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

[HPdevotee]

"What happens in NOW affects progress for women far beyond the organization."

So, NOW thought that pandering to the misogynistic neo-con supporters of Palin was in the interests of the progress for women? WOW.

Chiming in on the made-up controversy between Palin and Letterman by restating Palin's ridiculous spin on a joke, (albeit, one in bad taste) is beyond the pale. You have, imo, now joined the ranks of those that apologize to Limbaugh. Exactly who are you trying to appease?

Sarah Palin would be the first to throw womens' rights under the proverbial bus if it benefited her in her religious/conservative aspirations. Remember, this is the woman who would deny a pregnant r.ape victim an abortion!

NOW has discredited itself. It is now an organization that will defend the absurd and actually r.etard its own message based on the faux-politics of the day.

NOW has become irrelevant to me.

[smileatfear]

palin threw her daughter under a bus for this little publicity stunt and NOW helped her. NOW allowed itself to be used by palin, for what reason I'll never know. But one young girl was the final victim in all of this and palin and NOW should be ashamed.

[weatherwaxx]

NOW made itself irrelevant last week.

Why didn't NOW stand up TO Sarah Palin when she knifed other female politicians in the back for stating the obvious -- ie, women are treated worse when they run for office?

You lost me with the Letterman gig. Not only did you not speak up against Palin's aging pageant-princess games -- my god, the woman is practically a parody of the sexually manipulative female (it's quite clear McCain did not examine her qualifications before picking her as a running mate) -- you actually bought into her tantrum. That's pathetic, stupid, and embarrassing.

Letterman's a mediocre wit. Palin... cannot even aspire to mediocrity. She's a mediawhore for the rich white boys' club, without even the wit to speak comprehensible English.

I'm so disgusted with NOW that I truly do not care WHO you elect. You haven't spoken for me, to my issues, in at least a decade. NOW represents rich, middle-class white women, and most of the world's women can't join that club.

[KMTeig]

To me, it's clearly an election between the old version of doing politics -- and the new is epitomized by Latifa Lyles. Latifa is a profoundly grounded, talented woman who knows how to operate in the politics of today. She is an aggressive fundraiser who has helped ensure that NOW remains financially strong (Ms. O'Neill was a NOW officer during the gravy days of the first years of the Bush Administration). She has put together an equally talented group of leaders who will bring a diverse array of talent and skills to their offices.

Finally, those who want to CHANGE the unfortunate stereotypes that persist of NOW as a white woman's organization should vote for the woman who will be the first woman of color to lead NOW in decades. Latifa Lyles.

[JEP57]

Since feminists have been less than vocal and not very strident in supporting their Muslim sisters around the world from the abuse and oppression from their men, am I correct in assuming that American feminists are mostly concerned with the oppression done to women by North American white males? A psychologist would see a clue there as to what's going on with a lot of feminists when they pick and choose their outrage. I believe there is a father figure issue tied in with all these battles.

[wltdnfaded]

Oh, man, you got us. Nail on the head, my brilliant friend.

[pleadthe5th]

JEP is absolutely correct. The NOW is afraid to confront the inherent sexist views of Islam lest they offend Muslims. Instead they focus their anger strictly on conservative, white men. Muslim women throughout the world are denied the right to drive, to go to school, to live their lives freely and to have some alone time outside of the home. Yet the NOW is silent on these issues. Women in Muslim countries are scalded with burning oil if they disobey their husband, they are beaten or stoned to death if they are unfortunate enough to be raped, still not a word from the NOW. The NOW picks who and what they will be offended by based on political views.

[Fluent08]

this is the mainstream version of feminist politics. what you and others don't get to hear about is the fantastic work that is happening in universities and international organizations. there is a very strong commitment to transnational feminism that gets pushed aside in favor of this white woman's agenda. NOW is the figurehead of a western woman's movement, but it is by no means the only or even the most important group. in fact, outside of mainstream media, NOW is irrelevant to many feminists.

[isis]

I thought I was a member. Perhaps I forgot to pay my dues.

[wltdnfaded]

I asked NOW to remove me from their mailing list after they played right into Sarah Palin's hands and put David Letterman on their "Hall of Shame" list. I was absolutely stunned and disgusted that NOW actually allowed themselves to be manipulated by Palin and Greta van Susteren.

Was it a tasteless joke? Absolutely. But the Letterman writers obviously thought it was Bristol at the game, and not Willow. And NOW just played right into it. Nice goin'.

NOW's version of feminism is completely stuck in the 80's. They are still crying about sexist jokes. Meanwhile, women's health physicians are wearing bullet-proof vests to work and clinics are closing. WHERE IS THEIR OUTRAGE ABOUT THIS????? I had a VERY heated email discussion with their communications director, and NOTHING she said changed my mind about their handling of this stupid Palin thing.

[kingshmoopy]

Agreed. I also had a heated e-mail back-and-forth with the president of my local NOW chapter during the presidential campaign. After I saw the lies that some local NOW chapters were spreading about Obama's record on choice, and after seeing that national NOW did not back off those lies or show any leadership at all, I emailed them and told them I was pulling my financial support and asked to be taken off their e-mail list. She essentially justified the lies that were being spread and treated me, of course, like a traitor for not being willing to do anything to elect a woman President. It didn't bother me that they endorsed Clinton, it bothered me that they spread lies about Obama and it seemed that every other e-mail I got from NOW was a hate-filled tirade against Obama.

IMO, NOW is a reactionary organization and they have lost all credibility.

