Opinion of NOW

[A18]

Vote

[they don't love you like i love you]

Neither. If forced to choose, I'd go with horrible people though.

[useful idiot]

Horrible People

[© tweed]

When they founded, probably freedom fighters, but now they're horribles.

The slave first seeks justice and later seeks the crown or some variation of that.

[Schmitz in 1972]

6-0 hp

If that doesn't tell you something I don't know what does

[dazzleman]

option 2

[Beet]

I don't support NOW because they've betrayed liberal feminism by turning themselves into just another interest group. Their particular kind of interest group is rather fascist. The organization needs to reform back towards the spirit in which it started, based on principles rather than identity.

[nclib]

Freedom fighters, of course.

I don't support NOW because they've betrayed liberal feminism by turning themselves into just another interest group. Their particular kind of interest group is rather fascist. The organization needs to reform back towards the spirit in which it started, based on principles rather than identity.

Can you please give specific examples?

[Virginian87]

Horrible People.

[dazzleman]

Freedom fighters, of course.

I don't support NOW because they've betrayed liberal feminism by turning themselves into just another interest group. Their particular kind of interest group is rather fascist. The organization needs to reform back towards the spirit in which it started, based on principles rather than identity.

Can you please give specific examples?

nclib, I'm really curious about how you came to be such a staunch supporter of an organization that believes you're a lower form of live because of what you have between your legs.

Do you really not see what this organization is?

[Beet]

Freedom fighters, of course.

I don't support NOW because they've betrayed liberal feminism by turning themselves into just another interest group. Their particular kind of interest group is rather fascist. The organization needs to reform back towards the spirit in which it started, based on principles rather than identity.

Can you please give specific examples?

They oppose the efforts of groups representing fathers to equalize custody disputes.

They feel men should have to pay child support after losing the custody dispute.

They support affirmative action even though men are a minority in 4-year colleges (I'm pretty sure).

[dazzleman]

Freedom fighters, of course.

I don't support NOW because they've betrayed liberal feminism by turning themselves into just another interest group. Their particular kind of interest group is rather fascist. The organization needs to reform back towards the spirit in which it started, based on principles rather than identity.

Can you please give specific examples?

They oppose the efforts of groups representing fathers to equalize custody disputes.

They feel men should have to pay child support after losing the custody dispute.

They support affirmative action even though men are a minority in 4-year colleges (I'm pretty sure).

Men are most definitely a minority in 4-year colleges.  It is actually a very disturbing situation, but we still hear nothing but talk about how schools are failing girls.  Actually, a much better case could be made that they're failing boys.

One thing I find striking, looking at the student of the month photos from my local high school, is what a high percentage of these higher achieving students are girls, and what a low percentage are boys.

Yet the feminists persists in their nonsense about how much girls are suffering, while explicitly saying that boys have everything perfect.  These people won't be happy until they've reduced the entire male gender to a state of slavery.  It's funny how groups like this end up becoming what they have always hated the most, and NOW is doing even better than average in this regard.

[Beet]

Obviously I think there's a lot of hyperbole there, but I can't expect ever to change you, I know you better than that.

To be clear, I don't dispute that it's still a man's world out there, that society is sexist in many ways, even if many people accept this sexism implicitly; that ideally they shouldn't accept it. Thus, many of the practical things NOW does, like support for birth control, opposition to domestic violence, constitutional equality, family and health care affordability, women in the military, etc. I support in practice.

What I oppose is their identity-oriented approach and mentality, which influences their positions (or silence) on certain issues. Feminism is only part of the larger liberal tradition originated by Hobbes, Locke, and the Enlightenment, in addition to a bridge for social criticism and the link of politics to social roles. Gender justice is only a part of social and economic justice. It was never meant to be a political interest group based around a person's biological identity, and NOW seems to have degenerated into this latter thing.

[nclib]

Freedom fighters, of course.

I don't support NOW because they've betrayed liberal feminism by turning themselves into just another interest group. Their particular kind of interest group is rather fascist. The organization needs to reform back towards the spirit in which it started, based on principles rather than identity.

Can you please give specific examples?

nclib, I'm really curious about how you came to be such a staunch supporter of an organization that believes you're a lower form of live because of what you have between your legs.

Do you really not see what this organization is?

Obviously, I don't see NOW as anti-male. My experiences with feminist women have been very positive.

NOW isn't perfect, but it is many times better than the status quo, where women really are treated as second-class citizens.

[Schmitz in 1972]

NOW isn't perfect, but it is many times better than the status quo, where women really are treated as second-class citizens.

How so? Yes, you can find a few poor, odd, backwards people who still believe in male dominance but by and large the civilized world has moved past that. In fact, we've become so scared of your accusations that we make men second-class just to placate you

[Jake]

Gas them all.

[opebo]

They feel men should have to pay child support after losing the custody dispute.

I'm not for any payment of child support whatsoever - after all the decision about whether to abort is up to the woman, so why should the man pay?  But if the status quo is that the person is free of the day to day warden-ship of the child has to pay, then what does losing a custody dispute have to do with it?

NOW isn't perfect, but it is many times better than the status quo, where women really are treated as second-class citizens.

How so? Yes, you can find a few poor, odd, backwards people who still believe in male dominance but by and large the civilized world has moved past that. In fact, we've become so scared of your accusations that we make men second-class just to placate you

OH, Liberty - surely you realize that the vast majority of people still view women as inferior to men?  It is pervasive in the culture. 

The source of many of the resentments you males seem to have is not women or groups militating for equality, but the patriarchal system which controlls access to women.  This is religious, cultural, economic, and no doubt partially based on genetics.  You see, in the benighted United States prostitution is illegal and very effectively policed.  It is very difficult for many - if not most - men to get what they want (sex). 

This creates the appearance of female power, but this power is based upon a patriarchal control of women, and particularly of female sexuality.  The patriarchy must ensure that access to poontang is possible only through class advantage.  Marriage for example is just an enormously expensive form of prostitution, in the traditional arrangement.  The women moves from the control of her father into the control of her husband.  Control of access to women is the source of a large portion of the power of the ruling class.

If you want to create a society in which there is little sexually based power, the answer is legalized, fully tolerated prostitution.  If males can go round the corner and get high-quality sexual services with desirable women for a price that is within their budget (say at least once a week), then marriage and all that miserable servitude goes away - along with things like child support and whatnot.

[MasterJedi]

Horrible People

[Speed of Sound]

The NOW has its fair share of wacko moments, but theyre alright in my book, i guess.

[Ebowed]

Horrible People.

[afleitch]

Too extreme for me, but I wouldn't like to see America without them.

[CheeseWhiz]

I'll admit I don't know that much about them, but from what I know (which isn't that small, either) I'll definitely say option 2.

[AkSaber]

I'll admit I don't know that much about them, but from what I know (which isn't that small, either) I'll definitely say option 2.

^^^^^

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Repugnant little whores

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'd call them lesbo dykes, but I hate to insult the good lesbo dykes out there by comparing them to the NOW gang.