What Now? Terry O'Neill for NOW President

As NOW members prepare to choose a new president, they must ask themselves: what is NOW's purpose and role in these ostensibly progressive times?

This weekend, members of the National Organization for Women, NOW, will elect a new president and team of officers to lead the organization for the next four years. The mainstream media and even Salon.com have identified the choice in only the most superficial terms, as a twenty-something African American versus a fifty-something white woman.

But much, much more is at stake, and the outcome will have an impact far beyond NOW's membership.

Only one of the leaders vying to become the new NOW president is running on the promise of restoring NOW's prominence and rebuilding NOW's activism by taking NOW back out into the streets and into the public eye. Terry O'Neill vows to use a broader array of tactics to improve women's lives from lobbying to non-violent civil disobedience, blogging to picketing. O'Neill also has a broader list of targets in her sites: government to be sure, but also Wall Street and Wal-Mart, education and religion, the military and the media... every institution that shapes women's lives, including our roles in our families.

O'Neill's opponent is part of NOW's current administration and is running on her record -- which has been to have NOW function like a traditional inside-the-Beltway organization. For those of us who are concerned that the retreat to backroom meetings and insider politics will backfire and hurt women's rights, the choice is clear.

What happens in NOW affects progress for women far beyond the organization. NOW is synonymous with the feminism in popular culture, if not in reality. Cartoonists draw women in NOW tee-shirts to denote they're feminists. Elizabeth Hasslebeck demands that NOW defend her honor when a Playboy.com writer lists her as one of the conservative women he'd like to "hate f**k."

These are tough times for feminists. We join progressive people here and around the world in celebrating the hope and promise of President Obama's election. The Democrats are finally in charge of Washington, DC. But all is far from well.

Dr. Tiller's brutal murder was followed later that same week by President Obama's disturbing appointment to a senior level of Health and Human Services of a woman who opposes women's reproductive freedom. G. Gordon Liddy says he hopes Supreme Court cases don't come up during Sonia Sotomayor's menstrual period, and a syndicated cartoon shows her hanging as a piñata. Governor Palin's 14-year-old daughter is objectified and sexualized by David Letterman.

As NOW members prepare to vote for their national officers, they must ask themselves: what is NOW's purpose and role in these ostensibly progressive times?

During the early months of the Obama administration and the new Democratic Congress, NOW's leaders seem to have been relishing their new roles as "friends" of the administration. Certainly, they once again have access to the White House and are invited in for meetings and ceremonies. But how does that access pay off for women? It won't if we don't have an outsider strategy to strengthen the insider role.

NOW has a rich tradition of being an activist organization willing to push the envelope. When then-nominee for Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was attacked for her views, for example, NOW organized protests outside the Senate office building -- while other women's groups waited in line to watch the confirmation hearings being held inside. When anti-abortion thugs blockaded women's health clinics, NOW chapters were the first to organize clinic defense teams.

NOW has always been the one group that women could count on to take action to improve women's lives. NOW has historically been willing to hold friends and foes alike accountable and to keep up the public pressure for women's rights.

Terry O'Neill and her team offer more than hope; they offer a concrete plan to fight at all levels of government but also in the streets to win for women's rights. NOW needs to reinvest in and reinvigorate its grassroots. And Terry O'Neill is the candidate who is willing to dig in and make that happen.

Comments

[Con-toons]

My NOW chapter in my very small conservative town stick to the words...think globally, act locally. I was at the conference, voted thoughtfully rather than emotionally and attended meetingsthat would help my chapter be more effective in it's local efforts in our town. Because of the conference, I have resources to some great people that can help us in raising awareness in domestic violence, human trafficking in the migrant farm industry and phone numbers when I have a question.
It is the things the local NOW chapters accomplish in their community that people don't know about that keeps NOW relevent. My chapter doesn't get the press coverage of Junior League, but does just as much if not more to aid women and children here. I just can hope the new administration can back up it's promises it made to me personally to return my phone call when I make one.

[idahodenizen]

NOW's position should not be to defend any individual woman, unless she is the victim of a crime or the subject of a civil-rights lawsuit. Part of the whole ball-game is learning to stick up for one's self. There are plenty of societal issues to deal with int the USA; access to contraception, wage equality, education of females, and there are even more women's issues around the world that need help. To dabble in any individual woman's little spat undermines NOW's credibility. And to you right-wingers who decry NOW for failing to back up Sarah, I would say that part of sticking up for one's self in the political arena would include being knowledgable about geography, and not attempting to mug one's way through a nationally televised debate with winks and "you betcha's". As a woman, I found her performance embarrassing. I don't back other women just because they're women. First, they have to be competent.

