If Feminist Leaders Want Equality, Why Do They Create Inequality?

I want to start by establishing that I have a background in feminism and women’s issues. I considered myself a feminist for approximately twenty years. I have a B.A. in Women’s Studies/Writing (an individually planned major). I read books about women’s history for a decade or more. Then, of course, I have my own life experience.

For thousands of years, men who felt superior to women decided their superiority entitled them to privileges women should not have. These men kept women silent and passive to keep them inferior and unequal. Feminist leaders also have a history of creating inequality. I first experienced inequality created by feminist leaders in the 1980s. I included examples of my own experiences plus examples that other women experienced.

1st Inequality Experience

During my college years, I worked at a women’s resource center. A woman who considered herself a feminist became the director. The new director did not work all of the hours she was scheduled to work. She claimed more time on her time card than she was scheduled to work. She gave her work to staff members and volunteers instead of doing it herself. She lied to the public, lied to the staff, lied to the board of directors. She verbally abused a number of staff members. After she left two more directors who considered themselves feminist behaved in all of the same ways. They did not work all the hours they were scheduled to work, claimed more time on their time cards than they were scheduled to work, gave their work to other staff members, lied to everyone, and verbally abused a number of staff members.

Creating equality would mean that all of the directors worked the hours they were scheduled to work, claimed only they time they actually worked, did their work themselves, were honest with the public, staff, and board, and treated staff members with respect. Instead, all three of the directors acted as if the title of director bestowed them with superiority and privilege.

2nd Inequality Experience

Around 1990, I received a letter from Eleanor Smeal. In exchange for completing an Abortion Rights Questionnaire and sending a “generous contribution”, Smeal promised that “at least four times a year we’ll notify you of pending actions nationally and locally and let you know what action steps you can take.”

Creating equality would mean giving women who support abortion rights opportunities to decide which actions they want to take and when they want to take action. Instead, Smeal creates inequality by keeping pro-choice supporters passive.

3rd Inequality Experience

The September/October 1993 issue of Ms. Magazine published a discussion between four feminists — bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf — about the myths of the feminist movement, the backlash to the feminist movement, and the movement itself. These four feminists also discussed why many women do not call themselves feminist.

Creating equality would mean feminists asking other women why they choose not to call themselves feminist. Instead, hooks, Steinem, Vaid, and Wolf created inequality by denying other women the right to speak for themselves.

After reading that article, I chose to stop calling myself feminist.

4th Inequality Experience

About this same time, an acquaintance told me she had found a feminist network in her field. She called the phone number listed and said she would like information about the network. The feminist on the other end of the line said, “We know who we are.” A couple of years after my acquaintance told me that story, I asked her about it again. I wanted to make sure I had heard her correctly. I had.

Creating equality would mean feminists in the network would welcome every other feminist in that profession. Instead, the feminist on the phone created inequality for my acquaintance by treating her as inferior. Perhaps it’s not a surprise that the network no longer exists.

5th Inequality Experience

In the early 1990s, I started working on my thesis. I asked a feminist professor to be my advisor. My thesis was about women as television talk show hosts. I had chosen my topic in 1988 after watching Oprah Winfrey betray a female guest on her show. Wanting to understand why Oprah would betray another woman, I watched every talk show hosted by a woman for several years. From the list I compiled of topics and guests, I identified four cultural themes women use to betray each other:

Women as mothers

Women and their appearance

Women as deviants

Teenage girls as threats to society

Females grow up in this society learning to betray each other according to these four cultural themes. I added historical patterns to my thesis with examples of women using these themes to betray each other. Six weeks before I was supposed to publicly talk about my thesis to other grad students, my advisor told me to base my thesis on the theories of feminist writers I had never heard of. She told me I could put only two paragraphs of history into my thesis. She verbally abused me in an attempt to get me to agree to being silenced. Then she insisted that I say “Thank you” for her “advice” to use someone else’s research instead of my own.

Creating equality would mean respecting what I wanted to say through my research. Instead, my advisor attempted to create inequality for me by silencing me.

6th Inequality Experience

In 2008, I started regularly visiting the National Organization for Women web site (now.org). I did not join but I did sign up for emails. Some of the emails I receive are from the NOW National Action Center. In the emails, NOW leaders ask supporters to take action by sending an already written email labeled “Your letter”.

Creating equality would mean NOW leaders encouraging supporters to use their own words to write letters and emails that are meaningful to them. Instead, NOW creates inequality by silencing their supporters.

7th Inequality Experience

In the October 2010 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Susan Faludi wrote about a feminist conclave she attended. The feminists at the conclave discussed intergenerational issues without a single younger woman being present. When one of the feminists suggested inviting younger women to the next meeting, she was “promptly shot down”.

Creating equality would mean inviting younger woman to meetings on intergenerational issues so they could speak for themselves. Instead, feminist leaders silence younger women by denying them opportunities to speak for themselves.

8th Inequality Experience

In a number of interviews both in print and on television, Gloria Steinem has repeatedly used a version of the statement below:

“Women have two choices: Either she’s a feminist or a masochist.”

“You’re a feminist or a masochist.”

“It is not at all an exaggeration to say that feminism-the belief in the full social, economic and political equality of women-is mental health, and that the only alternative is masochism,”

“You know in my heart, I think the only alternative to being a feminist is being a masochist.”

Creating equality would mean supporting every woman’s right to define herself. Instead, Steinem silences every woman who chooses to define herself as something other than feminist.

What These Experiences Reveal

The above examples expose feelings of superiority in feminist leaders. Feelings of superiority mean expectations of privilege. Expectations of privilege require inequality. Feminist leaders create inequality for other women so they can maintain their superiority and privilege. By keeping other women passive and silent, feminist leaders are able to give themselves glory.

~~NOW has changed its website since I started writing about feminist leaders. The indented paragraph below is from the original version of this blog post. Visit the new now.org and click on the NOW Leaders page. You’ll see that feminist leaders create inequality by keeping secrets from the mostly female NOW members who pay their salaries.~~

NOW has changed its website again. It removed the NOW Leaders page. This only means they are no longer announcing that NOW leaders keep secrets. NOW leaders still keep secrets. They keep their “activist” training secret from the women who pay for the training.~~

Visit now.org to see whose names appear on the site. Sign up for emails and see whose names are mentioned. Do searches at the website for “training” and “activist”. See how many names of ordinary women you can find. Then look for NOW giving glory to the words and actions of ordinary women — women who are not officers of NOW chapters or in the “dedicated network of grassroots activists”. In an article about “4,000 Massachusetts NOW activists and their supporters” (search for “4000”), the only NOW activists quoted were:

NOW National Board member Ellen Zucker (mentioned two times)

NOW President Patricia Ireland (mentioned four times)

Massachusetts NOW President Ellen Convisser (mentioned two times)

Attendees at a spring 2005 NOW activist training weekend included 11 “new state presidents, coordinators and executive directors” as well as “33 activists from 14 states” who “braved the chill of an extended Washington, D.C., winter” (search for “33 activists”).

Feminist Leaders Create Inequality To Feel Glory

NOW leaders keep the glory for themselves and exaggerate situations to give themselves glory. (Braving a chill where the average low winter temperature is around 30º F? I will refrain from laughing even though I have lived through average winter lows below 10º F for more than two decades.)

Feminist leaders obviously demonstrate superiority priority. Psychologist Marty Sapp gives one example of superiority priority in the article, “School Counseling for African American Adolescents: The Alfred Adler Approach”. Adolescents with superiority priority are “striving to be socially superior to others at any cost” and need to be “most competent” and “most right”. This need for superiority is a way to avoid feelings of unimportance and meaninglessness. Adolescents with superiority priority evoke feelings of inferiority in other people.

Feminist leaders avoid feeling unimportant and meaningless by evoking feelings of inferiority in other women. They make other women feel unimportant and meaningless. When I read in Eleanor Smeal’s letter that she would contact me “four times a year” to let me know what actions step I could take, I felt I would be unimportant 361 days a year. Every time I receive an email from the NOW Action Center asking me to sign “Your letter”, I feel describing my experiences in my own words would be meaningless. How can feminist leaders convince men to treat women as important and meaningful when they cannot do it themselves? Feminist leaders create inequality between women so they can feel most competent, most right, most brave, and most deserving of glory to feed their own endless needs for importance and meaningfulness.

Leading up to the 2012 presidential election I found an example of conservative women leaders creating equality between women. Smart Girl Politics put ordinary women on its website so they could use their own words to describe what actions they took in their own lives. College students, employed mothers, at home mothers, and grandmothers who joined Smart Girl Politics Action could take a free weekly SPG101 interactive webinar. Smart Girl Politics did all this because its founders saw ordinary women as important and meaningful.

