Terry O’Neil, Jehmu Green: Molls of the 21st Century

Another Rant By: BettyJean Kling

N.O.W. and Women’s Media Center’s Democratic molls beware, the real feminists are coming!

I had such good hopes for N.O.W. when we voted in the new president Terry O’Neil but it is obvious, NOW National and many but not all of the state organizations are nothing more than Democratic Party Molls. Most of the so-called women’s groups that don’t label themselves conservative are in fact not the non partisan groups they purport to be – but are far left partisans who make it very clear only far left need apply! Moreover, they make it very clear they vote against any woman who is not FAR LEFT. Meg Whitman for example is a female candidate who clearly is Pro-choice but is labeled a whore by CA-NOW president because – it appears- she is a republican and it also appears will not be fired for saying so even though she said it after Terry O’Neil warned the next person to say it should be fired!

 Terry O’Neil

October 13, NOW calls on Brown, to fire any member of his staff who uses this word or any hate speech against women. For Immediate Release Contact: Mai Shiozaki w. 202-628-8669, ext. 116, c. 202-595-4473 Note* original does not contain the words from this day forward which by the way is ridiculous. Why from this day forward? If the N word was used would anyone say from this day forward?

Megan Carpentier | October 14, 2010, 1:45PM

Last week, the National Organization for Women and the PAC of the California NOW chapter took heat for their endorsement of state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) over Meg Whitman (R) in the gubernatorial race in the wake of comments by a Brown aide that Whitman was a “whore.” At the time, national NOW President Terry O’Neill said that anyone who “from here on” calls a woman a “whore” should be fired.

She might want to have a talk with California NOW President Parry Bellasalma, who today told TPM in response to a question that “Meg Whitman could be described as ‘a political whore.’ Yes, that’s an accurate statement.”

On NOW’s page they never changed the date to reflect the update – they updated the last paragraph and made a note saying so but never dated the change.At best this is an omission at worst it was an intended cover-up. Why from this day forward? If the N word was used would anyone say from this day forward? http://www.now.org/press/10-10/10-13.html

NOW: October 13, 2010

Last night at the California gubernatorial debate, Jerry Brown apologized for a member of his campaign staff suggesting Meg Whitman, his opponent in the race, be called a “whore.” This overdue apology was a necessary step; however, it was accompanied by an assertion that these sorts of comments are part and parcel of what happens inside political campaigns. If so, that needs to change.

While our California chapter’s Political Action Committee voted to endorse Brown on the basis of his support for women’s rights, the National Organization for Women clearly and unequivocally condemns calling Meg Whitman, or any woman, a whore. This term is hate speech that carries with it negative connotations associated with women, and it has no place in contemporary society.

NOW calls on Brown, from this point forward, to fire any member of his staff who uses this word or any hate speech against women.
                                                                            ###

Update: NOW clarified this statement with the addition of “from this point forward” to the final paragraph.

Patty Bellasalma, President CA-NOW

“The abuse of employees, whether in the workplace or in the home, is not acceptable,” Bellasalma said. “It’s a pattern that’s developing about how Meg Whitman treats people who she believes are beneath her. It’s a cynical game of the Republican Party, putting up candidates who are anti-women to garner women votes superficially.”
Why is she calling Meg Whitman anti-woman, it’s because she’s pro-life right? No, she’s pro-choice, but she is a Republican!

NOW is shrinking steadily because it caters to the Democratic Party and a small group of women to the elimination of all others. NOW had become a democrat extreme left- extremely Liberal – abortion only organizations hell bent on lesbian rights rather than all women’s rights who will turn on any woman in a minute if she does not  agree on their narrow platform.

A NATIONAL organization FOR women should encompass all women, not represent the minority to the omission of the vast majority of women. NOW continues to shrink and yet they continue to define feminism based on the minority members they have come to represent co-opting the term as their own, which justifiably belongs to every women. 

