Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

L.A.T.E.R.

Definitely, not N.O.W..

Yet another bankrupt Village institution.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by hipparchia on

now is an activist organization, billing itself as the largest organization of feminist activists, and their slogan is taking action for women's equality since 1966.

do you see the words commenters on political discourse in there anywhere? i don't. even their media activism, while they do have some commentary, is about taking action.

their involvement in politics has been to get more women elected and to endorse candidates who have feminist agendas.

i'm not going to type a href= for all the gazillion links, people can jolly well do their own homework, but if you spend a little time at the now website you can find --

way back in march of 2007 now started calling out the media for their sexist treatment of women politicians, hillary in particular. that was the same month they endorsed hillary for president. in january of 2008, when ted kennedy endorsed obama for president, now thanked kennedy for his work on women's rights, but restated their endorsement of hillary for president. in april 2008 they called on the dnc to count florida's primary votes, and in may 2008 held a rally outside that infamous rbc meeting, calling on them to count florida's and michigan's votes [hillary got the most votes in both those primaries]. later they started calling out the media for their sexist treatment of michelle obama, and one week after mccain nominated sarah palin as his running mate, now started calling out the media on their sexist treatment of her too.

there are a number of issues on which i wish now were better, but i'm supposed to hate an organization that doesn't ordinarily comment on political discourse for... not commenting more on political discourse?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Rather like a fundamentalist religion, anything less than dogmatic perfection is evil - and must be shunned.

Submitted by hipparchia on

but not just yet. hope your thanksgiving has been a good one.

i enjoyed your no americans were harmed in the making of this success story, but i've got some objections.

and poking around the now site, i found a lot of sarah palin slashes funding for teen moms! [um, no] and such like. harshed my mellow, let me tell you.

but the weather's been sunny and 80 degrees, it's a 4-day weekend, i've spent it drinking a little wine, eating a lot of good food, and soaking up rays at the park and the beach. gnashing my teeth can wait.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

waiting for harsh to surface.

My thanksgiving was everything I wished it to be. Hope yours was pleasing.

If we had a chat room, we wouldn't be sullying this thread.

Is the meaning of "sully" the same now as it was before Andrew Sullivan came on the scene - so to speak? To "sully" now is, I think, much worse than it used to be.

Submitted by hipparchia on

you just had to mention andrew sullivan, didn't you?

thanksgiving was lovely. everyone else watches football, but we're a family of board game fanatics, and that's what we do at get togethers. we're cutthroat, and have perfected the art of cheating [we call it rewriting the rules] and this time we managed to elevate it to a whole new level. we probably spent more time laughing about the result than playing the game [not a bad thing].

i've always liked threadjacks myself, but they're especially appropriate when the top post is of little merit. lambert's pun is clever, but the confluence poster could have done a little more homework. for a year and a half, everything now said was all hillary, all the time, hillary, hillary, hillary, with nary a mention of john edwards or barack obama or mitt romney or john mccain or mike huckabee. their total focus was on promoting the woman in the race, which is entirely consistent with both their stated mission [electing women] and their long-time mode of operation [promoting the most feminist candidates, rather than analyzing the sexists] in the political arena.

early on, gertrude stein and geraldine ferraro got pilloried big time for daring to suggest that sexism might be a bigger factor than racism in the primary. stein and ferraro are both lionesses of the women's liberation movement, it was probably a good move on now's part to focus on promoting hillary and let those two be the lightning rods.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

We all know already it is all my fault, hipparchia; no need to keep pointing it out.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i meant it as snark [against myself] but you're right, pile-ons are bad form, as is blaming others for one's own foibles. my apologies.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Like this:

We all know already it is all my fault, hipparchia; no need to keep pointing it out.
:-)

perhaps my intent would be clearer. It was meant in wry humor, by way of banter and not in complaint. There was no wrong; no apology is needed.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the point is that "get more women elected and to endorse candidates who have feminist agendas." is absolutely not what they did when they endorsed Obama--and they themselves said it was their first endorsement ever.

if that's so, then it should have been Hillary and not Obama--and earlier too. Obama doesn't have a feminist agenda-- and showed it repeatedly all along.

Submitted by hipparchia on

now explicitly endorsed hillary for president from march 2007 all the way up through putting her name in nomination at the democratic convention? that's almost 18 months, nearly one and one half years trying to get a woman elected president.

and kim gandy didn't say it was now's first endorsement. her choice of the word unprecedented was a poor one, but she also said in the same sentence [or paragraph] that now has endorsed only a few other candidates for president. i looked them up -- shirley chisholm in the dem primary 1972, john kerry over bush in the 2004 general, hillary clinton in the dem primary 2008, and obama/biden over mccain/palin for the 2008 general. 4 candidates in 42 years -- unprecedented may not be correct, but nearly unprecedented would have been on the mark.

now's options this year were --

- endorse the party that put a woman on the ticket, but is otherwise virulently against women's rights, or

- endorse the party that used virulent misogyny to keep a woman off the ticket, and is only tepidly supportive of women's rights, or

- keep silent.

now first endorsed hillary for president. hillary very clearly asked all of her supporters to transfer their support to obama. now transferred their endorsement to obama.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

give their (Good Housekeeping) seal of official approval to it--and what they're finally openly speaking of only now was happening to their preferred candidate all along (and where were they then?)-- how are women helped? how is equality helped? how is their sole reason for existence furthered? (and the reverse, of course)

Even a child would recognize that something's very wrong here.

