After a Coup d’Etat at NOW, the Future of “Feminism”
By Amy Siskind on July 1, 2009 at 9:01 AM in Feminism, Sexism, Women
I am the president and co-founder of The New Agenda. This article was originally published at 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.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
LET’S MARCH TO THE CAPITOL TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND TO THE STREETS!
Calling ALL Americans! Phone calls are NOT going to DO IT! We need to march to the Capitol and be there when these bills come up on the floor.
We cannot let Cap & Trade PASS! We must be there and let them know NO TO CAP & TRADE!
People EVERYWHERE in America—grab your signs and go out on the streets everywhere EVERYDAY!! Let’s make some NOISE. PEACEFUL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!
It’s going to have to be us Hillary supporters to stop Obama and Congress because conservatives/republicans are too lazy.
Paul Krugman’s latest made me think that Obama needs to abandon all these costly programs he’s trying ram through and concentrate, for the present, on using all our resources to get this country back on an even economic keel.
No we are not. We united with you in the last election. We are your sisters and found out we are not too far apart. We have more RESPECT for you Hillary supporters then we EVER had for the democratic party and we are right there with you. Let`s roll sister. You will find that the women in the republican party are the ones with the balls just like the women in the democratic party. Let us adults take our parties back. We need a 2 party system of adults. Then we adults will work together to get things done. We respect you now. Never forget it. You`ve got friends. We`ve got your back. Take it to the bank.
JRD, you are exactly right! Women who are democrats have got to work with women who are republicans, who are liberal or conservative. I’ve been saying that for a year now. United we can win this battle. Divided we will most assuredly fail. We cannot allow divisive issues to take over the cause as we have done in the past.
I’m not sure the proper term is coup d’etat because that term implies (to my understanding) negative and illegitimate connotations. What happened with these NOW elections is that the feminists with moral integrity finally prevailed, ousting the more corrupt and inept leadership.
Great post, Amy!
I was one of the 440,000 who walked away. Once Terry O’Neill is officially in as President I’m going to rejoin NOW and hopefully things will get back how they used to be. We need organizations like The New Agenda and the old NOW more than ever!
Amy on July 20th I will join and send in some extra money. Thanks for putting up a good fight (((waving))).
I will join on July 21 too. It’s been a few years. NOW wasn’t cutting edge enough but they will focus on grassroots now.
What is Terry O’Neill’s agenda? I don’t know much about her at all. Is the new leadership going to focus on fundamental feminist issues, or continue to cling to party partisanship instead?
My contempt for NOW has been ongoing for a couple of decades–because they aren’t a National Organization for Women, they’re just another Democratic Party Fundraising Organization.
If NOW can’t stand up for Sarah Palin–the Governor of Alaska–then I can’t stand up for NOW.
They won’t get me back until they’ve earned my respect.
I think NOW lost a great deal of credibility when they did not mount a full-on counter-attack against the rampant misogyny of the Obama supporters and MSM sycophants directed against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Back when NQ was up-in-arms about the pic of Jon Favreau & buddy groping the cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton (December of ‘08), I quipped in these pages:
Now can regain some of its credibility by coming to Sarah Palin’s defense when she is viciously attacked.
Great article, Amy.
Yes, oowawa, what you say is true. And feminism is not only the province of the left.
NOW did not stand up for Hillary or Sarah — they went where they thought the money was and the result was a disaster. That is true of anyone or any organization not staying true to their own purpose.
It is a gross insult for a magazine like Ms. to put Obama on the cover and call this the new face of feminism — where was Hillary on the cover in ‘08? This is what women today think feminism is? Daddy take care of me?
Feminism and feminist became dirty words long before this election. And it wasn’t by those working against women’s equality. The feminist went after anyone and anything that did not conform to their ideals of take no prisoners, anti male, anti stay at home motherhood type of feminism. And that is why membership in NOW is so low! And then to embrace Obama instead of Hillary or Palin was the final nail for too many.
Personally I don’t see a big serge to join NOW happening anytime soon.
I see your point.
That’s why The New Agenda is looking to rejigger things.
Linda – find a shoe that fits – if not NOW, then check us out.
Amy, thank you for a valuable insight.
Question, Due do the actions of NOW and stark dismissal of the rank and file much like Moveon.org during the primaries, how is the New Agenda addressing the tendency to be “co-opted” by other agendas?
Many a pol will come a courting as is evidence by BO dividing up NOW to satisfy political ends in the name of NOW’s stated goals. How do you keep this transparent with in The New Agenda?
Our premise works – it is simple and can stand the test of time. We are 100% women’s issues – issues that impact women and girls – not women and girls of one party or another – and we are not going to let choice and gay rights be a focus – those orgs are well established and do a fine job on their own.
The New Agenda is the home for 100% women’s issues. And we ain’t giving away any milk for free
When we have 100,000’s or millions of members, the crap like the Vanity Fair article will be erased from our country’s “civil” discourse!
I support that effort Amy, of removing this “crap” as you put it from the lexicon of civil discourse.
I also am interested in Terry O’Neil’s agenda.
Also:
What did the L.A. Chapter do to deserve this? (I’m in L.A.)
I believe the head of NOW in LA came out to endorse Palin, calling her a true feminist.
Ani, Are you implying they were shitcanned for the LA Chapter’s president endorsement/support of Palin?
Gee, I guess I am implying that. But it is only a guess.
Check out her slate’s blog and she will focus more on direct action which they’ve been lax in recent years.
http://feministleadershipnow.wordpress.com/
NOW NOT only did not stand up for Sarah Palin (and never will), they did not stand up for Hillary either. They endorsed Obama over Hillary and so did NARAL. So much for supporting women as well as the Democratic Party connection.
I am very interested to hear about NOW’s new leadership and ‘turning the page’. I trust Lynette Long and am very eager to hear what she thinks about it. I was very involved with women’s rights, but never through NOW. I have such negative feelings about that organization that it would be nearly impossible for me to ever accept NOW much less be a member. They were always very divisive and believe me, left to NOW, we will continue going backwards instead of forward. NOW will never be able to accept pro-life women or women who believe (like Obama & Hillary) that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
This is incorrect. NOW endorsed Clinton on March 28, 2007. They did not endorse BHO until September 16, 2008, well after the end of the primaries. Also during the general election, NOW’s website had a Hall of Shame where one could vote against media figures, an article criticizing the media misogyny directed against Clinton, and another one criticizing the media misogyny directed at Palin. I don’t know whether any of it’s still there (I’m neither a member or a supporter of NOW because it wastes its time on nonfeminist issues) but it was there September 6 2008.
http://www.now.org/press/03-07/03-28.html
http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html
“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…”
Well, as a former NOW member, I haven’t left feminism; feminism, it appears, has left me. And where was NOW when Hillary needed their support?
They caved to popular culture and embraced Barack.
At that point (whether Sen. Clinton was the better liberal candidate or not–to me she was), women for women should have been the clarion call.
What ever happened to the captain going down with his ship mindset? Where is the solidarity forever
mantra? The country has changed and moveable-feast politics rule. If you think successful women execs are any more progressive or any less plutocratic than the dominant white male model (Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial review, noted), you fail a litmus test for ingenuousness.
Republican women, almost to the person, will accept carte blanche the party’s anti-choice position. Pro-choice is the core issue in the Feminist Manifesto.
That is why I am leary of Sotomayor; she seems too
prone to go along to get along. Life isn’t all that
simple, is it? Once upon a time things were clearer.
The drift you cite in the above quote is true of all phases and facets of organizational dictates in America. There is no one glaring cause to unite us.
During the election NOW was more concerned with making Obama president and supporting liberal agenda. The org has kept quite when Hillary was demeaned by people like Mathews and Olberman and were also silent when Sarah was likewise disrespected by Letterman and J Fox.
I agree with a blogger named “Grandma” commenting on J Fox comparison of S Plain to herpes……….
“I agree. What has happened to women standing up for women? I am sick to death of these so call comedians and radio host spouting vile language against women and young girls. These men are then paraded around the TV circuit as comedians and talk host; what a joke. Jamie Fox has been on late night TV since he made the degrading remarks about Miley Cyrus. Give me a break.”
“Women of all creeds, color, religion, political parties we are never going to be equal as long as we do not speak out against this vile language by men against other women. Make a statement for all women boycott the Today Show and shame on the women that set on the couch and listened to this clown.”
politicsisdirty: concerning comedians and sexism, did you see that Franken was declared the winner in MN? Just what we need in D. C., another entertainer. I don’t know much about Norm Coleman, but I know Franken is a jerk. He said terrible things about Hillary and I cannot rejoice that he won. He’s on about the same level as Bill Maher.
I’m so tired of Democrats dissing Sarah Palin. I’m not a conservative, but it riles me that this woman who worked so hard to be successful and is a self-made success should be reviled and villified while that Great Oaf who has never accomplished anything in his whole entire life sits in the WH.
Sarah’s announcement that she could beat Obama in a long foot race made me think that Obama really does nothing to workout. Even Bush was a runner and a mountain biker. It reminded me again how lazy and dissipated Obama is. His exercise is running off to Hawaii to play golf.
Women Arise!
Funny, I said exactly that to my other half this morning – “Great, Minnesota elected Senator Maher”. It is Idiocracy meets 1984, scary stuff.
“I’m so tired of Democrats dissing Sarah Palin. I’m not a conservative, but it riles me that this woman who worked so hard to be successful and is a self-made success should be reviled and villified while that Great Oaf who has never accomplished anything in his whole entire life sits in the WH.”
Me, too. I’m tired of Dems and Repubs dissing her (I’m a lifelong Dem, but now consider myself party-free) when she embodies the quintessential American story:
Raised in a middle class family, good values, put herself through school, took on public service because she believed she had something to give, worked her way up legitimately, knocked out an incumbent Repub governor, and cleaned up the corrupt old guys network in AK.
