NOW Watch
NOW (National Organization for Women) Watch - What are they up to "now"?
09/03/01 NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense - more on Andrea Yates' support from NOW
08/27/01 - NOW continues to support child killer Andrea Yates - plans to participate in candlelight vigil on Sept. 11.
08/11/01 - Texas NOW Chapter supports defense fund for mom who murdered her 5 children.

From the Texas Channel 11 KHOU News web site. HOUSTON -- Andrea Yates's attorneys have begun taking in donations for her defense fund. It will be an expensive effort as they try to spare her a possible death penalty. What remains unclear, is just how much money has been donated to the fund. The bank will not release the information. But Deborah Bell, the state president of the National Organization For Women is ready to pitch in some money.
"We want for the society to look at the issues of depression and mental health and we're very concerned about the state of Texas, putting someone to death because they're mentally ill," Bell told 11 News.
NOW and Social Security Privatization
Why is NOW trying to save minorities and women from Social Security privatization?
Ireland Ducks In Final Leg of Protest March
NOW Feminists Burn Bras and Defect to Republicans
N.O.W. and the Juanita Broaddrick Case
Dulles N.O.W. Chapter speaks out against N.O.W.'s support of Clinton - praises House Managers!!

From: N.O.W. Chapter Dulles Virginia
Thirteen Brave Men
"The eloquence and dignity with which the 13 House Managers defended the rule of law and sexual harassment will remain shining moments in the history of the women's movement. The courage the "managers" displayed in presenting their case under a vicious barrage of organized ridicule calls for recognition and applause ..."

"We are unmoved by the display of moral outrage Democrats profess to feel toward a man they otherwise passionately support, someone we concluded uses and abuses women and then seeks to destroy those who attempt to expose the harm they suffered. American women deserved better then the year of unabashed sexism we just endured, relentlessly fueled by a political party we have long supported. Given the shameless performance of the N.O.W. four National officers and of the National Board, Dulles NOW will continue to ask for their resignation." Dulless Chapter, N.O.W., 2-15-99

Source: MSNBC McLaughlin Special Report : /02.18.99/
Rightgrrl Press Release - Rightgrrl responds to NOW's challenge.
NOW's Support For Clinton
Why DOES the National Organization for Women support President Bill Clinton, when they seem so discombobulated by his behavior??? It almost seems that without the White House strong-arm pressuring NOW for support, the organization might not be backing the Harasser-in-Chief.

From various NOW press releases:
"Jones alleges that Clinton ran his hand up her thigh, exposed himself to her, asked for oral sex and pointedly reminded her of his friendship with her immediate boss. No woman should have to put up with such behavior at work..." --April 2, 1998

"Last summer we successfully took on the president's lawyers over the use of the 'nuts or sluts' strategy of irrelevant personal attacks meant to discredit and intimidate Ms. Jones." --April 8, 1998

"When allegations of an affair between the president and Monica Lewinsky surfaced, we condemned the misuse of power by the president or any public official who has a sexual relationship with an employee or intern." --April 8, 1998

"...when Kathleen Willey's deposition became public and we noted that her allegations, if true, constituted not just harassment but assault." --April 8, 1998

"The President's behavior, offensive as it was..." --December 13, 1998

"To the president who betrayed the trust of the women who supported him..." --September 11, 1998

"President Clinton may not have violated the letter of the law, but he most certainly betrayed its spirit. And in doing so, he threatened the dignity and respect of millions of women who must face bosses and coworkers with the false impression that such behavior is acceptable." --September 11, 1998

"We have said from the beginning that no CEO and no elected official, including the president, should take advantage of the aphrodisiac of power to have sex with interns or staff. Consensual sex with a White House intern is an abuse of power by the president..." --August 17, 1998

"NOW never thought Bill Clinton was the answer to our dreams of equality for women." --August 17, 1998

"Still, [Clinton] seems to be a man who divides women into two unfortunate traditional categories: women he must treat with respect like Janet Reno, Madeline Albright and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and those he can use and toss aside like tissue paper." --August 17, 1998

"We would like better options for president in the future." --August 17, 1998
Are Feminists in Bed With Larry Flynt?
Clinton Bashes Anita Hill, NOW Ignores Blow to Feminism
NOW Chapter Secedes from the Union

When the National Organization for Women turned its back on Paula Jones, selling out to Democratic Party interests, it also turned its back on large blocs of its own constituency who oppose sexual harassment, whoever the perpetrator. And the fallout is already beginning.