ALL women includes the smaller percentage of liberal women whose choice includes gay rights and abortion but not to the exclusion of the vast majority of women made up of independent women who do not necessarily agree these are women’s main issues and conservative women who absolutely do not want to have those two issues come to identify all women.

Jehmu Green  

And did you see Jehmu Green of Women’s Media Center starting up a new website Name it Change it! Good job. So now instead of just attacking conservative women – she will just be running straight out for the Democrats. She was on Bulls and Bears this morning lauding Obama for finally telling the truth about the shovels! It appears if a Democratic POTUS comes clean at some point we forget all the lies he told before! I’ll bet you dollars to donuts she doesn’t apply that to BUSH!

Thank you Jehmu if you help the media  stop attacking women we will all be forever grateful  but don’t think for one minute that will win the Dems any of our votes back . Nice try but we have your number. Clearly you are a Moll for the Dems out there trying to win back the women’s vote! Too late! As I explained above you do not represent the majority of women! You represent the Democrats, you represent the Liberals.

What you forgot is that the majority out here is mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore! I’ve named it – now you change it! You Democrat molls better get with the program- the majority is uniting and you are going to lose your grip on the term feminist. The real feminists are coming!

I am personally familiar with 3 state organizations MD-NOW, MI-NOW and NYS-NOW who do not fit the description above.  They support vigorous legislative programs, grassroots efforts, and have been there for anyone who has reached out for help.

Marcia Pappas
I wholeheartedly support the work of Marcia Pappas of NYS-NOW who is devoted to equality for all women and children and who supports their issues, specifically in areas of divorce, domestic violence and court bias against women. Marcia works tirelessly never asking where a women stands on various issues or what her party affiliation might be.  She has been called “the most visible activist in New York State and that is because wherever there is a women or child in need, Marcia has brought a rally there for her – in rain – sleet or snow!

Linda Mahoney
I wholeheartedly support the work of Linda Mahoney of MD-NOW who is devoted action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society.

Renee Beeker
I wholeheartedly support the work of Renee Beeker of MI-NOW is the Creator and Director of the National Family Court Watch Project. An advocate for reform of the judicial system since 1996, Renee is a respected contributing member to many grassroots and professional organizations including Stop Family Violence, a national grassroots organization with a mission to organize and amplify our nation’s collective voice against domestic violence.

National Organization for Women (NOW)

There are many good people like Marcia, Linda and Renee. We need to break the Democratic stranglehold on these organizations and we can and should. We the majority need to unite and show them what a national women’s organization looks like, sounds like and acts like!

Women’s Media Center

As for Women’s Media Center (WMC), it’s been a joke up to now as evidenced by its failure to come down hard on the media and the male candidates for sexism and misogyny hurled at every woman from Hillary to the present group of women that threaten to unseat the DNC preferred choices. This group will eat their own young to get to the top—they have not the confidence to make it in their own without the party and now they are trying to patronize us and fool us into believing they are on our side. They are not!

The Majority United

The Majority United  (TMU)stands proud with ALL women. We are neither left or right nor do we lobby for or against choice or gay rights, there are specific groups that specialize on those issues, instead support all women. We are so proud of those who have the courage of their convictions and stand up for what they believe in just as the original Suffragists did. Remember these women from both sides of the aisle are teaching us weekly that we can strongly disagree on some issues, yet stand together for the equal rights of women. Women have more in common than not and no one agrees with anyone 100% of the time but we can all agree that united and mobilized  we can achieve what needs to be done . TMU has three main goals and we support women who support those goals for ALL women, children and support The Constitution and the United States of America!

TMU
IMAGINE

Empowering Women to Unite & Mobilize !

To Restore The Constitution and Ensure Equality for All

1- Achieve an  End of Violence Against Women and Children.
2- Achieve Equality, Opportunity and Justice for All – this is a Human Right.
3- Achieve Representative Government of the people, for the people and by the people as intended by the Founders.