Any woman could sign up to be a Smart Girl member without paying a cent. New members could immediately post blogs or organize events. Any Smart Girl member oculd contact any other Smart Girl member. Smart Girls found ways to work together solving problems in their communities.

No nonmember can even email NOW without being assaulted by an automated email response with NOW membership information (“Join NOW!”). Joining NOW means paying a membership fee. NOW members are unable to contact each other or say anything at the NOW website beyond commenting on a staff written blog. NOW members cannot work together to solve problems in their own communities. What NOW wants from its members is a continual flow of money so NOW leaders and their “dedicated network of grassroots activists” can travel around the country and socialize with each other while pretending to create equality.

I read a number of blog posts listed at the SGP website. I agreed with some of them. I disagreed with some of them. I was offended by some of them. I am offended by everything I read at the NOW website because all of it is written with a “We’re superior, you’re inferior” tone.

Since NOW leaders don’t get what equality means, I will explain it to them. Equality means that NOW members get to do anything NOW leaders get to do. Since NOW leaders do not allow NOW members to do anything NOW leaders do, NOW leaders are only pretending to create equality.

It is telling that a conservative organization like Smart Girl Politics created equality for its supporters while a feminist organization like the National Organization for Women creates inequality for its supporters. Why would women call themselves feminist when they enjoy more equality by not calling themselves feminist?

I am one of the women Gloria Steinem would define as a “masochist” for choosing not to call myself feminist. I would be a masochist if I had set aside years of research and allowed my thesis advisor to silence me. Instead, I switched to a male advisor who helped me speak my words through my research.

I would be a masochist if I allowed feminist leaders to keep me passive. Instead, I take action any time I see an opportunity to take action.

I would be a masochistic if I allowed feminist leaders to silence me. Instead, I write letters and emails with words that are meaningful to me.

I would be a masochist if I ignored my life experiences to remain the silent and passive wallet feminist leaders expect me to be. Instead, I use my life experiences to show how feminist leaders create inequality.

I now call myself an equality advocate — I advocate equality between women, between men, and between men and women.

I tried being feminist for approximately twenty years. The experience left me emotionally battered and continuously unequal. As I see it, Ms. Steinem, one alternative to feminism is equality for all women.

Read the letter I wrote NOW in January 2010.

Note

Seven months after posting this blog, I came across the November 2010 issue of More magazine. That issue included an article about young feminists. One of them was Jessica Valenti, who once worked for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Valenti’s experience working for NOW provides evidence to support my claim that feminist leaders create inequality so they can feel important and meaningful.

Valenti told More,

“Whenever there was a photo opportunity, all the young women and
women of color would be ushered to the front. But when it came to
inviting us to important meetings, that just wasn’t happening. When
push came to shove, no one really cared what our opinions were.”

The feminist leaders of NOW purposefully create inequality within NOW so they can keep every opportunity to feel important and meaningful for themselves.

To read the opinions feminist leaders purposefully ignore, go to feministing.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paula M. Kramer
Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Websites

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Business Directory

betterplanetbusiness.com

Reputation Management Directory

myrecordnow.com

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
Silences 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.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

Victims On The Left, Victims On The Right

Validation: to make valid; substantiate; confirm

Some people enjoy being victims. People seem to express their enjoyment of being victims by publicly announcing that they are victims. Public announcements provide what I call victim validation. Victim validation gives people feelings of importance as validated victims. Validated victims expect other people to pay attention to their victim needs and take care of their victim needs. Because they feel that publicly announcing their victimhood makes their needs more important than anyone else’s, validated victims feel entitled to ignore everyone else’s needs.

Validated victims blame other people for all of their problems and complain about other people hurting them. Unfortunately, validated victims are everywhere, including the political left and the political right.

Victims on the Left

One example from the political left is Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women since 2009. I am not a member of the National Organization for Women, but I did sign up for emails. NOW President Terry O’Neill sends out emails to “hundreds of thousands of contributing members and more than 500 local and campus affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” I disproved those membership claims, so we don’t know how many people receive the emails. NOW’s claim about the number of members has changed since I disproved its claim of more than 500,000 members.

This email from O’Neill perfectly illustrates victim validation:

Subject Line: Haterade
September 13, 2014
Terry O’Neill, NOW via mail.salsalabs.net

10:53 AM (1 hour ago)

to me

Dear Paula,

 I’m sure you’ve heard by now, but this week NOW called on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to resign his post. Since we released that statement, it has been a whirlwind of press and action.

You might have seen or heard me on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC or ESPN – or any of a dozen other media outlets. But if you saw me, that means the trolls did too; all week, we’ve been getting barraged with hateful comments via phone, email and on Facebook and Twitter.

Nestled in there — often hidden in the muck — are voices of solidarity. These voices wish us luck in our endeavor, many identify as football fans or activists working in their communities – all agree that we must end the epidemic of violence against women.

Contribute and help us continue our work!

Sure, some of the trolls use the old quip of demanding that I “make them a sandwich” – not the first time I’ve heard that one! I’ve been accused of being “off my rocker”.

The truth is, though, almost all of these comments have been outright and aggressively misogynistic.

 Since I became president of NOW, I’ve received a regular stream of hate mail. Sadly, it just comes with the job. But knowing I have your support makes all the difference.

So a warning to the trolls: We will not deviate from this path. I know that we can change our culture – which is so permissive of violence against women — and change our laws, simultaneously.

How do I know that? Because we’re the National Organization for Women and this what we do – especially with supporters like you.

Thank you for all you do,
Terry O’Neill
President, National Organization for Women

P.S. Thousands of you have already shown your support by signing our petition demanding that Roger Goodell resign. Can I count on your continued support with a contribution today?

Blaming and complaining over and over again, just in this one email. O’Neill clearly feels sorrier for herself than she feels for women who live with domestic violence. She never acknowledges the men who live with domestic violence. She does acknowledge that hate mail “just comes with the job.” Though she made the choice to take a job that comes with hate mail, O’Neill still feels more victimized than women who are victims of domestic violence. Never mind the male victims.

Did O’Neill validate her victimhood on ”MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC or ESPN — or any of a dozen other media outlets”? I don’t know. I have better things to do than watch the President of the National Organization for Women demonstrate the fine art of validating victimhood.

Victims on the Right

One example from the political right is a commenter to online articles in local newspapers. This is a much smaller audience than O’Neill’s audience. The commenter and I both live in Wisconsin. She is a Republican. I am a Democrat.

I exchanged comments with this commenter in several discussions. Two discussions illustrate her desire to be a validated victim. Both were political discussions. Several newspapers have written articles about how Wisconsin is doing worse under Governor Scott Walker. For one discussion, I provided this list of online article titles for everyone reading the comments to see:

“Surprise! ‘Pro-business’ policies hurt state economic growth”
Michael Hitzik
Los Angeles Times
May 6, 2014

“State Employment Trends: Does a Low Tax/Right-to-Work/Low Minimum Wage Regime Correlate to Growth?”
Bruce Hall
Econbrowser
April 22, 2014

“Declining Private Employment in Wisconsin, Sideways Trending in Kansas”
Menzie Chinn
Econbrowser
July 17, 2014

“Revised and Updated Data Indicate Minnesota-Wisconsin Economic Activity Gap Increases”
Menzie Chinn
Econbrowser
April 1, 2014

“Right vs. Left in the Midwest”
Lawrence R. Jacobs
The New York Times
November 23, 2013

The commenter wrote these two comments to me:

“California is a disaster. You should quit posting.”

“Yes, Paula Kramer. You should quit posting when you say CA is doing better than WI.”

She included the link below with her second comment:

“California’s Economic Collision Course: Immigration and Water”
Thomas Del Beccaro
Forbes Magazine
August 19, 2014

This article was the only evidence she presented in response to me during the discussion.

Because of these two comments, I gave this commenter a nickname: Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me.

In another discussion, I wrote a comment about how Walker’s policies had made life worse for all Wisconsin residents. I included this list of links to online articles:

“Wisconsin ‘right-to-work” critic will expand company in Minnesota
Tad Vezner
St. Paul Pioneer Press
March 10, 2015

“Wisconsin and Minnesota: A One-Sided Political Competition”
Steve Benen
The Rachel Maddow Show/The MaddowBlog
March 5, 2015

“Scott Walker has failed Wisconsin and Minnesota is the proof”
Jimmy Anderson
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
October 22, 2014

“Minnesota economy beats Wisconsin: 7 charts, 1 table”
Paul Tosto
Minnesota Public Radio NewsCut
January 26, 2015

“A Fiscal Tale of Two States: Minnesota vs. Wisconsin”
Menzie Chinn
Econobrowser
September 30, 2014

“Our view: Minnesota is winning this border battle”
ScottRada
LaCrosse Tribune
January 4, 2015

“Walker vs. Dayton smackdown: Which governor has the better economy?”
Louis O. Johnson
MinnPost
February 7, 2013

“Minnesota making our state look bad”
Tom Clementi
Post-Crescent
January 15, 2015

The January 15, 2015 Post Crescent article includes these statements:

“Despite Walker’s claim that we’re “open for business,” Forbes magazine ranks Wisconsin 31st for business; Minnesota ranks ninth. This despite the fact that the American Legislative Exchange Council, the powerful organization that drafts legislation for conservative politicians and is funded, in part, by Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers, places Minnesota in the lowest tier of “ALEC-friendly” states and touts Wisconsin as No. 1 for taxes in 2014.

