Wow, looks like NOW is actually siding with Palin

[ButterflyBlood]

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php/television/letterman-palin-daughter

Disappointing.

[MADem]

1. That was pretty stupid of them. I don't think that will "up" their donations.

Where was their outrage at Leno and Conan and Ferguson and Seth Meyers?

Missing in Action?

IF you don't know what I am talking about, read this entire essay: http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/top-10-reason-sarah-palin%e2%80%99s-outrage-is-a-little-late/#comment-4340

They should change their name from NOW to LATER....as in, See ya later, NOW. You, too, are situational opportunists.

[etherealtruth]

2. NOW isn't siding with Palin

... they are siding with women.

There are plenty of things to mock Palin for.

"The sexualization of girls and women in the media is reaching new lows these days -- it is exploitative and has a negative effect on how all women and girls are perceived and how they view themselves. Letterman also joked about what he called Palin's "slutty flight attendant look" -- yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician's appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men."

The above is a quote from the link; I agree with it wholeheartedly.

[zulchzulu]

5. NOW is helping Palin with free press, free interviews and gives her a fundraising issue

NOW is incredibly inept at good, strategic media relations. As others have indicated, WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN?

[etherealtruth]

9. So .... they shouldn't raise the issue?

I see NOW's mission as advancing and enhancing the lives and rights of women ... all women, not just women I agree with or admire.

[zulchzulu]

13. Raise the issue consistently and perhaps NOW would get my respect

As others have mentioned and shown how sexist messages are all over the media on an hourly basis, being consistent (without being a puritanical anti-free expressionista) would be fine.

But NOW and Lisa Bennett (communications director) chimed in, as they say, a day late and a dollar short.

Besides the insipid transparent attempt of trying to be a "morality cop", NOW is only helping what I would consider the arch-nemesis of women's rights, Sarah Palin. So give someone a few dozen free "Pity Party" interviews on national media channels and even allow her to completely misinterpret Letterman's comments... yeah, NOW is on the side of women... even women who HATE Choice.

If you don't see the absolute train wreck with this decision by NOW, good for you. They could have contacted Letterman (oh, about a few years ago) about his Palin jokes (as well as Leno, Conan O'Brien, Maher....) and said it's just "not acceptable".

Should we expose NOW's Lisa Bennett when she was talking about how white males are the cause of the World's problems in some interviews in the past? Just how far does Look At Me Purity go these days anyway.

And the worst part about this whole ruse on Letterman's comments is that it is filling the coffers of Sarah Palin's 2012 campaign. Yunno, the woman who thinks that a woman shouldn't have a reproductive choice even in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.

Siding with Palin is equivalent to supporting Charles Manson in my view.

[etherealtruth]

18. I agree that they should consistently raise this issue

I think it should be a banner issue for them. It is for me. Where did NOW come down during the presidential campaign?

I want Palin attacked on he lack of skill, lack of intelligence .... I want the media to focus on her poor performance as governor.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. I agree, ZulchZulu...

NOW got "played." One more feather in this master manipulator's cap.

[liberalmuse]

7. If NOW is siding with Palin, they sure as shit aren't siding with women.

Palin's little manipulative game is detrimental to women. Fuck her. She harms everything we've been fighting for for centuries. And if NOW defends her, they've just fucked themselves.

[etherealtruth]

10. So NOW should just defend women you agree with?

the larger statement NOW made has to do with women's portrayal in the media .... a statement I agree with. I yearn for a country where someones sexuality, gender or sexual appeal is irrelevant.

I'd much prefer the media focus on Palin's right-wing/ nut case views VS what she looks like.

[baldguy]

8. They're siding with *A* woman.

[etherealtruth]

11. Not really

they are siding against a media/ entertainment industry that would prefer to focus on a person's sex appeal (or lack there of) instead of focusing on substantive issues.

[baldguy]

12. If NOW wanted to focus on substantive issues, they wouldn't have touched this with a ten ft pole.

This is so not "substantive issue", it doesn't even deserve consideration.

[etherealtruth]

15. Clearly you don't find this a substantive issue:

"The sexualization of girls and women in the media is reaching new lows these days -- it is exploitative and has a negative effect on how all women and girls are perceived and how they view themselves. Letterman also joked about what he called Palin's "slutty flight attendant look" -- yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician's appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men."

I find this very substantive. I could not care less about Palin individually ... I care about how all women are valued in the media, in society.

[baldguy]

20. When Dave starts denying women their civil rights, call me.

You KNOW that's Palin's ultimate intent; conservatives want women to be barefoot & pregnant - and most of all SILENT. (And yes, it is ironic. The sad, sick irony of the RW is they use members of traditionally disenfranchised groups to further disenfranchise them. It's a long tradition with them.)

But NOW prides itself on being non-partisan - even when doing so jeopardizes their ultimate goal.

[Matariki]

25. Agreed.

Sad so many people don't get that. While I don't think Letterman should be fired or boycotted - and the idea of anyone apologizing to Palin is simply disgusting - I think this has done a little to shine a light on how prevalent sexism is. How embedded into our language and media it is. And how many on the left, particularly men on the left, really don't get it.

[zulchzulu]

3. I wrote about this last week...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zulchzulu/335

[liberalmuse]

4. If true, NOW just jumped the shark...

and lost enough credibility amongst liberals that they will be hurting. Jeez, choose your battles wisely.

