After a Coup d’Etat at NOW, the Future of “Feminism”
July 1, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|Bumped up
This article is cross-posted from The Huffington Post.
It’s not personal, it’s business. Revenues have been decreasing at an escalating rate in all business lines. Major losses in the main subsidiary have been financed through intercompany borrowings. Despite the financial hemorrhage, management has been taking salary increases. A bankruptcy filing could be imminent. Is this Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers? No, this is the National Organization for Women (NOW).
Some may think that NOW is an organization which has become obsolete, that women’s advocacy can move forward without this remnant of the second-wave of feminism. But that is missing the point. The success of national women’s organizations such as NOW is as important to women’s advocacy as it was for Wall Street to have Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley find their financial footing.
Last weekend, a major coup d’etat occurred at NOW’s election conference in Indianapolis. One attendee described the conference as “the nastiest election conference I’ve ever attended.” Another added: “People I had worked with for years refused to greet me or even recognize me in the hallways of the hotel.” When all was said and done, after 417 delegate votes had been cast and counted, the underdog slate headed by Terry O’Neill had taken over the reigns of NOW by a mere eight votes. This despite NOW’s established leadership endorsing, actively supporting, and utilizing hardball tactics (including the disqualification of LA Chapter delegates) in support of their hand-picked slate of candidates.
What went down in Indy? Ahead of the election conference itself, a group of long-time feminists who were upset with the direction that NOW had taken decided to organize a resistance. One such feminist, Dr. Lynette Long, pulled NOW’s old tax returns. Dr. Long’s research revealed that NOW’s membership, which reached 500,000 at its zenith, is currently closer to 60,000. Yet, the conference and election itself were mostly a symbolic gesture and the turning of a page. The damage to NOW has been done over decades.
Ask a target audience on the soccer sidelines what they think about NOW. Jenna’s mom says: “Yeah, I joined after college a couple of decades ago, but then totally lost interest.” Katie’s mom says: “Their issues just don’t resonate with me.” Zoe’s dad says: “I’m concerned about my teenage daughter, but there’s no place for me at NOW.” And the polls show the same — just 20% of those surveyed consider themselves “feminists,” and only 17% want their daughters to be.
A whole lot of folks will look back and try to decipher what has caused the downturn at NOW. Yet, the answer is quite simple: the organization stopped representing its constituents. Management became insular and lost touch with the folks, so the folks moved on with their busy lives. Management became like a clique with strict rites of passage including being liberal and pro-choice. As management increasingly focused on issues that divided their members, they didn’t hear the decades-long patter of 440,000 footsteps slowly walking away.
This is not dissimilar to what occurred on Wall Street. There too, management lost track of the basic tenets of customer focus and service. Management instead relied on excessive financial risk through esoteric financial tools which took management further and further away from their customer base. It was only a matter of time.
And just as Wall Street lifts itself from the ashes of ruin, now, so is the women’s movement. While Wall Street rises with the help of TARP, the Next Wave gets underway courtesy of the sexism in the 2008 election. Wall Street got aid from Henry Paulson — the Next Wave got invigoration from David Letterman. The CEO ranks of Wall Street were merged and reshuffled; a new slate of leadership has taken over NOW and a new national women’s group has been formed. Wall Street will be forever changed, as will the women’s movement.
And thank goodness — it’s about time. Because we’ve come a long way, baby, yes, but the 2008 election showed us that sexism is alive and thriving in this country. Women have made great strides, but just beneath the surface, where eyes cannot discern, the roots of sexism and misogyny have been left to grow unabated. The roots flourish in our media, our schools, our workplaces, even our political parties.
And in 2008 we reached a nadir. For Wall Street it was the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. For the women’s movement, it was the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.
As the Next Wave of “feminism” is ushered in, women’s advocacy can learn a thing or two from the lessons of Wall Street. The success of national organizations such as NOW and The New Agenda are just as critical to the way forward for women’s advocacy as it was for the stock market to see Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley shore up their capital base.
That at first may seem counter-intuitive. After all, thankfully, there are thousands of single-issue women’s organizations that have enjoyed tremendous success. Prominent and successful groups champion women’s issues such as fair pay, safety, and representation in business and government. These organizations have enjoyed successes; yet the women of this country have only come so far. Women still make 78 cents on the dollar of what men make; one in four women are still victims of assault at the hands of intimate partners; women’s representation in government has stalled and in business management is moving backwards. It seems that despite the noteworthy work at these issue-specific groups, making progress is still so incredibly hard.