She’s really phenomenal in many ways. She should be celebrated for her accomplishments because she’s the real deal.
Unlike Mr. Featherweight Resume who’s had his Harvard education paid for him and has had a cakewalk of a career where everyone paved the way for him with dollars or influence.
Agree on Palin. I just wrote a piece for our blog on that piece of trash on Vanity Fair- mind you the same writer did a hit job on Bill and by virtue Hillary one year ago!
Is’nt he married to Dee Dee Myers?? His sister-in-law was a fundraiser for ofraudo at the time. Just little facts VF forgot to disclose when that smear piece came out. How do these lying cowards keep being allowed to peddle their vitriolic fantasies as journalism?
Yep, and Lo! “Dee Dee Meyers is the sister of Betsy Meyers. Betsy Meyers is the Chief Operating Officer of the Obama campaign.” Apparently Betsy was more than a “fundraiser” for Thee One. Cozy little family! And here’s a manly picture of the hunk Todd Purdum:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0f14bxGgFe50n/340x.jpg
Yes, the Vanity Fair author of both the Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin smears is married to Dee Dee Myers. In addition, DD was a busy pundit during both the primary and ge. She was very careful to speak in luke-warm terms about Hillary even though she was hawking her new book, “Why Women Should Rule the World”.
Never mind she is somebody because of Bill Clinton. “Women Rule….” – what a joke. She was obviously for Obama.
Good on you, Amy. I’m glad to hear it. And no, I’m not surprised this same trash writer took it upon himself to do a hit piece on the Clintons as well. Honestly, how do these people sleep at night.
wish there were an organized way to teach this “Todd Purdum” a lesson….
Clinton campaigned for Franken, and today he said “he would style himself after former Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Bradley, Democrats who gained fame before joining the Senate — one as first lady, the other as a pro basketball star.
“Both came to the Senate with some celebrity and some skepticism from people on the Hill,” Franken said. “They both put their heads down and did the work and won over their colleagues by not running to the camera.”
If you check out his views on youtube, you will find that he is very sensible.
While campaigning for him Clinton said “Sure, he’s been a comedian, and occasionally he’s even been funny.”
More importantly, while I do not disagree that he was elected for celebrity, at least he is not a traitor as is Norm Coleman.
Norm Coleman is a draft dodging chicken hawk.
He has long been in bed with Dick Cheney.
He used his position as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to conceal acts by Halliburton which has cost taxpayers billions.
He has long been in bed with Ted Stevens from whose pac he received large donations and from whom he received an introduction to Veco, whose donations he refused to return even after they pled guilty to defrauding the IRS.
He is in bed with Nasser Kazeminy an Iranian born lobbyist, head of NJK Holdings an investment firm, from whom his wife received a nice job and he large donations and gifts, trips to the Bahamas, house remodeling, etc, which he failed to report while simultaneously awarding Kazeminy contracts. He is under investigation for corruption relating to this.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/389157/norm_coleman_under_investigation
After he was elected but before assuming his senate seat, he used the power of his yet-to-be-assumed U.S. Senate office to try to leverage a presidential pardon for convicted money launderer and Tom Petters associate Frank Vennes Jr. And two years after that, Coleman wrote yet another pardon plea on Vennes’ behalf.
He voted for the bailout, and then whined about CEOs golden parachutes: yet he did nothing to disallow them as part of the bailout.
In short he is a neocon POS, and one for whom they have high aspirations, witness the months long lawsuits in spite of overwhelming evidence of Coleman’s corruption on many fronts, and it is a great day for America that the POS finally conceded. But don’t think he won’t be back:
They will doubtless run him for governor since Pawlenty will not seek a 3rd term.
I agree..the only way to stop these ‘folks’ from hurting women is to stop sponsoring them. When a 4 year old child is molested over and over and her predator is given a six month jail term while a thief gets 150 years..is unfailing testimony that money outweighs all. Greed is KING-ask Obama.
We all should-as I do-boycott Letterman’s show and his advertisers-boycott anyone who would give Jamie ‘druggie’ Foxx a venue. We should boycott MSNBC and their affiliates and sponsors. Each one of us makes a difference..spend what ever little money on competing products, alternate TV stations and they will feel it.
This line caught my eye, Amy:
“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.”
Seems like the organization learned their lessons well from the DNC.
Brava to Dr. Long for her research. Lots of lying going on these days.
However, I agree with the fromer poster, mountainaires: the only way the New Wave can work is if it’s inclusive for women of all stripes and philosophies. A Sarah Palin, though I may not agree with her on all things, needs to be included and conversely needs to meet me and other women on issues that affect all women, of which there are many. If the organization can pull that off then I think they’ll be able to increase the membership.
There are a lot of angry, fed up women in the country. I know I’m personally sick and tired of the blatant sexism. Or being told to “lighten up.”
But it’s only our collective voice that will have any clout.
Thanks for the info!
Absolutely, and what is new today is that women on the right — like Palin — are calling themselves feminists or at least not dismissing it altogether as they used to. This new phenomenon must be cultivated further toward fostering alliances among women across political stripes.
If Palin (or any other woman) decides to run in 2012 or 2016, women must be prepared to fight against the inevitable sexism and misogyny that will ensue from both parties. By all accounts, Republicans who prefer another candidate to Palin will launch an HRC-like attack on her (we’re seeing this already). They need to be put on notice!! The level of intolerance for sexism & misogyny must be challenged in the way racism has been over the decades. I don’t recall the Democratic Party going after Collin Powell or even Keyes in a racist manner, so why should women regardless of their political ideology be treated any differently?
Women of this country must make it clear that sexism and misogyny are UNACCEPTABLE.
Trixta said:
“I don’t recall the Democratic Party going after Collin Powell or even Keyes in a racist manner, so why should women regardless of their political ideology be treated any differently?”
Because we’ve allowed ourselves to get twisted up in the hot button issues, Choice being a major one. Both sides of the aisle have kept the pot brewing and women have trotted right along. As long as we’re divided our voice is muted, nothing gets done, and we’re wide open to attack. Strength in numbers is more than a simple cliche. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noted how the raw, disgusting sexism has gotten much, much worse.
Whether it’s Hillary Clinton being torn apart by Republicans and then her own treacherous party, or Sarah Palin being shredded by the Far Left, it has to stop. And frankly, NOW was part of the problem with their see no evil, hear no evil stance during the 2008 primary and general election. There were some exceptions, a few public women did step forward but they were too few and too far between.
The last organization that should practice “selective sexism” is a group claiming to represent women. They don’t represent me. Time will tell if the tigress changes her stripes. But they have alot of bridges to mend first.
Btw, I think you’re right, Trixta. If a woman is on the ticket, first or second spot, the same old, same old will begin to fly. And whatever party or candidate remains silent on these issues, will not get my vote. I’m flatout tired of having my vote taken for granted.
i.e. the level of tolerance for
sexism & misogyny….
I’m all for a group that has womans interest at heart, but the only thing NOW ever promoted was abortion and politicians that support abortion. Equal pay is the most important issue to me and my girls. We can’t even get our congress to address the wage disparity. I’m 62 and I have been waiting along time for that to be addressed. If abortion is still the top issue for woman than I don’t need NOW.
I am 70 and have daughters and grand daughters who still do not have ERA or equal pay. Someone wrote on another website they found an old show from the 1970s where they were talking about a march for the ERA.
When NOW starts working for ERA and Equal pay and stopping violence against women, call me till then if they continue to be a one trick pony and abortion is their only issue do not waste my time.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS, EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
I was going to add that one in below, but I tried to avoid that topic for it’s controversy. A woman’s right to choose had a totally different meaning then. It was not used a a means of birth control, which some women do use it for today. It was not used as a means to get rid of child that wasn’t going to be born perfect or the right sex, which some women use it for today. Which some men today seem to think it was used for(the comments on Sarah’s infant as one example) Far too many don’t know or have forgotten it was just as it claims to be a Woman’s right to choose. FOR or AGAINST.
They had one way of protecting themselves then. Yes, there were condoms, but for women it was an IUD and it was killing women. There are middle grounds we women can reach on this topic, but not until we’re willing to talk and far too many don’t want to hear what anyone has to say on either side. What seems to be the only issue Women’s groups want to talk about and only one side of it.
I am absolutely pro-choice, I think the entire affair is between one woman and one doctor. Nobody else. Not the church, not the federal government, not the nosy neighbors and not NOW. I cannot imagine circumstances that would cause me to have an abortion, but I dont like the idiocracy in this transaction.
Many women who choose to be against abortion wish to remove it as a legal option. I can never agree with them. Choosing “against” for them negates my ability to choose “for” – it would be as if I were asking for mandatory abortions under some circumstances, to be determined later by bureaucrats and busybodies.
That said, I am so sick of women being railroaded to the polls by both parties on this one issue. The only way to stop this is for voters to wake up, and from what I see I am not holding my breath. The electorate always goes for the dog and pony show.
And WHY we are still talking about abortion is beyond me. It is now part of the constitution. It is the law. It will NOT be taken away. We need to move on. That fight is OVER.
Brava and ditto! I am also fed up with the women’s movement held hostage by the Democrats who continue to dangle the abortion issue as “the major issue” as if we were a herd of cows to be “managed.”
And, I think the election of a woman president should be a priority.
Lynette Long also documented how Barack Obama’s storm troopers played thug politics with the caucus process last year. For the women’s movement to support Obama after that … it was the last straw for me. Obama and other political punks who dis women should never receive the support of women’s rights groups. Instead of closing ranks behind Obama, the women’s movement should have called him out on his own behavior and the behavior of his minions. Instead, they decided to defend Obama and savage Palin. Disgrace.
