NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) (06/27/90)
Among the many cause organizations that solicit me to join/contribute is one called The Feminist Majority, headed by an Ellie Smeal. Does anyone know if this is a real/legitimate organization? The name is the same misspelling as NOW uses, so either this organization got it from NOW or their supplier. [I don't see any misspelling. I assume Ellie Smeal knows how to spell her own name. I believe the correct name for the organization is, however, The Fund for a Feminist Majority. -MHN] This group seems to have a lot of the same goals as NOW, but this one has much more of a political bent; among the letter I got is a questionnaire. They gradually go through the demographics, then to membership in other organizations, political offiliation, and then they ask "Would you support a Feminist Party?" Is this a real, effective organization, or is it a front for some convoluted socio-political group? Wayne Aiken netoprwa@ncsuvm.bitnet "You can BE what PO Box 30904 netoprwa@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu you WON'T!!" Raleigh, NC 27622 slack@ncsu.edu --"Bob" (919) 782-8171 BBS: (919) 782-3095
travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (07/03/90)
> [The Fund for a Feminist Majority] seems to have a lot of the same > goals as NOW, but this one has much more of a political bent; among the > letter I got is a questionnaire. They gradually go through the > demographics, then to membership in other organizations, political > offiliation, and then they ask "Would you support a Feminist Party?" > Is this a real, effective organization, or is it a front for some > convoluted socio-political group? My understanding is that when Eleanor Smeal was not reelected to the presidency of NOW, she left and started this group. The bogus questionnaire/petition format for fund-raising is so common that I'm surprised you haven't seen it before. The only "convoluted socio-political group" to watch out for is the New Alliance Party, a well-funded group of far-left wing psychos. They publically support women's rights, gay rights, and other cool things; but my activist friends assure me that they are loons. So, is The Feminist Majority real? Yes. Is it effective? In this political climate, what could be? Give your money to NARAL instead. t
huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (07/03/90)
In article <76826@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) writes: > Among the many cause organizations that solicit me to join/contribute is one > called The Feminist Majority, headed by an Ellie Smeal. Does anyone know if > this is a real/legitimate organization? The name is the same misspelling as > NOW uses, so either this organization got it from NOW or their supplier. I assume you mean your *own* name, not Ellie Smeal's. Ellie Smeal was head of NOW at one time, and at least *used* to have quite a bit of credibility with many feminists. > Is this a real, effective organization, or is it a front > for some convoluted socio-political group? What's the difference? -- Kathryn Huxtable huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) (07/06/90)
First, for those of you asked, the 'name' that I mentioned was misspelled was my own, on the envelopes of the literature they sent me. I have lots of fun tracking who sells what mailing list to who, based on the various permutations, some accidental and some intentional. In article <9006282136.AA09662@houston.cs.columbia.edu>, travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >> goals as NOW, but this one has much more of a political bent; among the >> letter I got is a questionnaire. They gradually go through the >> demographics, then to membership in other organizations, political > >My understanding is that when Eleanor Smeal was not reelected to the >presidency of NOW, she left and started this group. The bogus >questionnaire/petition format for fund-raising is so common that I'm >surprised you haven't seen it before. Yeah, I've seen this sort of thing before. What made this particular one noticeable was the way they tried (and failed miserably) at being subtle in the way the questions went gradually from mundane details to social/political orientation to whether I would support unspecified political goals. I've seen other organizations, often splinters from other larger groups, which seem to have the same goals as the original group, but in reality serve little more than a means of giving the founders an impressive title and position. The FftFM says that they produce and distribute educational videos, and they do put out a newsletter showcasing the accomplishments of female lawmakers. Beyond that, I don't know. >The only "convoluted socio-political group" to watch out for is the New >Alliance Party, a well-funded group of far-left wing psychos. They >publically support women's rights, gay rights, and other cool things;but >my activist friends assure me that they are loons. Thanks for the warning. >So, is The Feminist Majority real? Yes. Is it effective? In this >political climate, what could be? Give your money to NARAL instead. ok... based on a '% effectiveness' scale, which of the following are the best ones to support: 1) Fund for the Feminist Majority (doesn't look good, so far) 2) NOW 3) NARAL 4) ACLU (maybe worth it for other things they do, but they are in the abortion rights battle as well) Wayne Aiken netoprwa@ncsuvm.bitnet "You can BE what PO Box 30904 netoprwa@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu you WON'T!!" Raleigh, NC 27622 slack@ncsu.edu --"Bob" (919) 782-8171 BBS: (919) 782-3095
edb@ileaf.com (Ed Blachman x4420) (07/07/90)
In article <76826@aerospace.AERO.ORG> NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu writes: >Among the many cause organizations that solicit me to join/contribute is one >called The Feminist Majority, headed by an Ellie Smeal. Does anyone know if >this is a real/legitimate organization? My impression is that The Fund for the Feminist Majority is a PAC -- a political action committee. That is: they collect money from individuals, and then turn around and give it to candidates. As far as I can tell -- as someone who's contributed to them -- it is a legitimate PAC. (Opinions vary on whether PACs themselves are a good thing. I'm not sure... but as long as they exist, I'll support the ones I agree with.) Ed Blachman edb@ileaf.com (or) ...!uunet!leafusa!edb
travis@houston.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) (07/10/90)