There is a solution — and it’s right here, right now, at this moment. We have, for the first time in decades, the impetus and outline for the Next Wave. And the success of this Next Wave is in everybody’s interest. The underpinnings of the Next Wave is to make our country better, not for ourselves, but for the future. So when we turn to the next generation, we can say: “When you run for political office you will be judged on your merits. When you go to your first and last job you will get a fair shake and a fair wage. When you go to high school, you won’t have to be afraid of bullying and sexual assault. And most importantly, you will have mentors and role models in your life each step of the way.”
This is the message that will start to win back the 440,000 who left us because they felt that their voices were not being heard. Sure, we can look down our noses at the PTA moms and the softball dads who left along the way and insist that we don’t need them — but we do. We need unity. We need messages that will bring back the masses as the Next Wave begins. We need to focus on the issues that unite us, not divide us. We need national organizations that can excite and inspire. We need these national organizations to form alliances and fight for all of us.
And in fact, our collective success depends on it. When mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends and neighbors come back to us, we will finally have the groundswell of support needed to make this country better for the next generation. And we can do this. We simply need unity and alliances. We need to ensure the success of our national organizations in cultivating the Next Wave. We want the 440,000 and then some all to come back. And once they are back, the rest will take care of itself.
Great post – love, love the comparison with the financial industry.
You’ve triggered off a thought: I wonder if we can even make the case comparing the organized feminism ‘industry’ and/or NOW to not just the financial industry (which’s done well for itself and for its shareholders all these years except for last year even if it’s cheated millions of others outside) – but with the auto industry in the US.
Like GM, NOW’s problems are because of arrogant management and unethical partnerships with powerful politicians. Like GM, NOW just lost touch with its base – consumers, women, stakeholders who would actually carry the movement forward. Like GM, NOW was stuck with holding one card (SUVs/larger cars for the former, pro-choice for the latter) and forgot that its consumers wanted more realistic options for their changing lifestyles. Like GM, NOW has just lasted as long as it has because of whatever little government backing it’s got. Like GM, NOW’s management and supporters blame recent catastrophic failures on RECENT events, forgetting that they’ve just compounded decades of decline.
When in trouble, GM turns to its trusty employees to ‘bail them out’, cuts corners with pensions, etc rather than (heaven forbid) ask management to make sacrifices – like GM, NOW asks the women to step back, wait for their turn, and endorses an all-male ticket $$ over the first-ever woman on a Republican ticket. Like GM, NOW stands for ‘out of touch’, decrepit, corrupt and bloated.
Unlike with GM, where the consumers had the choice of going to foreign competition (Honda/Toyota/etc.), NOW’s consumers were left bereft of any substitutes, and moved out of the industry.
And like GM, what NOW needs is not just a small infusion of cash/votes but a complete overhaul of its priorities, methods and message.
After years of being shuffled to the side, those
“feminists” who are male- can now feel a part of the movement again, I know TNA has done that for me-Thank you Amy ,Ophelia, Judy etc- and now maybe I can come “home” to NOW also
I am so joining NOW as soon as terry takes over, July 20th. : )
Excellent piece, Amy!
I am linking you to my blog today….
There is more to women’s rights than abortion. Heck, there is more to “Choice” than abortion.
http://syd4.blogspot.com/2009/.....right.html
This is a great piece and I have something off-topic to post. Vanity Fair has a new hit-piece out on Sarah Palin and I just read this line from it:
“Another aspect of the Palin phenomenon bears examination, even if the mere act of raising it invites intimations of sexism: she is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights in national politics, the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs.”
“Some top aides worried about her mental state: was it possible that she was experiencing postpartum depression..”
I haven’t read the entire article, but his goes beyond the pale…
I forgot. Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/poli.....ntPage=all
[...] swamp of Hillary hatred and it was not a coup d’etat by definition nor intent.] wrote of the latest happy developments at the moribund National Organization of Women: Last weekend, a major coup d’etat occurred at NOW’s election conference in [...]
There can never be a “feminist movement” that does not include full reproductive justice for women. Unless women are free to control the timing and size of their families, they can never truly compete.
And to the men out there, NOW has always been welcoming to you. For the last two decades there have been men on the national NOW board of directors, and men have been state and chapter leaders.
Where I think you are mistaken in your view of NOW is on the issue of abortion. Can a woman who personally opposes abortion be a member of NOW? The answer is “yes” — as long as she acknowledges that each woman has the right to make decisions about abortion for herself. In other words, she must support the right of a woman to make this personal decision, which translates to supporting the availability of safe, legal and accessible abortion for ALL women who want one.
After all isn’t feminism about empowering all women to set the direction for their own lives — and working to provide a level playing field for all women?