It took a punk like Letterman to finally motivate some of these groups to get off their asses and come to the defense of Palin. A disgrace all around. I know too many women in my home city of NY who thought it was ok to trash Palin and who looked the other way when Hillary’s voters were shoved around. As a lifelong Dem, I was ashamed to see my party become the thing it hated.
Before I applaud any “changes” at NOW or in any other “women’s organization,” I will need more proof to see if the women’s movement has stopped drinking the Obama brew.
Great comment. (Dr. Long is a treasure.) When NOW speaks to the culture of misogyny directed and nurtured by BO then, I will take another look at them.
Absolutely, Mandelay. Sounds like the NOW organization tried to implement the Obama fraud tactics into their own election process. I would have no interest in that group unless the group that lost quits the organization. I doubt that will happen. They will simply wait until next year and make sure their fraud works then.
Amy this would be the third wave and it is needed. We cannot forget the women that went through the first two waves. The first wave began with women’s right to vote as a major issue, along with a woman’s right to own property, a business, etc. I was part of the second wave as a child and young teen with my aunts, mother, and grandmother which addressed equal pay, spousal rape, spousal abuse, and several other major issues.
Now had taken a wrong turn. It had made itself a member of a party. The Democrats.
When I was there it was all women standing united together in common goals. They never agreed on everything so they found middle grounds. Democrats, Republicans, Independents. It was both Religious and Non Religious women. AOL had a poll the other day, more than 70 % of said that feminism and conservatism do not go together. THAT IS BS! There are issues that affect every woman equally no matter what their political ideology is. Religious belief. After what we witnessed last year and continue to witness I’m thankful that women are feeling invigorated to once again come together. To stop the partisan BS/ignorance that had/has taken over NOW.
I was part of the second wave as a then-called “career woman”. While I worked I had 2 children despite having to have them on my vacation weeks (no family leave).
Newspaper ads were Help Wanted Male & Help Wanted Female.
You had to be able to type (I didn’t).
Bosses could ask, if you were married, what your plans were for having a family.
Promotions went to less experienced men, and women were paid less. You had to be twice as good at your job as a male to be considered equal. (That hasn’t changed).
Despite, that, if you fought and worked like hell and stayed true to yourself and honest with others, you could have a terrific life. And I have. I’ve had it all.
I’m still working. Now I want the third wave for my daughter. And I want to be part of it.
After it was made illegal the bosses still asked if you were married and plans for having kids.
They even started the conversation by saying it was illegal to ask. But every job I have ever interviewed for asked about my plans for kids in depth. Citing all the money they wasted and lost by training young, unmarried, women.
Whatever those bosses wanted to believe about women and children is what ruled their choices. Men have a family to support. Young, unmarried, women look for jobs to find those unattached men was a theme I ran across a lot.
i.e. the forth wave…. (but whose counting!)
Yet another counterculture organization gone wrong over The One. Now, I don’t care about NOW.
NOW needs to fight for all women, no matter their political party. It’s about gender, not voter registration cards.
I just went to NOW’s website and they have the same OLE website. Foolish. NOW needs to shed their old look. NOW needs to make a big announcement on a NEW website, explicitly stating that NOW will defend all women and fight for all women, no matter their politics. NOW needs to say this! And then prove it.
I think that as women we need to approach life assuming all paths are open to us if we wish to fight the good, fair, fight. To me its important for women to assume that it will be so, and proceed as if it were so. Don’t be stopped by perceived issues, proceed until you encounter real ones.
When we see that things are not fair based on gender, we need to shout until it stops (what is SoS Clinton wearing today I wonder?).
This shouldn’t be a conservative or liberal issue at all.
I haven’t seen NOW be constructive in a long time. Maybe under new management they can become relevant again, and not just a convenient platform for progressive initiatives of all sorts.
NOW needs to be in the streets more, and on television more, gotta be relevant…and they need to be seen side by side with conservative women(to send a message, at least) and *I* want to see all kinds of NOW representatives in the media–every “type”–it would be nice to see someone around my age. NOW needs an image make-over, seriously. Why can’t they have a junior feminist squad for media interviews? They need to be seen as made-over, new, and fresh. Throw parties, get tech-savvy, sell cool t-shirts, whatever–shit. This will help to get members. NOW should be asking: How do we get the younger generations? How do we bring back former members? How do we lose our “bad” image?
Will NOW work to change this?
http://thewiddershins.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/subprime-health-insurance-policies/
It does affect women and their families.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Insisting that NOW tackle issues beyond gender equality is its real issue in my opinion. And the major issue of feminism in its “third” (or whatever) wave.
NOW should be about gender equality, not the entire gamut of progressive action items.
Women make up the majority of humanity, everything that impacts humans impacts them. But not every challenge humans (and women) face is based on gender. Credit card interest rates, healthcare, save the whales, climate change, whatever. If these are your issues there is a group out there for it. That group should not be NOW.
Hearing that Hillary Clinton is a “bitch with cankles” and that Sarah Palin looks like a “slutty flight attendant who likes to watch her 14 year old daughter be gang banged” are issues NOW should speak up on. Loudly. I am still waiting to hear them.
If NOW and other womens groups cannot focus on one thing (amazingly, anti-female gender bias), they will never accomplish anything.
“And the polls show the same — just 20% of those surveyed consider themselves “feminists,” and only 17% want their daughters to be.”–Amy Siskind
______
That’s AWFUL. Yeah, I have been called a “dyke” and a “baby killer” for sounding a bit “too feminist” on the internet. (I wasn’t even talking about lesbianism or abortion.) WHAT is this? Why? Did feminists do this or is this just patriarchal silencing tactics or what. Either way: MUST CHANGE IMAGE.
How come I never saw a NOW booth at my college campus? If I did, don’t you know it would have been smart to make it an exciting and cool booth, (somehow). I mean…HOW do we change “feminist” into a good thing. It IS a good thing. Do men really want their daughters and wives and mothers to be treated as less of a person than some stranger man just because they are women?
*would like to see feminism become cool*
IF *all* women are included at NOW, it will dissolve the divide women have. If we are all together–nothing can stop us. We are the majority, it’s time to realize it.
Would also be nice to have more like-minded MEN wake up.
Would be odd to see a male feminist NOW spokesperson, huh? Or maybe a mother/ son team. Odd. Anyway, I just want something different. I’m fed up and rambling.
“Do men really want their daughters and wives and mothers to be treated as less of a person than some stranger man just because they are women?”
No offense intended, but… Well, duh.
I do wonder.
Just look at their same old website: http://www.now.org/
What’s at the top of the agenda? ABORTION…it’s the very FIRST freakin’ thing on their agenda.
BOOM. Right there, you lose half the women.
Damn list is all stupid. EQUALITY should be FIRST. Period. Yeah, and then “media activism” is somewhere thrown in at bottom. Fighting sexism in the media should be HIGH on list. Media dictates culture.
Ugghhhh. Get a new stinkin’ website.
I’m as pro-choice as they come, and I don’t at all suggest that NOW become neutral on that issue. They should remain pro-choice.
But they need to stop making it the be-all-end all, or they will remain irrelevant. They need to say, “We are still going to fight for choice rights, but we recognize that this is not the only issue facing women, and even women who don’t agree on that issue are welcome to join us in fighting for the rest. There are many organizations out there whose primary or only focus is Choice. We applaud them. If you feel the same way, join them. But we will fight for ALL rights for ALL women, not just that one issue.”
WMCB, yes, I agree. I’m pro-choice too, but NOW needs to figure out a way to be all-inclusive. As it stands now, it’s just seen as an organization for liberal women, and worse: Obama-supporting women only. That’s the feel of it. Yeah, you are right, they should make a statement on there like you said.
Exactly and being pro-choice is not only an abortion issue. That’s the biggest problem is they’ve taken the issue and made it a one sided decision which it was never intended to be. It is also a woman’s choice to choose life. It is HER choice.
You’re barking up the wrong tree if you think NOW is going to change that drastically. We need to leave NOW behind and organize women to support equal pay for equal work, recruit women to run for elective office, work for laws to stop violence against women, and pounce collectively on anyone – male or female – who is sexist or shows disrespect toward any woman. We must insist that women be judged on their views and policies, period.
You want equality?
Great. I want the same right men have NOT to have my body owned by another being. How is that for equality?
I agree. But how is focusing ONLY and SOLELY on that helping women?
From my perspective, we have abortion rights, and have had them for decades. Yet we have been losing ground steadily in EVERY other area of equality and respect. It’s shocking how the media and others feel so free to trample and demean women. It’s worse now than in 1975. Why is that?
It’s because if you make abortion rights the only thing you care about, then guess what? That is the only thing you will have.
I completely agree with you on abortion. But wake up and get a clue as to how we are shooting ourselves in the foot and giving away miles of ground by making that the only issue worth getting passionate over.
agree: I have no interest in supporting the political ambitions of women who don’t even support all the rights I currently have.
If you don’t have reproductive freedom; if something as basic as sexuality and its natural course–pregnancy–is denied personal expression,
how can there be any female liberation?
Other things such as pay, general health care, respect, safety are important…but life and death are functions of your own bodily processes. Pregnancy is high on that chart.
Sarah Palin’s campaign was in part predicated on
the no-abortion plank of the conservative movement.
No saavy observer could fail to notice. I voted for McCain out of protest and it is doubtful I would have supported Palin as a presidential candidate based solely on her own qualifications.
I was incensed at the crude, manufactured media blitz aimed at her, but that did not change my views on her political resume. Nor would her
stance on abortion influence my vote to the extreme.
You cannot separate the physical from the economic or spiritual, IMO. The right to choose, therefore, should remain at the forefront of the feminist movement. It is not a political issue, but a
human right. No woman at this time in progressive
countries is forced to abort her baby.
In an ideal world, no woman would choose that
procedure. We don’t live there, unfortunately.