NYS: No-Fault Divorce Legislation Vote Tuesday

Contributed By: Marcia A. Pappas,
President NOW-NYS, Inc.


NYS Assemblymember Bing A9753 & Senator Hassell-Thompson S3890

Contact the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee. On Tuesday, March 9th, at 10:00 am, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the No Fault Divorce legislation. Divorce is complicated and this Legislation is dangerous for women and children.  In every state where No Fault Divorce has become law, the results have been devastating for women and children.  Experts will tell you that the reason this  happens is that No Fault Divorce takes away the bargaining  power from women.  This means that a husband/father can literally walk away and leave women and children in a state of poverty. 

Below is a complete list of the Judiciary committee. Just copy and paste their emails into your address box and send an email to all of them at once.  Tell them that you opposed No Fault Divorce! 

NYS Assemblymember Bing A9753 & Senator Hassell-Thompson S3890

eadams@senate.state.ny.us,  bonacic@senate.state.ny.us, breslin@senate.state.ny.us, jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us, diaz@senate.state.ny.us, dilan@senate.state.ny.us, espada@senate.state.ny.us, hassellt@senate.state.ny.us, jdklein@senate.state.ny.us, lanza@senate.state.ny.ustate.ny.us, lavalle@senate.state.ny.us, leibell@senate.state.ny.us, maziarz@senate.state.ny.us, ranz@senate.state.ny.us , nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us,  onorato@senate.state.ny.us,  perkins@senate.state.ny.us,  , saland@senate.state.ny.us, savino@senate.state.ny.us, schneide@senate.state.ny.us, volker@senate.state.ny.us, winner@senate.state.ny.us, sampson@senate.state.ny.us  

NOW-NYS strongly opposes A-9753/S3890. This bill has a large loop hole in the wording.   It states that “Except under exigent circumstances placed on the record by the court, no judgment of divorce shall be granted under this subdivision unless and until” certain conditions are met.  NOW-NYS questions this wording as we wonder who defines “exigent circumstances” and exactly what these circumstances might be.  Further this loosely worded legislation leaves a large window for abuse by the monied spouse (usually the husband). 

New York is currently a fault state. That means that if you want a divorce, and your spouse does not agree, you must have grounds. The two most common grounds are cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment.

New York State also has one no-fault ground. It is a bi-lateral no-fault ground. If both parties want to divorce they negotiate a separation agreement, which is a contract spelling out all the terms which a court would decide, such as custody, child support, maintenance (formerly called alimony) and property division. Then after living apart for one year, the agreement becomes the ground for the divorce.

The NYS Legislature continues to consider proposals for unilateral no-fault divorce. This amounts to “divorce on demand.” Either party can go into court, say the marriage has broken down, and get a divorce. No grounds are necessary. Additionally, under all the bills that have been proposed to date in New York State, fault would not be considered in determining alimony, maintenance or property division. Under all the proposed bills the judge wouldn’t hear the facts, behavior and circumstances that led to the break-up of the marriage. Will the judge hear these facts in custody disputes? We are not sure.

Currently, separation and divorce are negotiated by couples. This is how approximately 95% of divorce cases in New York are resolved: by the parties themselves, not by the judge, without going to court. This is the best possible process.

The proposed change in the law to no-fault would be for only approximately 5% of  parties who cannot or who refuse to reach a settlement. Laws should not be change or passed for only 5% of the population.

No-fault takes away any bargaining leverage the non-monied spouse has. Currently she can say “If you want a divorce I’ll agree, but you have to work out a fair agreement.” That is not “blackmail” as has been claimed by some no-fault proponents. Negotiating the terms of the break-up of a partnership is the way partnerships are dissolved in the business world.

 Women should have the same protection. Another benefit of separation agreements is that couples can agree to terms that the court cannot order. One notable example is child support until graduation from college. The court may order child support only up to the child’s 21st birthday. Without a separation agreement with this provision included, children are left to finish college under severe financial hardship, or to drop out.

