The National Organization for Women (NOW) is struggling from bad press, a poor image and an alienated base. Rather than rethinking its message, it has decided that a PR campaign will boost its membership so that it can have a greater impact on the 2010 elections. Sadly, it’s always “Groundhog Day” day for these women, who have yet to take a hard look at the 21st century.
We’ve all heard the stereotypes before. That feminists are all shrill, radical, anti-family, man-hating “femi-Nazis.” These ever-present conventions have deterred many from embracing the feminist label in general and NOW in particular, including women who have a vested interest and a real desire to be part of the women’s rights movement. The negative images have also been used in attempts to defeat feminist issues and candidates. To help counter this, NOW will kick-off the new millennium with a broad image campaign that depicts the many different kinds of women who are members and supporters of the organization and the progress that we have made.
NOW proves it’s incapable of self-reflection and refuses to consider whether their core beliefs are to blame. Polling numbers consistently show that women don’t hate “patriarchy” as much as the feminists want them to, have serious concerns about national security, and are rethinking the full-bore “abortion on demand/sex-education for children” mentality that NOW espouses. Moreover, no slick ad campaign can hide the fundamental problem with these radical feminists—they push a myopic agenda at the expense of the greater good.
Consider their breathless endorsement of this candidate for New Hampshire’s 2nd district:
“Ann McLane Kuster has been a longtime activist working to improve women’s lives, and we are excited to give her our group’s support. We need more people like her in Congress, who are dedicated to achieving full equality for women and girls,” said NOW/PAC President Terry O’Neill.
Their other endorsements of particular candidates say the same, despite two uncomfortable facts:
- girls are outperforming boys in every academic environment (even CBS’s 60 Minutes reported this back in 2002, and yet feminists are rarely challenged when they cry about all the oppression against girls); and
- there is not a law on the books that “discriminates” against women, unless they mean in health care—which is an attack on the insurance companies whose pricing is based strictly on medical statistics.
One must read the fine print to realize that NOW supports universal single-payer healthcare, stimulus plans with set-asides just for women, and squashing what it calls “soft hate speech” which it claims is permeating the air waves. If that is anything like the moratorium on “Islamophobia” that crippled the Army from raising concerns about the Fort Hood shooter, then we can be assured that NOW’s version of first amendment rights will only tighten the muzzle over those who are concerned about how tax dollars are being spent.
So what does this mean? As we move towards the 2010 elections, various NOW endorsements can be read as code for a weakened national defense, an attack on private industry, undermining the ability of boys to compete in school, weakening of parental oversight of their own children and troubling attacks on our freedom of speech.
Don’t let the glossy photos fool you—their agenda is not helpful to the bulk of Americans, and the mainstream media won’t reveal the darker side.