Also, birth control is not infallible.
It is due time to take the issue out of the hands of politicians.
But the talk always comes back to that… that somehow women are being forced to bear children they do not want. Isn’t two trimesters a long enough time to decide if you want to have a baby or not? Seriously.
But Choice isn’t the only physical issue out there. How about rape, incest, ritual abuse, battering? I agree choice is key, but there are many other issues where women are denied control of their physical bodies that are also critical.
“If you don’t have reproductive freedom; if something as basic as sexuality and its natural course–pregnancy–is denied personal expression,
how can there be any female liberation?”
Abortion does NOT liberate women. It encourages rampant promiscuity and sexploitation of women, which is why we have backslid on EVERY OTHER ISSUE than reproductive rights.
I am pro-choice, but I don’t kid myself – abortion is a double edged sword. It does NOT liberate us. It makes us slaves to sex. Take a look at what teenage girls are wearing now. That’s where abortion has led us.
You are a lying SOS, and I don’t mean you are Hillary Clinton.
Suggesting that abortion has made women “promiscuous”, with the implication that female sexuality is somehow bad, I might add, makes it obvious you are not pro choice.
And teenage girls wear what they wear because they derive status from attractiveness and youth: from men.
Do you think those women wearing burqas are free?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Hillary or Bust, what about married women who choose to have an abortion? Are these women “promiscuous”?
“Suggesting that abortion has made women “promiscuous”, with the implication that female sexuality is somehow bad, I might add, makes it obvious you are not pro choice.”
No, it means you have a simplistic mind apparently and can’t fathom the greater social consequences of the sexual revolution, which has mainly resulted in the over-objectification of women, thus leading to increased misogyny (i.e., the Vanity Fair article going on about how sexy Sarah Palin is.)
Cheap and easy sex without consequence and for the sole reason “pleasure” has put us down a shaky path where our culture has degenerated substantially into a pornography culture.
I am not wanting to go back to where women were demure housewives, but this current world where strippers and porn stars are mainstream and girls are wearing thongs at the age of 10 – THIS I could do without.
Making women’s “liberation” solely about the right to have sex without consequence has been a huge mistake for feminism. We can look to our little girls and their eating disorders and obsession with plastic surgery at younger and younger ages to see the result.
Now if you are so simple-minded as to think that my critique of the sexual revolution and abortion’s role in all of this makes me pro-life…well, you’re an idiot. Sorry. I rarely say that outright, but you are.
Things are complex. And if you read my post with ANY comprehension at all, you would have gotten the point of abortion being a “double edged sword.” Do you even know what that MEANS, a double-edged sword?
Wake up. Abortion does not free you.
“Abortion does not free you.”
The h#ll it doesn’t.
Both my grandmothers were dirt poor and lived in rural areas (the Appalachians) in non-insulated houses without modern amenities like toilets and electricity most of their lives, and where birth control was non existent. They had respectively 8 and 9 children.
My mother has told me about growing up there as well watching her mother standing out in the snow and washing 8 kids’ clothes on a washboard and watching her hands bleeding into the wash water.
Part of the reason they were poor and couldn’t afford education was lack of birth control and abortion options. And whether anyone wants to admit it, the same people who are against abortion are also anti birth control.
My grandmothers were worn out long before their time, and suffered many health problems from their brutal situations; while they lived they were little more than servants to their husbands and children.
They didn’t wear revealing clothes, there was no media objectification there, there wasn’t even any media beyond radio: But they sure in h#ll weren’t free.
In both eras women have worn what men want them to wear: what they wear is irrelevant; that someone else decided is the issue.
With birth control and abortion options women can get jobs, educations, and have some freaking autonomy. They can even have a life without kids they don’t want.
And you are a freaking moron to say that isn’t a far better situation.
i don’t think that you have really addressed what HoB said; if your grandmothers couldn’t get birth control and were dirt-poor servants to men, how in the heck could they have gotten/afforded abortions? that’s exactly why OTHER ISSUES are important to women’s equality.
many of us who are pro-choice still do not think that abortion is the panacea that some people claim. i think that it’s undeniable that abortion has increased both female and male promiscuity; to say so is not to be anti-sex or anti-choice.
sex is like anything else; there is a time and a place for it, but in today’s society women and girls are given the message that their entire worth is defined by their sexual relationships with men, and this situation seems to be getting worse, not better. yes it is primarily driven by men, but a lot of women seem more than willing to go along with it.
NBNW if you have statistics to back up your claim abortion has increased promiscuity in either sex, I would like to see it.
The Pill gave women control of their own bodies more than any other single thing. The highest rate for abortion is found among teens and the largest number of unwed mothers are teens. This would lead to the logical conclusion those with low levels of information are the problem and need to be better educated.
If a young woman goes to her parents and says she is thinking of becoming sexually active, she should be informed of the importance of birth control and not be given a lecture on the immorality of sex outside of marriage. It should be assumed at that point the decision has already been made.
I said if they had had access to birth control and abortions: there’s no reason to believe they’d have have had 8 & 9 kids!!!! then they wouldn’t have been poor.
and why do y’all keep harping on the false theme that being pro-abortion makes me unconcerned about other issues? That is just stupid.
I have posted many times at nq about the need for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women wage parity, and many other topics besides.
and they were given the same message before, they just had 8 & 9 kids t go with it.
Hillary or Bust said:
“Abortion does NOT liberate women.”
You’re right. But choice does.
Kat in your hat
You have some good ideas. In today’s economy many women have to work. Both liberal and conservative women have families to raise and support Women have helped this country grow and prosper. Why should women have to settle for less? If it does not change now while women are more aware because of the treatment on Secretary Clinton and Governor Palin it will take more than my lifetime to change.
When women get paid less, their families get less.
A lot of the issues are really not liberal or conservative they are basic rights of every woman.
Men should be involved and some are involved just not noticed. It is to their advantage for women to prosper and be treated as equals
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
“When women get paid less, their families get less.”–helenk
So true. I do wonder why I don’t see more men fighting for equal pay–even if it is for selfish reasons, like lifting their own financial burden when it comes to household income contributions.
Because they get something better than their family getting more money (and men spend a great deal less of their time thinking about themselves as part of a family unit than do women), they get to be the one getting the most money and they get a reinforcement of their world view that they are superior.
Great post.
I was around when NOW started, and our chapter got off to a rocky start. Whenever there is a power vacuum, the sex of the players apparently does not matter. There was squabbling and stupidity among otherwise intelligent women determined women wanting to make things better for our gender. But too many wanted to be in charge. I dropped out early on and never came back.
The literature on group synamics and how to create effective groups and strategies is now huge. Let’s hope the new wave of NOW knows something about this.
Feminism benefits all women who want to be free and equal. And there are issues on which liberal and conservative women can find common ground.
I am disgusted with NOW for a number of reasons. Their cautiousness, their refusal to defend Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton, their capitulation to Obama, the Democratic party, and the sexism of the presidential campaign. They have made themselves irrelevant.
HOWEVER feminism cannot be all things to all women. It is a radical idea that when realized will shake society to its foundations. It is diametrically opposed to all the established religions, whose primary function is the oppression of women.
The “first” (probably not) wave of the women’s movement has been criticized for focussing on the vote. In fact, they won on many issues but the vote was the most intractable. Because the right to real political participation is crucial.
It is the same now with abortion. The “second” wave has made progress on many issues, but it is abortion that generates the most heated resistance. That’s a clue to the importance of not surrendering this issue. The power to force women to have children is the cornerstone of patriarchy. If women do not own our bodies we will never be free.
I am not a liberal. I am a feminist. And therefore a radical.
From the outside, it is apparent that there is a lot more in that statement than the abortion issue. From the outside looking in, it almost seems a somewhat bitter statement. I am fairly sure that is not going to attract the hockey moms of this country. If there is only one issue here, then it is no wonder the democrats have co-opted it. Like all groups they assimilate, they just deflect all member support into the larger agenda. The single agendas themselves are largely lost in all of this.
Maybe some hockey Moms out there wouldn’t like it, but I don’t see any bitterness in the statement. Seems to be a fact-based statement to me.
It occurs to me that the organization is done. The organization has gone where single cause organizations go to die… the democratic party.
I wonder how many people think that NOW exclusively serves the same exact purpose as Planned Parenthood, EMily’s List, and NARAL…
Maybe there should be a NOW for Democrats and a separate NOW for Republicans. They could hold hands for certain battles and not others. pffft. what a mess. If they change their techniques (and their image/ website, etc), and figure out a way to unify all women, I’ll join them. But I’m not joining them as they are right now.
There is no reason for that, there is much more that unites us than divides us as women.
You don’t cause further division simply because you disagree on one issue. You meet each other somewhere in the middle. You don’t think back in the 60’s and 70’s they had the same problems with abortion? The same concerns many have today? Some women were for it, some against it? They met on a common ground that said “A woman’s choice”.
For or Against, but it was “The Woman’s choice.” The problem is people have taken a Women’s Choice and tried to make it into a one choice option to represent the meaning and that is not the way it was presented. That is not feminism, when you have one set of women trying to dictate to the other that only one choice is a woman’s choice.
The New Agenda seems to have become a destination for many Republican (and Democrat) women. We hope to ally with the new slate at NOW.
NOW recent support of Sarah Palin came with a back hand to conservative women.
Which doesn’t inspire me to do anything but sit back and wait. I say this as a socially liberal, centrist, dem.
And sad to say, that writing ‘dem’ was the hardest part of that. I am not interested in any organization that treats anyone the way that DNC treated it’s people.
I hated posted previously that I couldn’t support Pelosi against the sexist attacks. Since, she stole my vote more than once she isn’t someone who deserves my support on anything. And since NOW stood quiet against all those attacks against Hillary while standing up for the campaign that originated them. They are on that can’t support list too.