In fairness, any partner to a marriage should be provided with notice that the other partner wants a divorce and given an opportunity to negotiate the terms for the divorce. With “divorce on demand,” not only can the more-monied spouse begin hiding assets (which happens even under our current laws), but this spouse can proceed quickly with legal actions before the other spouse, with limited means, even has the time to find and hire an attorney.

Who is pushing for no-fault? The push was begun by the New York State Bar Association, whose wealthy clients just want out of the marriage without negotiating an agreement. They would rather have the case go to court to decide the issues of custody, child support, maintenance and property division. Should domestic relations law be changed to satisfy only the needs of wealthy clients or to help the legal profession gain more fees? Current law encourages private settlements. In contrast, the Bar Association proposal would flood the court with cases. There is another downside: The Office of Court Administration does a periodic study of gender bias, and they acknowledge that gender bias against women still permeates the court system.

The Women’s Bar Association has reversed its long standing opposition to no-fault divorce and is now going along with the NY State Bar. Attorneys in the Women’s Bar Association have some clients who want out of the marriage and have no grounds. But the Women’s Bar Association also says that women are doing so well financially they no longer need the protection of fault grounds. However, on December 24, 2006, The New York Times published an article entitled “Scant Progress Closing Gap in Women’s Pay.” The sub-title was “For College Graduates, the Disparity Worsens.” It doesn’t seem that most women are doing so well in the workplace.

A small number of attorneys who represent victims of domestic violence want no-fault because their clients are being denied divorces by some judges who tell them that the domestic violence they suffered is not severe enough to be considered cruelty that would warrant a divorce.

NOW-NYS has worked on the national and state levels to raise the issue of domestic violence, to reduce its incident rates, and to develop legal strategies under criminal and civil laws to help victims. New York’s domestic relations laws should not be changed to disadvantage a majority of women, especially homemakers with children, because a few judges are not following the law. It is the judges who have to be changed or removed. We need thorough judicial education to enlighten judges as to the meaning of domestic violence. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn’t necessarily mean a woman will appear in court with black eyes and broken bones.

The National Organization for Women (NOW-NYS) has a long standing position of opposition to unilateral no-fault divorce. Our opposition is based upon the study of the harmful effects of no-fault laws on women and children in other states.

We must look at the socio-economic standing of women in our society. Women clearly continue to be the non or lesser monied spouse, as women continue to give up careers and financial independence for the role of housewife and mother. For this reason alone we must look closely at how divorce affects the lives of women and children and the role that the state should play to ensure that homemakers and children not be left destitute after divorce.

In 1987, 17 years after California enacted the first no-fault law in the country, California’s Senate issued a report entitled Report on Family Equity which found, among other things, that no-fault had created “unintended hardships” for women and children.

Ten years later, in 1997, the prestigious Family Law Quarterly put out by the American Bar Association published an article by Peter Nash Swisher, Professor of Law, at the University of Richmond (Virginia) Law School. Professor Swisher studied the effects of no-fault all over the country. In the article he states that “when no-fault divorce was first introduced in most states, a disturbing number of courts failed to provide adequate financial protection to women and children of divorce.”

Swisher goes on to say, “Consequently, many children of divorce have suffered long-lasting psychological, as well as economic, damage resulting from divorce. Indeed, a number of commentators have concluded that the no-fault divorce revolution in America has failed.” Swisher recommends that, at the very least, even in states with no-fault grounds, fault should be considered in maintenance and property division, as it is in approximately 38 states.

Divorce reform is needed. However, NOW-NYS sees the most urgent need as a strong bill regarding expert and legal fees. The party in control of the finances should be ordered to pay meaningful expert and legal fees to the other party during the divorce proceedings in order to ensure both parties have a level playing field. Further, we must ensure that the lesser monied spouse is covered with health insurance and that any move by a party to hide assets results in meaningful penalties to that party. Let’s have both parties equally represented, see how that works and then, and only then, consider unilateral no-fault divorce.