But that number is countered by reality. The median income for a Wisconsin family is some $8,000 less per year than in Minnesota. Forbes places our Minnesota seventh for economic climate and Wisconsin 27th. Forbes also ranks Minnesota second in quality of life and Wisconsin 17th.

Those numbers make ALEC’s numbers a little suspect and raise the question of exactly who benefits from Wisconsin’s No. 1 ALEC tax rating? Obviously, it’s not the ordinary Wisconsin citizen.”

This was the response from Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me:

“Hey Paula: Obama made me give up my Dr. so it’s best to stop talking about what is taken away from you.”

In response to a list of articles about the effect of state government policies on all Wisconsin residents, Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me wrote about herself. She created inequality for me again by telling me to “stop talking”.

Blaming and complaining, Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me validated herself as a victim. She expects other people to be responsible for her needs while she ignores the needs of everyone else. Why should she pay attention to the needs of people she considers her inferiors?

To make sure she knew I would quote her comments, I sent Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me a private Facebook message. I assured her I would keep her anonymous. I also wrote this:

“It’s sad that you don’t see equality as the benefit it is. It’s sad that you don’t understand that creating inequality for someone else means inviting other people to create inequality for you. You and I are equal, ——-. You deserve the same respect I deserve. I deserve the same respect you deserve. You deserve the same respect from other people that I receive from other people. That is why I hope you stop inviting other people to create inequality for you.”

This is part of her response:

“Now I remember, Paula. Your mother tried to kill you twice and you write about it and have trouble still dealing with it. I had a brother that beheaded himself, an alcoholic husband that became a ward of the state, a family member that embezzled, incidents in childhood that may make you shudder.”

For the record, I write about my mother trying to kill me only when I am participating in discussions about abortion, which might be two or three times a year. I do not write about my mother trying to kill me when it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me, however, inserted her personal pain into a discussion that was not about personal pain. Perhaps Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me thought those four examples would force me to see her for the validated victim she believes she is. As a validated victim, no one should expect anything of her, including treating other people with respect and equality. Instead, we should tolerate Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me’s blaming and complaining and take responsibility for easing her pain while expecting nothing in return.

What to Do about Validated Victims?

You could tolerate the victims who share your political views, though you shouldn’t expect them to treat you with respect or equality. You could ignore validated victims on both the right and the left. Or, you could use one or more of these four techniques:

Use the term validated victim to them.

Repeat, “Blaming and complaining again?” each time they do it.

Let them know how many times they made the same statement.

Ask, “What are you doing to change the situation?”

I’ve tried the last two techniques with just one person. After one friend made the exact same complaint five times in a row, I told her she had made the exact same statement five times in a row. I told her I needed to hear it only once. Then I asked her what she was going to do about the situation. She told me she might need to say it five times in a row. I told her she could find someone else to say it to. She no longer calls me to blame and complain about anything.

If we all use similar strategies with the people in our lives, maybe we could gradually convince everyone that victim validation is a waste of everyone’s time. Maybe pointing out the common ground between validated victims on the political left and validated victims on the political right would cause enough healthy embarrassment to stop the blaming and complaining. Something along the lines of:

“You sound just like…”

I’m ready to try.

“Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence”
Murray A. Strauss
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research
July 14, 2007

Paula M. Kramer
Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Websites

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Business Directory

betterplanetbusiness.com

Reputation Management Directory

myrecordnow.com

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
Silences 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.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has Left The Room

Originally published June 4, 2014.

Revised and republished January 11, 2016 after a web host transfer.

Below are two reasons I do not donate money when I receive Democratic fundraising emails, even though I am a registered Democrat.

Reason #1

“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Has Left The Room”

Reason #2

Florida’s Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent me a fundraising email saying:

“President Obama sent you an email.

Vice President Biden sent you an email.

Nancy Pelosi sent you an email.

Now I’m sending you an email.

We’re emailing you because this is really important.”

Wasserman Schultz provided no email address for me to respond to her. When I went to her website to send an email, I received this message:

Zip Code Authentication Failed

I called Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz’s Florida office and asked if she or her staff would read a letter from Wisconsin. The staff member who answered the phone told me there was no guarantee because they had to look at mail from Florida first. If Wasserman Schultz is not going to give me a way to respond to her, then she has no business emailing me about anything. I told the staff member I would publish my response to Wasserman Schultz in a blog post with the hope that someone else would read it and say something to her.

Wasserman Schultz insulted me by deciding I was too “intellectually unsophisticated to know what is “really important” without her explaining it to me.

Wasserman Schultz created inequality for me by expecting me to remain silent and passive.

I do not trust politicians who ask for money so they can satisfy their power addiction, as indicated in the emails the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sends out. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has left the room along with all of those other Democrats.

I see little difference between Republican politicians seeking power for the sake of power and Democratic politicians seeking power for the sake of power. My needs fall outside the focus of power-seeking politicians from both  sides.

It is “really important” that politicians pay attention to my needs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz ignored my needs, treated me as if I were her intellectual inferior, and created inequality for me. Wasserman Schultz expected me to accept this insulting treatment without question and send money.

I refuse to donate money to politicians who will use my money to buy ads that say things I do not want said. I need Democrats and Republicans to speak respectfully about and to each other, to identify commonalities, and to identify ways to work around differences. I need Democrats to respect my needs, to respect my intelligence, and to create equality for me before they ask me for money.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz did none of what I need. She is yet another female politician who treats female constituents as unequal.

Time has proved that other Democratic voters feel that Wasserman Schultz has left the room.

“The Arrogance of Feminist Leaders”

“Demand Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s immediate resignation as DNC chair”
Spirituality for Justice
change.org

“It’s Time for Female Politicians to Treat Female Constituents
as Equals”

“What Do Feminist Leaders Have In Common with Outlaw Bikers,
Hierarchical Leaders, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Old Guard of the
Catholic Church?”

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

It’s Time For Female Politicians To Treat Female Constituents As Equals

Originally published March 26, 2014.

Revised and republished January 10, 2016 after a web host transfer.

Background On Inequality Between Women

Inequality between females is more common than equality between females. Females create inequality for other females through words and actions of betrayal.

In 1988, I watched Oprah Winfrey betray a female guest on her talk show. I couldn’t understand how Oprah could betray another woman. By that time, I already felt regret for the way I had treated a number of girls and women in my life, but I had never asked myself how I could betray another girl or woman. To figure out why Oprah betrayed her female guest, I wrote my masters thesis about women as television talk show hosts. What I learned from writing that thesis is that every girl in this country grows up learning how to betray other girls. As women we just keep doing what we grew up doing, betraying other women. Betrayal between females creates inequality between females.

I watched every talk show hosted by a woman for about five years (starting before I earned my B.A.). Most of the topics discussed on the shows fell into four repeating themes. I now call those themes the cultural themes of betrayal between women:

Women as mothers

Women and their appearance

Women as deviants

Teenage girls as threats to society

For more details about each of these themes, see Girl Grit.

As young girls, we learn to judge other girls according to these cultural themes of betrayal. As women, we continue to judge each other according to these cultural themes of betrayal. Even girls who grow up to become politicians judge and betray other women because that is what they learned to do.

Every time a female betrays another female, she betrays herself as well. Every time a female holds another female back, she holds herself back as well. Every time a female judges another woman according to the cultural themes of betrayal, she invites other females as well as males to judge her by the same cultural themes. It’s time for female politicians to learn to stop judging and betraying other females so they can begin to create equality for both constituent females and themselves.