So until NOW proves it is different I might take a second look. But in my opinion they dropped the ball long ago, on so many subjects, while the real fight was being fought/lost.
And at the very base of it all. How many girls that are reducing themselves to showing their bits on YouTube….have been lost to NOW’s bs? Would there be as many of these young ladies on YouTube or Craigslist if NOW had been the organization it claimed to be over the past few decades?
Wait and see is all I can muster for NOW.
I could not agree with your comment more even had I written it myself.
The sexist treatment of women in the primary, and over the airwaves ever since is serving notice to our daughters: We will reduce you to the sum of your parts. We will vilify and ridicule you. Don’t dare enter the public domain or we will target your femaleness.
The message is STAY OUT. This nation will be denied the talent of women and women will suffer because of the misogyny in the United States. That the so-called National Organization for Women remained mute is a disgrace and legitimized what happened and continues to happen.
No more NOW for me, thank-you.
NOW is a has been as far as I’m concerned. We as especially women cannot pick and choose who we defend against misogynist attacks. It is not acceptable to defend one woman because she is ‘liberal’ and not defend another because she is a ‘conservative’. NOW has set women back a hundred years by allowing conservative women to be attacked because they are not pro-choice for example. I am not simply about abortions and I’m not a conservative either. I was living my life through half shut eyes when it came to women’s rights. After this past election, the sleeper in me has awakened and I will never condone another woman being attacked because she is a woman alone. If the woman or man is a jerk in some way then its a whole other ball game.
When discussing organization which sell out their members don’t forget AARP who got one sniff of the profit they could make from selling insurance and stopped all opposition to the Medicare handout to big pharma.
Well, NOW has the historical opportunity to redeem itself and resonate with ALL women. Apparently an attack article is being published in Vanity Fair about Palin. In essence it states that she may have “mental problems”(sound familiar remember Walpin a week ago) and again refers to her sexualtiy and her lack of experience. So you see this BO crap that went on and was condoned by the One during the campaign continues. First of all she has more experience as a successful governor than BO has in all 48 or 49 years of his sorry community organizing life, secondly, Now has barked up the wrong tree from the very beginning and now it has reaped the consequences–the sexualizttion of our young girls and the backlash from those who have grown up to understand that a woman’s vagina is not her soul. Now should disband completely, they’re useless as they did not stand up for Clinton or Palin and I hope the rest of the 60,000 fight amongst themselves and give up. What a clueless organization.
Great post Amy and perfect timing for me. I am meeting a friend of mine (that I met while campaigning for Hillary) on Sunday in Los Angeles to discuss how we are going to be involved in the new movement. Your post as well as everyone’s comments will be a big help on Sunday. Thank you.
Ms Suskind’s comparison of Now’s former leadership to that of Wall Street is naive and ridiculous.
Now compared to Goldman Sachs? Now compared to the leadership of both? Non sequitor.
The terms of a comparison do not even fit on the liter al level…Did Now’s leadership create baroque derivatives turning real assets into a monopoly game?
And if as Ms Suskind states the problem as well with Now that “management became like a clique with strict rules…like…requiring one to be liberal and pro choice…” then Ms Suskind’s solution..i.e. The New Agenda…has followed well in suite. Ms Suskind has already forgotten Betty Jean King..and what happened to her at Ms Suskind’s hands.
In addition..The New Agenda at its inception was already out of step with the reality of the preponderance of women in this country..most are well over 40..and will be for some time..the baby boomers…with issues she and the New Agenda have not even recognized yet. Moreover…The New Agenda and Ms Suskind have missed the role and power of women owned businesses in the country…its history and its future…
NOW is worn out and The New Agenda was old before it began. Somethings new will come along but not I trust from the ranks of NOW or The New Agenda.
Wow – pretty tough accusations. There is no suggestion of TNA as an alternative – there is a call for unity.
And yes, as someone who spent 20 years on Wall Street I see many relevant comparisons between having strong national groups to advocate for woman and GS and MS (where I worked) for Wall Street.
Ms Suskind” Accusations? Poor choice of words.
Distinctions of logic and thought are what I made and you know it. I am not surprised that you come from the Wall Street crew…were you in Marketing?
Ms. Suskind…why not respond to the lack of interest and concern in the largest number of women in the country? …the baby boomers? Why not speak of Women business owners? You miss the largest groups of women who have been successful over 40 years..that is why The New Agenda was old and will remain so until you understand the huge lack in your “agenda”!
I also want to note that in the midst of your vitriol you mention Betty Jean. Betty Jean attended our VAW Forum that we put on for free to help educate the community a couple of months ago. She also wrote The New Agenda a very generous check.
Vitriol? Oh..your adjectives sound so familiar..so much like the Obama campaign…If Betty Jean wants to spend her money helping you that is her issue..as for me…I have watched from the beginning and followed you and your group. Your Agenda is old. I am 63…and it is older than I am.
What is The New Agenda doing right now for the prepondance of women in this country..those over 40 who will be the majority for years to come?
You do not even know the issues…nor have you ever addressed Women Business Owners in this Country…You do not know those issues either.
Broaden your agenda…
Broaden her agenda beyond promoting the rights of women and girls? I am a woman business owner, a libertarian, and I am over 40 so I guess I am confused. What else would you like to see TNA cover? General business issues? Age related conditions? Different political agendas?
I don’t know Ms Suskind, nor do I know Betty Jean, so point you are making is lost on me in your anger. All I ask for is a stop the BS sexism in life, particularly in our news media, and equal (not greater) protection under the law. If TNA can help, good on them. If they are just a NOW retread they are useless. Time will tell.
Have to agree with this…NOW missed the mark with women that chose to stay home, raise a family and be more “traditional”. The beat may be different now but it is the same drum. I wasn’t one of those but NOW really turned off a great section of women at it’s inception. Apparently they have nailed their own coffin shut in the last election.
Do women really need an organization? Or do they need self empowerment at the personal level?
Yes, women really need a solid national organization. There are so many reasons…I feel overwhelmed even thinking about all the reasons why. Equal pay, discrimination, male violence…you know, if all the messages and images in the media, from TV to billboards, etc were transmogrified from gender based to race based–it would constantly feel like living within a blaxploitation movie.
OR, wait–I take that back, it IS race and gender based. White women are depicted as whores. C.o.n.s.t.a.n.t.l.y. Since media dictates culture and the youth are most impressionable, the young girls emulate the media version of beauty/ sexy, and the boys identify media version as true version of beauty/ sexy.
Anyway, my point is that women need to have a unified front–and many numbers to fight for equality and respect. Numbers equal pressure. And self-empowerment at the personal level is there in some ways…more women than men are in college and law school, etc.
Thanks for all the great comments!
We need your support at The New Agenda. Please join us and if you have energy and time to devote, we need that too!
Correction: Betty Jean Kling..not King..Ms Suskind knows of whom I speak…as do others.
Yes – i responded above. Betty Jean who attended our VAW Forum and wrote The New Agenda a sizable check. THAT Betty Jean?
Why not address the two issues I note re older women and Women Business Owners? You do not know the issues. ..there..Ms Sueskind. You do not know as well the issues of over 50 million caregivers right now in this country over 40 caring for their older parents and this number will swell even more with the baby boomers..Those are issues of the future for women…those you have not even recognized.
If one can not acknowledge huge gaps in recognition of current and future issues that strap women then how can one assert a desire for leadership? You cannot until you understand what you have already before you…with more coming very quickly.
Rather than attempt to characterize substantive factual items with disparaging adjectives..why not simply adknowledge that there is much more you and your group needs to learn? You cannot..have not..
and simply seek to correct the gaps.
This kind of response would be an open one..and you cannot do that apparently. Which is why your agenda is not big enough for the women of this country…
It’s impossible for an organization to be all things to all women. It’s a great endeavor but I’ve never had use for NOW or any other “woman’s organization”.
Real empowerment comes from the personal core.
Tell some woman that has to take care of aging parents that they need NOW or New Agenda and they’ll most likely say what they really need is a break to rejuvenate. I should know. I just made sure my 94 year old parent made it into bed with all meds taken, etc.
Precisely ….you are correct…When one considers that 50 million plus–mostly women 40 years old and over –are doing what you are doing every day as well as everything else they must do…then one must it seems to me acknowledge that
reality in any conversation or so called plans or agendas for women in this country.
To not even know that this reality exists…indicates a basic level lack of knowledge of the very demographics of our reality. New Agenda therefore is old before it hits the streets and as indicated here by Ms Suskind apparently considers even the raising of the issue impertinent to “her” agenda. What is new about that attitude and “agenda”? Nothing.
True. Some women will feel that they benefit from membership or the feeling of belonging, but until a woman understands that she has to stand on her feet, be smart, be bold, and be her own best advocate, the chances of women changing the status quo is small.
That’s why the likes of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Helen Thomas, Carly Fiorina, Madeline Albright, and others scare the holy peewaddin’ out of the male structure.
Power from within is an unstoppable force for a woman.
Helen Thomas must be the real NOW.
…she with only a couple other reporters are holding this administration accountable.
Listen to her, following Chip who opened up line of questioning about this very UNopen Administration, “that we’ve never seen”.
http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/
ps, Gibbs is such a weasle
Helen Thomas is one of the few real reporters living and breathing. An she did not need NOW to get where she is..Moreover…Helen Thomas has forgotten more about the issues of women than Ms Suskind and The New Agenda or NOW will ever imagine.
Why are you so nasty? Or are you just a divisive, Obama troll?
Yeah, Blue Topaz, those comments and attacks on Amy sound trollish to me.
No, NewOrleansPuma is a true PUMA. Their conversation stems from something that happened in the past.
