I hereby announce a contest to choose a new name for the National Organization for Women — because, after Wednesday, it would be fraud for them to retain that name.        NOW HAS OFFICIALLY decided to walk away, for a second and final time, from the Paula Jones case. Shunning Jones is, and always has been, easy for feminists; but abandoning her case is something else again.        To best illustrate NOW’s problem, let’s examine the situations of two working women, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones: Mrs. Smith awakened apprehensive and fearful today about going to work, because her boss has Playboy photographs hanging on the office wall. This makes Mrs. Smith uncomfortable. She believes it creates a hostile workplace. It’s an outrage! Don’t worry Mrs. Smith — feminists in general and NOW in particular will help you. They’ll use the legal system to tear down those objectionable pictures, and sue the stuffing out of your boss and his company. Thus does NOW once again come to the rescue of American women.        Now consider Mrs. Jones. She, too, awakened apprehensive and fearful of going to work today, because her boss allegedly brought her into a room, exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Mrs. Jones complained, whereupon the boss, his lawyers and his public relations people called Mrs. Jones a slut and a liar. It’s an outrage! But guess what? Sorry Mrs. Jones: to feminists in general and NOW in particular you deserve no protection, no defense. How can that be?        Because, as many of us have known for some time, NOW does not exist to defend women; it exists to defend liberal women. NOW is not, nor has it ever been, a gender organization; it is a political organization. The actual abuse of which you are the victim isn’t the real issue. The real issue for NOW is who abused you, and who you are.        I am personally opposed to all sexual harassment laws. If a man wishes to propose to a woman he finds attractive an act of sexual congress, that proffer is, it seems to me, protected by the first amendment, biology, history, common law, and common sense. I know many would disagree. NOW would certainly disagree — or would they?        NOW’s decision today to take a pass on the Jones case — essentially adopting the position that an employer’s indecent exposure and request for oral sex is no big deal — will strike many (I daresay most) American women as very odd, especially for a “National Organization for Women”.        NOW President Patricia Ireland says her group cannot support this case because the plaintiff is supported by feminists’ political opponents. Oh. So let me get this straight: a woman is victimized, her case may affect millions of women, but whether we care depends on who her friends are?        The good news is that NOW’s hypocrisy, cowardice and transparent political partisanship will actually help women — and all Americans, really — by further marginalizing the insignificant, radical group of malcontents this cabal has become.

 

Feedback? Don't mail here, but do mail me.

front

local

mscl

music

news