NOW should change their name to FINNALY! – After years of ignoring unrelenting liberal attacks against Conservative women, they are only recently recognizing and standing up for Conservative women as “women” albeit “second class women”.
“Main stream Journalism” has become so outrageous, that now, even the ultra liberal NOW supports Conservative women such as Michelle Bachmann against media’s extreme bias, and blatant attacks against Conservative women. But careful to maintain her “macho” image, NOW President Terry O’Neill boasts “"Of course my job is to defeat Michele Bachmann and I intend to do so.”
The truth of the matter is that ALL women are humans too! Think about it! It is as a subset of humanity that women deserve equality, understanding, And NOW’s selfish, EXCLUSIVE focus on feminist issues to the EXCLUSION of consideration of all the rest of humanity, is harmful to women. NOW is negatively changing women with their myopic vision instead of promoting the elevation of humanity, which at the same time promotes the elevation of women – who are humans also. No, women’s rights don’t need to be guaranteed in the Constitution – HUMAN RIGHTS NEED TO BE GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION, and then, so long as women don’t choose to secede from humanty, their rights along with yours and mine will be guaranteed FOREVER.
Why is it that the original NOW 1966 statement of purpose, written by Betty Friedan, is always currently published by NOW with the following caveat “NOTICE: This is a historic document, which was adopted at NOW's first National Conference in Washington, D.C. on October 29, 1966. The words are those of the 1960s, and do not reflect current language or NOW's current priorities. “ The founder of NOW, Ms. Friedan’s statement of purpose is grounded with the principle that “women are an equal part of humanity”. Ms. Friedan says "NOW is dedicated to the proposition that woman, first and foremost, are human beings. . .” So which sections of this founding document is the organization now trying to distance itself from?
NOW’s current poster child seems to be Pink. But I am not sure that Pink is the ideal choice for the standard bearer for NOW. Is she promoting the ideals of Ms. Friedan, who is probably rolling over in her grave, like equality, respect, positive role modeling, or is Pink promoting things like sexism, anorexia, cutting, tattoos, ostentatiously living the life of sex, drugs, riches, and rock & roll, body mutilation, filthy language, etc., etc.? If you are not sure, view her video “F**king Perfect (Explicit version)”. Pink certainly seems to be making money from her “womanhood”, but it may be that mostly men are contributed toward her lavish lifestyle and habits? She doesn’t appear to be having a problem with that?
Post by Bobby Eberle August 11, 2011 on GOPUSA
"I can't believe it! After so many incidents involving Sarah Palin and other conservative women regarding hit-pieces by so-called "journalists," the National Organization for Women (NOW) has stepped forward and said, "Enough is enough." What pushed them to the edge? It turns out that Newsweek magazine did a cover story on presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann. The title of the story is "The Queen of Rage." Yep, and the story gets worse from there.
As reported by The Daily Caller, perhaps Newsweek thought that their blatant effort to tear down another conservative woman would go unnoticed (except by the non thinking audience they are trying to influence), but anyone with half a brain can see that the Newsweek article is not journalism, but rather biased activism in support of the liberal agenda.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) spoke out against Newsweek's most recent cover, which features an extreme close-up of Michele Bachmann and the title "The Queen of Rage." "It's sexist," NOW president Terry O'Neill told The DC. "Casting her in that expression and then adding 'The Queen of Rage' I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this was done to a man or would it ever be done to a man - has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man."
"Who has ever called a man 'The King of Rage?” Basically what Newsweek magazine - and this is important, what Newsweek magazine, not a blog, Newsweek magazine - what they are saying of a woman who is a serious contender for President of the United States of America. They are basically casting her as a nut job," O'Neill said. "The 'Queen of Rage” is something you apply to wrestlers or somebody who is crazy. They didn't even do this to Howard Dean when he had his famous scream."
As everyone knows, NOW represents the antithesis of conservative thought. Everything a conservative stands for, NOW takes the other side. Even though they are supposed to represent all women, media attacks on conservative women have often been met with silence by the organization. This time, they took a stand.
"Of course my job is to defeat Michele Bachmann and I intend to do so. But good women will not run for office if Newsweek magazine can do this to such a prominent politician and get away with it," O'Neill said.
In a column on National Review Online, writer and part-time photographer Andrew Cline gives his take on the Newsweek cover:
First, the lighting is harsh and uneven, more like a driver's license photo than a professional portrait. Her hair casts a shadow over her forehead, indicating poor positioning of the flash on the photographer's right. Her expression is unnatural, something good portrait photographers try to avoid not only because it looks bad, but also because it doesn't give the viewer any insight into the subject. Really good portrait photography reveals the subject's personality, which is why the best portrait photographers spend a lot of time making their subjects feel relaxed and comfortable. You can't capture someone's personality if she's nervous, unready, uncomfortable, or distracted. Bachmann appears all of those in that photo. On top of that, she's awkwardly posed, as if she happened to be walking by and suddenly looked up. It looks like a test shot, not a final portrait. Forget a national news magazine; that photo wouldn't make the cut in some smaller, regional publications based on its technical flaws alone. So how did it make the cover of Newsweek?
Cline does not blame photographer Christopher Buck, saying Buck is "highly talented and has produced some outstanding portraits." In reviewing the other photos contained in the Newsweek article, Cline notes, "Going over his other Bachmann photos released by Newsweek, I see he got a very nice shot that would have made an excellent cover photo. In it, Bachmann has her hands clasped together as if in prayer, which surely would have drawn its own criticism, but she doesn't look "crazy" or menacing or bug-eyed. She looks normal and serious, and the portrait is well-posed and well-lit." Thus, the editors at Newsweek picked exactly the photo they wanted for the cover with the express motivation of painting Bachmann in a bad light, as if calling her the "Queen of Rage" wasn't bad enough!
Newsweek stands by its choice of cover photo. In a statement, Newsweek editor in chief Tina Brown said, "Michele Bachmann's intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek's cover captures that." Wow! Seriously? That picture was supposed to convey only intensity?"
Is it any wonder that liberal media is taking a hit in the wallet? Does anyone actually read Newsweek anymore? What is frustrating is that there are still too many Americans that don't catch on. Whether you tend to be a conservative or tend to be a liberal, the news should be the news. It has totally changed, and the Newsweek story proves that it has changed for the worse.
NOW, how about sharing some of the love and respect for Sarah Palin too? And always remember ladies, your sons are human too?