Once I understood that I judged other females based on these cultural themes of betrayal, I rethought all of my relationships with girls and women. I wanted to find a way for all girls and women to stop betraying each other and start supporting each other. I found the way when I read Dr. Reg Williams’ four steps for new recruits to be more successful in the Navy. I adapted his steps, then added other steps as I realized their significance for females. Together they are the 12 Girl Goodwill Steps to Success & Equality:

1.  Look other girls and women in the eye and say hello. *

2.  Focus on what you have in common with other girls and women. *

3.  Create connections between girls and women to help them
recognize what they have in common.

4.  Ask questions to understand differences when you must
consider them.

5.  Avoid judging other girls and women *

6.  Avoid making assumptions by asking questions to
understand intentions.

7.  Listen to any other side of the story.

8.  Ask other girls and women for help, but avoid expecting
more than they can give. *

9.  Speak words to give other girls and women confidence.

10. Take action to help other girls and women shine.

11. Make room for other girls and women to share in success.

12. Speak what you want to hear because boys and men will
deny equality to girls and women as long as girls and women
deny equality to each other.

*  Adapted from Dr. Reg Williams
Former Professor of Psychiatry and Vietnam veteran

I read Dr. Williams’ advice for Navy recruits in a Good Housekeeping magazine early in the second Iraq war. The article is buried in a box somewhere in my house. I will post the citation when I find the article.

In an effort to spread the word about girl goodwill, I set up a Facebook campaign where girls and women could tell stories about helping other girls and women succeed. I told a few stories from my own life. Thankfully, I had a number of stories to tell, easing my guilt over the far greater number of times I betrayed other females.

One story is about a woman I had been in a class with during college. She became a television reporter. I emailed her to ask if I could use her name in a girl goodwill story about how I purposefully paid her a compliment early in her career to help her feel more confident. She said yes, but  wanted to have a phone conversation before I wrote the story. Before we could have that conversation, the television station let her go, probably because the station managers decided she had gotten too old and/or earned more money than they wanted to pay. I wrote the story without using her name. The former television reporter accepted what I wrote and published on the Girl Goodwill page without requesting any changes.

Note

Unfortunately, Facebook changed my administrative email address attached my original email address to a different page. I do not know the new email address, so I can  no longer administer that page. Facebook has ignored all my requests to give back my ability to administer my Girl Goodwill campaign.

Background On One Female Politician

I had briefly worked with a woman before she decided to go into politics. We talked about the ingredients for spectacular success and she found them useful. After her successful first election, I sent her an email, reminding her of the ingredients for spectacular success. She said she would remember them. Months later I sent her information about dream team formulas and pointed out which formula would be most appropriate for her to use as a politician. This was her response:

“Thank you so much for your kind words and very helpful thoughts on how I can work effectively for the district. I truly appreciate your words of wisdom and can’t wait to get to work!”

After I launched my Girl Goodwill campaign, I emailed the politician, explaining my campaign and asking if I could use her name in a story about giving her information to help her succeed. This is the response I received from her female assistant:

“Unfortunately, Wisconsin State Assembly ethics rules prohibit the use of any legislator’s name for marketing purposes.”

Marketing: the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.

I emailed the assistant back, requesting an explanation of how asking women to tell stories about helping other women succeed and telling my own stories about helping other women succeed was marketing. I received no response.

I felt the female assistant had misrepresented me to the politician. If the female assistant was capable of misrepresenting me, the female assistant was capable of misrepresenting other constituents. The politician could lose votes in future elections. I sent an explanatory letter to another female politician. I never received a response. When I ran into the first politician at a public event, she exuded anger at me.

How did this politician go from appreciating my words of wisdom to deciding I was making an unethical request? The cultural themes of betrayal got in the way.

Note: It might be common for women in positions of authority to see unethical intentions in other women to justify judging them as deviant. See Girl Growl Backfire: An Editor gives Herself an Unprofessional Image.

If you are female, you know a female politician is judging you by the cultural themes of betrayal when she makes a decision about you without asking questions to understand differences, without asking questions to understand intentions, without listening to every side of the story. Two female politicians and at least one female assistant judged me without asking any of those questions. All of these women judged me according to the cultural themes of betrayal. If those three women judged me according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they are capable of judging any other female constituent according to the cultural themes of betrayal.

When women judge other women according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they treat them as unequal. When female politicians judge constituent women according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they treat the women they are supposed to be representing as unequal. What sort of equal representation can constituent women expect from female politicians who use stereotypes to judge them as deviant?

If a female politician judges you as deviant, the questions below will help you let the politician know that you expect her to treat you as her equal. They are my questions to the politician who gratefully accepted the information I provided to help her succeed.  I expect her to treat me as her equal.

The questions are based on the six basic questions to ask politicians. Adapt the questions to your situation. You may not need to use all six of the basic questions.

My Questions

What criteria did you use to determine that stories about women helping other women succeed is marketing for profit?

How did you determine the accuracy of your criteria before you used them to judge me?

Why didn’t you ask for more information about the Girl Goodwill campaign?

Why didn’t you visit the Girl Goodwill Facebook page to see what kinds of stories women tell about helping other women succeed?

Why didn’t you ask to read the story I wanted to write about you?

These are the subjects of the current stories on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page:

Speaking four words to a little girl in a laundromat

Introducing upper class women to lower class women in
a way that gets them talking to each other

Letting a businesswoman know that breakfast meetings
attract more potential clients than dinner meetings

An offer of help after sudden bereavement

Preventing young workers from taking credit for an older
female worker’s insights

Giving a television reporter a boost of confidence

Turning an unemployed woman’s life around by answering
her question honestly

Refusing to continue the cultural themes of betrayal by
using girl goodwill with a woman who intentionally betrayed
me

Giving a woman information to help her succeed in her
new career

Now that you know what the stories are, what product or service does each story market?

What is unethical about my wanting to use your name in a story about giving you information to succeed when the information I gave you is free on my website, with free instructions for how to use it, with more free information about the importance of situational ingredients in creating success?

What am I marketing with free PDF downloads that say nothing about any product or service I offer?

Where will I get equal representation as a voter now that you have judged me as deviant?

How often do you judge female constituents as deviant?

Female Politicians Are Equal Only When Their Constituents Are Equal

When social status changes — including when someone wins their first political election — the new politician’s brain can change. Their social status and wealth grow compared to most of the people they associated with before their election. Their new status and increasing wealth can change their brains. Empathy for the people they saw as equals before the election will disappear if they no longer see those people as equals. Neither female politician felt empathy for my efforts to improve relationships between women. That is evidence that their brains have changed. They do not understand that my equality ensures their equality.

In spite of the judgmental response from the female politician, I told the story on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page anyway. I took out all identifying details. I initiated the action in the story so it is my story to tell. I do not market anything on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page or in my story about giving information to the politician. I told the story because I want girls and women to learn multiple ways of helping other girls and women succeed. Giving step by step information plus real world examples is one way to help other girls and women succeed.

I want the female politician I briefly worked with to succeed. All women should admire her for deciding to make a difference and succeeding on a difficult path. Just as success for any woman makes eventual success for all women more likely, equality for any woman makes eventual equality for all women more likely. The success of the politician makes my success more likely. Her equality in politics makes my equality as a citizen more likely. What all three of the women who judged me fail to understand is that success and equality for me makes success and equality for them more likely. It’s time for all female politicians to create equality for all female constituents, because equality between men and women will follow equality between women.

My Girl Goodwill Advice To Female Politicians With An Invitation For Male Politicians To Pay Attention

All politicians need to be aware of the potential loss of empathy for their constituents. All politicians need to take steps to keep their empathy intact. Follow these steps before making decisions about your constituents, both male and female:

Talk to people before you make decisions about them.

Ask questions to make sure you understand circumstances and intentions.

Investigate other opportunities to gather information about people and/or issues.

Constituents have the power to hire you, which means they also have the power to fire you. Staying hired means making decisions that give your constituents reasons to keep voting for you.

Do you, blog reader, see any marketing in that girl goodwill advice to help female politicians succeed?

“As for Empathy, the Haves Have Not”
Pamela Paul
The New York Times
December 30, 2010

“How Wealth Reduces Compassion”
Scientific American
Daisy Grewal
April 10, 2012

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Evidence Of Equality: God Creates Homosexuals & Heterosexuals As Equals

Originally published November 20, 2013.

Revised and republished December 18, 2015.

A 20-year-old server at Carrabba’s Italian Grill in Overland Park, Kansas received an outpouring of support after diners refused to tip him. The restaurant patrons did not refuse to leave a gratuity because the waiter provided poor service — in fact, they said the service was excellent. The couple refused to leave a tip because the server appeared to be homosexual. The diners believed the server’s “lifestyle” made him unequal in the eyes of God. Below is the note they left the server, explaining the inequality they saw:

“Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. Queers do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours. We hope you will see the tip your fag choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly. It is never too late for GOD’S love, but none shall be spared for fags. May GOD have mercy on you.”

In every instance where diners refuse to tip because they believe servers who are homosexual are “an affront to GOD’, the diners are ignoring evidence from God. God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals by giving them equal talents.