The Dulles Area chapter of NOW has broken off ties with national NOW leadership and has joined forces with the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), a conservative women's group. (Rightgrrl co-founder Stephanie Herman is a member of the IWF and has written a few articles for their publication, The Women's Quarterly that are also housed in the Rightgrrl library.)

The goal behind their alliance, as reported in the Washington Times, is to "reinvent feminism" in direct response to a fact Rightgrrl's been articulating all along: "that the National Organization for Women has become a totalitarian clique that is out of touch with typical American women."

Marie-Jose Ragab, former NOW International Director and Dulles Area chapter president, released this statement: "Dulles NOW holds its national leadership solely responsible for the recent embarrassing public stance promulgating confusion and inconsistency concerning the paula Jones lawsuit. Its mishandling of the Paula Jones matter fully violates the NOW 1966 Statement of Purpose.

"By appearing to subordinate the organization to an outside political group," said Ragab, "the national leadership has severely damaged the very interests it purports to protect. This leadership has demonstrated an unwillingness to stand up in a time of challenge and thereby has lost its ability to speak credibly on women's issues." Rightgrrl applauds the actions of the Dulles Area chapter of NOW!
Class action suit against NOW - Stop Speaking For Me!
By Vincenza M. Carter
Featured Rightgrrl, February 1998

"Class action suit against NOW." Boy, would I love to see that as the headline of all the world's leading newspapers. The story would be great: "Woman finally has enough of feminist mind control, sues National Organization of Women to stop them from speaking for her."

Couldn't you just imagine the media frenzy that would create? Hundreds of women coming forward to be represented in the suit. The NOW gang forced to either prove that they speak for every woman in the country, or to start truthfully stating what percentage of women they do speak for. NOW would of course try to present themselves as the poor little girls being victimized, yet again, by a group of backwards, subjugated females, who like being oppressed by men. Those of us who are severely overweight, like myself, will enjoy the accusations that we are nothing more than exploited females who pose nude for men's mags.

It really is a fun fantasy, one that I engage in each time someone from NOW stands up to speak her piece. But the truth is, I am tired of being lumped in with the male-hating, men-bashing, mind-controlled females that the media portrait paints us to be. I don't hate men; I am married to one and am raising two. I see no reason why my equality is dependent on them as a group being bashed. Male-bashing doesn't make me equal, is situates me as the oppressor -- the same position that NOW claims the men are in.

I also resent being portrayed as someone who can't think beyond her reproductive organs, which is how the NOW gang portrays us to be. We bear children, so we are victims; we can be raped by ill-minded monsters, so again we are victims. Honestly, sometimes I think the only way NOW expects us to gain equality is by having sex change operations. Why do I have to cry victim each time something goes wrong in my life... aren't I old enough at 38 to take responsibility for my own actions?

One of the reasons I want NOW to stop talking for me, is that I am big girl and can think for myself. I am long past the age where I need mommy, let alone daddy, to tell me what I want and how I feel. And it is totally unfair to me as a thinking human being, to tell me that I have to agree with female group-think, just because we have reproductive organs in common. I have my own mind, thank you very much!

It is a constant source of amusement to me, when a woman tells me that I have to stop letting men think for me. When did I give women the right to think for me instead? Because I have a uterus, I am supposed to be pro-abortion? Because I have breasts I am supposed to be anti-pornography? Not that I think that pornography is okay, but let's not portray the playmates and Penthouse pets as poor victims, when they are taking in millions for their exploitive poses.

