NOW‘s website has been revamped
since I wrote this blog post.
Smart Girl Politics Action no longer exists,
but Smart Girl Politics still exists.
It has also been revamped.
The National Organization for Women must think you and I are incapable of remembering where we are on the Internet.
I visit now.org occasionally to see what they write about. Every time I visit, I am astonished at how often I see a National Organization for Women identifier on the home page.
On April 26, 2013, I decided to count.
“National Organization for Women” 2 times
NOW Logo 13 times
“NOW” 25 times
“National Now” 2 times
“NationalNow” 11 times
On the same day I went to the home page of the conservative Smart Girl Politics Action site, sgpaction.com (no longer up), and counted.
“SGP” 1 time
“Smart Girl Politics Action” 1 time
“SBN” 1 time
“SGS13” 3 times
That’s 53 National Organization for Women identifiers versus 6 Smart Girl Politics Action identifiers.
NOW leaders expect their followers to remain silent and passive. The NOW home page is about what NOW and its leaders are saying and doing.
SGPA leaders expect their followers to be vocal and active. The SGPA home page is about what ordinary women are saying and doing.
NOW leaders apparently consider their followers so intellectually inferior that they need constant reminders to remember where they are on the Internet. SGPA leaders obviously see their followers as intellectually equal.
To those of you who have the same political beliefs as NOW, you may want to ask NOW leaders why they think you can’t remember where you are on the Internet.
To those of you who have the same political beliefs as SGPA, congratulations on receiving the respect and support all women deserve!
September 14, 2015 Update
NOW’s new website still has more identifiers than SGP’s new website. Pay attention to how many times you see NOW identifiers in the changing photographs at the top of the page. The changing photographs at SGP’s website are all about issues, not about SGP.
NOW leaders provide glory for themselves. SGP leaders provide information for ordinary conservative women. SGP did not help Mitt Romney win in 2012, but they are helping ordinary conservative women take action to advance conservative policies as part of their daily lives. Think restrictions on reproductive health care.
Perhaps you should ask the National Organization for Women why conservative leaders create more equality between women than feminist leaders.
Paula M. Kramer
All rights reserved.
Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks or months.
Standards For Success Posters
Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots
For a wide ranging selection of articles on feminism and other topics,
see The Zawadi Nyong’o Daily
As an American, I have freedom of speech.
As a woman, I have the right to express my opinion about anything the National Organization for Women claims to do for women.
In 2016, I started adding the section below to all of my new Feminist Leader blog posts. I also added it to all posts published before 2016.
The National Organization For Women
National NOW has blocked me on its Facebook page. I wrote comments based on my blog posts. All of my blog posts are based on a wide variety of evidence. Much of the evidence comes from National NOW’s website, emails and posts from NOW presidents, and emails from NOW staff members. I use no hostile language, no slurs, no profanity. I do use the phrase “glory addicts” in reference to NOW leaders. I also use “glory addiction”, “glory fixes”, and “a dedicated network of glory addicts”. Dr. Marsha Vanderford (Doyle) identified the glory needs of pro-choice leaders in her 1982 dissertation.
Feminist leaders have been silencing women for decades. bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf got together for a conversation that was published in Ms. Magazine in 1993. The discussion included why women choose not ta call themselves feminists. Did these four feminist leaders working for women’s equality ask women who choose not to call themselves feminist to speak for themselves? Of course not! The four feminist leaders silenced millions of women by speaking for them without first requesting permission to speak for them.
Imagine a group of women who choose not to call themselves feminists getting together for a conversation to be published in a magazine about why some women call themselves feminists. Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree with nonfeminist women denying them the opportunity to speak for themselves? Of course not! Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree that nonfeminist women had the right to speak for feminist women without their permission? Of course not!
My feminist leader blog posts provide evidence that feminist leaders still create glory for themselves while relegating supporters to “secondary importance”. Dr. Vanderford used the words “relegated” and “secondary importance” in her dissertation. Eoin Harnett of University College Cork in Ireland used the same “secondary importance” phrase:
“Throughout the ages, women were frequently characterised
and treated as inferior and of secondary importance to men.”
NOW leaders even relegated two of their supporters to secondary importance. The supporters responded to my last two comments on National NOW’s Facebook page with comments supporting NOW. NOW leaders silenced those supporters by removing their comments along with my comments. Instead of creating equality, NOW leaders treat other women the same way patriarchal men treat women:
NOW leaders silenced at least three women on Facebook while posting claims to be creating equality for women. Secondary importance is the opposite of equality, as women throughout the ages could testify.
In-House Rhetoric of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Special Interest Groups in Minnesota: Motivation and Alienation
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982
Marsha Vanderford Doyle, Ph.D.
(Now Marsha Vanderford)
Quoted words on page 350.
“Let’s Get Real about Feminism: The Backlash, the Myths, the Movement.”
hooks, bell, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.
“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
University College Cork, Ireland
This project is no longer available online.
Updated April 30, 2017.
Leave a Reply