Happy Birthday N.O.W.

Remove all ads!

If there is one organization that really, really needs to get a grip, its the National Organization for Women.

Don't get me wrong, I love women, and I'm not a chauvinist. I think equal rights are great, my director and vice president are both women, and I couldn't have more respect for either of them

This organization, however, is breeding more intolerance than it is fighting. Over half their web-site is dedicated to attacking conservative men. The other half is dedicated to raising money and some small awarness of their goals.

NOW is the group that sponsered a Wiccan to speak at my Christian College on the topic of "Eco-Feminism". NOW is the group that told my friend (an intern in Washington) that the best way to help America would be for him to leave his wife and 3 children and take up the gay lifestyle.

Happy Birthday NOW ... here's to the future ... may people grow wise and see through the lies.

 

AMEN! I am most definetely not a conservatist, but a hundred and fifty years of fighting should do the trick don't you think?? (Or perhaps they just can't do it and need men afterall! )

 

In celebration, I have decided not to shave my legs today.

Thank you.

That is all.

 

Shralp is a very scary person. So are the people in N.O.W.

 

Groups like NOW make me wish i lived in the fifteenth century!!

 

Hmm, methinks these people are feminist, overly perhaps

Either that or they are Drow in human form

hang on, I like Drow

Seriously though - these people are taking it to far, do they remember the day that women were almost worthless or what?

 

NOW didn't get that Wiccan to start praising Lolth, did they?

Quasi-feminists these days... the women who demand that companies have as much women as men, but don't lift a finger when there's much more women than men. The women who go "against the grain" of the "domineering patriarchal culture", but have their boyfriends hold open doors for them and buy them gifts they really couldn't afford. The women who are hypocrites.

Not that NOW isn't completely riddled of them, nor that men aren't hypocrites as well.

Of course, two hundred years ago and beyond, women were treated horribly (for the most part) and were almost never the equal of men. But do the feminists these days keep have to keep pushing it when there's already enough gender equality in the developed world? Some men were horrible people to women back then (and now, as well). Does putting the woman above the man make up for that?

[ October 29, 2002, 22:25: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

C'Jakob is right. I've always found it odd that women wanted men to drop chauvinism and yet keep chivalry. If they want equality. FINE. They can get it. Wait, no... that's right. Women are often treated BETTER than men. Fact of the matter is, the world's big issues are anti-feminism and anti-racisim. Whatever happened to majority rights? Honestly. If the two applicants for a job were me and a clone of me that was female, in other words, had exactly the same credentials and experience, then she would get the job. Why? Because if she didn't, then she could sue and claim that she wasn't hired because she was a woman. I mean, jeez. No wonder kids are confused about gender issues. "That's right, Bobby. Girls are just as good as boys. Except you have to hold doors for them, give up your seat, let them walk before you...

 

I am not disagreeing with Mathetais at all here, organisations like NOW and many other feminist organisations do more to set back equal rights than they do to promote them with the aggressive and judgemental views. But no one can say that we have enough gender equality today, well you could say it if you dont want gender equality. Even though we have come a long way since the 19th century, heck we have come a long way since the 70's so is there a heck of a way to go. There may not be many legislative blocks for females anymore and each generation is more open that the previous but the entire western society is still constructed and geared by men for men. So even if you say that there is gender equality that equality is played out on a male playing field.

 

eco-feminists

where's a gag when you need one?

 

"NOW is the group that told my friend (an intern in Washington) that the best way to help America would be for him to leave his wife and 3 children and take up the gay lifestyle."

c'mon, get at least half real here. MAYBE a person who is a member of NOW tried to make that kind of suggestion. How can you take an individuals actions and lay it at the feet of an organization???

Women are just as confused by the role changes that result from equality as men thus 'wanting your cake and eat it too' pops up. That is not to say the feminist movement or the NOW org does not have its head screwed on straight. As far as I have ever known they support politics favorable/sensitive to womens issues; ie health care for pregnant women, women on welfare, insurance for gay couples, legislation that protects the raped or abused etc...

What's the problem guys??

 

The problem is that the pretend to speak for all women, yet in reality they speak only for liberal women. Regardless, the national media turn to NOW when they want "a woman's view" despite the fact that Concerned Women for America has a larger membership. Actually a friend-of-a-friend pointed out just that in her blog.

NOW is also, as Mathetais pointed out, one of the worst offenders when it comes to polarizing the political spectrum. Anyone who proposes even common sense reforms to abortion (like requiring the same parental notification just like you have to have before giving a child an aspirin) is immediately attacked as an "extremist."

There is no dealing with NOW on an intellectual level. They don't conduct rational discussion. They paint anyone and everyone who disagrees with them, male and female alike, as evil.