Hiram Monserrate Expellelled from NYS Senate

By: BettyJean Kling

I am beside myself- I don’t know where to start celebrating this small victory for women. I say small because while a batterer loses his seat, he did not pay for his crime, neither did the judge who merely slapped his wrist. If it wasn’t for the pressure that NOW-NYS along with NOW and TMU members from across the nation kept on this beast, I call MonsterRat we would not be celebrating this expulsion at all.

Monserrate gave the final vote and the final speech before the vote went down, laying the groundwork for a future legal appeal by continually asserting that the senate had no right to expel him, and that he had been denied due process.

And of course it wouldn’t be budsiness as usual if we didn’t have at least one Senator tossing about the race card — screaming his head off that this was a pay back by white  against Puerto Riccans without concern for the actual crime against a woman. I wonder about her health, safety and how long she will be his girlfriend now?

 He attacked the panel report against him as “full of factual distortions” and “self-serving,” and lamented that the panel members never heard from him or his girlfriend. (The panel said they asked them both to testify, but neither of them agreed to do so.)

He reiterated that “the action that I have been involved with does not rise to the level of expulsion,” and that by voting him out the senate was “disenfranchising the voters of my majority-minority district.” He quoted Jesse Jackson — “God isn’t through with me yet” — and then sat down.
http://news10now.com/cny-news-1013-content/politics/495659/senate-votes-to-expel-monserrate-immediately

Ravitch then read the result and quickly adjourned the session. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/02/monserrate_expe.php

The very idea that this man was seated as a State Senator just days after cutting up his girlfriends face causing her 40 stitches and a judge gave him a minor sentence to save his seat is repulsive to say the least but that he is now screaming that this is illegal and unconstitutional galls me to no end.

First I want to point out Marcia Pappas, President NOW-NYS who has fought tirelessly since day 1 to bring this issue to the forefront of what NOW is doing for women. Fighting for women rights and to end violence against women, NOW rarely makes the news on these important issues. I am appalled that the media covers only that which can and does draw the ire of the Right negatively on the NOW organization but never gives them credit for the tireless efforts they put into issues all wpmen can or should  agree on. I will be putting out a newsletter where Marcia generously shares kudos with others including myself on behalf of The Majority United  and Amy Siskind from The New Agenda for our efforts and assistance in her fight in  Albany.

One of the Upstate papers had the nerve a few weeks ago to call NOW and other women’s groups out over this case asking “Where are they now? By the end of the day – they pulled the article and made a lame apology. I personally submitted no less than 10 blog pieces and referred them to no less of Marcia’s NOW press releases and Calls to Action at the Albany courthouse.

Monserrate, a Democrat, pulled every trick in the book including waiving his rights to a jury and instead accepting the judge’s opinion which resulted in a conviction on a misdemeanor assault charge. Because of surveillance video that shows the Queens senator dragging his girlfriend in his apartment lobby in December 2008, we thought the judge would be compelled to convict Monserrate of a felony, and he would have automatically lost his Senate seat.

Led by Marcia Pappas, the women of NOW across the nation and The Majority United; their readers. bloggers and radio listeners never let up and now Hiram Monserrate is now out.


 
 

Expulsion of Monserrate.  How they voted.

The eight “no” votes on the expulsion resolution, which was sponsored by Sen. Brian Foley, were: Monserrate, Ruben Diaz Sr., Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr., Carl Kruger, Eric Adams, Kevin Parker, Martin Malave Dilan and Conference Leader John Sampson. Sen. Tom Morahan was excused.  All other Senators voted “yes.” List of yes voters is below.  Thank the “YES” voters and reprimand the”NO” voters.  They need to hear from you.  Click here to Take Action  or use this link  http://capwiz.com/nownys/state/main/?state=NY Type in your zip code and see who represents you. 

