The Women's Convention, organized by the organizers of the Women's March, opens on October 27. Guess who its headline speaker will be? Senator Bernie Sanders.
There's nothing wrong with male politicians supporting an event such as the Women's Convention by attending or even by speaking. But the choice of a man as the headline speaker is most unfortunate, however progressive he might be.
It makes the women who organized the convention look weak and in need of male leadership or — if it really was true that no famous woman could be found to speak on that night — it echoes the familiar anti-feminist argument that there just aren't enough good women in the various pipelines, but a good man could easily be found.
One of the organizers gave an "inclusiveness" reason for the choice of Sanders as the headline speaker:*
...“we believe as women … that we ought to have more than just women at the Women’s Convention.”And that is wonderful. Bernie Sanders**, and other male allies, should certainly have been invited, both to attend and to speak if their message merited that.
But I have always understood, based on what I've seen progressives state online and in various protest instructions, that the allies to a cause are not to take center stage, are not to march in the front, are not to steal the limelight.
In this particular case the limelight and center stage seem to have been handed to an ally, though. The fault thus belongs to the organizers of the convention.
-----
* I interpret the message as about inclusiveness, though, to be honest, I'm not quite certain what the quote is supposed to say. I couldn't find the omitted part with some quick Googling.
Inclusiveness can be a tricky concept, by the way. It's important to make sure that previously marginalized groups are included in social justice movements which concern them, and it's important to make their voices heard.
But general inclusiveness is not always an asset. If it extends to the goals of a protest (as was, to some extent, the case with the Women's Marches), then some of the goals are bound to stand in direct contradiction with each other, assuming that all different groups can contribute their own goals. Thus, initially both pro-life and pro-choice groups were invited to participate in the Marches, and even later, when the former were dis-invited, theoretical contradictions between feminism and some of the other goals remained.
Likewise, if the attendance is encouraged to be as inclusive as possible, the Convention will then no longer have much anything to do with women, per se. Theoretically it would then be possible to have the convention halls full of men and women who oppose gender equality, even if the topics weren't expanded to cover such concerns.
** (This footnote added later) Note, however, that Sanders has several opinions which might raise an eyebrow or two among many progressive women and at least some progressive men. For example, his opinions about so-called "identity politics" are perhaps not terribly nuanced, and he appears to view reproductive choice as somehow not related to the economic advancement of women, but a completely separate issue.