Women who march in the name of love but state their desire to violently destroy the powers that be do not represent women’s interests everywhere.
Women who march with their feet and mouths but do not march with compassion and circumspection toward other women who disagree with them do not represent women’s interests everywhere.
Women who march in the name of resistance but have not taken the time to consider the complexities of the issues as presented by those on many sides of life’s very hard questions do not represent the interests of women everywhere.
Women who fight for the right of women everywhere to be in charge do the Margaret Thatchers, Golda Meirses, Condoleezza Rices, Irene Rosenfelds, Carol Meyrowitzes, Indra Nooyis, Ellen Kullmans, Angela Bralys, Ursula Burnses, Lynn Elsenhanses, Patricia Woertzes, Laura Senses, and Beth Mooneys–women who made their marks by quietly going about their very big business–a huge disservice (not to mention the men who write glowingly about them or rely on their expertise).
Women who march to be noticed and heard do not represent the interests or views of women everywhere who, by thoughtful and strategic choice, quietly and deliberately place the interests of others, including strangers and their own families, above their own–women like Audrey Hepburn, Mother Teresa, Elisabeth Elliot, or Rosa Parks.
I don’t claim to speak for or understand women everywhere, but many strong, thoughtful, intelligent, intellectual, compassionate, practical, future-thinking women of every nuanced race, religious belief, or political persuasion who care about their families, their businesses, their countries, and their world remain unrepresented or misrepresented by women who claim to represent women everywhere.