Addabbo, Joseph P., Jr   Golden, Martin J. LaValle, Kenneth P.  Padavan, Frank  Squadron, Daniel L
Alesi, James S. Griffo, Joseph A. Leibell, Vincent L.  Perkins, Bill  Stachowski, William T
Aubertine, Darrel J. Hannon, Kemp Libous, Tom  Ranzenhofer, Michael H Stavisky, Toby Ann 
Bonacic, John J. Hassell-Thompson Little, Elizabeth Robach, Joseph E.  Stewart-Cousins, Andrea
Breslin, Neil D. Huntley, Shirley L Marcellino, Carl L  Saland, Stephen M.  Thompson, Antoine M
DeFrancisco, John A. Johnson, Craig M Maziarz, George D Savino, Diane J Valesky, David J.
Duane, Thomas Johnson, Owen H McDonald, Roy J Schneiderman, Eric T Volker, Dale M
Farley, Hugh T. Klein, Jeffrey D Montgomery, Velmanette  Serrano, Jose M Winner, George H., Jr
Flanagan, John J. Krueger, Liz  Nozzolio, Michael F Seward, James L Young, Catharine 
Foley, Brian X   Lanza, Andrew J Onorato, George  Skelos, Dean G  
Fuschillo, Charles J., Jr. Larkin, William J., Jr.  Oppenheimer, Suzi  Smith, Malcolm A  

   NOW-NYS is working to end violence against all women. Donate to  or join NOW at www.nownys.org

Woman Haters

Another Rant By: BettyJean Kling

Last Dec. 19, 2008, I started to follow a story about then State Senator elect Hiram Monserrate.

On January 8, 2009, I posted the following piece Oops- I accidentally smashed the glass then slashed her face and dragged her down a hall screaming!

On Feb. 2, 2009 NOW calls for removal of Sen. Monserrate ,

On March 27, 2009 Yet another lie sealed with a kiss ,

On March 29, 2009 Why do the women return? I suggest you read these for a firm understanding of this case.

monserrate_190On September 15, 2009, Marcia Pappas, a dear friend, President of NOW-NYS alerted me to an update and a campaign to which I immediately responded with a newsletter, HELP send MonsterRat to Jail. I urge you to please – if you haven’t already — join us in this effort. Apparently the combined has already drawn the attention of women haters everywhere and we made The New York Times!

Women’s Group Presses Judge in Monserrate Trial
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/monserrate-judge/

In accepting Mr. Monserrate’s application last Monday for a nonjury trial, Justice Erlbaum warned the senator that “in a bench trial, I wear two hats: I get to see all the evidence, even impermissible evidence.” He said he would seek to separate his legal responsibilities as judge and jury, “but the same corporeal human being has seen and heard all the evidence.”

The comments section is telling. Please go to the paper and add to the comments ASAP. You will find the women haters were right there and not enough of us to show them for what they are. Please help ASAP.

Example of Comments:

1-We need strict anti-violence against women because nowadays their sense of entitlement extends to saying and doing whatever they please. Men need to be saints to put up with them.
— MARK KLEIN, M.D.

2-They are asking the Judge to give him the maximum sentence BEFORE he has been found guilty. As they put it in the Old West: hang him first, and then have the trial. This may not violate any law or ethical rule, but it is revolting. Their defense is simply our ends justify our much less to show what an appropriate sentence is. …
— rick

3-About 10 years ago during my divorce I was falsely accused of domestic violence by my ex-wife as a tactic to help her get sole custody of our child. My ex-wife tried the same thing again twice since then. All three times she was caught. The only thing that happened was that I never lost custody.  I hate to tell Marcia Pappas this, but some women do lie about these things. A lot will depend on the cross examination. If it comes out in the trial that Monserrat’s companion perjures herself, I will be interested to know what Pappas feels her punnishment should be.
— john

I left my comment which perhaps was too strong? It has not yet shown up but here it is:

Rick – I nearly fell over when your wrote the following about NOW’s campaign. “This may not violate any law or ethical rule, but it is revolting.” I wonder if you read the entire article and are aware of the revolting facts in the case.