Let's be honest here, who does porno exploit? The women who get paid big bucks, or the men who are so weak that they pay big bucks to stare at pictures? Sorry Patricia and all of you loud sisters at NOW, the women who came before you, the sixties bra-burning crowd -- you all made it very clear in my childhood that I had a brain that functions just as well as a man's, and that I am capable of forming my own thoughts and opinions. I am not letting men think for me; why on Earth would I allow women to think for me? Sometimes I think we have gone from the Stepford Wives to the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Think of how great it could be, if we could drag NOW into court the way they have dragged so many others. Not to silence them completely (they do provide a service after-all, albeit a comedic one) but to make them tell the truth, and to stop them from using that ridiculous phrase "All women, everywhere." Nine times out of ten most women don't even know what they are all talking about. And wouldn't they look silly when they have to spend time and money polling women in America all the time, only to find out that only about 10 or 20 percent agree with them at any given time.

I realize the law suit could never happen. But I think it would be fun if it could. If for no other reason than to force the media to acknowledge that there are women who disagree with NOW who are also (gasp!) intelligent.

Freedom of Speech? Flush Rush?

By Carolyn
The Flush Rush campaign isn't anything new - it was started around 1994. Basically, the idea behind the campaign is to get Rush Limbaugh taken off the air by having people write to the FCC and complain, and to boycott his show's advertisers. There is also a "Flush Rush Quarterly" which has a goal of refuting what Rush says. I knew that NOW had been active in the campaign, but I had not heard much about it in the past few years, until recently.

A Rightgrrl reader (Hi Kay!) recently notified us that NOW is still on the "Flush Rush" campaign, and are using it as the focus for some of their fundraising and membership drive mailings. NOW calls for people to donate money to help them get Rush taken off the air.

I have a copy of the mailing piece here in front of me. It's actually pretty funny - there's a big Flush Rush logo smack on the front of the mailing (classy!) and inside, they describe the "right-wing" and Rush as no less than the siblings of Satan who, unless stopped, (with your donations of course), will have women locked at home in chains, slaving over hot stoves and raising no less than 10 children. Oh - they'd be barefoot too.

With all the issues facing women today, this is NOW's primary focus? They really believe that Rush is the biggest threat to women's rights? Why? Because he is pro-life? Rush is pro-life but abortion is far from the main focus of his show. Rush's primary focus is on small government. Perhaps it is because he uses the term "feminazi" - a term which he says applies to less than 10 women. If NOW is concerned about "name calling" though, perhaps they should re-work their mailing material - for instance:

"We need to expose the hateful, divisive fanaticism of Rush Limbaugh"

"Limbaugh's advertisers subsidize his hostile, right-wing demagoguery."

Don't get me wrong - NOW has the perfect right to ask people to write letters to the FCC and to boycott advertisers, and not every "Rightgrrl" listens to Rush - some of us do, and some of us don't. It just seems a bit odd to be calling for Rush to be taken off the air because, and I quote, "unfair or unbalanced use of public airwaves for political goals." Excuse me? Unfair? How so? Unfair because Rush doesn't agree with NOW's agenda? Unbalanced? Why? Because he doesn't "balance" his show with liberal beliefs? Does NOW hold liberal talk show hosts to the same standards? Do they ask that liberal talk radio programs to provide a conservative counter point? Do they call liberal talk radio an "unfair use of public airwaves for political goals"?

I often hear cries from people regarding the Disney boycott, and how dare the Southern Baptists boycott the company! Do these same people complain about NOW calling for people to complain about Rush? With the many liberal talk radio programs, are conservatives not supposed to have a time slot?

Hey Ladies! If you want the Support of Now, Make Sure You Don't Have Conservative Friends!
By Steph and Carolyn

Now, (ha ha) some of you might be wondering "Wait - you guys (ooops - "grrls") aren't fond of NOW, so WHY would you care that NOW is not supporting the Paula Jones appeal?!" It's the reasons behind NOW's refusal to support Paula Jones and the hypocrisy that has has us perturbed. In a nutshell, NOW stated that they could not support the Paula Jones appeal NOT because they thought her case didn't have merit, but because "right-wingers" supported her. Hmmm? NOW bases their support for a woman depending on who else supports that woman? Or maybe NOW is just too busy trying to "Flush Rush"...

So much for the NOW's willingness to defend women's rights in a case in which a woman has been victimized by a man who just so happens to support the NOW's agenda. So much for NOW's desire to stand up for women who happen to have "right wing" support. Can you imagine the outrage if conservatives said they wouldn't support Anita Hill because "left wingers" supported her?! Just imagine the complete uproar. We could most likely hear Patricia Ireland's screams throughout the country.

