Talk:National Organization for Women/Archive 1

Sources for criticism
"The National Organization for Women has been subject to criticism from many who claim to represent the male perspective."

Can someone please provide some back-up for this?

LegCircus 14:35, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I asked for a reference a month ago. As none was provided, I deleted what I presume to be an inaccuracy.

LegCircus 06:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I want to know why the National Organization for Women has had nothing to say about the man that is killing his wife Terry? Who is protecting Terry's right? It's unbelievable a MAN can make the so called mercy decision to kill his wife. He made a oath to keep her only unto him as long as they both shuld live and he is sitting over there with a long time live in and she had a couple of his children. Where's the oath? But he just has to stick by the promise he made to Terry to kill her. You know a promise is a promise - why is one better than the other? And why hasn't the NOW done anything to fight for Terry's rights? I would like to know

I honestly can't believe someone wrote this ^^. What, is NOW supposed to patrol the country looking for cases in which a single woman is being put to a merciful death so that she doesn't have to live the rest of her natural life inside of a permanent mental retardation and incapacity to form even the most coherent of thoughts. How dare you make such an assertion, why, that's Congress's job buddy! --TheBurningHelm 02:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Not who, but what is protecting Terry's right? the answer is the constitution. she has the right to die, which was her wish - and according to the interpretations of Florida and Federal Courts, her rights are being protected. Kingturtle 04:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to everybody, Terri is dead!!! She was blind and was truly a vegetable and could never sense anybody!!!! This is true and was shown by the autopsy!!!--Poketape 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

National Organization for Men?
Is there a National Organization for Men?

If somebody was to start one, how would the National Organization for Women react? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.147.131 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2005

It's called Congress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.168.51 (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2005

Is this relevant in any way whatsoever to the discussion of the quality of an encyclopedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.215.41 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2006

POV
This page is non-neautral. There use to be a critism section regarding critism by lesbians, and pro-life feminists that were mis-treated by the organization during the 1970's including be expelled. This is section has been deleted by someone with an agenda. This not the first time this has happened, the critism section should be returned, and until then someone should place a tag on this article. 216.255.40.133 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I'm going to post this on the article and if anyone feels that it is bias feel free to edit it --TheBurningHelm 02:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That text is POV. Kingturtle 02:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--This section is all Point of View, and weasel words "some have said" and guilt by association like comparing NOW to the Klu Klux Klan that keeps getting added in here. There are no citations at all. Why is it still here?

someone should edit it. i will if i have time later. or you could give it a shot now. Kingturtle 05:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

--I wouldn't know how to edit it, though, other than deleting all non-cited criticisms (which is all of it). It's all weasel words, no citations.

The above is not by me and appears unsigned. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NOW, like many well-known organizations, routinely gets criticized for not meeting other people's expectations. Some of those criticisms are not consistent with stated organizational goals. Some are but private reasons make the criticism inapplicable; for example, a goal may be to pass legislation but putting it to a vote may be counterproductive at the time. And some criticisms are about issues for which more people are needed, in which case the criticism should be followed by putting energy into fulfilling the goals at the heart of the criticism. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Brought back a section for it. This section is obviously in need of expansion and sources like the rest of the page. Before deleting it, assume it is neutral and look at all the other unreferenced statements in this entry. Expansion could come from the previously deleted criticism or new sources. Levin on his "National Organization of Ugly Women" remark might also be a good start. Sometimes organizations (even the good ones) get criticized by the opposition. Doesn't mean it isn't relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.88.215 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Still very far from NPOV. Most of the section boils down to its pro-choice stance.  Obviously pro-lifers are going to be critical of that, but it's a pro-choice organization.  It's not really NPOV to put it in a section for something to warrant criticism.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NOW and Radical Feminism
This text is from History of Women in the United States and doesn't belong there. It also seems a bit POV-heavy, but has enough facts to be cleaned up. Want to help?--Carwil 18:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the largest, earliest and most influential feminist organizations in the U.S., the National Organization for Women (NOW) illustrates the strong influence of radical feminism. Created in 1966 with Betty Friedan as president, the organization's name was deliberately chosen to say for women, and not of women. By 1968, the New York chapter lost many members who saw NOW as too mainstream.  There was constant friction, most notably over the defense of Valerie Solanas. Solanas had shot Andy Warhol after writing the SCUM Manifesto, seen by many as a passionately anti-male tract calling for the extermination of men.  Ti-Grace Atkinson, the New York chapter president of NOW described her as, "the first outstanding champion of women's rights". Another member, Florynce Kennedy represented Solanas at her trial. Within a year of the split, the new group limited the number of women members who live with men to 1/3 of the group's membership. By 1971, all married women were excluded from the breakaway group and Atkinson had also defected.