He may have accidentally tripped while bringing her a glass of water and I suppose you could believe the glass broke on her eye. But can you then explain; how she got from that accident out of his loving and caring comforting helping arms into the hallways? The same hallways where the security cameras have recorded her running bleeding from door to door screaming for help? And where it is also recorded that he is seen removing her purse from her and depositing it down the garbage shute? And where it is also recorded he is seen dragging her kicking and screaming and might I add attempting not to be taken back into his apartment?

Are you also aware there is additional video of them leaving the building some time later with her head in a bloody towel- apparently this was not going to stop without stitches.

In addition- MonsterRat drove past several hospitals on his way out of his county to take her to another county hospital where she gave the hospital staff and dr.’s and police a domestic violence story which bears up what the video evidence shows.

Finally, he was arrested – she was admitted and miraculously – his family and his bodyguards never left her side from that moment on until she recanted her story.

NOW Rick et al. THAT IS DISGUSTING!

One more thing, my daughter Louisa 41 lays motionless in a nursing home with half her head– having had her brains blown out on Dec. 15, 2008  because a judge was too lenient on my son-in-law. George was not her husband – George is my other daughter’s husband, who at 250 lbs. decided to bash Denise’s  80 lb. Cancer ridden bald head in with a claw hammer to get her pain meds.

They let him out in 3 months and while her sister Louisa was caring for Denise  ‘THE SAINT’ came back and did Louisa in and would have killed anyone else who would have got in his way.

Sure every once in a while a women makes a false claim against a man – not nearly as many times as one man makes a false claim against another man for any number of things so don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. For every false claim there are thousands of unreported, under reported or recanted out of fear claims of abuse against women and girls.

Every time one of you punks, Dr. Klien or whatever her/his name and the rest of you starts this belly aching I want to laugh in your face because it is YOU and others like YOU that are the problem. And every time you rear YOUR ugly heads YOU make it clear — YOU are animals who think you are greater but who really fear women and hate them.

You are the reason – violence against women needs to be adjudicated as a hate crime- herein these comments lies the proof.

You better believe we are on a writing campaign. If they let my drug addicted son-in-law out after what he did to my 80 Lb. dying daughter so he could be free to murder the other,  how much sooner will they let this guy out — the  supposed upstanding servant of the state?

a) former Marine
b) former cop
c) former Queens NYC Councilman
d) Now NY State Senator

But wait there is more! I am not done yet folks:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/12/20/2008-12-20_queens_city_councilman_hiram_monserrate_-1.html

Queens City Councilman Hiram Monserrate has self-professed history of mental problems

Troubled police officer Hiram Monserrate has a history of mental problems – he said so himself.

“I suffer with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder,” Monserrate wrote in 1999.

Monserrate – who just racked up his second arrest after an alleged violent outburst – claimed to be struggling with psychological issues when he quit the NYPD after 11 years.

His May 19, 1999, application for a disability pension was troubling enough that cops immediately seized his guns, public court filings show.

He cited reports from a psychiatrist and a psychologist to back up his claim of a mental condition. Court documents do not detail the condition or the cause.

The next day, the NYPD’s psychological services unit took Monserrate’s guns from him “based on their evaluation,” according to a lawsuit Monserrate filed against the NYPD to force a decision on his application.

He withdrew the case later in 1999. It could not be determined whether Monserrate obtained the disability pension.

A Marine-turned-cop, Monserrate had a rocky career with the NYPD.

He was a founding member of the Latino Officers Association, complaining of brutality and discrimination in the department, and said he was harassed and intimidated by white supervisors as a result.

