During March of every year, International Women’s Month shines the spotlight on women and draws attention to modern-day gender inequalities. However, what may seem like a well-intentioned cause is actually a conglomerate of misdirected effort and emotion. Though the idea of having a women’s month seems impactful, the effort behind its message could be more effectively used elsewhere. Furthermore, the month itself accomplishes very little and doesn’t express the importance of what needs to happen. Similarly, America’s capitalist nature drives the month into more of a commercialized mess than an opportunity to make social progress. Overall, the existence of women’s month is backhandedly distasteful and unnecessary.

First off, the presence of this month can be seen as demonstrating weakness rather than empowerment. Some may argue that the month is more about the history of women’s achievements in place of what they currently face, but I’d disagree. Instead, their highlighted history displays the exigence behind their progressive movement, which is the true main goal. Likewise, needing a month to try and attempt social development can undermine its effectiveness by demonstrating that the month itself is necessary to make progress. This could be seen as reinforcing the idea of oppression, having a month devoted to their cause because of their supposed victimization in society. This can become patronizing to women, seeming like their cause is pitied by being limited to one month, its artificial support. Through this outlet, the month becomes reduced to ‘women are victims; give them a month.’ This creates a system of forced empathy without any concrete end goals. However, if their cause was spread through more organic means, their message would be less distorted and probably more widely accepted.

Moving on, a recurring month about the same topic may cause issue fatigue. Its repetitive nature and candid themes may lead to audiences who tune out the message rather than become excited about it. Also, the month itself and most of its products, such as slogans, posts, and marketing, don’t actually contribute to any actual progress. Instead, this performative support is blasted all over marketing and social media without any real substance. Furthermore, the month’s performative allies who sit around for the other eleven months often substitute real change, perhaps doing more harm than good. Likewise, the framing of only supporting women during one month of the year may frame their cause as temporary or only worth people’s attention during this one month. It begs the question of whether or not this month is instituted because of genuine interest or a modulated tolerance. Instead, I believe a more suitable approach would be to remove the specialized month and instead spread attention throughout the entire year. This way, equality feels demanded rather than begged for, lessening people’s resentment of the cause, and more effectively applying their message; demand equality and act it out rather than remaining performative on the issue. Also, advocating for more specific goals, like workplace policy reform or resorting to legislative change, could bring about more effective advancements.

Lastly, due to America’s inherent desire to make a quick buck, marketing companies will often adapt the message and try to appeal to their audiences in this way. So, in order to appeal to the general, emotional public, many companies are probably doing this as a public relations stunt. This, like other performative actions, lessens the message’s impact and boils it down to something they can make money off of. Some examples of this corporate propaganda include Hershey’s “She-bars,” United Airlines’ “Her Art Here” contest, and many other promoted occasions.

Ultimately, if women believe there is something wrong with equality or other issues, a month designated to such is not effective. Instead of maintaining a permanent standard of equality, the month belittles the idea to a temporal issue, lessening the effects of the movement. Among the performative support or commercialized sympathy, the month fails to address and properly act on the problems women still face today, the whole reason the month was initially implemented. So, until we stop framing large problems into small months to minimize public outcry, social progress will remain limited and potential untouched.