[countfloyd]

As stated many times in other posts Letterman was not the first to make crude comments/jokes regarding Gov Palin and her girl(s). NOW has always been inconsistent in who they defend and attack. Just look at the popular stories on this site; Megan Fox's snake dress, iPorn girls, and Lindsay Lohan topless on twitter. What does Ms Ireland think about these items?

[katmeyster]

We do not seem to be evolving as a society or culture. When so much is about controlling women: fertility decisions and religion are the two biggest culprits. I'm just sorry when my fellow sisters' maternal instincts are manipulated and their sincere beliefs are hijacked by those who want them to remain second-class citizens. If we continue to under-educate wide swaths of our population, if we continue to encourage teen pregnancy, if we continue to believe that rape and abuse are just men-being-men, if we continue to accept condescension and lower wages, and the constant undermining of women's strengths, then we will continue to devolve.

I'm not sure how NOW can help us -- somehow feminist is a pejorative word and I'm not sure how much NOW has contributed to that. I would like to see a focus on structural inequalities and less on trivial pursuits.

[AnnfromCA]

If NOW is only about fertility issues, OK.

It seems to be the only real issue on the table.

And I speak only for me. I'm done with it. That issue has controlled my own voting for too long. I'm moving on.

[pleadthe5th]

NOW has lost credibility in my mind. The only women that they defend are liberals. PERIOD. They won't dare defend a Christian, conservative woman when a late night talk host suggests the statutory rape of her daughter but when a coservative pundit mimics the voice of a witch when speaking about an older White House reporter they threaten boycotts and demand retractions. Unless you are a liberal, NOW has no use for you. Their name should be changed to NOLW. The hypocrisy is mindboggling.

[JackNasty]

Actually, NOW did join Sarah Palin's War on Comedy. It was not their finest hour.

[AnnfromCA]

Actually, that was the first right move in a long time.

[smileatfear]

It's hard to support women who's political belief is that women should remain second-class citizens. Just which conservative issues would you have NOW support?

[AnnfromCA]

Until I see equal outrage against the sexist political tactics used against women, regardless of party, these organizations remain irrelevant to me.

I'm not sure what they stand for, but it's not my principles.

[smileatfear]

They have always been irrelevant to you, and judging from your previous posts your principles are questionable. Those who choose not to support a feminist agenda shouldn't be surprised when feminists don't rise to their defense.

[maggienash65]

1. I don' t like people telling me how I think
2. I was not impressed with Palin this past couple of weeks.
3. There appears to be alot of outrage with what Letterman said. But where was the outrage when our First Lady was attacked by a male and called a "gorilla?"
4. It seems to me you can't pick and choose who you stand for.

[smileatfear]

There was very little outrage over what Letterman said. The "fire Dave" protest was a testament to that. 15 protestors, 32 media clowns. Much ado about nothing.

[MyAudacity]

Maybe they should be renamed NOWW, National Organization for White Women, because I have not seen where this organization has stood up for Sotemayer and Michelle Obama when they were attacked!

[wltdnfaded]

Precisely. Or maybe NORWW (National Organization of RICH White Women)?

[Shirley Fisk]

6/18/09
1:40am
Milford, CT

I don't see them standing up for me--I'm a white woman.

[jade7243]

You're not the only one who feels this way. To me, NOW is more THEN. Their support of the whole Palin thing proves the point: they would rather focus on Letterman, rather than they fact the Palin is anti-choice, has a murky record drecord regarding treatment of rape victims and other issues involving women.

They are notoriously out of touch with the real lives of women. Instead of focusing on "civil disobedience," and such, they need to focus on actions that provide REAL results for women. How about putting effort into free clinics, neighborhood schools, improved access for women to fresh foods and other needs in stressed communities.

Maybe it's time they change their name from the Nat. Org. OF Women, to Nat. Org. FOR Women (and Children). Maybe that would help them stop contemplating the lint in their navels.

