Pages

Sunday, July 03, 2005

NOW

My goal has always been to have a unique blog. I don't cover some of the major news here, because this is an Op Ed piece and most of those issues have been examined, dissected, and diagnosed by millions. Who wants to see it repeated again? So, I've stayed away from the entire Sandra Day O'Connor discussion this week.

But that was before the National Organization for Women (NOW) chose to get involved. They organized a march of 'hundreds' of women to protest any candidates that would be anti-abortion. This actually took me by surprise, and I bet you were surprised too! My first thoughts were:

1. They actually have more than 5 members that are still alive?
2. Just who are they representing?
3. I wonder if any of them shave?


Now, before you dismiss my comments, you need to know that I am a highly successful professional female that believes that we have (mainly) achieved equality for women in the U.S. I am thankful for the rights that I have. I don't fit into any category. I'm a member of the Lucy Stone League, but my first vote was for Ronald Reagan. I believe the neocons are poison to this country, but I still prefer them over the Clintons. And if it wasn't for suffragists, I may never have been able to pick and choose my own beliefs.

But NOW was never taken that seriously. It was never an organization of anything more than shrill, shrewish women demanding rights that exceeded those of men. They claimed women needed more rights than men because they had had less rights than men. This concept is drastically flawed and it's reverse discrimination; plain and simple. It's not right for women vs. men or black vs. white.

Most of America viewed NOW as some odd fringe movement. They always could be seen here and there, screaming rabidly about some newly perceived slight against women. After a while, they seemed to dry up and disappear.

Yet here they are, demanding something that no president can deliver: a moderate judge. Why is that? Because their is no middle ground where the Constitution is concerned. You can either have someone who

1. Interprets the Constitution as an historical document (they make rulings based on what the Constitution actually says) or
2. Interprets the Constitution as a nicely written document written in another time, for another set of people, which can be ignored if it doesn't fit in with the times.

While NOW is busy trying to obscure the issue, and get (apparently) much-needed press, I sit back in amusement and wonder... do they have hairy armpits?

16 comments:

snicksnack said...

*LOL* If they lived in Europe, hairy armpits would be considered sexy as hell.

Just like you, I was really surprised to know that the old dinosaurs are still roaming the earth.

bananarama said...

I heard that there actually were a lot of members, not tons, but something like in the thousands! I didn't know they still existed. I don't feel they represent ME at all. I wonder who they DO represent?

Tabasamu said...

I've never been impressed with NOW. I don't believe they are intent on sanctioning WOMEN'S rights, I think they're only there to promote LIBERAL women's rights. And there's a huge difference.

back-to-basics said...

Don't even get me going on NOW. I know a lawyer that is a member of NOW. She is the most non-impressive lawyer I have ever met.

Anonymous said...

Since our society is driven by physical appearance, I believe the NOW organization gives older women a rallying point that allows them to forget about the unfairness of looks as the sexes age. It seems like our Creator’s intention was to have women be the hunter not the hunted. Obviously at some point in history the Amazon Women made a bad business decision, or did they make a cunningly smart decision? As far as intellectual abilities, I know of no differences between the primary sexes. But this begs the question: why do men get better looking as they get older while women start showing age as early as 27? I believe this is partly because it was intended for women to keep and take care of men. The NOW organization put our global society back on the path that was intended.

Now to the important part, a clean-shaven woman will have her pick of man helpers. It takes a little more work but with all the new products on the market for smooth skin it just makes sense. I think clean shaven women of today are the natural progression from the NOW women of yesteryears. I applaud this movement.

Your daughter’s Halloween costume is impressive. I know.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Anonymous (a.k.a. Mr. Gator),

I laughed so loudly my Other Half looked around to see what I was doing.

back-to-basics said...

Anon (or Mr. Gator) said, "But this begs the question: why do men get better looking as they get older while women start showing age as early as 27?"

I take offense...I got better looking around the age of 27, thank you!

Saur♥Kraut said...

Michelle, ditto! *g* Sorry I've been out of touch. The Other Half has been sick and I've been nursing him.

Anonymous said...

My Michelle,

I know you’re saying what credentials does this self-proclaimed age expert have, just 25 years of reading Cosmo. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an assertion like yours. There are exceptions to every rule, but lets examine the more likely explanations. Ninety percent of the time it is nothing more than a woman gaining self-confidence. I feel great therefore I must look great. Nothing really changed your looks; you’ve just embraced the hand you were dealt. The next 9% is usually explained by a professional hairstyle and color job. Dark roots, ouch. The next 1 % actually did improve their looks through medical procedures.

The best way to gauge your current status is at a Bucs’ game. Slowly walk from the field level up the stairs, use your peripheral vision to record the activity. Don’t let all the handsome men distract you from your mission.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Even though it's off-topic, I do have to add that I think men and women age equally. There are exceptions for both sexes, but it's usually due to plastic surgery.

Bad Aging: Harrison Ford, Robert Redford, Farrah Fawcett

Good Aging: Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Demi Moore, Sher

Anonymous said...

Mr. Gator, what a Croc!!!!

back-to-basics said...

I guess I am the exception to the rule.

I have no dark roots,color job, or medical procedure.

Why else would I go to a Bucs game exceept to look at the handsome men?

Anonymous said...

How about to look at the boodylicious football players in their skin-tight uniforms?

Saur♥Kraut said...

*LOL*

Dr Guitar said...

1. Interprets the Constitution as an historical document (they make rulings based on what the Constitution actually says) or
2. Interprets the Constitution as a nicely written document written in another time, for another set of people, which can be ignored if it doesn't fit in with the times.

Third option: A historical document setting forth basic principles that have evolved and changed over time in ways that none of the FF could have envisioned. Nothing is to be ignored, but little is completely set in stone either, and all is open to interpretation, taking legal precedent, history, and current developments into account.

This isn't really as blacjk and white as your premise suggests.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Dr. Guitar,
Exactly. Like I said, #2.