Why This Southern Woman Will Not Be Joining The Women's March

Why This Southern Woman Will Not Be Joining The Women's March

Not saying that the women marching are wrong, but I will not support their movement.
66
views

Everywhere you look on the news you see this topic: The Women's March in Washington, D.C., as well as many other places across the United States. For those of you that do not know what this is, it is groups of women marching in protest for various rights that they either do not feel they have, or they believe will be taken away as a result of Donald Trump becoming POTUS. These various rights include the equal pay of men and women, Planned Parenthood Funding, and maintaining the legality of abortion.

I will probably get a lot of hate from some of my fellow women for this, but I do NOT agree with nor support the Women's March.

I am not saying that the women that do support this movement are wrong in their beliefs by any means, but I myself do not support these ideas. I do think it is great that women have come as far as they have throughout history, and even surpassed many countries around the world regarding the rights for women. I also am supportive of strong women standing up for what they believe in and fighting for what they believe is right. I am proud of how far we have come, and the many advancements we have made. Our ancestors would be proud.

However, because of my religion, own morals/values, and personal beliefs, I will not take part in nor support this movement. One issue I do not support is the legalization of abortion. I understand that some women do not believe that the government should have the right to say what they can and cannot do with their bodies. However, I believe this is one act that should have been made illegal a long time ago. I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church, and I'm sure some of you are thinking, "Oh goodness, she must be stuck in the 'Old South' ways." Well, I'm not, but I do hold my religion close to my heart. Abortion, to me, is murder; the murder of an innocent child who has not yet been corrupted by the ways of this world; the murder of an innocent child who has not had the opportunities of this world, and never will; a child taken before being born, because of a mistake made by adults.

Now, I know in some cases there are circumstances such as rape, where the mother does not want to prolong the hurt, shame and tragedy caused by the horrific way she was done by a man. Even then, I cannot believe that it's right to kill the child — the innocent child who did not cause that heinous act. I believe God does everything for a reason, and I believe He will make something beautiful out of that tragic event, and that beauty is held in that innocent child. For the cases of women who are careless and just do not use birth control, yet participate in the act, and get pregnant, then decide they just don't want a child? Do not make me go there. Yet again, God will make a beautiful lesson out of your mistake.

As far as getting paid equal to men, that would be nice. However, there are some instances when that just doesn't work. My boyfriend is a welder, and comes home back aching, covered in grease and dust from head to toe, and works more hours in a week that I could imagine. Then again, I have some women I know that are nurses, for instance, and have very stressful jobs that even my tough boyfriend could never handle, and they get paid more than him. God made us different sexes for a reason, more than just reproduction. There are some things that men do better, and some that women do better. If we were intended to be able to do everything the same, God would have made us all the same.

I also cannot support something done so vulgarly. The pictures of women wearing vagina costumes and holding signs explicitly throwing around the "pu**y" word — that is offensive to most women I know, and it is appalling to me. There are classier ways to get your point across, ladies.

So, call me old fashioned, but I am not too much of a modern woman to cook a meal for my significant other, or let him do the "heavy lifting." And the maternal instinct in me, and in us all, will never let me support a decision that would harm a child.

I am never saying that my opinion is right, and I am never saying that anyone else's is wrong. It is just an opinion and I hope whoever reads this either feels as if they aren't alone in their political views, or respectfully agrees to disagree, as I do to some.

Whatever our opinions, we are all women, and we must stick together, and look past our differences to do our best to make this country the best we can make it for the future generations to come.

Cover Image Credit: Liz Lemon / Flickr

Popular Right Now

The Trump Presidency Is Over

Say hello to President Mike Pence.

43401
views

Remember this date: August 21, 2018.

This was the day that two of President Donald Trump's most-important associates were convicted on eight counts each, and one directly implicated the president himself.

Paul Manafort was Trump's campaign chairman for a few months in 2016, but the charges brought against him don't necessarily implicate Trump. However, they are incredibly important considering was is one of the most influential people in the Trump campaign and picked Mike Pence to be the vice presidential candidate.