[Halsey]

I've never been a member of NOW...not sure why....I'm not a Joiner...that's my sole excuse...
"but"...I feel no "connect" with the organization in spite of what we have in common...the glass ceiling, alive and well, wage inequity, alive and well...white men..alive and well..but women..MEN are not going to change..the sooner we accept that...we can get on with changing ourselves... there are other women's groups, like Vital Voices, and women for Women who proactively HELP woment in AFRICA, the Middle East.....the USA...focus is not on the woman who wants to be CEO..but the woman who wants to feed her children... I would like NOW to NOT make men feel like the enemy...A credo that says we are in this together...and the better women do..the better the economy does... non-violent protest..very good..but when and where, the leaders must be very selective...no one thought "girl power" was offensive (targetted teen girls to buy things )...I'd prefer a name and focus change to "national organization for Humanity".­...inclusi­ve. I throw up every 4 years when I see white men being re-elected for the 80th time to Congress..­.really...­and re the Palin joke...yup..bad call...way too much made of it...Dave apologized..got the name of the kid wrong...move the frig on!...if THAT's a big deal.....you've lost sight of the brass ring...equal rights for ALL

[wltdnfaded]

BRAVO!!

[Fluent08]

what's next for NOW? try to build some credibility as a feminist organization. try to engage activists and academics alike. try to sound and act as though you're truly committed to a feminist agenda. you have a steep hill to climb since your misplaced defense of palin. NOW's reputation amongst 3rd wave feminists has been less than stellar; you pushed them further away last week. good luck. i won't be there to support you.

[hotwire]

"Misplaced defense of Palin"? I thought Now was supposed to defend all women no matter their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, ect. not pick and choose whom they defend. NOW is just another partisan political organization, this is why they are losing credibility.

[wltdnfaded]

Yes. Where are they regarding the racist joke about Michelle Obama?

[smileatfear]

NOW needs to pick it's battles wisely. palin lied - the joke was not a rape joke and Letterman made clear the joke was not about her daughter Willow. A joke about getting "knocked up" is lowbrow humor but in the scheme of things of very little offense. Most of us are past the point today where a pregnancy joke makes us swoon. If the joke were as palin twisted it out to be, the implication would be that ARod was a pedophile. In today's world, being made out to be a pedophile is a vastly more degrading claim than being called "knocked up." NOW really blew it on this one. They have a lot of repair to do before anyone takes them seriously again.

[wltdnfaded]

"The mainstream media and even Salon.com have identified the choice in only the most superficial terms, as a twenty-something African American versus a fifty-something white woman."

Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we just have a PRESIDENTIAL election that was just that? And how did that turn out?

[SEQUOIABISON]

NOW has lost all credibility with me since they came to Sarah Palins defense over an innocuous joke.

They have chosen to give her a pass on so many right wing issues that she endorses like her opposition to sex education, pushing for abstinence only, which her daughter proved does not work, NOW ignores her violent behavior toward wildlife in Alaska declaring war on Whales and Polar Bears that interfere with her quest for oil and instead they decided to lend their support to the Moose hunter who as governor is offering a $150 bounty on Wolves.

They treated the governor like a poor helpless woman being attacked by a crazy comedian, while ignoring the fact that the governor claiming to be pro life is actually a destroyer of life, albeit wildlife, but as her bible should tell her, "The Lord God made all Creatures Great and Small".

[raker]

From now on I will think of NOW as the ridiculous organization that jumped on the Kill Dave! bandwagon over a joke about two anti-feminist public figures, Governor Sarah Palin and virginity spokesperson Bristol Palin. What's next for NOW is irrelevance.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Reading the comments is a sharp contrast to the blog itself. The comments make the author of the blog seem amazingly out of touch.

It is as if NOW is now the GOP, an increasingly small constituency, no current ideas, little diversity, and an increasingly "back to the future" aged populace and leadership. If NOW is to ever become relevant again, it must listen to the voices of the men and women who want better for it.

It is as if NOW is truly back in the 70s or 80s. How sad.

[OtayPanky]

We-Are-The-Ones: It is as if NOW is truly back in the 70s or 80s. How sad.

===

Maybe they should call the organization THEN.

[Lee323]

What's next for NOW?

Short answer: Working to re-establish credibility with millions of professional women (and men) in the aftermath of their joining the Palin circus.

Only the naive would believe that NOW didn't use the Palin-Letterman flap for garnering publicity.

[strawberryjulius]

You're completely right. Every reasonable person knows Letterman thought Bristol and not Willow was at the Yankee's game. It's obvious that a writer on the show screwed up, didn't do their research and assumed Bristol was at the game. Patricia Ireland and NOW should not have participated in the shaming of David Letterman. Why was it necessary for him to apologize twice? It's stunts like this that give feminists the reputation as humorless prudes.