My assertion of two large issues..Kat in Hat..stems not from the past but from the present and future reality of women over 40 in this country…Who is addressing these issues? No one in the so called feminist tradition. No group. Nobody. If the New Agenda or any other group wishes to serve as a new leader then I am simply asserting that they acknowledge this reality based in time not in an idea or in the head.
Yet so called women’s groups new and old continue to unwind the same old with little knowledge of the reality of millions of real living breathing human beings…
Can you not differentiate between ideas and personal attacks? Clearly you can not. I speak and spoke to the lack of knowledge and identification of large real issues affecting women that have in no way been taken into
account by Ms. Suskind and The New Agenda.
Her response? Little or no comment regarding these
issues.
The above comment is for trxta and blue topaz.
Is it nasty to speak the truth about one of the stalwart women of now almost two generations?…Helen Thomas. No. An individual who thought and thinks for herself and who has been speaking ..to use now the cliche…truth to power for years? She does in fact have the knowledge I characterise.
Re being an Obama troll…guess you have not been around for over a year. As a life long Democrat..I reject Obama …his cronies…and his followers and his so called policies and actions..and have done so and will continue to do so until the usurped Democratic Party is recovered. If you wish to find Obama followers.I suggest you look close at hand…The tone and content of The New Agenda bears a good dose.
What does the new leader of NOW want to do differently than the candidate she defeated?
Good question. I read that O’Neil is interested a major grassroots effort of reinvigorating women to care about the issues. Not sure how she is going to go about it, we’ll see.
Terry O’Neill*
I’d like to see the “NEW NOW” start off by slapping down Maureen Dowd for linking Sarah Palin with a group of men who had cheated on their wives and calling all of them (Palin included) hypocrits. What did Sarah Palin do to join that list??
The only thing I can figure out is that she talks about family values and then had a daughter get pregnant. If a child does something you don’t approve of are you a hypocrite?
By the way, my wife quit NOW over the abortion issue. I would certainly expect NOW to continue to be Pro-Choice, but perhaps they wouldn’t drive out so many pro-life feminists if they didn’t treat abortion like it was a sacriment.
That dear JJ will never happen for that “sacrament”
is the ritual which keeps these holy secular gnostics in business.! Some other groups will have to form…and I believe they will…
Abortion is central there.
The New Agenda does not take on this issue.
I will check out the New Agenda. Great post.
there is no such thing as a *pro-life feminist*
That is absolutely false!
There is plenty of room in women’s advocacy for all stripes.
The word “feminism” BTW is dead – please submit new suggestions!
advocacy for forced pregnancy?
no room there for me.
you can keep those stripes, thanks.
Advocacy for working on the numerous issues that unite us! Violence against women, representation in gov’t and biz, sexism in the media.
I am not united and will not ever be united with anyone who seeks to curtail my rights or supports those who do wish to curtail my rights.
I do not have anything in common with someone who can convince herself that compromising her and my rights will somehow enable us to get ahead, rather than move backward.
I will not under any circumstance do anything but work against people like you who are not remotely working in my interest.
It does not in any way benefit me to have a woman candidate, mayor, representative, senator, governor, or president who does not believe that I am qualified to make all my own decisions. Rather, it sets a loathesome example of how the only way women can “succeed” is to do precisely what men want of them: yield in any conflict.
You are a weakling who has decided that standing up for abortion rights is too hard and a coward that refuses to admit you are more interested in a high membership and revenue rather than actually standing up for women’s rights.
I want absolutely no part of you or your agenda.
we take the issue out – no one is looking to curtail anything.
Not supporting it is curtailing it.
Perhaps you have a point, Amy, but I would rather take back the term “feminism” than do away with it altogether. There is a history of struggle and advocacy in that term which I think is important.
suggestion: a word that connotes “women’s rights are human rights”, or use the entire phrase.
Ms. Suskind: You have the New Agenda. Iwould suggest that you and your group should be doing that…First on the New Agenda…new metaphor…new definitions…new…what we do not already know …new…not recycled.
there are probably millions. I know many myself. Abortion is not the only issue that women need to deal with…not by a long shot. I’m pro-choice, because I think that women should have the right to make that decision themselves, but on the other hand, I do think abortion is disgusting and I respect peoples rights to be against it. I don’t know how you think this can be such a cut & dried issue, cat. I think its one of the most complex. No offense.
Exactly.
How about violence against women? And the crisis of the sexualization of our teenage daughters? And our under-representation in gov’t and business…to name a few!
forced pregnancy IS violence against women, Amy.
Reproductive privacy not an issue a group advocating for women can ignore.
what do you suggest we do when our “sexualized teenaged daughters” are pregnant and our/their privacy rights have been slowly but surely eroded by conservatives AND the Obama administration??
Choice is fundamental-this is not an issue women can afford to ignore.
The New Agenda is in utter denial.
This issue and TNA’s stance is what keeps me from participating.
It’s a sellout.
And I’ve wanted to say that to you directly for quite some time.
Women are not ignoring it. There are plenty of strong groups that advocate around this issues such as Planned Parenthood, etc. Those group can focus on that issue.
The only way women can progress is if we focus on what unites us – if we take on choice as a litmus test, we lose half the women (we become 26% rather than 52%). We lose.
well, you’ve lost me.
dance around choice if you like but I’d say that makes you part of the (anti-choice) problem.
good luck to you and your organization.
i will request that you take me off your mailing list.
Meow! One issue voter…..Good luck with that and your stubborn, inflexible nature.
I love cats, would you pls change your site name to something less loveable and more appropriate like maybe………abortion or bust? You make us level headed pro-choicers look bad.
My…blue topaz..how omnipotent and omniscient of you to be able to discern and acknowledge the nature of a human being through the reading of one comment…Does not your comment really translate to the same old…well if you do not agree to be a sheep …you definitely are narrow and one issue.
New? Think for yourself. Get rid of group think.
“forced pregnancy” – stop making everyday women into victims of their own hormones and poor choices. Most women get pregnant because they CHOSE to have sex. Don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have sex! Or use multiple types of birth control. Paranoid you’ll get raped? Get your tubes tied. For heaven’s sake, we have alternative technologies now to prevent pregnancy – this victim stuff is over the top.
maybe you should take a gander at Concerned Women for America website-or are you a member?
Birth control fails and fetuses can be hopelessly defective.
And please do check out some rape stats.
“Get your tubes tied”
that is vile.
I tried to get a tubal ligation, starting the day I turned 18 until I was past 26: that’s over 8 f#cking years, moron, and was denied because men could not believe that I didn’t want babies and insisted I was either mentally ill or would “come around” and be oh so sorry and sue them!!
I have as much right to enjoy sex as anyone, and I godd@mn well had a right to an operation legal in all 50 freaking states, yet I was prevented for 8 years.
Get a clue!
Abortion is legal. Its been legal for most of my lifetime. If Bush & a repub congress & supreme court couldn’t change it, why are you worried about the dems changing it? Its the law of the land. Hopefully, there will be more focus on birth control and sex education, now that bush is out. Meanwhile, I don’t see why you think it is wrong for for an org like New Agenda to try to organize women to fight for issues that are currently pressing. Anti-abortion groups have been trying to outlaw abortion for over 40 years. It ain’t happenin’.
The overturning of Roe v Wade is unnecessary to curtail abortion rights. Abortion and birth control have already become states’ rights issues.
Pharmacists in many states are already permitted to fail to dispense birth control if it is against their religion: even emergency contraception in the case of rape. Doctors may refuse women of any age permission to undergo sterilization. They do not have to state any reason: it is their prerogative. States may decide not to perform abortions in hospitals forcing women to rely upon clinics which may or may not even exist within their state or region of their state. States may allow clinics that perform abortion to be unduly harassed making their business impossible (blocking entrances, etc). States may rule that women who have not reached their majority (usually age 18) require parental consent to procure an abortion: even in cases of incest. States may delay the petition of women under the age of majority to get the court’s permission until the birth would fall in the 3rd trimester (and therefore be illegal if the pregnancy is not deemed to be life threatening). States may deny state funding to poor women for the purpose of abortion.
Insurance routinely does not cover birth control or abortion (mine does not), though it covers pregnancy, which is far more expensive and statistically dangerous, and even viagra. (We couldn’t let some limp-d%cked f#cker go without access to sex could we? I mean, that’s important).
Let’s also not forget that there are parts of the US where pseudo religious perverts lock up girls in polygamist slavery, and I assure they don’t have abortion rights. Yet we have a government that won’t put a stop to this.
The Supreme court’s unwillingness to rule on abortion rights is very much like leaving one’s bicycle by the side of the road in a bad neighborhood. It won’t be very long before it goes missing.
And don’t forget Bush’s f#ck you on the way out the door, labeling birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception as abortions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA56Oz-t_rQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthemoderatevoice.com%2F21225%2Fhillary-bush-administration-to-redefine-contraception-as-abortion-a-dire-threat-to-womens-heal&feature=player_embedded
These attacks aren’t just on abortion, they’re on birth control. Wake up.
For a fact, in some relationships men keep their women barefoot and pregnant as a means to control them. But, this is a separate issue which is really more about abusive relationships than anything else.
“…this is a separate issue which is really more about abusive relationships than anything else.”
no, it’s not: it is part of a widespread political agenda: anti-abortionism is part of one of the 2 main political parties’ platform.
Read the freaking link where they declare the pill, IUD’s and emergency birth control as abortion, so that women will not be able to access them because they will not be covered under health care. We still can’t buy RU-486/ mifepristone: even after it was licensed as safe and declared a legal prescription drug: only specially qualified licensed doctors are allowed to carry it: so it’s not even available.
That’s not some individual man: that’s a system designed by men and for men’s purposes.
I was myself denied the safest most effective form of birth control for 8 years, so how the h#ll can you say my rights aren’t really in jeopardy? They were already denied me!