Scientists in different parts of the world are finding evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. That means God created the conditions that make some people homosexual. If God created the conditions that create homosexuality, then God wants some people to be homosexual.

Englishman Alan Turing is on at least two lists of brilliant mathematicians, equal to every other brilliant mathematician on the lists. Alan Turing was a homosexual. God created Turing to be a brilliant mathematician. Turing used his mathematical brilliance to break German ciphers during World War II. He wrote two papers that the British government restricted until 2012 because of their importance. King George VI awarded Turing the Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) for his war service. When God gave Turing the brilliance to break Nazi ciphers, God knew that Alan Turing’s work in World War II would save the lives of heterosexuals and help protect the world from Nazism.

Credit is due to Polish cryptographers whose work laid the foundation for Alan Turing’s work.

Turing is also considered to be the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. When God gave Turing the brilliance to become the father of computer science and artificial intelligence, God knew how important computers and artificial intelligence would become in the everyday lives of people around the world. God knew that Alan Turing’s work would improve the daily lives of heterosexuals.

Even if you choose to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of maintaining a belief that homosexuality is a choice, the evidence that God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals still stands. God is all-knowing, after all. If people choose to be homosexuals, God knows that an individual will choose homosexuality before the individual makes that choice. If Alan Turing chose to be homosexual, God knew it ahead of time and created him as a mathematical genius anyway.

The fact that God created Alan Turing with the world changing talent he had is evidence that God intends everyone else to treat Turing with respect. Since Turing helped the Allies win World War II, everyone who fought with or cheered on the Allies owes Turing their gratitude. Since Turing is the father of computer science and artificial intelligence, everyone who uses a computer and benefits from artificial intelligence owes Turing their gratitude. The bottom link below will take you to a list of the top 30 innovations of the last 30 years. Have a look at the list and see how many are related to computer science.

Diners who refuse to leave tips for homosexual servers specifically because they are homosexual treat their servers as unequal. How are those diners going to explain to God their refusal to treat their servers as equal? How is anyone who refuses to treat homosexuals as equals going to explain their decision to God when the evidence shows that God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals?

Note

Years ago, a relative saw me reading a history of lesbians and assumed that meant I was a lesbian. It is likely that people will read this post and assume that I am a lesbian. I am heterosexual. I wrote this post because I want people of every variety of sexuality to use their God-given talents. I want them to use their God-given talents so that I can use whatever they create to become a more successful human being who happens to be heterosexual.

“5 brilliant mathematicians and their impact on the modern world”
Shea Gunther
May 22, 2013

“Customers Refuse Tip To Server, Leave Anti-Gay Note”
Ellie Hall
BuzzFeed
October 25, 2013

“Did Polish cryptographers crack the Nazi Enigma code before Alan Turing?”
George Dvorsky
io9
October 9, 2012

“The Enigma Machine: How Alan Turing Helped Break the Unbreakable Nazi Code”
Open Culture
January 17th, 2013

“Homo Or Hetero? The Neurobiological Dimension Of Sexual Orientation”
Adapted Medea Release
May 31, 2011

“How Alan Turing Invented the Computer Age”
Ian Watson
Scientific American Guest Blog
April 26, 2012

“The Hundred Greatest Mathematicians of the Past”
FabPedigree
James Dow Allen

“Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic — but it arises in the womb”
George Dvorksy
io9
December 11, 2012

“Why Alan Turing is the father of computer science”
Jay McGregor
TechRadar
June 7, 2014

“A World Transformed: What Are the Top 30 Innovations of the Last 30 Years?”
-Knowledge@Wharton
knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu
Nov 17, 2013

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Girl Growl Backfire: An Editor Gives Herself An Unprofessional Image

Originally published April 24, 2013.

Revised and republished November 21, 2015 after a web host transfer.

Girls grow up learning to judge each other according to four cultural themes of betrayal. Bad and ugly gossip are one method of betrayal. When girls and women respond to each other according to these cultural themes, they respond as if there are growling at each other. Think about all the times you’ve heard the term “cat fight” applied to women. I am tired of women starting cat fights that hurt and insult and betray instead of gab fests that heal and encourage and support.

I had hoped  to start a gab fest with a woman who edits a print publication. I sent her the following email (with identifying details removed):

“I am currently collecting examples of amateurs with passion. The founding members of the MREA were amateurs at hosting an energy fair, but they were amateurs with passion. Their passion created the longest running and most successful renewable energy fair in the world.

It seems to me that you were an amateur with passion when you started this publication.

Am I right?

I especially want to collect examples of amateurs with passion in Wisconsin. If you know of any others, please share them with me.”

This was her response:

“Thanks for the email. Passion is a requirement for any member of the Fourth Estate.

I have looked up your website, and I didn’t see any affiliation with MREA. I would be willing to share my experiences, but I would be be remiss in my duties, and in violation of our code of ethics, if I were to pass along non-public information regarding our sources to a third party without expressed written consent.”

You can see that the editor’s response was a growl. In order to respond with a growl, she had to stereotype me negatively. In order to stereotype me negatively, she gave herself an unprofessional image of incompetence and ineffectiveness. Her girl growl backfired.

The editor’s first image of incompetence was her supposed inability to recognize the word “examples”. The fifth word in my email is “examples” and I used “examples” a second time near the end of my email. The editor can read. She knows the word “examples” when she sees it.

The editor’s second image of incompetence was her failure to recognize the example in my first paragraph.The editor is an intelligent woman. She knows an example when she sees one. She also knows that examples are situations people can see from the outside. No sources required.

The editor ignored my double use of the word “examples” and pretended I had asked her for sources. My supposed request for sources required an extremely negative response because she wanted me to feel I had committed a sin.

As far as ineffectiveness, either the editor really was ineffective or she intentionally ignored one whole page of my website. That page describes my affiliations to the MREA. I made a documentary about the MREA.  The MREA used quotes from my documentary in their book about the first 20 years of their fair. I would never consider asking anyone for their sources within the MREA because I have my own sources. I’ve known some of my MREA sources for 30 years.

When I wrote the my email to the editor, the title of the page about the MREA was “Documentary.” That does not excuse the editor’s failure to find my affiliation with the MREA. This editor now writes investigative articles for her newspaper. Every time I see one, I wonder what she missed in her “investigation”.

Intelligent people can do foolish things, and the editor’s response to my email is an example of foolish failure.* She turned down an offer of free and admiring publicity. I wanted to put her in the same “amateurs with passion” category as the founding members of the MREA. From what I see, she looks like an amateur with passion who became a professional with passion. Why would the editor object to being in the same category as the founding members of the longest running and most successful renewable energy fair in the world?

I am tired of women responding to my goodwill offers with growls that stereotype me negatively. The editor’s growl was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Because of her, I came up with the term “girl growl”. I also decided to add the “Girl Growl Backfire” category to this blog. I had already created the Girl Goodwill page on my website. But the above growl from an intelligent woman proves that girl growls need to be addressed. Below are my definitions of both girl goodwill and girl growls.

Girl goodwill is any intentional effort to create success for other females.

Girl growls are any intentional efforts to sabotage success for other females.

My goal in adding the Girl Growl Backfire category is to convince women that both goodwill and growls are invitations. Send out goodwill and you invite other women to respond with goodwill. Send out growls and you invite other women to respond with growls. Instead of responding to this editor with a growl, I chose to expose how her growl at me backfired on her.

I also think it is time for women to hold each other accountable for betraying other women. The four cultural themes of betrayal create inequality between women. We can hardly expect men to create equality for women when women create inequality for each other. Equality between men and women will follow equality between women.

If the editor uses her intelligence and starts responding to other women with goodwill, I would be happy to write something positive about her. I still think she could be in my “amateur with passion“ category. I name the people I write about as examples of success. Free and positive publicity for a woman who did so well that she went from being an amateur with passion to being  a professional with passion. Do you see anything wrong with that?

Since the editor growled at me, it is likely that she has growled at other women. That means the editor has repeatedly sent out invitations for other women to respond to her with growls.

Update

The editor wrote an article about a local issue involving a resident. A number of the resident’s neighbors wrote comments to the article supporting the resident. Several online comments from the publication day of the newspaper disappeared. I know this because I read comments from a number of people wondering where their previous comments had gone. I went back to that article a few days later. All of the comments wondering about the disappearance of the earlier comments had also disappeared. Few comments remained. Apparently, the editor believes in freedom of speech only for herself.

Please join Paula Kramer’s Girl Goodwill Facebook campaign to create more success for all women. Unfortunately, Facebook moved my Girl Goodwill email to a different page, created a new password for my Girl Goodwill page, and has ignored all of my requests to give my administrative access back to me.