 * Friedan denounced the lesbian radicals as the Lavender Menace and tried to distance NOW from lesbian activities and issues. The radicals accused her of homophobia.  There was a constant fight for control of NOW which eventually Friedan lost.  By 1992 Olga Vives, chair of the NOW's national lesbian rights taskforce estimated that 40 percent of NOW members were lesbians. However NOW remains open to male members in contrast to some groups.

Wikipedia is not a blog
The rebuttal to criticism, and the criticism section, sounds like a chat. The unencyclopedic tag is placed because of this. BlueGoose 06:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the Criticism section is a problem, including all of the unsourced allegations, and the comparison to the Klu Klux Klan that BlueGoose put back in: (from the history) BlueGoose (→Criticism - Someone can NPOV this line that is being reinserted, but the information regarding alleged racism must remain.)

How about instead of lines full of weasely words and comparing NOW to the Klu Klux Klan we just delete the criticism and the rebuttal?
 * Good call. in fact, done.

But it makes no sense to have the criticism without the rebuttal.

I also find it a bit much to call this unencyclopedic -- have you looked at the other 34 entries marked unencyclopedic? --AUser 04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The unenyclopedic tag is for topics that do not belong in an encyclopedia. NOW cleary belongs.  The article does seem to contain much POV.  I have changed the tags accordingly. --Nelson Ricardo 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

clinton and packwood
this article doesnt talk about the hypocrisy of the organization. when republican senator Bob Packwood was accused of sexual harassment, NOW was going nuts. When Bill Clinton was accused of it, and also of rape, NOW said nothing that i have been able to find. maybe someone can add to this? Keltik31 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Shared Parenting
NOW's position on the enactment of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is relevant for inclusion in this article.

Michael H 34 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes it is. Why hasn't anyone done so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.69.166 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement for Feminists for Life
The fact that NOW doesn't endorse Anti-choice women doesn't constitute a valid criticism. Endorsing pro-choice candidates (both men and women) is part of NOW's by-laws and charter. It's an organization that is currently set up to support choice. This is not controversial. If you can produce secondary, scholarly resourced criticism, please do so. Otherwise you are simply advertising for Feminists for Life. --Bremskraft 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that NOW protrays itself as a general women's rights group when clearly (by your own and other's admissions) they do not welcome those who support the right to life of unborn women (even if said politician or individual otherwise agrees with NOW's views to the letter). I simply used Feminists for Life and its co-founder's story to support this fact (which was backed up by the Time article from the 1970s).  I simply think it's hypocritcal for example, for NOW to prefer a pro-choice male over a pro-life female if the two are running for a political office if NOW is truely the "women's rights" organization it claims to be.


 * I'm not sure I can comment on what you say because you clearly have an agenda, and a non-neutral point of view that doesn't belong on this page.--Bremskraft 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really true. It's a pro-choice group, you appear to just be going by the name the organization gave itself.  It makes about as much sense as criticizing the National Organization for Marriage just because it works to make marriage less available to groups of people, when it's just part of the organization's principles.  It's nonsensical for it to be in the criticism section.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-sign2.gif
Image:Logo-sign2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rick James and Ike Turner
I edited the page to show that they founded this organisation in 1966, and someone reverted it! Why?! 75.129.170.228 (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NOW and global feminism
There seems to be some dispute regarding NOW's attention to global feminism. I'm suggesting the following entry under "Global Feminism", and would appreciate any comments:

NOW purports to work on other issues of importance to women and children globally, including genocide in Africa, as well as Sharia and other radical Islamic practices harming women. This may be a somewhat spurious claim, however: A search of NOW's web site reveals only 12 references to the term "sharia", 22 references to the term "genocide" , and 45 references to the term "genital mutilation" - key issues related to global feminism. This is in stark contrast to the site's plentyful references to issues not directly related to women's rights, such as Iraq (a search term which reveals 342 references ), George W. Bush (677 references ), and Wal-Mart (154 references ).