Submitted by hipparchia on

in one way or another. imnsho they chose the least sucky option. ymmv.

but going back to my initial point -- now is not an organization that talks about misogyny and sexism, now is an organization that takes some specific actions against misogyny and sexism.

would i have liked for now to speak out strongly and repeatedly on every single instance of sexism or misogyny perpetrated by the obama campaign? oh hell yes. would that have helped them get more of their candidates elected? probably not.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

while it's going on is ok--even tho they "take action" and don't "just talk", because it got "their candidate elected"? even tho:
a) he wasn't their candidate,
b) he used sexism and misogyny to demonize and knock out their candidate,
c) he harmed all women in doing so--esp those who run for office,
d) he reinforced and revivied wholly anti-feminist negative stances and stereotypes in multiple ways--as official strategy,
e) his policy positions and many surrogates were also anti-feminist-- like with choice-- and by employing pro-lifers like Kmiec and many others?

he intentionally and repeatedly set all of society back -- to a place where "women should consult their pastors" or "are feeling down" so abort, etc, and where "tea parties" are what Hillary did as First Lady, and "lipstick on a pig" is used against another woman running, etc ...

these are all actions he took--and in addition, he never ever made "feminist" issues a priority, but in fact dismissed the whole thing as part of the "old politics" that need to disappear, and as "bitter" and "partisan".

and "their candidate" is gonna somehow act differently once elected? after all that?

why would he? why should he?

NOW and others showed they really didn't care about the issues they exist to push, and the actions they're supposed to fight against.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i'm generally in favor of letting both individuals and organizations fight misogyny in the way they choose to. calling out misogyny. getting women elected. it's all good.

their candidate did win. depending on whose numbers you believe, hillary actually won the popular vote.

question for ya: if you knew ahead of time that by hounding obama for his sexism and misogyny, now would have substantially diminished hillary's chances of getting elected, would you still want them to speak out during the election? i wouldn't.

yes, obama's rhetoric is dismal [and kmiec, ugh], but his voting record on abortion is good, which suggests that in spite of his blind spots on women's rights, he can at least be persuaded to pass better legislation mccain probably would have.

so obama's somehow gonna act differently once he's elected? [or mccain, for that matter]

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

simply transferred their seal of approval to him.

it's not that they were fighting, but in their own way--they never did.

and now their posthumous admissions and release of stuff they'd been holding on to shows they were well aware, and that it didn't matter. this makes it all worse.

they're not the only org to act this way at all, but coming out now as if it matters when it clearly never did while the damage was happening is the opposite of their mission.

it might have actually made a difference--and even if it didn't, would have shown that there were at least some kind of things that would affect their endorsement and support, and that really mattered. That the endorsement wasn't his automatically and without condition.

all too many orgs did what NOW did--and because there never any reason or quid-pro-quo to endorse and support-- and obvious reasons not to -- and they never ever raised any, even while clear and obvious damage was being done on NOW's core issues -- they themselves absolutely harmed their own goals, themselves, all women, and all of us .

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

consider the sexism, misogyny, and demonization, and all the damage done the "evil" of this quote--and what NOW's purpose is supposed to be, etc.

There Is No "Lesser" Evil Now

... There is one thing worse ... That is the person who intentionally absents himself from taking a position at all -- the person who claims he recognizes evil and, precisely at the moment the battle is joined and one must either resist evil or support it, removes himself from the conflict, thus ensuring that evil will triumph.
...

and in NOW's case--like the Democratic party itself--actively supporting and helping those who did it.

Submitted by hipparchia on

"... one must either resist evil or support it ..."

i maintain that now's positively supporting the woman candidate is as legitimate a way of resisting evil as pointing out that the other side is evil.

the democratic party leadership, otoh, was fully complicit in the evil, and i sent some of them some letters telling them exactly what i thought of their actions and how this had damaged democratic and liberal values and ideals.

not that any of them care what *i* have to say, but if all 18 million of hillary's supporters had each written 3 or 4 letters [or made phone calls, or sent emails or faxes] to howard dean, or nancy pelosi, or barack obama, or even david axelrod, we might have been noticed.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

but it didn't matter at all -- the party made it his and had always planned to -- something NOW knew, and valued no matter what--and obviously valued most of all.

lexia's picture
Submitted by lexia on

was that N.O.W. had gotten involved in this campaign, to the point of endorsing Barack Obama. This in spite of their pious "we never endorse candidates", just prior to doing so.

N.O.W. also piled on Palin, an historic first on the Republican ticket and not the regressive monster the ladies of N.O.W. made her out to be.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Human Rights Campaign -- on their inaugural gala -- ... "an important time in history: the inauguration of the most LGBT friendly president in history."...

such a massive and blatant lie -- Obama's hurt us and our rights enormously--and already backed away from ending DODT, and never even mentioned ENDA or other ongoing fights. (and that's leaving out marriage equality)

--and so indicative of their priorities--which aren't our needs and rights so much as continued access to power no matter what stances or actions/non-actions.