* Foolish failure
Failing to see opportunities for serendipitous success in people who are different from you because you do not understand that your success is connected to their success

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.
Updated July 31, 2016

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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Pro-Life Strategies Leave Pro-Choice Strategies In The Dust

For one seminar in grad school, I had to purchase and read a dissertation of my choice. The dissertation I chose changed my understanding of feminist leaders, the cumulative power of small steps, and the importance of trusting the talents and energy of ordinary people. Marsha Vanderford focused on strategies the leaders of one pro-life organization and the leaders of one pro-choice organization used to motivate their supporters, then showed the results of those strategies. I summarized Vanderford’s findings below.

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)

Dr. Vanderford used research material from the 1970s. Keep that in mind as you read some of the motivational strategies below.

Minnesota Concerned Citizens
for Life

Pro-Life Motivational Situation
Difficulty & Threat

Definition of the Problem

Abortion is murder, genocide, and
dehumanization. Abortion is against
women’s role, American values,
individual rights, and the judicial
system. Abortion advocates are a
powerful, immoral, merciless minority
that wants to protect their own power
and wealth.

Abortion Rights Council
of Minnesota

Pro-Choice Motivational Situation
Threat

Definition of the Problem

Illegal abortion is brutal, filthy, and
dangerous because it is done with
knitting needles, butcher knives, and
coat hangers. The pro-life side is an
underhanded, irrational, hypocritical,
and unreasonable minority that wants
to oppress women, restrict sexuality,
and discriminate against the poor.
The  pro-life side ignores the needs of
women in trouble and in poor health.

Results of the Problem Continuing

Legal abortion would soon lead to
more babies dying, euthanasia,
nuclear war, threats to every individual,
and threats to the entire nation.
(Present dangers)

Results of the Problem Continuing

A return to illegal abortion would mean
putting the government in the hands of
a few religious men to the harm of the
entire country, especially the loss of
individual rights for women.
(Future dangers)

Benefits of Solving the Problem

Protecting motherhood, protecting
society, and protecting America.

Benefits of Solving the Problem

Preserving women’s right to choose,
preserving a medical technique for
relieving mental or physical suffering,
ensuring safety, and keeping a cure for
teen pregnancy.

Justification for Taking Action

God is on our side.

Justification for Taking Action

We are upholding American laws
and American institutions.

Identifying the Problem Solvers

Pro-life leaders told pro-life supporters
to take simple actions in their daily lives.
Individual and small repetitive actions
would add up to powerful results. Pro-life
leaders gave credit for every success to
every pro-life supporter. Winning
depended on the individual actions
of every pro-life supporter.

Identifying the Problem Solvers

Pro-choice legal and medical
professionals gave glory to themselves
for taking action in legislatures and
courts. Pro-choice leaders
occasionally gave credit to  pro-choice
supporters who performed simple
organizational tasks (mailings,
organizing members), staffed
information booths at fairs, sponsored
advertisements, and spoke to interested
groups. Winning depended on the
willingness of pro-choice supporters to
keep sending money to support the
actions of the legal and medical
professionals.

Steps to Success

Small repetitive actions that added
together would lead to success,
including garage sales, sponsored
dances, bake sales, cookbook sales,
Santa Claus breakfasts, collections
of scrap newspaper, card parties,
Christmas boutiques, craft boutiques,
babysitting for people attending pro-life
demonstrations, staffing county fair
booths. Pro-life leaders provided
detailed instructions on what
to write to federal, state, and local
legislators, whom to call for help
before lobbying, what to read to be
informed. All tasks could be performed
in or near the home as part of everyday life.

Steps to Success

Success would come from legal experts
making court challenges to abortion
bans and from lobbying efforts by
medical and legal professionals.
Pro-choice leaders expected supporters
to continually send money to pro-choice
organizations so professionals could
continue their important work.
Supporters should also write lawmakers
when professionals asked them to.

Continual Reminders

Abortion is a danger to norms
and values. Each pro-choice legal
victory is a reminder of a continuing
threat. Pro-life leaders sent out frequent
newsletters with lists of small actions to
take and steps for taking those actions.
Pro-life leaders linked each pro-life
success to individual actions. Pro-life
leaders emphasized past successes.

Continual Reminders

Pro-choice leaders increasingly focused on
pro-life successes. They gave few suggestions
for concrete actions pro-choice supporters
could take in their daily lives, provided little
information for how to take actions, made
no links between individual actions and
success, and made few links between
pro-choice actions and concrete successes.
Pro-choice leaders continually asked for
money. Pro-choice leaders glorified
themselves for sacrificing their lives
and time and for overcoming obstacles.
Pro-choice leaders placed the blame for
pro-life successes on pro-choice followers.

Results of Motivational Strategies

Pro-life supporters felt a measure of
control and personal success. They
also had frequent and continual
opportunities to socialize and have fun
with each other while working for the cause.

Results of Motivational Strategies

Pro-choice supporters felt little control,
little if any personal success, loss of
confidence in pro-choice power because
of increased perceptions about pro-life
power. Pro-choice supporters grew tired
of sending money to professionals who
glorified themselves. Pro-choice supporters
felt isolated from each other except for
occasional pro-choice functions.

Important Considerations

Pro-life leaders had the benefit of a
current threat affecting everyone and
could appeal to religious as well as
patriotic feelings. Pro-life leaders told
individual pro-life supporters that they
were the source of pro-life power and linked
all pro-life successes to individual actions.

Important Considerations

Pro-choice leaders had the disadvantage
of only a future threat that would affect
fewer values and fewer people. Pro-choice
leaders gave individual pro-choice supporters
no personal power and did not link successes
to individual actions. A change in tactics
from lobbying to single issue politics
confused pro-choice supporters.

Dr. Marsha Vanderford identified the glory needs of feminist leaders in the 1970s. My blog posts about feminist leaders prove they are still glory addicts today. Pro-Life leaders elevated pro-life supporters as the the reason for all pro-life success. Pro-choice leaders “relegated” pro-choice supporters to “secondary importance”. The “secondary importance” is evidence that feminist leaders have been creating inequality between women since at least the 1970s.

Pro-life strategy has left pro-choice strategy in the dust. It does not matter that abortion is legal to women who cannot get abortions because of state restrictions put in place through the small, repetitive actions of individual pro-life supporters.

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.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paula M. Kramer
Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Websites

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Business Directory

betterplanetbusiness.com

Reputation Management Directory

myrecordnow.com

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
Silences 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.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

Memo To Feminist Leaders: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

About a year ago,  I notified the National Organization for Women (NOW) that I had written a blog post about the arrogance of feminist leaders. The response I received is below. It is the only response I have received from NOW leaders since I first started writing to them in 2010.

RE: comments concerning New feminist leader blog post 1/8/14
From: “NOW” <now@now.org>

Dear Paula,

Thank you for your email. NOW is the largest feminist organization in the US, with more than 500,000 contributing members from different gender, sex, age, race, sexual orientation, religious, socioeconomic, and political groups. NOW has more than 500 local and campus affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These affiliates include chapters and Campus Action Networks.

We are a grassroots organization because our members, who meet yearly in regional and national conferences, are the supreme governing body of NOW. NOW draws its broad grassroots strength from a nationwide network of local chapters, which are chartered by national NOW and which engage in a wide variety of action programs in their communities. State organizations serve to develop chapters, coordinate statewide activities and provide resources to the chapters. There are nine regions which, in Conference, elect members to the National Board of Directors, the body which governs the organization between national conferences. The national level of the organization is led by three elected national officers, by the national Board of Directors, and by national issues committees. These national leaders are responsible for implementing policy as formulated by the annual National Conference, for coordinating national actions, and for providing membership services.

As you can see, we are very much a bottom-up organization.

Best,

– NOW

Note that the email writer remained anonymous.

September 21, 2015 Update

NOW’s website has changed its membership claim to “hundreds of thousands of contributing members”. Note that NOW is providing less information about its contributing membership total than it did before.

NOW’s Claims of Being a “Bottom-up Organization”

Let’s start with a definition of governing body:

“Governing body means a body of persons or officers
having ultimate control.”

Now let’s test the anonymous NOW writer’s claim that NOW is “very much a bottom-up organization.”

In the paragraph explaining what makes NOW a “grassroots organization”, the anonymous NOW writer mentions “our members” once. It is the only mention of “our members” in the entire email.

Next, let’s count how many times the anonymous NOW writer mentions different levels in NOW’s hierarchy and what the different levels do.

1.   National NOW charters chapters.

2.   State organizations develop chapters, coordinate statewide activities, and provide resources to chapters.

3.   Nine regions elect members to the National Board of Directors in Conference.

4.   The National Board of Directors governs the organization between national conferences.

5.   Three elected national officers, the national Board of Directors, and national issues committees lead the national level of the organization.

