, Back To The Fifties, or whatever that movie was…  Or those movies were.

    Grampa was in sixth-heaven.  Always the optimist, he was looking toward seventh:  “You reckon we kin get ’em to put ’emselves on runnin’-chains atween the bedroom an’ the kitchen for the next one?   Maybe barefoot an’ with pillows to look like they’s pregnant, instead of blow-up vaginas like was makin’ the ones was out look to be awaitin’ a doctor to get out-in-public gyno- exams…”

    As gramma used to say when dismissing the NOW-Girls in the 1970’s, “there are women and there are chorus-girls:  The ones are doing useful things, the others are walking the streets and kicking up fuss.”

    Can’t say the same today, because there don’t sem to be any doing useful things, like filing RICO actions in federal courts against so-called “pro-life” legislators and protesters in the states where they are racketeering and co-conspiring to chattellize women by depriving them of 13th Amendment rights to self-determination and liberty to make their own decisions.

     

Comments are closed.