The constant minimization of the threat of losing abortion and birth control rights is part of a strategy to achieve the goal of eliminating them.
Any woman seeing this tactic should call it for what it is: propaganda.
“I have as much right to enjoy sex as anyone, and I godd@mn well had a right to an operation legal in all 50 freaking states, yet I was prevented for 8 years.
Get a clue!”
I never said I was anti-abortion. But this sort of childish “it’s my right to have sex” attitude is absolutely selfish. The purpose of sex in nature is reproduction. When you have sex, you take the risk of getting pregnant.
If for some reason abortion became illegal again (which it won’t) you absolutely fear for your life the thought of having a child, then DON’T HAVE INTERCOURSE. Do other things. Use a vibrator. Have oral sex. You have options.
I truly have a problem with this attitude that people deserve sex simply because it’s pleasurable and they want to have it, and therefore they’ll use abortion as birth control.
9 months of pregnancy to put a child up for adoption is not the worse fate in the world. We don’t live back in the day when women died frequently in childbirth.
We also have the morning after pill.
So this whole “gimme sex I wanna have it don’t expect me to be responsible I have a right to my body” ‘tude is just…horrifying, really.
I think now you’re getting a sense of why we decided to leave this one issue to other orgs. It’s divisive. There are so many important issues that impact ALL women and that we can ALL agree on….
And we’re working on these issues at The New Agenda!
Yes, and add to that abortion is not just a women’s issue. In most cases, there is a father who does have feelings and responsibilities. Further, women who can’t have children have rights to protect the same as the women who do. But, being a man, I have already probably said more than is welcome I would imagine.
well Docelder, you can let the man take the unwanted fetus out of the woman, and have it implanted in him if he wants it and she doesn’t. That sounds fair.
And with that we have taken something beautiful and made a freak show out of it. But if this issue is twisted into an anti-male issue, it becomes something else entirely. At some point in thinking, the fetus can become a sort of weapon to use against the male. A kind of payback for societal inequity. The law as it stands, seems fair to me. Extending abortion rights to the day of birth seems to be about something other than women’s rights.
So it’s the sole duty of the woman who doesn’t want a baby not to become pregnant and the man who gets her pregnant when she doesn’t want a baby gets veto power over her body?
How very
patriarchalconvenient.Suggest men find out before they take it out of their pants if the woman wants their baby. There’s a thought. Ask first.
Since the responsibility is all hers, then so should be any decision.
That could be flipped into since the male has no ultimate decision over whether the baby is born… indeed no absolute right at all, then should he carry any financial burden if he says he doesn’t want to be a father? Of course, the reply will be then “keep it in your pants”. But, the flip-side to that has already been argued above that sex isn’t about procreation. It is recreational. So, it can’t be both ways. I don’t mean to argue Nom, or even have the last word… so this is my last. I just think that the fetuses have become some sort of a weapon in regard to late term abortion. I don’t think that is fair to the fetus once that fetus could live on it’s own without a mother. At that point, the fetus has it’s separate human rights. I wish pro choice people could acknowledge that much.
no I agree completely that if a man doesn’t want a baby he shouldn’t be made to have one financially: but he should have to relinquish all rights if he doesn’t want to support it.
oops missed other part: less than 1/2 of 1% of abortions are third term: what you are talking about is extremely rare and evidence does not support your erroneous idea that women enter into 3rd term abortions lightly. Babies aborted 3rd term are not viable healthy fetuses no matter what some fundamentalist website claims. They not only can’t live on their own without the mother, they can’t live without life support and round the clock care.
I’ve put up too many links to first hand accounts of women who’ve undergone late term abortions to believe anyone opposed will read another; that’s all I have to say as well.
I didn’t say abortion should be birth control, don’t twist my words, you f#cking moron. I said I was denied access to birth control, a tubal ligation, which in fact I began seeking before I’d ever had sex, and it made me run a risk of pregnancy needlessly. My blood pressure is too low to be able to safely take the pill, and I was made to rely on inferior methods.
In fact, I specifically said I tried for 8 years to get a tubal: that is taking responsibility you miserable POS. Also: I never failed to use birth control, though my insistence certainly didn’t go unchallenged, and was often unwelcome.
Furthermore women do have a right to enjoy sex, and enjoy it without fear of pregnancy. There’s nothing in this world that makes pregnancy necessary for all, in fact the world could do with a whole freaking lot less of them: in my lifetime alone the population has risen by 50%, and I’d rather not see K-sat, you @sswipe.
So f#ck the h#ll off. Selfish is you telling me what I should do with my own body. Make decisions over your own and stay the f#ck out of my and other people’s business.
“The purpose of sex in nature is reproduction.”
I carried two pregnancies to term and during those eighteen months, I never lost my desire for sex. Menopausal and post menopausal women are sexually active. Girls as young as nine or ten years old are reproductively mature.
We are not like other animals sexually. We form bonds of love through sexual expression. If that were not true, we would go into heat every nine months and have no interest otherwise.
If sex is for reproduction alone, why are we monogamous? Shouldn’t men be permitted to impregnate as many women as possible?
If abortion were still illegal, the stigma attached to giving birth without marriage would still haunt young women and they would seek a solution outside the law.
We are more than breeders. I agree with Nom. Abortion and birth control should be decided by women themselves. We give birth and we are still the primary care givers. There is so much hypocrisy on this issue. it’s revolting.
In my circle of friends, no one considers abortion a form of birth control. I would say anyone who believes that to be true, has never had an abortion.
Yep, in some movie context where young women are abducted, impregnated and the babies sold in the black market… that would be violence against women. Forcing a decision to abort or no by the seventh month isn’t violence by a long shot. What if it were the other way around? What if like in China, you could only have one child and all other pregnancies were mandated aborted? What if every pregnant woman by the third month needed to undergo counseling to see if they are suitable to carry a child to term and be a mother… if no, then a forced abortion. I could see any of that being violence against women and humanity. But what we have now, abortion on demand in every state, just not in the third trimester… where is forced pregnancy or violence in any of that? If we had abortion up to the date of birth… then why not extend this to anytime before the child’s first birthday? Try on the boots, see how they fit, and it motherhood isn’t for you… let some baby shelter erase the mistake. Seriously, the difference isn’t that far removed.
JJ
Thank you for your comment–how true.
I think for the vast majority of Americans abortion is a very troubling issue. For me it is the most troubling issue, because I think the pro-life position is a massive intrusion by government into people’s lives. I also think the aborted fetus is more than a blob of tissue.
The fanatics on the right, and NOW on the left, don’t seem to appreciate that most of us really struggle with this.
I think Bill Clinton struck the right tone. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
Women are about split 50/50 on choice. Yet, over 70% of women DO NOT believe that we should legislate around it (this per PEW – 2006 study I believe).
We need to set aside choice and political party and work on what unites us. That is what The New Agenda is about.
J.J. there aren’t a lot of women who are willing to discuss their experience with illegal abortion. Even holding up a clothes hanger at a rally means nothing to the majority of the rally-goers. It’s a symbol of something indescribably horrible, beyond simple humiliation or degradation. All I ask of anyone on this issue is to really understand what the absence of clean environment, competent people, counseling or compassion will mean to women.
I respect devoutly held beliefs of many who oppose legal abortion.( although I have personally known couple of families who had made exceptions for their own daughters). I would be happy to work with these women on other issues and put aside my own beliefs in order to accomplish a common goal. If we can achieve income parity, for example, all working women and families will benefit and we will be a step closer to quality.
Hi Amy. Thank you for the post. I read through the comments and tried very hard to control my temper and not lash out as I, unfortunately, have a tendency to do these days.
I’m still a member of NOW. It is the only organization for women I didn’t withdraw my membership from over the last year. Could be nostalgia since I remember “the good old days”. However, I exchanged many emails with Kim Gandy until she refuse to continue our discussion and turned me over to an aide to deal with.
That NOW did not come out early and strong for Hillary’s nomination was inexplicable to me. I pointed out to Ms. Gandy how visible and loud advocates for Civil Rights have been for years and how silent NOW was in the face of misogyny with only token protests.
When the attacks on Sarah Palin began, again I made protests to the leadership of NOW believing political policy was less important than demanding respect and equality for all women of both parties.
What has angered me with some of the comments here is the complete amnesia and/or ignorance of the history of the women’s movement. For years, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Riely, Sean Hannity and the conservatives in general have turned feminism into a dirty word hence the attrition in membership of NOW. The organization evolved from it’s original purpose and has concentrated on one or two issues: choice and gay rights primarily because of the negative image promulgated by the Republican Party.
Sexism against political women didn’t begin with Sarah Palin for God’s sake. Hillary has been battling unfair attacks for fifteen years and where were conservative women then? Voting against passage of the ERA, being told how they should feel about choice and no protests when the Southern Baptist Conference, in the release of it’s formal manifesto, proclaimed women should obey their husbands and it was their “duty” to be subservient.
Even now when many see what was done to Gov Palin, still do not understand they have been guilty of the same against Hillary for years.
I would love to believe new leadership in NOW will result in a change back to the past where the imperative was EQUAL RIGHTS for women however for as long as the emphasis remains on supporting a particular political party, the ERA will remain in committee. There are some men who understand and support our rights, but fundamentally, this is our fight. United We Stand. Divided We Fail.
Thanks so much for your efforts to re-vitalize sisterhood, Amy.
I’m done with organizations getting my money period. I’m done with NOW and Emilys List (they supported McCaskill).
From 2008 on, my money only goes to individuals who I find acceptable.
Excellent idea!
Do not give money to groups who do not indicate knowledge or even interest in learning anything other than their current …agendas..which so often actually means agendas of those “in charge”.
We have entered a new age in the time of Obama..an age when the individual..not the group must speak and act.against the mindsets and simpled minded
marketing slogans of group think.