6.   National leaders implement policy formulated by the annual National Conference, coordinate national actions, and provide membership services.

Are NOW members equal to NOW’s levels of hierarchy? Hardly. I illustrate the imbalance below.

“Our Members”

National NOW

Nine regions

State organizations

Chapters

National Board of Directors

National officers

National leaders

Do you see any evidence that “our members” have ultimate control of anything?

NOW Membership Numbers

As for the claims of “more than 500 local and campus affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia” as well as the “more than 500,000 contributing members”, you can read my findings, then do some research of your own. As of this writing, at least 5 states still have “No chapters found.”

Since I have proven that NOW continually claims the existence of chapters that do not exist, I can only assume that the claim of “more than 500,000 contributing members” is inflated as well.

NOW Members Formulating Policy

How many members do you suppose have the time, money, and opportunity to travel to the National Conference each year to act as the supreme governing body of the National Organization for Women? More than 500,000? 100,000? 2,000? Several hundred?

Let’s be generous and say 2,000 members have the time, money, and opportunity to travel to each National Conference to be members of the grassroots supreme governing body. That’s less than 1 percent of the claimed 500,000 contributing members. Do NOW leaders know the meaning of the word “grassroots”?

Questions for NOW

The email from NOW raises more questions than it answers. If “our members” are the supreme governing body of NOW, then I should be able to ask the supreme governing body my questions. But even if I were a member, NOW does not give “our members” any way to contact each other. I’ll have to settle for someone else. Therefore, I challenge NOW President Terry O’Neill to answer these questions:

How do I contact NOW’s supreme governing body?

Where is the financial report showing the supreme governing body how you spend every penny of membership fees and donations?

Why don’t you explain to the supreme governing body how you choose members of the “dedicated network of grassroots activists”?

Why do you deny training and socializing to members of the supreme governing body?

Why does now.org have a password protected “NOW Leaders Page” that says “Protected: NOW Leader Docs”?
(NOW has removed the NOW Leaders page. This only means they are no longer announcing that NOW leaders
keep secrets. NOW leaders still keep secrets. They keep their “activist” training secret from the women who pay
for the training.)

What are you protecting and why do you need to protect it from the supreme governing body?

Why are you keeping secrets from the supreme governing body?

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Do you think NOW President Terry O’Neill will answer my questions? Of course not. O’Neill cannot justify calling NOW members the “supreme governing body” while keeping secrets with her “Protected: NOW Leader Docs”.

NOW President Terry O’Neill keeps secrets because she is a glory addict. O’Neill and other feminist leaders need glory fixes so they can feel important and meaningful. Pretending to work for gender equality is their cover. Unfortunately, their cover creates inequality between women and makes equality between genders unlikely. Why would men in power want to give equal power to women who say one thing but do another?

Actions speak louder than words, even for feminist leaders.

See more evidence that NOW leaders have continuing glory addictions:

“If Feminist Leaders Want Equality, Why Do They Create Inequality?”

“Feminist Leaders, Unsophisticated Women, & The Least Effective Way To Communicate With Politicians”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paula M. Kramer
Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Websites

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Business Directory

betterplanetbusiness.com

Reputation Management Directory

myrecordnow.com

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
Silences 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.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

Feminist Leader Ineffectiveness: Proof In Numbers

According to the Guttmacher Institute, state restrictions on abortions increased by:

92 in 2011
43 in 2012
70 in 2013

Both pro-choice and pro-life groups know these facts, as revealed by this PolitiFact quote:

Patty Murray:

“In the past three years, state legislatures have “enacted
more of these restrictions (on abortion) than in the previous
10 years combined.”

Both abortion-rights advocates and anti-abortion advocates told PolitiFact that they concurred with Murray, a Democratic senator from Washington state. Murray was basing her claim on data from a Guttmacher Institute report that counted 205 restrictions from 2011 to 2013, compared to 189 from the previous decade.

During all those increases in abortion restrictions, the National Organization for Women (NOW) continued to send out emails asking supporters to donate money.

Your support for NOW is essential to keep us moving in the
right direction.

With your support, the NOW Foundation can mobilize our
vast network of allies and activists and help get the word out
to improve — and not eliminate — social and reproductive
rights and economic programs that keep millions of women
and their families out of poverty and healthy.

Your monthly gift of $15 can provide consistent and
reliable funding to allow us to dedicate more
resources to defending women’s rights at the
state level. Becoming a member of the Feminist Action
Network is easy, and you can change your donation amount
or cancel at any time. I urge you to become a member of the
Feminist Action Network today and fuel direct action for
women’s rights.

With activists in hundreds of chapters across the
country, NOW knows how to fight back. But we
need your support. Can I count on you?

As investigative reporter Bill Lueders pointed out in an article, Wisconsin pro-choice groups lost even when they outspent Wisconsin pro-life groups.

Feminist leaders have not:

moved in the right direction

improved reproductive rights

defended women’s rights at the state level

The numbers — 205 more state restrictions on abortion in 3 years — prove that the National Organization for Women does not know how to fight back.

Changing Strategy To Change Results

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein

The title of Bill Lueder’s article reveals why pro-choice groups are ineffective even with they outspend pro-life groups: “Abortion foes — big clout, little cash”. Pro-life groups spent less money in Wisconsin than pro-choice groups, but still won in the legislature because they have “clout” — influence and power. To have influence and power in state legislatures, feminist leaders need to stop doing the same thing over and over again. To change results, feminist leaders need to change strategies. They need to meet pro-life groups at their right to life message.

If babies have the right to life before birth, then they have the right to life after birth. The right to life after birth means every baby has the right to be born to parents who want him or her. Children deserve lives free of neglect, abuse, and murder at the hands of their parents.

The feminist message should be pro-child, not pro-choice. Protecting the lives of children would have more influence and power than protecting women’s right to choose. The pro-child movement could challenge the pro-life movement as only pro-birth, not pro-life. Pro-child supporters could ask pro-birth legislators to explain why they’re not pro-child. Pro-child supporters could ask pro-birth groups what they are doing to protect the lives of breathing children.

These tactics would create influence and power because they would not only include the pro-life message of right to life, but carry the right to life message further than pro-birth groups have. For children to be born only to parents who want them, both females and males must have their basic needs satisfied. If birth control is one of those basic needs, then birth control must be provided. This strategy needs a slogan that focuses on children, such as:

Children deserve parents who want them.

If you like the pro-child strategy, don’t wait for feminist leaders to jump on that bandwagon. Start talking and writing in your own life about every child’s right to be born to parents who want him or her. If enough of us talk about it, we might be able to reduce the pain of children who already live with parents who do not want them.

Update

Since writing this post, I came across an example illustrating how focusing on children creates gender equity between men and women. Because Finland believes children have the right to spend time with both parents, the government offers nine weeks of paternity leave at 70% salary. Combined with other support from the government focused on satisfying children’s needs, this has led to Finnish fathers spending more time with their children than mothers, eight minutes a day.

What other sorts of equity could come out of focusing on children’s rights? We won’t find out from feminist leaders focused on finding fixes their glory addictions.

“Abortion foes — big clout, little cash”
Bill Lueders
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
July 24, 2013

“Finland: the only country where fathers spend more time with kids than mothers”
Alexandra Topping
The Guardian
December 5, 2017

“Laws Affecting Reproductive Health and Rights: 2013 State Policy Review”
Elizabeth Nash, Rachel Benson Gold, Andrea Rowan, Gwendolyn Rathbun, and Yana Vierboom
Guttmacher Institute State Center

“More state abortion restrictions were enacted in the last 3 years than previous decade, Sen. Patty Murray says”
Julie Kliegman
Politifact
January 24, 2014

A Surge of State Abortion Restrictions Puts Providers—and the Women They Serve—in the Crosshairs
Heather D. Boonstra and Elizabeth Nash
Guttmacher Policy Review
Winter 2014, Volume 17, Number 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paula M. Kramer
Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Websites

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Business Directory

betterplanetbusiness.com

Reputation Management Directory

myrecordnow.com

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
Silences 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.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

NOW President Terry O’Neill Is “…sure you’ve heard by now…”

On September 13, 2014, I received the email message below from Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. To make O’Neill’s glory addiction clear, I have separated her statements into two categories. Below the email I identify the meanings I saw as I read the email.

Statements that are about                                                   All other statements
O’Neill and NOW or include
we, us, and our in reference
to O’Neill or NOW

Email subject line: Haterade

I’m sure you’ve heard by now, but this
week NOW called on NFL Commissioner
Roger Goodell to resign his post.

Since we released that statement, it
has been a whirlwind of press and action.

