On March 8—International Women’s Day—women across the United States will have the opportunity to participate in the “A Day Without a Woman” strike. That’s a well-intentioned idea. But it’s likely that mostly privileged women will be the ones participating in the much-anticipated follow-up to January’s Women’s March. This is an unfortunate but not altogether surprising consequence of an event without a clear purpose—or an understanding of feminist history.I guess it is easier to walk off the job if you are an executive or have some vacation days to take. It's even easier if a woman is a teacher and the school board shuts the school down for you. However, if you are in this boat it is not so easy/actually quite impossible.
Women account for nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers in the US, and women of color account for more than half of those earning minimum wage or less. According to a recent Oxfam America study, ingrained sexism in the working world has pushed millions of women into jobs that pay low wages, provide little, if any, benefits, and often impose irregular hours. The number of these sorts of jobs, according to Oxfam, is only going to increase over the next decade. In other words, tens of millions of women have neither the benefits nor the flexibility to take the day off in protest.I'm sorry to tell Oxfam America but those jobs will actually seriously decrease in the next decade as they are replaced by robots or phased out in our glorious "digital economy." I wonder if these Marchers are going to be there to help these women when a Siri-like VR interface wipes out all the call center jobs in one shot? Or if an Amazon auto-pay store allows you to walk out without having to see a cashier. That minimum-wage women's work force they mention will be devastated by "Rise of the Robots."