BAC
You cannot claim A COUP, when all the work to give NOW new life came directly from NOW Feminist like me, that have never heard of the NEW Agenda. The fact that a very few of you attended does not make a coup! I am a National Board member from Texas. The first I have ever heard of you was from a NOW President,.We are not new agenda/Palin supporters. We support candidates and women that adhere to choice . We also do not condone Letterman or any one that promotes misogyny and abuse of women either in Word or Deed. I for one supported Terry O’Neill because she is the most qualified to take on the Fiscal challenges that NOW is facing. In this country there is room for all concepts of inclusion including the NEW AGENDA, but NOW is NOT RIPE for the picking! YOU, will have to do your own joint collaborations with other Legitimate groups to build a network just as NOW has in over 40 years. No coup was masterminded by the New Agenda, it was the membership that wanted a new direction. NOW is happy to have people that support our AGENDA, and inclusion of All women , and Women of Color. Diana Castaneda, South Central Region, Texas/Combating Racism Task Force Member
Diana,
I don’t know you, but take the vitriol somewhere else.
There is NO mention of The New Agenda being involved in any aspect of NOW other than supporting their success. We were not at the elections nor involved in ANY manner.
To be honest, it is women like yourself that set advancements back. Here you take an article that only supports NOW and encourages others to do the same, and use it as an excuse for vitriol. We need unity sister. Take a quiet moment, re-read the article and give it some thought.
Shame!
I am glad Amy wrote this article. I still have no intention of joining NOW, as I just don’t see them as relevant to me. Isn’t that funny? I am a female who has fought discrimination in the corporate sphere, works to empower girls now, and doesn’t find NOW relevant. You’re right, abortion isn’t the only issue, but NOW always made it seem like it was. Well, that and gay rights, last time I checked in on them, which admittedly was in the 90’s. I also find it ironic that a TX NOW chair got angry over this article, and the way Amy responded to her. Why? Because in my mind, what’s really killing feminism as a movement is all the infighting and the ‘let me whip out my card that proves I am a better feminist than you’. So, this is women fighting women, just what the patriarchy likes us to do. Instead of being for ALL women, feminism feels like it’s for some women, while excluding others, and even those insider women are fighting for control over just that limited group.
There has to be another way.
Thank you sharonevolving.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s the old “clique”….what Diana took the time to come over and point out is that The New Agenda is NOT in the clique so be gone.
Exactly why NOW has 60,000 members. Exactly why other organizations that are inclusive are thriving.
Unity!
Amy, Vitriol, means roughly ACIDIC and Bitterness… What I know is that some of your group did attend the National conference.. What I am saying is that Terry’s win was a win by it’s members and for it’s members,and not New Agenda people that attended and were expected by the opposing side to tilt this election. . I am also saying that your group must do the legwork to become a viable feminist organization by building coalitions and collaborations with other women’s organizations, like NOW has done for over 40 years! NOW has had it dips and highs, and will do so over and over through time as any group or person alive or dead. Perhaps you may want to re read my intent and not your preconceived notions of who or what NOW is,or I am. By the WAY I did tell you who I am. Nothing I have said is caustic, it is simply clearing the AIR!
We’re taking the high road of unity Diana. I wish you the best.
Diana-
I know that many of the groups that have been around for years like NOW, just as many of us who did the heavy lifting back in 60’s & 70s, feel like our hard work is going unacknowledged or upstaged by wet behind the ears “competitors”. Strangely it’s kind of the way lots of us Hillary supporters felt when the newbie, young, cool guy won the primary last year over a women of substance with a lifetime of service. When NOW endorsed their first male candidate ever, not Al Gore nor John Kerry, but That One- many of us said “Never Again.” When Ellie Smeal and Ms put Mr. Obama on the cover dressed as the superman who has come to save us weak damsels- it made a mockery of the first historic cover showing Wonder Woman- Your anger and ours is exactly why we need to rethink the goals of the women’s movement- eyes on the prize.
Just because The New Agenda doesn’t discuss or defend issues relating to choice (there are plenty of other specialized organizations that do) doesn’t mean that those who join are all pro-life or pro-choice-it means that TNA will not use that personal decision to discriminate and separate women -it will not be used as a crowbar to segregate women as the political parties have been doing for years. And if by Palin supporters you mean TNA members support the notion that even conservative women deserve to be treated in a non-sexist, respectful manner, then I guess we are- but as a voter, I’m a pretty far left liberal. Perhaps if women’s groups worked together a long time ago we wouldn’t have only one woman on the Supreme Court and perhaps the issue of choice would be settled law. Working together, with egos in check, we might be able to reach the goal of parity in representation and many issues like violence against women and equal pay could get the attention they deserve. Let’s try to be generous with each other -keep our minds open to “change” – and different points of view. Do we want a country run by one party and one sex? Good versus evil is not a smart way to look at the world and it hinders progress –
FYI: I know lots of N.E. pro-choice Republican women and even a few pro-life Democrats.