--Soundguy95 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The words "purports" and "spurious" are your editorializations, and are POV. Also, your web searches amount to "original research," which is frowned upon on wikipedia. Furthermore, it is your assertion, not a referenced supported one, that 12 references to Sharia are not sufficient.  For all we know NOW could be putting in quite a bit a money and time on the issue of global feminism - simply because something isn't documented on a website, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  It is for these reasons that we rely on secondary sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not telling me anything new here. If referencing the group's web site is "original research," then every reference in the article to anything on now.org should be removed. Simply running a search on the groups web site is not "original research" - it's simply a reflection of the site's content. If NOW *is* spending so much time and money on these topics, the onus is on *you* to provide evidence to this effect; speculating that this could be the case does not justify mentioning it in the article. Provide some real evidence that NOW is putting *any* money or effort - say, a measurable percentage of it's annual budget - and I'll shut up.

A few references to press releases - most of which are several years old - doesn't show anything. Also, the term "puports" is a reflection of the fact that NOW is making a claim - it is not an editorialization. Change "spurious" to something else or omit it if you like. Soundguy95 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that (1) NOW's purpose is to focus on American politics, and (2) the only critic of NOW in this arena is Fox News via the former chair of L.A. NOW, I'm confident that the following references should suffice, and, indeed, that any mention of a 2 minute segment on Fox News is the opposite of noteworthy:

* "NOW Reminds State Department Of Commitment To Afghan Women" * "Now Summit: Press Release on Iraqi Women" * "NOW Fact Sheet: Women's Rights Under Sharia in Northern Nigeria" * "NOW issues" * "NOW: Violence Against Women in Sudan Reveals Common Weapon of War" * "NOW Press release: Slavery, Violence Against Women Continue Worldwide" —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 06:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== It is true that global feminism is NOT one of NOW's top-priority issues, as voted on by the NOW membership at their conference. This page shows you which are their top priority issues: http://www.now.org/issues/

and then other issues which they work on, but not as much as other organizations. For example, global feminism is not a top-priority issue -- NOW is primarily a domestic policy group because NOW is an activist organization and can't affect as much change in other countries as they can in the United States.

So, where do you get the claim that "NOW purports to work on other issues of importance to women and children globally"? Can you back this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.205.49 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

POV on Silicone Gel Implants
The line on NOW's efforts in 2003 to "restrict the availability of dangerous silicone gel breast implants" suggests that silicone gel breast implants are dangerous, but in 2003 studies showed that silicone gel breast implants are not associated with any serious diseases. This seems POV to me; I think the word "dangerous" should be stricken. --75.180.20.49 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of controversy...surprises me
Hi everyone. I'm currently writing a brief article about Dolores Alexander, the first director of NOW. I was quite surprised, while reading this article, that there is little strong historical context regarding not only Alexander, but, the homophobia amongst NOW and related subjects that revolved around NOW in the early days. Alexander left NOW due to the lack of interest in queer rights and homophobia within the organization, which was "rectified" many years later. This article, while it is informative, seems to lack historical documentation beyond a basic generic history, and a stronger encyclopedia story about the organization, outside of a chronology. The chronology is quite sexy, however, it has no citations and the majority of the article sources are from the NOW website, which fails our need for secondary reliable sources. While I'd be happy to participate in an expansion, I cannot make it my focus work at time, but I can participate in some level.

I did want to suggest some potential references to get people looking at this article on a broader level that covers all areas of hte NOW story (some of these do require log in, I can provide content if requested):
 * A documentary about lesbian activists Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon
 * The finding aid and collection for Dolores Alexander in the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College.
 * The New York Times search for "National Organization of Women"
 * "Empowering Members, Not Overpowering Them: The National Organization for Women, Calls for Lesbian Inclusion, and California Influence, 1960s-1980s." from the Journal of Homosexuality, 2010.
 * Barakso, Maryann. Governing NOW: Grassroots activism in the National Organization for Women; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 2004. ISBN 0801489105

I hope this helps, and provides some broader insight, and can make for a better article. Thanks everyone, SarahStierch (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of timeline
I've removed the "historical timeline" section as it appears to be copyvio text cut-and-pasted from. Even if NOW released the copyright on this text, however, I'd suggest that any timeline of the organization be constructed at least in part from both critical and neutral sources, rather than solely from NOW's press releases. My understanding is that NOW's no stranger to controversy. Is it possible to get more of this into the article? Khazar2 (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)