Share this on:
 E-mail
127
VIEWS
99
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not vetted for CNN

  • Click to view peone's profile
    Posted March 12, 2012 by
    peone
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Assignment
    Assignment
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Sound off

    More from peone

    Is the National Organization For Women (NOW) Still Relevant Today?

     
    According to their website: "Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society."

    Notice that in the goal statement it says ALL women, but lately I don't think that is the case. Just this evening I watched a video clip of the spokesman for NOW saying that she did not think that President Obama should reject Bill Mahr's donation to his political action organization. She basically said, Obama needs to win the election, so we don't care where the money comes from.

    I don't watch Bill Mahr so I had to do a little digging to find out what horrible things he has said about women and WOW was I offended. If NOW is really protecting women and trying to end all forms of violence against women, then why are they not and have they not condemned Bill Mahr for his ugly words. His words, well I won't repeat of them.

    I am not defending Rush Limbaugh. Nor am I defending anyone in the media that attacks women based on social stereotypes or sexuality when they are attempting to be elected to public office. I am offended by them all. What I don't understand is why NOW is showing a double standard. Currently on their website they are condemning Rush Limbaugh and at the same time in public are defending Mahr's contribution to Obama's political campaign.

    How can you be taken seriously as an organization when you don't even adhere to your own goal statement?

    Other questionable acts by NOW include publicly endorsing Jerry Brown after his campaign member called Meg Whitman a whore.

    Their endorsement of Bill Clinton after his sexual indiscretion. Sexual harassment in the workplace?

    Is it ALL women you protect NOW? Why can't you protect Meg Whitman or Sarah Palin or Michele Bauchman? Why do those women not count? Do I not count since I am more conservative than progressive?

    I think NOW is no longer living up to their mission statement and should do one of two things. Disband or Rename their organization to something that represents their political agenda, but right now, their name implies that they are for the rights of women, but their actions speak otherwise.

    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story