[Vurz]

Here is a link to some of the other jokes that NOW has ignored
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/top-10-reasons-sarah-pali_b_215468.html

[Vurz]

The "Hall of Shame" addition of David Letterman is a calculated ploy by NOW to pander to the women that think that Sarah Palin as an example to follow. NOW has been completely silent on jokes that were actually about the 14 year old by numerous comedians (there is another post on HP about these jokes) instead NOW chooses to perpetuate the MYTH that Letterman was talking about anyone but Bristol Palin.

This type of calculated falsehood does a disservice to women in general and NOW members in particular. Rather than rightly putting comedians who have made jokes that actually reference underage females in the 'Hall of Shame", they punish someone who didn't reference underage females at all. This implicitly signals approval by NOW of the jokes actually targeting underage females and in so doing gives the impression that their membership approves of these jokes as well.

[Hollywooddeed]

Well said, Vurz. The child rape fantasy was purely Sarah Palin's and NOT David Letterman's. Does NOW also stand by Palin's disgusting inference that Letterman is a pedophile? I understand NOW is struggling to be relevant, but jumped the shark on this one.

Sarah Palin does not speak for me and neither does NOW (anymore).

[chaya]

If you're not pushing for civil rights for lesbians, you're not "improving lives" of a large proportion of women. If you are instead allowing yourselves to be used as a tool by the opportunistic Palin, you are definitely not improving my life.

What next for NOW? How about THEN?

[IrisBittencourt]

Given that NOW started at a cafeteria table, it is only fitting that it ends with enough members to fit around that same table. Look, the [white] women's movement has largely accomplished what they wanted: to make sure that white women stay ahead of blacks in this country. Across the board in this country, that statement has been proven true: white women can use the Equal Pay Act, while black men have to use the Civil Rights Act (and have to prove that underpayment was CAUSED BY RACISM); Title IX expenditures compared to all targeted educational programs for blacks; affirmative action, hiring and promotion in corporate law firms and corporate america; abortion rights; etc.

What else does NOW have to fight for? Your so-called movement was largely over by the late 70s. It (like the Hispanic movement and the LGB movement) followed on the heels of the black civil rights movement and were promoted by whites in part to thwart black gains. Do you know how the word gender got in the Civil Rights Act in the first place? White women's rights was a big a joke then as it is now.

[Nommo]

Teach

[weatherwaxx]

Um. A bit of history for you.

Feminists supported black suffrage in the 1800's and were then repudiated by black men when they were given the vote.

The women's movement was not started to 'thwart' black gains.

Equality means equality for EVERYONE.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***Yesterday I saw hope for a new era, women stood up to Dave Letterman***

Why don't they stand up to Chelsea Handler then when she makes jokes about human females?

***You finally realize that Sarah Palins views are different than yours on choice but by degrading her you degrade all women who run for public office no matter what their views are***

No one degrades Sarah Palin for her gender.

They criticise her for her absurd beliefs and her hypocrisy.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***Governor Palin's 14-year-old daughter is objectified and sexualized by David Letterman***

Utter nonsense.

Your credibility dies with such a false comment.

[Curtisies]

I must agree with indymaggie. Until NOW stands for all women, it is irrelevant.

[wyldthings]

I remember when NOW was a real feminists movement. When they made cavemen like myself realize the extent of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,UNEQUAL PAY AND UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY, Along with male exploitation of women in the workplace and more. Then in the 90's you completely reversed tactics. Now it's empowering for women to appear in Playboy, to be degraded like animals by the Hip Hop generation and when they said Monica was an adult and the power difference between a 21 year old and the CEO of America was not his wrong, well you lost me. The trivial jokes (sexist) made about HRC appearance, the jokes about Sarah Palin and even the fact that she had 3 young children should disqualify her from office was the opposite of the Feminists movement. Yesterday I saw hope for a new era, women stood up to Dave Letterman. You finally realize that Sarah Palins views are different than yours on choice but by degrading her you degrade all women who run for public office no matter what their views are.

[weatherwaxx]

If Palin herself did not degrade women, it would be a different matter. Palin is a stereotypical woman who gets power by playing the man's game. Do you really think McCain brought her onboard--after a 20-minute conversation--because he thought she was qualified?

Palin's a fading beauty-pageant princess... she was supported for public office because she was willing to mouth the racist, anti-feminist, corporate party line. She's an embarrassment to competent women, not a role model.

[HPdevotee]

Well said!

[darker]

YOU SAID IT:
"Palin is a stereotypical woman who gets power by playing the man's game. "

[martinchill]

"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?"

apparently the purpose has become to completely ignore reality and instead go with delusion.

"Governor Palin's 14-year-old daughter is objectified and sexualized by David Letterman."

absolutely not true. it's no longer a surprise to me that NOW took Palin's side. i sent them an email calling the move stupefying, but now i see it's par for the course.

beyond delusional.

[wyldthings]

martinchill, So let me get this straight : Letterman was talking about the governors visit to the Yankee game while in New York. The 18 year old was in Alaska while the 14 year old was at the game. You would have to be completely detached from reality to believe that A-Rod could physically go to Alaska between innings and visit with Bristol.

[wltdnfaded]

It was an obvious mistake and frankly, you sound like a fool if you belive Letterman was regarding a 14 year old girl. Shame on YOU.

[weatherwaxx]

Y'know what? Most of us Do Not KNOW which of Palin's offspring she was dragging to the baseball game, and do not CARE how old they are. I assumed his joke was about Miss Abstinence-Only. Who is 18, who is now plmping for some organization that is pushing girls to do what did NOT work for Bristol.

Get over it. I feel sorry for Palin's kids. I wish she'd stop working and go home and take care of them -- because while many women can manage both a job and a family, she is clearly incompetent.