> ok... based on a '% effectiveness' scale, which of the following are the > best ones to support: That's an interesting question. I'm presuming that you mean effectiveness in the context of pushing specifically feminist issues in America, since none of these organizations are trying to stop pollution, torture, etc.. I think personal involvement is more important than giving money to a proxy organization. This is especially true of on tightly-focused issues like abortion rights. You should already know the positions of your representative and your two congressmen, plus your state legislators. If you haven't given money for Gant's election bid, please do so. If you haven't written your representatives, even to people like Helms, you should do that. Many former pro-choice politicians like Bush still have the pre-Webster impression that abortion is not a single-issue factor for pro-choice the way that it has been for the opponents of abortion. They need to be informed. It's paradoxical that writing a check is easier than writing a letter to a politician or a newspaper. I can't explain why, but the latter is equally important. Here are a few random thoughts on these groups. If you want numbers, I can't give you any, although I feel these groups listed in order of their effectiveness. > 1) Fund for the Feminist Majority (doesn't look good, so far) Apart from the other comments being made about them, there is a growing push towards limiting or disallowing PAC money for political contributions. All PACs may become relatively ineffective, although it may take years for the appropriate legislation to pass. > 2) NOW > 3) NARAL Both of these seem relatively powerful in terms of making politicians jump, and fighting the appropriate court battles. I'm undecided about the effectiveness or usefulness of pushing for the ERA again, which I think NOW President Molly Yard wants to do again, primarily because their numbers doubled in the 70's ERA battle. I was also not pleased by her decision to have a second pro-choice rally in the same year. It was badly timed with respect to elections; and it was irrelevant to the Supreme Court's hearing of the Minnesota/Ohio parental notification cases -- the outcomes of which were both predictable from past decisions. We did show some adequate numbers, which was good. > 4) ACLU (maybe worth it for other things they do, but they are > in the abortion rights battle as well) The ACLU is always worth it, because they fight the fights others want to leave alone. Nat Hentoff, a First Amendment absolutists, has been recently critical of the ACLU for local decisions involving the supression of speech, e.g., racist epithets. In general, he's a maniac, but I think he is correctly noting a slippery slope in the ACLU arguments. t
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/12/90)
In article <9007091850.AA19989@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >Here are a few random thoughts on these groups. >> 2) NOW >> 3) NARAL >Both of these seem relatively powerful in terms of making politicians jump, >and fighting the appropriate court battles. I'm undecided about the >effectiveness or usefulness of pushing for the ERA again, which I think NOW >President Molly Yard wants to do again, primarily because their numbers >doubled in the 70's ERA battle. I sincerely hope that if the ERA is reintroduced, NOW a) doesn't sponser it and b) doesn't comment on it. If they had been able to keep their mouths shut and not alienated the entire center and right of the electorate last time around, we moderates who worked so hard for the ERA would not have seen all our work going down the toilet. Is there any indication that any of the current NOW leadership display at least that minimal amount of common sense? NOW is the poison pill of the ERA. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- You probably didn't notice, but during the past year, the moon slipped about one and a half inches farther from the earth -- Joel Bloch, "Stardate", NPR
travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (07/19/90)
> From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) > > I sincerely hope that if the ERA is reintroduced, NOW a) doesn't sponser > it and b) doesn't comment on it. If they had been able to keep their > mouths shut and not alienated the entire center and right of the electorate > last time around, we moderates who worked so hard for the ERA would not > have seen all our work going down the toilet. Perhaps you could offer more details on how one organization can be held so responsible for the loss of ERA? You don't seem to writing from the perspective of the '86 book "Why We Lost the ERA". How can you blame NOW, an active proponent of ERA, for its failure without mentioning anyone else? For beginners, you could blame its opponents, such as Phillis Schlafly, or the byzantine debates of the state legislatures where it was treated as if it might end the Union. > Is there any indication that any of the current NOW leadership display > at least that minimal amount of common sense? NOW is the poison pill > of the ERA. It would be helpful if you didn't portray political differences as the presence or absence of common sense. Reasonable people can and do differ on points of strategy. The correct point of view is rarely determinable by an IQ test. In this case, since you're no longer sure who's in charge of NOW, or what their beliefs are, wouldn't it be better to hold off on having an opinion about NOW's usefulness in an ERA battle? t
mingus@attunix.att.COM (Marcel-Franck Simon) (07/27/90)
> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (in <78597@aerospace.AERO.ORG>): > > From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) > > I sincerely hope that if the ERA is reintroduced, NOW a) doesn't sponser > > it and b) doesn't comment on it. If they had been able to keep their > > mouths shut and not alienated the entire center and right of the electorate > > last time around, we moderates who worked so hard for the ERA would not > > have seen all our work going down the toilet. > > Perhaps you could offer more details on how one organization can be held so > responsible for the loss of ERA? You don't seem to writing from the > perspective of the '86 book "Why We Lost the ERA". How can you blame NOW, > an active proponent of ERA, for its failure without mentioning anyone else? > For beginners, you could blame its opponents, such as Phillis Schlafly, or > the byzantine debates of the state legislatures where it was treated as if > it might end the Union. I don't know if this is what Kent Paul Dolan had in mind, but NOW as a political institution is a spectacular failure. It has been consistently unable to frame the terms of the political debate; it has been unable to motivate the constituency it claims to represent to express itself, at the polls or in any forums; it has never been able to articulate a specific agenda for political action (I don't mean general things like "equality", but specific things that one can organiza a campaign around). Can NOW make a realistic claim to have unseated a single candidate that opposed abortion? Who took the lead in the US Senate on the family care bill? Orrin Hatch, surely no friend of NOW, wound up framing the terms of the bill that NOW had deemed its no. 1 legislative priority for 1989 (George Bush vetoed the bill -- so much for kinder and gentler.) Where was NOW during all this? Organizing protests at the Supreme Court, despite pointed remarks by judges that this has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on court decisions. At this stage in the political debate, I tend to think that anything NOW throws its weight behind is something to stay away from, as it is a sure loser. For those who believe that criticizing the organization means criticizing what it's supposed to stand for: you are wrong. -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "