- FrontPage Magazine - http://www.frontpagemag.com -

Why Isn’t NOW More Like GLAAD?

Posted By M. Catharine Evans On October 19, 2010 @ 3:00 pm In NewsReal Blog | No Comments


In that mad, mixed-up world of diversity and political correctness, some groups are more offended than others.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) could learn a thing or two from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

GLAAD slammed Vince Vaughan, an actor, for insulting a car, by calling it “gay” in his new movie The Dilemma.

Last week Jerry Brown condoned and encouraged the use of the word “whore” against his opponent Meg Whitman in the California Governor’s race. Keep in mind that the second scenario is real-life and the first involving the “gay” slur is fiction.

NOW’s California president Parry Beliasalma proved that with organizations like hers defending us, who needs male misogynists?  Women who hate women are so much more effective:

Meg Whitman could be described as ‘a political whore.’ Yes, that’s an accurate statement.

Terry O’Neill, national NOW president initially called for Brown to fire staffers who use the ‘W’ word then backed off and issued this statement from SF Gate:

We are not saying anyone on the Brown campaign be fired, What I should have made clear was that anyone who says the ‘W’ word from here on should be fired. What happened last week was a teachable moment for all of us. We can all agree that the word is offensive and should be retired.

So the pro-woman group endorses a man who feels comfortable using hate speech against women. But  Meg Whitman, one of their own and  a symbol of the feminist fight for breaking through the glass ceiling, might as well eat dirt because she happens to be a Republican.

In a critical, state-changing election like the one in California NOW’s failure to reject Brown and his anti-woman language is an indictment of the entire feminist movement.

Compare and contrast  NOW’s stand with GLAAD’S attack on Vaughan, who is no stranger to acting in films that routinely  portray women as sex objects and nothing else.

The gay group, outraged at a fictional comedy bit, may actually succeed in having an innocuous reference removed from the Ron Howard(an Obama supporter, I might add) movie.  The trailer where the ” controversial” scene occurred has already been yanked from theaters. Vaughan offered his own reasonable take on the parallel universe the diverse inhabit:

Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. Drawing divided lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly, where does it stop.

The Gay and Lesbian alliance rebuked Vaughan’s statement saying:

Vince is right. Comedy does bring us together, unless one of us is the punchline. Then it pushes us apart.

Universal Studios has not yet decided whether to give in to the GLAAD bullies and edit the “gay electric car” reference. Isn’t it superbly ironic that Hollywood, ground zero for the leftist agenda, must defend itself against charges of promoting hate speech. The chickens have indeed come home to roost.

In the meantime, NOW will not denounce Brown and support Whitman in the name of women everywhere but GLAAD will gladly marshal all of its influence to eradicate a make-believe scene from a movie,  encouraging artistic censorship in the name of diversity.

Even Orwell couldn’t figure this one out.

Do gays carry more clout than women who have been on the receiving end of ridicule, real-life violence and discrimination for eons? And why doesn’t NOW take a page out of GLAAD’s handbook and have Meg Whitman’s back? Why don’t they demand that Brown be removed from the ticket?

I guess in that other universe some oppressed victims are more equal than others.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/m-catharine-evans/why-isn%e2%80%99t-now-more-like-glaad/

Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.