Women’s Rights are Human Rights- whether you have a (D) or an (R) next to your name.
[...] June 25, 2009 · 2 Comments The New Agenda: After a Coup d’Etat at NOW, the Future of “Feminism” [...]
I first joined NOW in 1973. My whole life has been spent working for women’s rights. I am a proud feminist. However, I did not renew my NOW membership in 2009 because I was very upset and unhappy when NOW did not appear to work for Hillary nearly at the level the organization could have/should have. I was even more upset when the organization voted to endorse Obama. I’ve been reminded that NOW endorsed Walter Mondale – but am also reminded that was because the first woman vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro was also on the ticket. NOW leadership should not have ‘gotten in bed’ with Obama – nor should it be a tool of any political party. The issues women need to fight for are not tied to one or the other political party.
I do intend to renew my membership the day that Terry O’Neill becomes President in hopes we see a return to the work of earlier days -i.e., focussing on the need to fight for ALL the rights of ALL women. I’m too old to need an abortion and I am not gay but there are many things that need to be addressed in addition to the rights of gays and the need to protect privacy (pro-choice).
This is going on waaaaay to long. I have been a NOW member for over 27 years. This past conference was my 8th for elections and only the 2nd time I supported the winning side.
This conference was NOT bitter or nasty. Throughout the conference I talked with, laughed and ate with women and men supporting the different slates.
Was there some controversity and a bit of snarkyness. Yes. Was there great debate and discussion about NOW, YES.
The debate focused on tactics and strategy going into the last half of the decade and the fight for equality.
We must STOP the finger pointing and blame game.
Almost all the progresive non-profits are facing hard times.
NOW saw the writing on the wall 2 years ago and began to take the needed steps. NO staff have been laid off. Not so for many other progressive organizations.
NOW continues to be at the fore front of every issue. It was NOW 5 years ago that came out and voted for it’s national PAC to make gay marriage a bell weather issue for NOW’s endorsement
NOW makes NO concessions on the issue of abortion. All women, young-poor-rural-military-in prison- must have access to abortion and reproductive health care services.
NOW has stood at the fore front of every major issue facing women.The Violence Againist Women Act. Title 9. electing women to congress and to state legislatures and statewide office.
If women are afraid to call themselves feminists so be it. but on the issues, over and over again, women side with NOW.
We as feminists must use the word proudly and boldly. I AM A FEMINIST. We all must work together
david stewart, AND I AM A FEMINIST
Diane
I left NOW during the undemocratic primary when they decided to endorse the most sexist, misogyny exploiting candidate ever to run for POTUS. I have been a liberal democrat my entire adult life and I just last year realized that orginizations like NOW were supporting the decline and devolution of the liberal movement as well as the feminist movement by being the same kind of sycophants that we saw at MSNBC, CNN, SNL and The David Letterman Show. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are far more progressive than Obama ever was or will be. But NOW just had to support George Bush on steroids- Barak Obama.
Orginization for WOMEN? I think NOT!
[...] This post was Twitted by NycBrookman3 [...]
Diana Castaneda:
Our society owes a debt of gratitude to the many women and men who have worked to advance women’s rights over the years. I see that many of the people (younger women in particular) are not aware of that debt. I acknowledge that debt. I include in that acknowledgement many current and former members of NOW.
My view is that NOW and many of the other established women’s organizations that are tied to the Democratic Party chose a less qualified man over the more qualified woman. My reaction then and still is that was a violation of trust, just as this philandering governor from South Carolina is guilty of violations of trust.
More importantly, these established organizations like NOW have become partisan political organizations that do not keep women’s rights as their highest priority. TNA holds out the possibility of a nonpartisan inclusive organization that works to support all women. In that process, I believe, TNA will both work with and be supportive of NOW, provided that NOW chooses to work on behalf of women rather than the Democratic Party.
I agree with John Horning re NOW’’s support of BO over HRC. I kept hoping otherwise, but like many of the writers above, I lost interest in NOW many many years ago. (I was also shocked by NARAL’s support of BO)
I have been re-energized by TNA, an organization not focused on the polarizing issue of reproductive rights (and I send $$ regularly to Planned Parenthood), but on the support all women and to promote all women political candidates, regardless of party affiliation. It’s the way women need to go now. The Dems are not on our side.
Does NOW receive gov’t money, are they non-profit?