No more group think….Think for yourselves….and do not expect that a group will embody who and what you conclude.
spammed again.
I will agree with you on that one, Amy. If women could become united, the never-ending Abortion Rights issue could be worked out.
We are so largely fragmented now, we are barely able to communicate on the larger issues facing women everyday. They are chasing us now.
However, I have no intentions of being dragged along any organizations’ pandering to the status quo of the Democratic Party or any other party, for that matter.
That re-conditioning of women to “fall in line for party unity” only managed to further diminish our voices on issues important to women. As a result, we have far less power to affect change and must now re-group from an even greater disadvantage.
I blame the under 40 crowd for that shortsighted political inexperience, personally. Saying that I am a bitter ole’ over 50 woman has no effect. In fact, I take it as compliment – given that there are more than a few organizations out there that would now like my check and my voice for unity.
We have compromised way too much in order to get a toenail on the National stage in recent years and that strategy has failed women miserably!
I am not exactly ready to make nice about being told the old feminists are standing in the way of progress while I watch women loose the progress that younger women didn’t have to fight for.
Join us at The New Agenda. You will find a place with us. We are getting things done!
You certainly have gotten nothing done about the issues of women over forty…and you have in no way even indicated knowledge of the issues there…the issues of the largest number of women to exist in this country ever…the so called babyboomers…Moreover you indicae little or no interest in the successes and conntinuing interests of women owned businesses …the fastest for many years growing segment of the small business community in America…
Thus…what The New Agenda is about is really about switching “accounts”…from former groups to yours…well..I guess you did learn at least that from all your years running with the Wall Street Crew.
Well, Ms. Siskind, if this collection of comments does not give you the market research you might be seeking, no amount of marketing dollars or marketing consultants ever will. Good luck with “The New Agenda.”
Thanks Mandelay! Good suggestion!
I have waited a year to hear this..
Is Hillary Clinton telling Obama what to do.
Greta…
Of course Hillary is telling the dufus what to do..
Obama is an idiot…
If abortion is the only relevant issue, should women like me who have worked most of their lives and raised children and fought the battles of sexism at the workplace and no equal pay and lower standards for health care ( if man had a family the business would pay for all, if a woman had a family the business paid for her and she paid for the family.)are we supposed to step back and no longer be involved? After all we are no longer in our child bearing years.
If for some medical reason a woman can no longer have a child should she step aside on women’s issues?
By only being interested in one issue and not many other issues that would improve the quality of life for women and their families you are shortchanging all women.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Not being willing to compromise on women’s rights to abortion hardly equates as non support of other feminist issues. I am not willing to compromise on wage parity, health care parity, education parity, political representation parity, or any other arena either. Why do you make this asinine assumption that I would?
Please rescue my comment from the spam filter, thank you!
Exactly! I am pro-choice but there are also other pressing issues concerning women of ALL ages.
IMO, NOW cannot be transformed, it ought to be relegated to history. The right to an abortion has remained legal, despite constant assault, but women still do not have pay parity, women still make the largest poverty group; women still do not have equal representation in govt. or business; sexism and misogyny have become mainstream; violence against women seems status quo; and we still have not had a woman president (though we had the best candidate).
The women in the forefront of the second wave of women’s rights fought a hard fight but their identity seems too linked to the issue of abortion, their terminology seems dated…if the struggle of women’s rights is to survive in a people’s organization, it must be inclusive, it must reach and attract the younger generations, it has to invent new terminology for old issues, it has to become high tech, it has to be pro something and not anti something, and it cannot not hold half the population (males) as the culprit of the ills but include them as part of the solution.
Really good points.
Hi kat in your hat….fancy meeting you here…
Later!
Hiya!
Amy, I do have a suggestion.
If you want to fully comprehend what your new wave of fighting for the furtherance of Woman’s Rights issues face moving forward, organize a national coalition of women over 40.
Amy, the patterns of resistance to woman’s issues that had been aggressively confronted for more than 100 years, and that were being fractured as a result, have not only resurrected they have escalated, emboldened by complacency, inexperience with the exploits of a patriarchal political structure and its affects upon women, and failure to recognize the value in the experiential history of the woman’s movement.
The current male dominated political and socio-economic structure that women have had to so long confront has been handed down from generation to generation. It is this structure that is directly responsible for our current, deteriorated state of national affairs.
If you truly believe “A New Agenda” is possible without building upon the experience from the successes of the Woman’s and Civil Rights Movements of the past, good luck with that.
The historical patriarchal structure is still firmly in place.
Women represent 51%. If the New Agenda is not willing to confront that historically misogynistic, sexist, politically and economically oppressive system with all of the appall and force of the Woman’s and Civil Rights Movements of the past – the New Agenda will be “new” and just as ineffective as N.O.W. has been over past 20 years.
In fact, anything less will only serve us up as being willing to “negotiate” HOW we will continue being relegated to a position with far less social, economic and political influence and rights than most all minority groups in the United States.
Those are beautiful and profound observations, ThinkAgain. They are thoughts I have tried to articulate for so long and have failed to do in a non-aggressive way.
I also agree with Kat in her suggestions on involving younger women in the struggle by whatever means possible. How can we instill pride and self-respect in the under 40 women in the country?
Any significant change has to cross generational barriers. I hate to give up on NOW, but the membership has gotten older and lost it’s passion for the cause. I would disagree with anyone who says that organization began as a one issue monolith. It began with energy and dedication to equality, but not too many years after the right to choice was established by the Supreme Court, it was under siege and still is today. Whether the threat is real or concocted by politicians as a wedge issue isn’t important since it has managed to divert attention from other goals.
The writing of Simone de Beauvior is completely ignored in Women’s Studies at most universities and yet her book, The Second Sex, illustrates the reality of a woman’s need to be essential while living in a society which considers her non-essential. She points out the ambiguity of being truly feminine as a stigma for professional women. To be willing to accept a lower social position denies us entry into the human race.
It is an unresolved paradox for many women. So which part of ourselves are we required to relinquish in order to be successful in a quest for equality? I would like to believe we will not give up either. Creative in many ways in the home and raising families, if we venture outside the home for fulfillment, we face obstacles which require us to give up part of our nature in order to achieve success.
I disagree with those who believe personal fulfillment is possible without a united effort to change the perceptions. That is why throughout history, human beings have banded together in a common cause.
Oh, good post. And I have not read Simone de Beauvior’s “The Second Sex”–so, thank you. I took philosophy, women’s studies and woman writers classes and there was no mention. Just like you said. I’ll check it out.
So, Amy, as my comment began:
Organize a national coalition of women over 40.
Bring them to your table as having real experience and value to offer your New Agenda.
Listen to their Wisdom, Experience and Passion.
They know exactly what minimization, diminshment, discrimination, sexism, misogyny, patronization, political party usury and blatant disregard for Woman’s Rights issues look and sound like in many administrations and both political parties.
Amy, you made a big, big mistake by not knocking on their doors first. You should not be so surprised that they aren’t exactly flattered that you’re asking for their support in the form of inflating your membership rolls in name, email address and donation only.
Think Again: Excellent comments and suggestions.
Thank you.
NOP, you are most welcome.
We have crossed paths from the blog that neither of us are posting on.
You were always kind, respectful, informative and patient with me, as well as others, especially given my less experienced and somewhat lacking in thought comments.(My change in blog name is to remind me to “think again” about how I am making point before I hit send)
You are one of those wise, experienced women I reference above and I have learned from both the content and delivery of your comments over the past year.
So, Thank You, NOP.
Think Again: Thank you very much..Think Again..
a name by the way I really like!
May you and I and each of us continue to think again and to think for ourselves as we all continue to pay attention and to act in the face of the incessant dissembling of this Republic by Fraud Obama…his cronies…and his followers.
Group think must go…and I look forward here and in other places to see your thoughts and to share ideas with you and anyone else who has the courage and determination to pay attention
during these very serious and dangerous times in the history of our Republic!
Keep Thinking…Think Again…your thoughts
are most worthy of contemplation! Thank you for them! Forward!! Onward!! Persist!
Never Give up!
“Group think must go…”
YEEEESSSSS!!!!
It was the herd mentality that got us Obama and the ultimate herd existence – socialism. While like minds may agree and gravitate towards each other, the Tea Parties have already proven that a driving structure is not necessarily a must to express and come together.
We simply don’t need mommy organizations telling us what to think, what to be mad about, or where to spread our too often hard earned dollars.
BuzzisbackLatte: As we say down here..Yeah ya rite…BuzzibackLatte ( love that name too!)
Fascinating discussion here. Thank you so much Amy. I feel like calling all of you “my sisters.”
I’m a pro-life, pro-contraception Feminist, which as I understand it is the same as Gov. Palin’s position. You might want to check out Feminists for Life, if you haven’t already. I am a member there, and I like what we’re working on: supporting the life choice, not dictating it.
I so love the sentiment here on this post that we can unite on so many women’s issues without being needlessly divided. I’m glad to see the changes in NOW’s approach. Yes, CHOICE is a HUGE issue.
But our common womanhood surpasses even that.
I know most of you support abortion rights. Where I agree with you is that we shouldn’t have government interferring with our bodies. We are sovreign over our own bodies! I guess that’s the libertarian in me. But I think we can also find common ground when babies are viable outside the womb, recognizing the tragedy of late-term abortion that is not to save the mother’s life or health.
I am a child of rape. My birth mother became pregnant when she was gang raped. Despite the abortion availability, she decided to have me anyway, and gave me up for adoption. So, my life is blessed (indeed I am here) because a woman made a CHOICE, and she CHOSE LIFE.
Providing support and encouragement for scared young women to CHOOSE LIFE or making that choice in your own life does not infringe on others’ rights. That’s where we women can UNITE.
Thank you!