[ November 01, 2002, 16:33: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

What's the problem with NOW?
Where were they during the "Lewinsky Scandal"? Shouldn't they have been all over that? Their liberal agenda didn't allow them to go after Clinton. If it was Bush? Gingrich?
What about during the Condit scandal? Again, they called off the dogs because he was a Democrat.
They don't exist to help women. They exist to play politics. Liberal politics.

 

One of the largest problems with NOW is the same problem that faces any organization that sees everything in shades of black and white. They forget what reality is. And while I agree that if you take two very specific people..one very specific man and one very specic woman...then yes, you can announce "See? Women can do anything a man can do." Which can be true for most things and is always true in specic situations. But, face it ladies, not every woman can do everything that every man can do. And I can think of a few things that woman can do that men can never do, so once again, we need to have a basis in reality. If women ruled the world, it wouldn't be any better off than it is now, because women can be just as twisted and violent and depraved in positions of power as men can. We're HUMAN. People who firmly and whole-heartedly love a faction like NOW need a serious dose of self-esteem anyway, I believe, because they are substituting loving themselves for who they are for loving themselves for WHAT they are. If you're confident enough in your own self, you realize that you can do something because hey, you can do it, not because hey, you're a woman, damnit all. BUT, there are still people out there who discrimnate against and abuse women becuase they're women, people who rape, people who torture and are sadistic...Those people need to be taken out and shot, but that's another rant. NOW started out by seeing these crimes against humanity and railing against them, but then they took it waaaay to far. And me? My dream in life is to have the ability to sit around the house and raise children, June-Cleaver style, and write horrible, twisted, bloody novellas to embarress the crap out of my children. And I used to study Wicca. It's really quite interesting, you ought to give it somewhat of a chance before denoting it as flaky. Plenty of Wiccans are men. Smarmy men, perhaps, but men nonetheless.

[ November 01, 2002, 16:16: Message edited by: dragonjewel13 ]

 

dragonjewel13,

Excellent post. NOW would lambast you for your views, but that is merely another demonstration of what is wrong with the organization.
You are willing to think for yourself. This is something that NOW should promote (it empowers the individual).

 

I don't know much about this organisation but I'm intrigued by the anger expressed in this thread. There are a lot of kooky political groups out there with weird ideas about people, but mostly I find them amusing rather than anger-provoking. Can I ask- in all seriousness- why do you all care so much? From Shralp's post above it sounds like they don't even have a significant membership, and from Jack Funk's it sounds like they pretty much didn't come out of the woodwork during the Clinton administration (i.e. the last 8 years!). So- Why bang your head against the wall? Are they accomplishing any evil ends, or is it just the existence of the group that bothers everyone?

 

Hi Sprite,

I didn't mean to imply that they weren't active during Clintons presidency. They were. They just remained silent about the "Lewinsky" scandal. If they were so interested in women not being exploited, then why didn't they weigh in there?

 

Actually Sprite, I don't think the problem people have with NOW has anything to do with the fact they are causing harm-because they're not-but because they give women who call themselves feminists a bad name and they lambast women who want nothing more than to be a wife and mother (gasp! wife and mother? That's so degrading!) There are plenty of women who are feminists who are not militant and do not support NOW, but are immediately placed in a box with that group if they dare to call themselves feminist. And honestly, groups like now who have taken women's rights to an extreme have made men...well, they've made men a little bit afraid of women. Do I hold the door for her? Do I talk to her? Do I flirt with her? Will she knee me in the unmentionables if I look at her to long? Things like that. And yeah, too, it's human nature to have a lot of anger for someone who radically disagrees with you and refuses to see your side. That whole frustration-cause-I-know-I'm-right thing. I'm sure die-hard fans of NOW feel the same way towards us.

 

Sprite has more aptly expressed my own sentiments- why the anger?

Mostly what I am hearing sounds like your average run of the mill anti feminist rhetoric.

I'm curious what exactly J Funk expected to hear from NOW during the Clinton 'scandal'. As far as I'm concerned 'the scandal' was that it occupied so much time in the press.

BTW, whom ever gets to the door first would be kind to hold it open for the next person. Is that confusing to anyone?

 

It's not really surprising what's occurred here: a girls vs. boys argument; attacking and defending (or at least calling for less anger), respectively. Frankly, I don't really believe NOW is all that bad. Sure, some women in organization may be hypocrites and whatnot, and they've probably put political agendas before women more than once, but I think it's safe to say that NOW probably has helped at least some women and given them a voice. There's plenty of institutions in the world that promote a good cause; but the agenda might go too far sometimes, sometimes it makes a mistake.

I like to think that NOW was based on good ideals. Now it's got its cons. But, hey, there's dozens of organizations that are just like NOW; based on good ideals, then goes too far. So why point all the fingers at NOW? There's plenty of institutions that have followed the pattern. NOW isn't all bad, but they could probably use a reform or another, but it would be wrong if it was smashed to bits