Shanti, please relax. This is not worth getting angry about.

NOW has been long discredited as proponents of women rights. They are nothing more than political hacks for the Democratic Party.

They stood by Bill Clinton, a notorious womanizer, strictly out of politics.

Niraj,

I think rape victims go through hell already without political opportunists like NOW spitting on their opponents in their name. NOW has gotten away with calling themselves pro-women for too long. I think they need to be called on it, especially by other women.

“People like this are the reason why I hate being called a feminist even though I consider myself a huge womens’ rights proponent.”

YES!!!
It seems to be true of every legitimate concern and issue. Some brave pioneers have an uphill battle to raise consciousness, demonstrate legitimacy, and start working toward redress …
Once the initial hard work is done, some people jump on the bandwagon and hi-jack (wagon-jack??) the issue, twist it around for their own purposes, demean the original intent, cheapen the cause, have a number of otherwise sympathetic people turn away in revulsion and….

(Can you tell that I am passionate about this yet?)

What to do about it? Now there’s the tough question!

You got it, Sivani. That is also why I am so passionate about this issue. There are women being abused daily - raped, beaten blue. There are women who need all kinds of help standing up for themselves and putting pieces of their lives back together. There is so much to be done that I hate these people who “wagon-jack” (good word) a movement and turn it into their own little political community.

I am for a movement that is for women - not a party!

Looks like we are witnessing the genesis of “compassionate feminism” ? :-)

Chanakya, why not? That was the original idea behind realwomenonline.com - how many people we see around are for womens’ rights without being as radical as those in the mould of NOW feminists?

The idea was to get a group of us together and hash things out - not that it neccessarily turned out that way…

Any - “ism” is a manifestation of one’s own ego.

Though I beleive that Men are stupid, I don’t see why there needs to be anything called “feminism”…if there are people who are stupid enough to let others hinder their rights on whatever basis (be it gender, caste, economics….watever)- that’s what they deserve. Be it

Why are Conservative Law Makers and Judges for reducing or doing away with rape shield laws ? Why are Conservative judges hostile to Women’s Title 7 Discrimination lawsuits ? Why does the Republic Government reduce the funding of EEOC which brings Anti Women discrimination Lawsuits ? Why has Bush nominated Judicial Nazis like William Pryor

AM, I am against anyone who want to do away with Rape Shield laws - the party doesn’t matter to me.

Title 7 or 9? Are we talking about the sports teams here? Clarify.

As for the Government funding for projects - I don’t much care for that since anything and everything funded by the government comes loaded with too much beaurocracy to do any good and there are usually too many strings attached.

As for William Pryor, if it is about his comments on Roe Vs. Wade, I would like to see entire quote in context before talking about it. For the record, I don’t think abortion is anyone’s “right”. It is a complicated issue and anyone who can have a simple “yes” or “no” answer to it hasn’t thought about it enough.

According to this story - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/12/175024.shtml - looks like Pryor was against all forms of abortion. I think that view is stupid, personally.

But then, here is my question - that was a view he held to because of his religion - did that ever lead him to go against law during his career? Isn’t a judge entitled to his personal opinion as long as e doesn’t let it interfere with his judgement?

Shanti, the people of the ‘Conservative Movement’ are more hostile to the Rape Shield Laws in general than the Liberals. I was referring to Title 7 and not 9. Title 7 is the one which protects discrimination on the basis of race, sex etcetra. The Bush administration is hostile to Title 7 and has reduced the compensation awarded for these lawsuits. It has also cut funding for the EEOC ( the body which brings Discrimination Lawsuits) Conservative Judges across the country are hostile to discrimination cases brought by women and minorities and would let very few of them reach a jury. No one in is his right mind would argue that the Conservatives are not hostile to Discrimination Lawsuits brought by women. The Judges nomintaed by Bush are hostile to Womens Rights. Look up William Pryor. The man is insane. Hes hostile to Age Discrimination in Employment act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act (all because of his love for state rights) He has also argued against Violence Against Women Act the federal initiative designed to address and eliminate domestic violence and sexual assault and provide funding for rape prevention and education He argued that this federal expansion in civil rights protections was a breech in “state’s rights,” and therefore unconstitutional. So I think NOW does have a point. I think NOW needs to be less partisan though. Also NOW’s behavior at time of Clinton’s scandals was scandalous. Also NOW does overstate its case. Conservative attitude to Women’s rights, just because Feminists have gone crazy is not justifed. Also I would like to remind you that Sexual Harassment Laws, Equal Pay Laws, Pregnancy Discrimination Laws, Discrimination in workplace laws were all made into Legislation inspite of the ‘opposition’ of most of the Conservative Law Makers.

AM, the problem here again as I stated in my previous comment is that I am bashing NOW dowsn’t mean I am supporting conservatives or think that they are helping women a lot. That is an entirely different discussion and I will not give them quarter if today’s news said that Bush was going to repeal rape shield laws. That is not the news being discussed in the topic.