Since when does NOW base support decisions on who else supports the cause? What NOW has basically done is said "Ok guys - if you want to harass a woman and get away with it, just make sure she has 'right-wing' supporters!" Is this NOW's idea of being "pro-woman"?

Despite arguing for 10 minutes that Jones' case wasn't a good "test case" on This Week with Sam & Cokie on April 26, 1998, Patricia Ireland oddly admitted in her last remark that "there are millions of women with great cases out there; we can't take them all." Did she mean Jones was one of the millions with a great case? Hmmm? You can read the transcript of Patricia Ireland defending NOW's position and squaring off against the Independent Women's Forum's Anita Blair.

And now, if only Ireland would recognize that there are millions of great *women* out there, and that NOW can't *speak* for them all. Speaking of which... read Vincenza Carter's fantasy involving a class action lawsuit against NOW -- the result of a woman who's fed up with NOW's attempt to speak for her.

April, 1997
NOW lies, uses misleading tactics to inflate budget

A longtime member of NOW, the National Organization for Women and a group that has longtime support for legalized abortion, relates the following about misleading fundraising tactics employed by the organization. The original report appears in a newsletter distributed by a woman who works with the Arkansas NOW affiliate.

"On February 19, 1997 I received a call from NOW. I was given a spiel about the terrorist attacks on women's health clinics, "In fact, did you know that just today there was another one?" No, I didn't. Well, it was in Virginia. She didn't have all the details as the news was just coming in, but apparently it burned to the ground. Would I contribute $250. Well, I wouldn't give my VISA out over the phone (she hadn't asked me for it, by the way), and I would perhaps consider $25 if they sent it by mail. They were just calling tonight to try to get a budget up, and were seeing if they could get some idea of how much they could generate.

"While I was talking to her I was watching CNN Headline News. I thought it strange that I hadn't seen anything on the news. I kept watching. I read the paper the next morning. I finally searched the Internet several days later.

"I could find no mention of any abortion clinic in Virginia (or anywhere else) being attacked on February 19th. In fact, that was the day the Supreme Court handed down the ruling on how close protesters could get to a clinic--so I had been tuned in to what was going on with abortion clinics on that particular day.

"It crossed my mind that perhaps I was dealing with someone saying they were NOW and trying to con people into giving their VISA numbers out with a sob story. However, several days later I did in fact receive the pledge sheet from NOW which specifically stated they had called me on February 19th.

"At that time, I say down and wrote a letter to Patricia Ireland, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. I enclosed the pledge sheet and my NOW card torn in two pieces. That was on March 3rd. I received my return receipt back on March 6th, signed by an individual by the name of F. Dunmore. Since that date, I have not heard another thing, except a follow-up notice for the $25 pledge which I have no intention of honoring.

"Text of letter to Ireland dated March 3:
"RE: NOW's tactics for extracting money from supporters.
"Patricia Ireland: I am writing to you rather than the local media, because I feel you deserve to know what NOW telephone solicitors are doing and to have a chance to correct the situation.

"As you can see from the attached, I received a call from NOW on February 19th. The young woman told me that there had been that very day, February 19th, yet another attack on an abortion clinic in Virginia. The news was just coming in and she did not have all of the details but it appeared that this clinic had been burned to the ground.

"I had been watching the evening news when she called, and I was very puzzled with the information she gave me. I was asked for a $250 pledge. I told her I would not give my VISA number out over the telephone, and told her I would consider $25.

"There was no mention on any news broadcast on February 19th of any action taken against any abortion clinic in Virginia. Furthermore there was no mention in the press during the following week. I have searched the news sources on the Internet and can find no mention of any bombing of any abortion clinic in Virginia on February 19th.

"I consider these tactics scurrilous. As a result you will no longer have my support. I am herewith resigning as a member of NOW. May I remind you, that like Caesar's wife, NOW should be above suspicion in its fund-raising tactics if it wishes to take on the government."

NOW membership which at one time was aiming for a million is now down to under 200,000.

No wonder their fund-raising is getting desperate......