Comments on: After a Coup d’Etat at NOW, the Future of “Feminism”

By: justice

justice — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:00:38 +0000

Unfortunately, while there was a statement of sorts made at the NOW election, in reality it was only a squabble among members of the same Smeal family clique that has controlled the club of four since the new national bylaws destroyed the organization’s grassroots just before the 1993 elections. Terry O’Neill’s post-election interview on NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....=105800494

By: Did Feminism Kill Macho? « Cinie’s World

Did Feminism Kill Macho? « Cinie’s World — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:39:47 +0000

[...] for Women elected a new board in what has been characterized in some circles as something of a coup d’etat. Calling it a coup is something of a mischaracterization however, since the old board was out [...]

By: Amy Siskind

Amy Siskind — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:41:43 +0000

There is a lot of discussion here and that is great.

Whether you decide to support NOW or not, please do find a home here at The New Agenda and join our efforts to advance women and girls. We need ALL of your help. We ARE making a real difference. AND our voices are being heard (check out the media section).

By: HeroesGetMade

HeroesGetMade — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:27:16 +0000

“If women are afraid to call themselves feminists so be it. but on the issues, over and over again, women side with NOW.”

This, to me, is the root of the entire problem. NOW should be siding with women, instead of expecting, and perhaps even feeling entitled to, women’s support. Why on earth any intelligent woman would support a so-called women’s organization that does not support women is beyond me. Way back in the mists of time, I was a NOW member, but things have changed.

The thing that changed me, and from what I’m reading here and elsewhere, many other people, is the 2008 election. Instead of siding with women, NOW sided with the faux feminist, and essentially became nothing more than Stockholm Sweeties for Obama. Those of us who saw through the faux feminism were lost to NOW for a good long time. Curiously, the faux feminist NOW and Ms magazine were so enamored of, has a similar attitude – we should side with him and fight for him, instead of the other way around. In other words, STFU, send money and show allegiance. Again, why any intelligent person would align themselves with a movement such as this, is beyond me. Personally, I think the entire faux feminist movement would be better off taking a bran muffin and standing up for women. As the status of women rises, so do the fortunes of our children, society, nation and world.

All this said, O’Neill’s election to head up NOW gives me hope that NOW can salvage itself from the complete disgrace that was the 2008 election. I may rejoin on July 20th as others have promised to do to show support of the hopeful course correction of the organization. But having witnessed the follies of the STFU, send money and show allegiance faux feminist movement, my new motto is Hope but Verify. So I may have to see some verifiable signs of true course correction from O’Neill and Co before I re-up.

By: MaryL

MaryL — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:49:23 +0000

I do like the way you write, Janis—well put.
It all starts—and flows—from representation, a seat at the table…

By: Janis

Janis — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:48:16 +0000

Honestly, when more women get into government, government becomes better for women and so does society. Birth control becomes more easily available, and women’s health issues like choice become more widely and sanely adopted. That’s just how it works out, over and over. Sure there may be a few anti women elected, but on the whole — and that is how we MUST be thinking — societies become better for women when women are in power, no matter the positions of the individual women.

That means that, once again, choice doesn’t matter as a first-order consideration. Just elect women. On the balance, more women are pro-choice than not.

And — crucially — even conservative anti-choice women deserve the chance to put their policies into practice. Or at least, they do not deserve to be held back from this purely because they are women. When the goddamned Democratic party and it’s Ladies’ Auxiliary known as NOW keep telling me to hold my nose and vote for conservative Democrat males because the other ones will somehow mystically be worse, then I’ll listen to that.

So basically, if you WANT choice safeguarded, vote for all women anywhere, no matter their position on it. That’s just how it works out.

By: Amy Siskind

Amy Siskind — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:05:51 +0000

Shannon,

I have spoken to Erin in the past- think she is terrific – and wish her all the best in her new position.

The premise of TNA is to be big tent and inclusive of all women and men. As such, we made a very conscious decision at our first meeting to set aside two issues that divide women in half: political party and choice. As to the latter, there are wonderfulorgs on both sides that our members can join to express their feelings on this matter.

There is a place for everyone at TNA and our focus in 100% issues that impact women and girls.

All best to you and your sister.

By: Shannon Drury

Shannon Drury — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:54:24 +0000

BettyJean: “True equality and freedom for women will exist when pro-choice translates to free-choice and each woman is free to make her own decision without having it imposed on her.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is what reproductive rights are all about..

By: Amy Siskind

Amy Siskind — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:27:03 +0000

I happen to agree with what you write Betty Jean. Based on the comments here and elsewhere from NOW officials, they disagree -and that is fine. NOW can do whatever NOW wants to do in terms of their focus. But what they need to understand is that there is a HUGE gray area that we can ALL work on together – sexism, violence against women and girls, better representation in gov’t and business – can’t even a pro-choice, Democratic org agree on those items?

United we stand, divided we continue to fail.

By: BettyJean

BettyJean — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:38:59 +0000

Hillary Clinton stated that ‘women’s rights are human rights.’ If one accepts this statement as true then there needs to be a realigning of priorities for women’s groups. For quite awhile many women’s groups have slowly become political organizations with a platform similar to those of a political party. Yet by doing this (as some race-based groups have also done) they have narrowed their reach and effectiveness. By imposing a set of political standards on the membership of a group the implication is that if you are a woman there is the list of things you must believe. That’s not equality, and while their intentions may be good, these groups that sum up a person by either gender or race are doing exactly the opposite of what was the original goal of said organization. Oddly enough the successes of these groups has rendered them irrelevant.

No place is this more evident than when addressing the issue of abortion. Many genuinely see abortion as the ‘taking of a life,’ and therefore feel obligated to speak out against it. They go up against those who perceive pro-lifers as trying to restrict the rights of women. This creates a tremendous clash. Yet this isn’t the stark issue that some have made it out to be. The reality is that some on the left and on the right have used rhetoric to help radicalize the debate, making it a huge wedge issue. True equality and freedom for women will exist when pro-choice translates to free-choice and each woman is free to make her own decision without having it imposed on her.

Therefore a modern effective woman’s group needs to depoliticize itself from conventional party politics, from automatically aligning with a particular party, from becoming its appendage. Women are free to believe in woman’s equality, and think abortion is wrong. Women are also free to believe that choice is their right. This holds for other issues too. It is up to the individual to decide where they stand on economics, foreign policy, and the like; it is not up to this group to determine the thoughts and beliefs of its members. The group should stand up for women against sexist attacks regardless of political belief and/or background. It is the task of this group to stand up for the dignity and respect of women and to stand up human rights as a whole. Such is the mission of a united majority