The women's march was allegedly in favor of women's rights, although the marchers were unable to articulate any rights they lack. What normally they mention is rights to abortion (why is it always the right to kill unborn babies they fall back to?) But the thing is they do have that right. Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court ruling that opted to violate the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution just to give women that right. One liberal woman I've spoken to on the issue says that the ruling doesn't matter when getting an abortion can be so difficult. Her example was that women in rural Arkansas must sometimes drive over a hundred miles to abortion clinics. Apparently women lack the right to overcome the laws of supply & demand. How much demand do you think there is for abortion clinics in rural Arkansas? Enough to justify one in each town? Because such a practice is obviously not profitable, I suppose they're advocating that those clinics be provided by the government. As usual, the protest is for the right to have the government take money from other citizens. In this case as a matter of convenience for abortion customers.
But again abortion is a right granted by the government. What they seem to marching against is future attacks on their rights, which they are sure are imminent under President Trump. They feel the election was an attack on women, but in a vague and hypothetical sense.
It's always more insightful to judge people by their actions and not their words. In that light some of the marchers did demonstrate a number of rights they lack.
The right to light a woman's hair on fire.
The right to punch a woman in the face.
The right to stone a woman to death for traveling without a male relative escort.
The last is a tweet from the head organizer of the marches, who advocates for Sharia Law. Liberals see no contradiction in this. (Remember they are unprincipled.)
To be fair I don't actually think most women in the marches were marching for those things. I don't think they were marching as political action at all. It was more of group therapy for a crowd who pulled out all the stops of Identity Politics in this election, who went completely unrestrained to get Hillary elected over Trump, and who still lost. It's just a sign that they're moving towards the bargaining stage of grief. In fact because of this I do not oppose the marches in and of themselves.
Women are permitted to march across the country, to protect women's rights from hypothetical future attacks. Women can organize for their rights. It doesn't even matter what their arguments are. Society permits it. Can you imagine an organized day of men's marches? There are actually Men's Rights activists (MRAs) in America, and they are widely shamed, ridiculed, and condemned. They are told they are sexist misogynistic bigots when they attempt to organize. Even more they are called whiny wimps who aren't "real men". They would never in this environment rally enough support to have national marches of any significance, and even if they did, they would certainly be met by leftist violence. And that violence would be met with mainstream support. Just look at how people are gloating about Richard Spencer being sucker-punched by a leftist. I don't know much about Spencer, but I don't believe that he has ever imposed violence against his political opponents, or advocated for it. Violent suppression of free political speech now has mainstream support from the left. Ridicule of MRAs has mainstream support as well. Violence against national MRA marches would be widely supported.
Women are allowed to organize for their rights. Men are not. The marches were merely a demonstration by women that they have more rights than men in this country.