You might have seen or heard me on MSNBC,
CBS, ABC, NBC, or ESPN – or any of a
dozen other media outlets.

But if you saw me, that means the trolls
did, too; all week, we’ve been getting
barraged with hateful comments via phone,
email and on Facebook and Twitter.

Nestled in there –
often hidden in the muck –
are voices of solidarity.

These voices wish us luck in our
endeavor, many identify as football
fans or activists working in their
communities – all agree that we
must end the epidemic of violence
against women.

Contribute and help
us continue our work!

Sure, some of the trolls use the
old quip of demanding that I
“make them a sandwich” –
not the first time I’ve heard
that one!

I’ve been accused of being
“off my rocker”.

The truth is, that almost all
of these comments have
been outright and aggressively
misogynistic.

Since I became president of NOW,
I’ve received a regular stream of
hate mail.

Sadly, it just comes with the job.

But knowing I have your support
makes all the difference.

So a warning to the trolls:
We will not deviate from this
path.

I know that we can change our
culture – which is so permissive of
violence against women – and
change our laws simultaneously.

How do I know that?

Because we’re the National
Organization for Women and
this is what we do – especially
with supporters like you.

Thank you for all you do,

Terry O’Neill
President, National Organization
for Women

P.S. Thousands of you have
already shown your support
by signing our petition demanding
that Roger Goodell resign.

Can I count on your continued support
with a contribution today?

The Meaning Behind O’Neill’s Statements

Email subject line: Haterade

The focus of this email is not violence against women.

I’m sure you’ve heard by now, but this
week NOW called on NFL Commissioner
Roger Goodell to resign his post.

O’Neill expects NOW members to be always focused on the words and actions of NOW. It is particularly important for NOW supporters to stay focused on the words and actions of NOW President Terry O’Neill.

Since we released that statement, it
has been a whirlwind of press and action.

NOW is very important.

You might have seen or heard me on MSNBC,
CBS, ABC, NBC, or ESPN – or any of a
dozen other media outlets.

Terry O’Neill is very important.

But if you saw me, that means the trolls
did, too; all week, we’ve been getting
barraged with hateful comments via phone,
email and on Facebook and Twitter.

The haterade has nothing to do with victims of domestic violence.

Nestled in there –
often hidden in the muck –
are voices of solidarity.

The voices are showing solidarity with poor, barraged Terry O’Neill and NOW, not for victims of domestic violence.

These voices wish us luck in our
endeavor, many identify as football
fans or activists working in their
communities – all agree that we
must end the epidemic of violence
against women.

The focus is supposed to remain on what NOW does.

Contribute and help
us continue our work!

NOW members should give money to NOW so Terry O’Neill can continue to feel important rather than give money to shelters so victims of domestic violence can feel safe.

Sure, some of the trolls use the
old quip of demanding that I
“make them a sandwich” –
not the first time I’ve heard
that one!

You should feel sorry for what Terry O’Neill has to endure because it is far worse than what victims of domestic violence endure.

I’ve been accused of being
“off my rocker”.

Another reason to feel sorry for what Terry O’Neill has to endure.

The truth is, that almost all
of these comments have
been outright and aggressively
misogynistic.

Misogynistic comments are far worse than real violence, especially when they are aggressive.

Since I became president of NOW,
I’ve received a regular stream of
hate mail.

You must always remember how important and brave Terry O’Neill is.

Sadly, it just comes with the job.

Terry O’Neill took the job knowing she would receive hate mail. I doubt any woman enters a romantic relationship with a man expecting to be beaten. It is obviously far sadder for O’Neill to endure the hate mail she knew would be coming than for women to find themselves beaten by men who said, “I love you.”

But knowing I have your support
makes all the difference.

Terry O’Neill needs your support more than victims of domestic violence do.

So a warning to the trolls:
We will not deviate from this
path.

Terry O’Neill and NOW will not deviate from anything that makes them feel important.

I know that we can change our
culture – which is so permissive of
violence against women – and
change our laws simultaneously.

Terry O’Neill wants you to believe that she and NOW are powerful.

How do I know that?

Terry O’Neill wants you to believe that she knows more than you do.

Because we’re the National
Organization for Women and
this is what we do – especially
with supporters like you.

The National Organization is important and requires your support because it is important.

Thank you for all you do,

Compared to what Terry O’Neill and NOW do, what you actually do is too unimportant to mention in detail.

Terry O’Neill
President, National Organization
for Women

P.S. Thousands of you have
already shown your support
by signing our petition demanding
that Roger Goodell resign.

Thousands? I’m supposed to be impressed that thousands of people have signed the petition for Roger Goodell to resign? According to its FAQS page, NOW has “more than 500,000 contributing members” in “more than 500 local and campus affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia”.

NOW has more than 500,000 contributing members but only thousands signed the petition?

(September 21, 2015 update: NOW’s website has changed its contributing membership numbers to “hundreds of thousands”. Thousands of people signing the petition is still pitiful for an organization O’Neill claims has the ability to “change our culture”.)

If Terry O’Neill is using the word “thousands”, I have to assume that the total number of signers is well below 10,000. Otherwise, O’Neill would claim that “close to 10,000 of you have already shown your support by signing our petition…”

Thousands means that less than 2% of NOW’s membership have responded to NOW President Terry O’Neill’s call to action. O’Neill is apparently too unsophisticated to realize that she again provided evidence of her ineffectiveness as a leader.

Can I count on your continued support
with a contribution today?

You are supposed to support Terry O’Neill, not victims of domestic violence.

This email has nothing to do with violence against women. It is all about Terry O’Neill and her glory addiction. NOW President Terry O’Neill probably does not know how to write anything that is really about ending domestic violence. Roger Goodell’s resignation would do little to change our culture and laws. For some victims, the violence would probably increase if Goodell resigned. Abusers who felt anger at Goodell’s resignation would take their anger out on the women they already beat regularly.

Terry O’Neill used female victims of domestic violence to create glory fixes for herself. This is just one way that Terry O’Neill and the National Organization for Women create inequality between women.

NOW’s Spin To Keep You Donating Money

If you want equality, if you are a member of NOW, if you want feminist leaders to be effective, you need to know how NOW spins reality. In other words, NOW uses propaganda to persuade you to believe that they know what they’re doing and deserve your money.

NOW claims “affiliates in all 50 states”. During the years I’ve been tracking NOW’s ineffectiveness, I have repeatedly researched NOW’s website to see if NOW does indeed have chapters or affiliates in all 50 states. I have always found states that do not have NOW chapters or affiliates.

Check this out for yourself. Go to now.org. Use the search link under “Find Your Chapter”. You will find “Sorry, no chapters found” for several states. As of September 15, 2015, these are the states that have “Sorry, no chapters found” notifications.

Hawaii

Maine

New Hampshire

North Dakota

West Virginia

Also, chapters in several states seem to be doing little if anything at all. I’ll give you several examples. You can look up your own state to discover how far its reality differs from NOW’s claims.

If it is still listed, click on the Facebook link for Mat-Su NOW in Alaska and you will go to the page of an individual, not of a NOW chapter.

When I first wrote this blog post, NOW listed 6 chapters for Alabama chapters. Now it lists 5. Tennessee Valley NOW shows no chapter activity at all. Click on the Facebook page for Montgomery NOW in Alabama and you will go to the page of an individual, not of a NOW chapter.

The most recent post for Indianapolis NOW is August 31, 2011.

NOW lists Kentucky NOW, the only chapter in Kentucky, but the page for Kentucky NOW has only a Yahoo email address, nothing else.

My state of Wisconsin lists 5 chapters.

The home page for Wisconsin NOW shows a calendar with only holidays on it, no chapter activity.

Milwaukee NOW has neither a web page nor a link to an individual’s Facebook page.

W Suburban Milwaukee NOW has neither a web page nor a link to an individual’s Facebook page.

Madison NOW shares the same holiday calendar as Wisconsin NOW.

Fox Cities NOW has neither a web page nor a link to an individual’s Facebook page.

Does NOW count “chapters” without web pages, Facebook pages, or chapter activities among the “more than 500 local and campus affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia”?

Look at what NOW lists for your state to see if a real chapter exists in your state.

The next question is, how did NOW count its “more than 500,000 contributing members”? If they can’t count the number of states with chapters accurately, why trust them to count contributing members accurately?

The truth is, almost all of Terry O’Neill’s comments in this email are outright and persistently egotistical. Why should Terry O’Neill let a few facts get in the way of her glory addiction? She is the president of the National Organization for Women, and satisfying her glory addiction is what she does.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paula M. Kramer
Copyright 2015
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.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Websites

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Business Directory

betterplanetbusiness.com

Reputation Management Directory

myrecordnow.com

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
Silences 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.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.