For the record, I am not conservative. I felt bad for the Clinton women, but I also thought the Republicans went way overboard in their hatred for the man and his wife. I argued for Elian Gonzalez going to his dad in Cuba and was called a “commie pinko” on Yahoo forums. That said, over-the-top hatred from anyone disgusts me. It turns me off and people who resort to such rhetoric lose me at hello (to paraphrase ;))

Clinton never “raped” Paula Jones; nor did she ever claim he did. Your frustration at Molly Birnbaum’s “poetry” is probably appropriate, but please keep your facts straight.

I’m curious to know if you were even there at the Women’s Rally in Central Park.
Maybe if you had been you would not be taking one comment like this out of context. When StaceyChin was performing you might have felt her message with your skin and womb like I and several other people in the crowd. This is why feminists get such a bad name for themselves, because no one can actually listen to the overall message everyone just wants to pick apart those who have the courage to speak out. I am also curious if you know what it feels like to be raped by a man… perhaps if you did you might be feeling what I am feeling reading your comments.

Mendogal, for Gods’ sake the only thing I ever felt in my womb was my son and I am sorry I don’t feel anyone’s words in “my womb”.

If you read the quote, you would actually realize it was Birnbaum who was quoted not Stacey Chin.

Thirdly, I am actually sympathetic to raped people which is why I think it is stupid of feminists to use such hateful rhetoric in politics which causes the cheapening of real rape victims.

Lastly, why should I not say anything about rape victims unless I am raped? Are you an idiot? I am sick of people going around saying things like that. By that (il)logic, you shouldn’t hear anything in your “womb” unless you actually gave birth…how’s that?

I would like to see entire quote in context before talking about it

This is exactly what you should’ve done when you posted this piece quoting Birnbaum’s admittedly stupid analogy. Yes — thats what it ultimately is — a stupid insensitive analogy. Thats all. Reactions like this:

These women are ridiculous and do not deserve to be seen as representing the women of America

are totally overboard IMHO.

Dilip, tell me what would have been NOW’s reaction if a white Republican man made a similar comment in context or not. They would have gone ballistic at the “insensitivity of it all”.

Once again, when you claim to represent women, it doesn’t behoove you to belittle their real trauma for political gain. You say everything you didn’t like makes you feel like you were raped, it takes away real sympathy from people who were really raped and are traumatized by it.

They would have gone ballistic at the “insensitivity of it all

Personally I wouldn’t care a hoot either way insofar as who is making that statement. But that is a distinction you don’t have the luxury of drawing when you align yourself to certain sides of the political equation. Either you are a left leaning liberal or a mad christian right. Striking a middle ground will ensure you get labelled as a fence sitter!

FWIW, I read that article fully and completely agree with you. Its totally insensitive and turns a simple disagreement with Bush Government’s policies into some kind of Jihad against Humanity.

I have been raped and my organs have been mutilated. That pain is pale by comparison to what George W. Bush has done to America; pale by comparison to what he has done under the guise of America to the world. As I look at my body I emphasize with others maimed.

Jodi- I think you need to seek psychological help, if you try to equate pres Bush’s policies to the act of violent rap e that you and other rape vitoms have suffered. Either t hat, or you are so blinded by an irrational hatred for Pres Bush, and people who happen to support him, that you are willing to make an asinine statement like you did. Or else, like a lot of leftists, you are just plain daft, letting ideological correctness trump your natural intelligence.

jodie u hav amazing strength to say that.many ppl sed that he raped iraq of its oil and americas foriegn policies are nothing short of selfish.
shanti if u think those chics r bad take a peep at south africa. alex ferguson was accused of rape as well as a well known judge. both were innocent and the accusers were in sum scam for the dough.how sick can u get.

I think you took only one meaning of rape. Rape doesnt mean only sexually raped.
I think Bush indeed raped the electoral system to become president. That doesnt mean if Kerry got a chance he wont do that.
Because of your political view you liked to take the literal meaning of the term rape.
Also in political process you need to take side. Otherwise you will be like Kerry.
Think about yourself dont you take sides?

Chok, the women did NOT say rape of electoral system - they said it was like raping the women - those were the exact words. You can try real hard, squint a little and read between the lines if you want. I can only take the literal meaning what someone said regardless of my politics.

Come on Shanti. You should know when to take a phrase literally and when to take as a rhetoric. Can we take all your rhetoric and language literally? Will that make sense?

I do beleive that so called feminists are full of baloney. But that doesnt mean that I will take some rhetoric and try to see the literal meaning.

Chok, it is precisely their over-the-top rhetoric that I was slamming in the post above. Stuff like that doesn’t help anyone, least of all the women that NOW claims to represent.

Those women are politicians. In my view politicians in general are not supposed to help anyone. Do you really beleive politicians will always talk only which is right?

I accept your statement that those women doesnt help women cause. But that doesnt mean you can say that they literally mean rape. It is a rhetoric and you need to see it that way only. So you cant compare that with sexual rape. Thats my point.

Please look at this link: http://www.now.org/press/04-98/letter-ed.html
to see the ACTUAL position NOW took on Paula Jones.

Riiight! I read everyone of those THREE links where NOW barely managed to slap Clinton on the wrist. Very compelling! Just for fun, I ran a search to see how many times they condemned Clarence Thomas about his Anita Hill episode - here are the results - 63 different times!

One more headline - NOW Won’t Support Jones Appeal because apparently they didn’t want their dainty little selves to work with “right-wing” organizations!