Manafort was convicted on five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failure to file a report of a foreign bank account. And it could have been even worse. The jury was only unanimous on eight counts while 10 counts were declared a mistrial.

Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer, told a judge that Trump explicitly instructed him to break campaign-finance laws by paying two women not to publicly disclose the affairs they had with Trump. Those two women are believed to be Karen McDougal, a Playboy model, and Stormy Daniels, a pornstar. Trump had an affair with both while married to his current wife, Melania.

And then to no surprise, Fox News pundits spun this in the only way they know how. Sara Carter on Hannity said that the FBI and the Department of Justice are colluding as if it's some sort of deep-state conspiracy. Does someone want to tell her that the FBI is literally a part of the DOJ?

The Republican Party has for too long let Trump get away with criminal behavior, and it's long past time to, at the very least, remove Mr. Trump from office.

And then Trump should face the consequences for the crimes he has committed. Yes, Democrats have a role, too. But Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress, so they head every committee. They have the power to subpoena Trump's tax returns, which they have not. They have the power to subpoena key witnesses in their Russia investigations, which they have not.

For the better part of a year I have been asking myself what is the breaking point with Republicans and Trump. It does not seem like there is one, so for the time being we're stuck with a president who paid off two women he had an affair with in an attempt to influence a United States election.

Imagine for a second that any past president had done even a fraction of what Trump has.

Barack Obama got eviscerated for wearing a tan suit. If he had affairs with multiple women, then Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would be preparing to burn him at the stake. If they won't, then Trump's enthusiastic would be more than happy to do so.

For too long we've been saying that Trump is heading down a road similar to Nixon, but it's evident now that we're way past that point. Donald Trump now has incriminating evidence against him to prove he's a criminal, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller is just getting started.

Will Trump soften the blow and resign in disgrace before impeachment like Nixon did? Knowing his fragile ego, there's honestly no telling what he'll do. But it's high time Trump leaves an office he never should have entered in the first place.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

No, The Notwithstanding Clause Should Not Be Accessible Whenever Politicians Like Doug Ford Want To Use It

Doug simply wanted to get something done, but the way he did it is problematic.

50
views

Doug Ford's Conservatives have been in power in Ontario for about three months, and they still don't have much to show for it.

Yes, a new sex-ed curriculum was repealed (only to have individual school boards choose to continue using it), and yes, they stopped the Ontario minimum wage from rising to $15 an hour — but they haven't really made any real changes, so to speak.

That's where Doug's plan to cut Toronto city council comes in. For background, it is one of the most massively inflated and least efficient municipalities in North America, having about 47 non-party councillors butting heads on a daily basis, gridlocking the city in regards to budgeting, public transport and other big projects — so, nothing different from many other large cities.

Doug Ford was a city councillor. Doug Ford also butted heads while trying to pass new transit legislation earlier this decade. And so, Doug Ford's decision to cut city council down to 25 seats was all nice and dandy — had it not come smack in the middle of an election campaign.

On October 22, Torontonians will go voting for their new mayor and respective councillors. The only problem is that, with that legal change, they're still unsure as to who to vote for.

Ford's majority government had no issues passing the legislation, only to have it repealed in court for violating candidates' freedom of speech rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the country's most important constitutional document.

But there is a catch. During times of war, the Canadian and Provincial governments can introduce the notwithstanding clause, allowing legislation to pass while going around the Charter. And Doug Ford wanted to change city council so direly that he decided to use the clause now.

And that's the problem. The notwithstanding clause ultimately gives a premier almost dictatorial powers to pass any legislation. It is truly designed to be used only in times of extreme national emergency. And while Doug Ford's idea to cut city council is great on paper, it is not the right time to use the clause.

In total, Ford caused confusion. The bill is tabled and will likely be passed again as of the weekend, with no real opposition means available for the candidates who may find themselves out of the loop.

If anything, the Canadian legal system should learn one thing: The notwithstanding clause is definitely useful, but it should not be this easy to access and use. It should be used in cases of real war — not Ford's war against his former workplace.

Related Content

Facebook Comments