NOW compromised on its core mission, fighting sexism – to cozy up to a candidate who has no intention of fighting for women’s rights. And what did they get for it? Gandy was passed over for head of the Commission on Women and Girls. A SC nominee unreliable on choice.
This comment may not be precisely on topic, but I think it’s as good a place as any to make it.
In many articles/essays I’ve read over the past year or more on the treatment of women candidates during the 2008 primaries and general election, I’ve noticed that the words “misogyny” and “sexism” seem to be used interchangeably.
Have they become synonymous? While I think the word “misogyny” has come to mean more than “woman hatred,” I’m not convinced it means the same thing as “sexism.” Is misogyny the underlying belief that fuels the practice of sexism?
I’d appreciate hearing others’ thoughts on this. Thanks.
Boston Nell:
Per Webster’s: Misogyny is “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women”. Sexism is “attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles”.
I suggest that in some cases, they are one and the same in others they are quite different. Still, I think that each of us has our own interpretation, even with these definitions.
[...] here will have read my piece After a Coup d’Etat at NOW, the Future of “Feminism”. My piece is an endorsement of NOW and the importance of the organization: The success of national [...]
Thanks for the response, John; however, I was hoping for a discussion that goes beyond dictionary definitions.
I agree with you that sometimes the words mean the same thing, but I think that more often they are different but closely interconnected. Sometimes misogyny is the root of sexism. Sometimes the converse is true. For example, a rapist may rape out of hatred/disdain/contempt for his victim (or indeed for ALL women) or as a result of his feeling of superiority and a need to control her, but either way, the woman is equally violated. Whichever sentiment (misogyny or sexism) prevails in a specific situation is unimportant to the broader discussion of the patriarchy which has kept women in a state of oppression for thousands of years. Both misogyny and sexism are rooted in the denial of the fundamental humanity of women, human beings entitled to all the same rights of autonomy and self-determination that men enjoy. Racism (which has no analogous breakdown into two separate concepts of hatred, on the one hand, and belief in the superiority of one’s own race, on the other) is rooted in the same denial of basic humanity.
In the final analysis, the subtle differences between misogyny and sexism are not very important. Both contribute to the ongoing oppression.
Diana, this sentence of yours caught my attention: NOW is happy to have people that support our AGENDA, and inclusion of All women , and Women of Color.” All women are just that, all women – that sentence collaberates what Amy said about NOW’s Administration becoming a clique and insular. From 500,000 to 60,000 pretty much sums it up. You can’t talk your away around that. The painful silence of NOW during the ‘burning and stoning’ of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin put the last nail in NOW’s coffin. How were you able to ignore the outrage expressed by any number of women over said silence?? Your posts here have not bolstered and changed the view of NOW held by so many women, and men. I do wish your newly elected leader well and I hope you can become truly inclusive and not center your collective efforts mostly on only issues of Choice.
Let’s hope that this is or can be the beginning of a new day and we can all move forward together for women rights. It is time to put the old behind us and start fresh.
Amen to that Betty Jean!
As a state leader in NOW, I appreciate the concerns of those who feel that NOW lost its way. I can assure you that the new leadership is focused on the grassroots activism that achieved so many of feminism’s goals that a new generation feels they can take their rights for granted.
That being said, I must agree with BAC above, who wrote that NOW will always be committed to reproductive justice, rights, and access. When women control their fertility, they control their futures. Reproductive rights are civil rights.
Shannon,
We realize that the premises of TNA are different from NOW. That being said, the hope and goal of TNA is unity and working on issues that unite us.
It is discouraging to see the disparaging comments from a national board member of NOW on our website. It would seem that NOW does not agree with TNA on unity.
I encourage your organization to look at the HRC and Family Equality Council – 2 prominent gay rights organizations. There goals in totality are different, yet they are able to find common ground to work together and achieve.
It saddens me the amount of animosity in this venue. Women’s advocacy will not advance until women’s groups support one another on common goals.
NOW will soon be history if they do not scrap the self righteous attitude, and it will matter little who’s at the helm. I believe NOW made some bad decisions in the democratic primary and by failing to acknowledge that fact even now ,speaks volumes. They have stopped listening, they are all knowing.
This is sure disaster for any organization. NOW hurt most those who’s rights they professed to defend, and I for one am waiting to hear a little remorse, an apology, but it will not come because NOW is out of touch with the ones who made NOW- they forgot where they came from and for who’s benefit they were fighting.
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
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.
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..
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.
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.
I do like the way you write, Janis—well put.
It all starts—and flows—from representation, a seat at the table…
“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.
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).
[...] 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 [...]
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
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...