Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

The fairer sex gets ugly

A day at the 2020 Women’s March

You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism and commentary without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get into news that is grounded in facts and Biblical truth for as low as $3.99 per month.


Already a member? Sign in.

A good time was had by all at the fourth annual Women’s March in Philadelphia on Jan. 18.

Rip Van Winkle slept through the American Revolution and was much surprised upon awakening. If his nap had been during our century’s revolution, he’d have been more than a little befuddled at what women march for these days.

One sign said, “Sex work is real work.” Unless I’m daft, that is a positive-of-center remark on the validity of prostitution as a career choice. Old Rip might have wondered (if he were familiar only with the 1960s feminism that called prostitution exploitation) that the fairer sex is celebratory rather than appalled about that job market.

“The fairer sex” is sexist, of course. Sounds like a compliment to you, perhaps, but it’s just wrong! Woke women prefer to be called by the B-word that rhymes with itch and means female dog, judging by the signs I saw proudly bobbing in the gathering, about a tenth the size of your average Trump rally. No men (a few were in attendance) were brandishing those placards, only women. You have to know the rules, you know.

Woke women prefer to be called by the B-word that rhymes with itch and means female dog.

Two teenage girls in rainbow regalia asked my husband and me to snap their photo together. They were in good spirits and enjoying the event and their youth and all, and asked so sweetly that it killed me to say to them with a sweep of a hand (toward the skyline emblazoned with “[obscenity] Men” and “Support Matriarchy,” and “Stay Nasty,” and “The Future is Female”), “I don’t believe in any of this; I’m a Christian.” Their countenance changed and they slunk away, and my husband said he would have taken the photo and that now they’re thinking Christians are mean. Which made me feel bad for the rest of the day.

I said, in my defense, “If they posted that on Facebook, I would be part of the dark side.” But still I kept remembering their fresh young faces and wishing I had found a middle way between yes and no. Faces are a hard thing to say no to. That’s why God tells Ezekiel when dispatching him to an unpleasant confrontational task, “Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks [literally, ‘faces’]” (Ezekiel 2:6).

A man with homemade shoeshine box in tow was easier for my husband to say no to. We were suburbanites with bull’s-eyes on our backs, and the entrepreneur pursued till we stopped. And when my husband said we had very little money, he said, “This one’s a freebie. People will see me serving you and I’ll get business.”

But during the third application to the left shoe, he asked, without looking up, “How much do you think a shine like that is worth?”—and then himself suggested $20. As things got tense after that, I said, “David, let’s give him 10 and get out of here.” But David said no and extended a few singles, and we limped off with one shiny shoe and one dull shoe.

Wisdom! Give us wisdom, Lord! What would Jesus do in this parade? Would He even be here?

After the mayor’s cameo appearance, a woman of color took the mic on the makeshift stage before the Art Museum and said the word “God” a lot, but also interspersed her remarks with Arabic glossolalia. I strained to get the drift of her message, her sentences being disconnected bromides like a hatful of Chinese fortune-cookie sayings picked at random. She ended with an exhortation to be like the strong women in Conakry, Guinea, who endure hard lives.

Which rather seemed to undermine the point about how bad off women are in the United States. But as the senior tempter told the junior tempter in the Screwtape book, “Keep everything hazy in their minds.” And so he does.

And on the train back home I wished I could just fold those two girls in my arms a while and hold them like a mother.

Andrée Seu Peterson

Andrée is a senior writer for WORLD Magazine. Her commentary has been compiled into three books including Won't Let You Go Unless You Bless Me. Andrée resides in Philadelphia, Penn.


Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register, subscribe, or login to comment on this article.

not silent

While I don't think feminism is bad in all forms (i.e., it was feminists who marched for women to have the right to vote), I don't think I've ever seen groups so determined to shoot themselves in the foot as some of these modern groups are.  I find the contradictions in what they say and what they claim to stand for astonishing. 

First of all, I'm strongly tempted to ask if these women actually KNOW any prostitutes. I.e., MAYBE there are prostitutes who love their jobs; but the ones I've met did not consider it a positive career choice-they described it as the outcome of years of abuse.  I also know of several groups who are trying to rescue prostitutes who have been the victims of human trafficking!  Why on earth would a group that claims to represent women promote something that hurts so many of them?   

I have a family member who is strongly influenced by this movement, and we have clashed over things like "free the nipple," which says that women should be able to bare their breasts since men can bare theirs and since other cultures don't see breasts as sex objects. Does anyone else see that this looks like the kind of flimsy deception a man would use to oppress women?

This is actually not the first time I've seen modern women use distorted examples of women in the past to promote something that will only hurt them. When I was pregnant, we were often told about women who interrupted their work in the fields to give birth and then carried on as if nothing happened; and that was held up as the standard we should aspire to.  It's not that I don't admire the strength of women like that; what gets me is that no one ever brought up the fact that women who did this were probably poor and oppressed and had no choice; and I'm sure many of them and their babies died. (i.e., I can't imagine that anyone would CHOOSE to get up and work in a field immediately after giving birth, and my child and I definitely would have died if I had had to do it!)  WHY use something that happened because of poverty and oppression as an example for us?

It blows my mind that people who claim to be feminists are promoting so many things that hurt women now or that hurt them in the past. In a bizarre reversal, the script from my youth has been flipped, so that what was considered oppressive to women back then is now celebrated. Wow, I pray against Satan and his deceptions.