NOW IS OVER
Neither of those NOW slates will/would do anything for women's RIGHTS except dilute what exists now. Neither has called for action for women in Iran; just as during the war they could not open their mouths for Muslim women lest they offend their democrat party. Now they say Obama is just right on veils and Iran. NEOCONS, the left democrats faux feminists say---oooo shiver --the revolution in Iran is all an evil neo con plot to embarrass Obama.
The so called neo conservatives were the only group in the history of this country who made the status of women an issue in foreign policy decisions. Condi Rice was and is the only Sec of State who made the status of women an actual priority, not just talk, in the state dept. The feminist movement might have joined them and corrected deficiencies but no -they were silent. Now they say they are in the State Dept working on "more comprehensive" programs. But HERE is the moment and once again they are silent and this time receiving actual pay for their silence.
All the crap on Allegre about how Hillary is going to perform for women is just empty cheerleading. Here is the moment and Hillary is silent while her sexist boss dithers and fails the women of Iran unlike other foreign leaders. And the NOW lurches along beside them, carefully turning their eyes, using NEOCON as their excuse to betray women AGAIN! What decent woman can stomach these politicians?
The woman who won, O'Neill, ran the direct mail campaign for donations for NOW. Many of us wrote all over those mailing - nothing came of it - they went in NOW's garbage. NOW does not poll the membership on financial priorities and most of the money goes to pay national staff. The presidency is a $200,000.00 a year job and there is money in donations and memberships. That is what the NOW elections were about not all the crap they are saying to get your money. What will they do? Nothing except become an embarrassment to feminists. They will become as the NAACP is today for blacks, a relic with vultures sitting on the funds.
They promise the ERA will be their priority. The ERA does not mention Woman or Women - it uses the word SEX - what does sex mean? Transexuals? sex acts?
This is the ERA as it is now:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
O'Neill, the new NOW president savior spent the last few years working on a transgender rights bill which passed. Can you Guess what the ERA campaign is going to uncover and can you imagine the anti-choice amendment the new NOW will stick on it? Just so it can pass for their new NOW constituency.
Start your own organizations on new models - be like dandelions - spread everywhere in small or large cell groups of friends in each city - keep in touch on line -- use list serves and do similar actions around a common theme that unites you. Have fun - ignore Roberts Rules of Order. Ignore Order - be wild and unorganized.
UPDATE: It has come to my attention that most younger women do not understand the feminist objection to transsexualism being funded with women's movement money. I am not going to explain it - read read read feminist classics for you get pap in the writings of the third wave. To understand the feminist analysis of transgender/sexual ism, read:
The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (Athene Series) (Paperback). It is important to get the new edition with the new introduction that addresses the post modern criticism of the book and updates you on the doctors.
From the publisher:
Fifteen years ago, when it was first published, "The Transsexual Empire" challenged the medical psychiatric definition of transsexualism as a disease and sex conversion hormones and surgery as the cure. It exposed the anti feminist stereotyping that requires candidates for transsexual surgery to prove themselves by conforming to subjective, outdated and questionable feminine roles and "passing" as women.
Then as now, defining and treating transsexualism as a medical problem prevents the person experiencing so-called gender dissatisfaction from seeing it in a gender-challenging or feminist framework. Transsexualism goes to the question of what gender is, how to challenge it, and what reinforces gender stereotyping in a role-defined society.
In the new introduction to this feminist work, Raymond discusses how these same issues are now debated in the context of transgender. Transgenderism reduces gender resistance to wardrobes, hormones, surgery and posturing - anything but real sexual equality.
It assimilates the roles and definitions of masculinity and femininity, often mixing and matching, but never really moving beyond both. In a similar way, transsexualism is thought to be a radical challenge to gender roles, breaking the boundaries of gender and transgressing its rigid lines. But if the transsexual merely exchanges one gender role for another, and if the outcome of such a sex reassignment is to endorse a femininity which, in many transsexuals, becomes a caricature of much that feminists have rejected about many-made femininity, then where is the challenge, the transgression, and the breaking of any real boundaries?
This book will be used as a text in women's studies, psychology, sociology, technology and public policy, as well as by medical students, law students, and all who have an interest in feminist issues.
From an email on the subject:
I remember at the college I went to there was a survey of gender identity and the men were more ambiguous in gender identity and the women tended toward a more masculine (strong and assertive?) identity. I don't know how relevant that is but it seemed to reflect a kind of reality. I've always felt that gender identity was less fixed and along a continuum
This is truth and why we cannot let the profiteers butcher away the truth of human nature - the differences between the sexes are not as great as the boys would like -- yes there is a continuum with masculine at one end and feminine at the other but there are women on both ends and men on both ends and radical feminists say; that is the truth and sex role stereotyping is the lie -- therefore no one should be excluded because of biology and where their nature places them on the continuum as long as they do not attempt to lie or deceive women as to what sex they are naturally. All people should have equal rights and responsibilities regardless of where they are on the gender continuum -- this means we accept feminine men -- we do not force them to hack off their penis to fit into a male defined sex role.
About 4 % of babies are genuinely sex dissociative and I believe in the operation for them. The rest of the transgender nation is women with mothers who sexualized the parental relationship and men with fathers who did same and or homosexual individuals, none of whom can openly express their sexuality or deal with their psychological issues; none of whom see accepting your nature as differing from mass culture is a political act which makes the world more authentic and the truth/answers possible about root parenting behaviors.
Where you give money is a political act. Pay attention and reject those who tell you to give up your rights for the big tent. There is no big tent but if you do not fight for them, your rights will be gone. Only our votes matter and that is the system that needs reform. Working class people are losing democracy through a two party system that is really one corporate party.