[mitchum]

6. Well, let's see if the donations from the Sarahmaniacs will make up for the ones they will lose

[WeDidIt]

14. No more donations to NOW from me. n/t

[kath]

16. This was posted here THREE OR FOUR DAYS AGO.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. zzzzzzz

[Texasgal]

19. As they should.

It wasn't the "joke"... it was the blatant misogyny.

They aren't called NOW for nothing. :shrug:

[Dave From Canada]

21. I think it's disappointing that you're disappointed. n/t

[EFerrari]

22. NOW jumped the shark long ago. Defending this anti-feminist women

is just their last stupidity.

[paulsby]

23. that's what they are supposed to do

it's the National Organization for Women.

it doesn't say "National Organization for feminist Women only"

NOW is about lifting ALL women up, not just leftist, feminist, or pro-choice women.

kind of like how the ACLU (generally...) supports civil rights for all people, not just citizens, left wingers, non-criminals, etc.

[EFerrari]

26. "NOW is about lifting ALL women up, not just leftist, feminist, or pro-choice women."

I'm sorry, Paul. That doesn't even make sense.

Sarah Palin is a caricature of anti-feminism, a manipulative beauty queen who advocates against women's rights while hilariously claiming to be a feminist. She's a feminist like Doug Schoen is a Democrat. NOW should not be jumping in on her behalf and especially not over something so trivial, wasting their cred defending bigots.

[paulsby]

28. it makes perfect sense.

this is not about who sarah palin is, or what policies she supports.

it's about NOW and women in general.

like it or not, sarah palin is a woman. NOW's position is that she deserves the same protection against demeaning sexist comments as liberal women, pro-choice women, etc.

i am NOT saying she's a feminist.

she is , fwiw, an exceptionally powerful career woman, former accomplished athlete, and a woman who has engaged in numerous non-traditional roles - commercial fisherman, hunter (that's non-traditional for urban dwellers. rural residents see plenty of woman hunters), and governor.

regardless of whether she is a "bigot", she is decidedly against (several) women's rights issues, most notably choice.

what i am saying is that NOW is not about (nor should they be) only supporting pro-choice or feminist women.

NOW supports pro-choice and feminist ISSUES, but they should support ALL women, as individuals who deserve protection from sexism.

[EFerrari]

29. By your own logic, Palin is not just another woman so in supporting her

they are also giving cover to her regressive bigotry.

NOW is being politically stupid and that has been their habit for years. Whatever happened when the leadership in the 70s retired isn't working.

[paulsby]

31. no, that's not my own logic

that's your false interpretation of it.

look at it this way.

when the ACLU, an org. devoted to free speech (among other things) defended the nazi's right to march in skokie, were they "SUPPORTING NAZIS and GIVING COVER TO THEIR REGRESSIVE BIGOTRY"?

no.

they were, as a civil rights organization supporting the free speech rights of a loathsome and evil group.

NOW is not "supporting" sarah palin's ideology, by supporting her as a woman. they are saying a conservative/anti-choice woman deserves the same civility and freedom from sexism that a liberal/pro-choice woman does.

TRUE supporters of civil rights accept that if you support civil rights, you support them for ALL, not just those you agree with politically, or that you see advancing causes that you support.

iow, whether or not NOW should defend palin from perceived sexism as a decision process, should not even take into account what sarah palin's politics are.

that's how a true civil rights org. would operate and clearly NOW, by supporting her right to be free from sexism etc. is demonstrating that they are not merely a partisan group, but are demonstrating fealty to ALL women.

[EFerrari]

32. LOL! David Letterman violated ZERO of Palin's civil rights.

And NOW can't help but endorse Palin by backing her fake side of this non-issue. She comes with the complete package.

NOW isn't representing Palin in court, they are trying to cash in on a controversy and they are making themselves look ridiculous, not altruistic.

[paulsby]

33. again, with the strawmen

i didn't say he violated her civil rights. as a private citizen, that's impossible for him to do with a joke or speech.

i drew tha analogy to point out that supporting a person does not mean one supports their POLICIES.

the ACLU clearly does not support nazi ideology. NOW clearly does not support palin's ideology

but in both cases, they felt that these PEOPLE deserved support. in the former case, it was a free speech issue, involving govt. and civil rights. in the latter case, it's an issue regarding civility and respect towards women, with NO CIVIL RIGHTS issue present, since letterman is not a govt. actor

if you can respond to what i wrote w/o strawmen, get back to me.

fwiw, i think there IS an argument that this is a non-issue. but that's tangential to my point, that HER POLITICS should have ZERO influence on deciding whether it's a non-issue.

iow, assume that letterman made the exact same joke about a politician with whom you agree with politically and that you find sympathetic, and THEN make your decision. that's hard for most people to do, because when it comes to ideology, they only want to extend such courtesy to those they agree with.

NOW is making a political point. one i agree with. that REGARDLESS of a woman's politics, she deserves to be free from sexist, boorish behavior, and that when a woman is subjected to such, that people should speak out.

nobody is denying letterman's rights to spout off. free speech means that people can DISSENT and disagree with what somebody says

[BolivarianHero]

24. NOW is to defend feminists, not feminazis...

Bourgeois feminism will die on the shitheap of history...Marxist feminist will pervail.

[derby378]

27. Remember that SEINFELD episode where Elaine sneezed into the pasta primavera?

Sarah Palin is the dish of infected pasta primavera, and NOW is the customer who just got served that dish.

Someone at NOW is probably talking to God on the big white telephone at this moment...