He retired in 2000 with a $108,000 settlement from a suit against the department, and he ran for City Council the next year.

Yesterday’s bust on charges that he slashed his girlfriend was the second time Monserrate faced a judge after a nasty confrontation.

He was arrested in the early-morning hours of Sept. 11, 2001, on charges of trying to run over a tow truck operator attempting to repossess his car. The outcome of that case could not immediately be determined.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/12/20/2008-12-20_queens_city_councilman_hiram_monserrate_-1.html#ixzz0RZTgMZMw

Remember – They let him be a Councilman the elected him then swore him in as State Senator and put him in as chair on committees even with all this hanging over his head and a record of mental illness and violence!

DO YOU HEAR ME NOW? THEY GAVE HIM COMMITTEEE POSITIONS AND SWORE HIM IN THE DAYS AFTER HE WAS ARRESTED FOR THIS ASSAULT WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY HAD! SHE WAS SURROUNDED WITH HIS BODY GUARDS AT THE HOSPITAL AND BROUGHT TO HIS SWEARING IN,  DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?

If this guy walks- there will be hell to pay — damned it –hell to pay! 

ERA Action Alert

Did you know that women are not represented in the U.S. Constitution?
Marcia Pappas of NOW NYS invites you to Take Action! Tell Congress and President Obama that it’s time!

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney to Reintroduce Women’s Equality Amendment on Capitol Hill

Join Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney as she proudly introduces the

WOMEN’S EQUALITY AMENDMENT ON CAPITOL HILL!
Tuesday, July 21st, at 10 a.m. House Triangle

Show your support for putting women’s rights in the U.S. Constitution.

We need as many organizations and individuals as possible to join the Congresswoman on Tuesday
to demonstrate the breadth and intensity of our commitment to equal rights.

Please bring signs from your state, your home town, or your organization.

Invite friends and family. Include your staff and summer interns.

Come watch history being made. Lend your voice to the fight for women’s rights!

Call of email Congresswoman Maloney and thank her for her leadership:

http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_email_form&Itemid=73

Washington Office: 202.225.7944 phone, Manhattan Office: 212-860-0606 phone

 

House Triangle

Located in the grassy triangle on the House side of the Capitol’s East Front, the House Triangle is equipped with a permanent podium for press conferences and shared with accredited television media organizations doing live shots. Members wishing to schedule an event at the Triangle should contact the Gallery for availability. Participants should be limited due to the modest amount of space. Offices are requested NOT to use sound amplification systems given the Triangle’s proximity to the Capitol and its offices. Non-members are allowed to participate in events as long as a member of Congress sponsors the event and is in attendance.

Chesler and Pappas April 6th 10 pm EST

Monday Night soROARity
Co Authors
Dr. Phyllis Chesler & Marcia Pappas

Gender Apartheid–Not Our Agenda

The authors have both been speaking out about honor killings in the West  and have both described the recent Buffalo beheading of Aasiya Z. Hassan  by her husband as  an  Islamist-style honor-related killing.

Marcia Pappas, the President of NOW-NYS, has been scolded by national NOW’s President and criticized by a coalition of domestic violence advocates for her views about this.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, the author of thirteen books, including Women and Madness, has been writing about Islamic gender apartheid and its penetration of the West for many years. She, too, has been challenged, even condemned, for her views about honor killings in general and for her views about the shocking case of Aasiya Z. Hassan, in particular.

We decided to join forces and write a short piece. However, we discovered that brevity would not serve our goal. The problem is much bigger than honor-related violence, honor killings, or this one case in Buffalo. Indeed, the issue which we still face in 2009, is one that has plagued American feminist leaders for at least 171 years. The issue is that of racism and sexism and the diabolical way in which racism continues to trump sexism among feminists.

No radio needed Our show is online– If your computer is down no problem call on the phone and hear the entire show right on the phone- Please come ! Monday 10 PM eastern/ Bring your questions. Call-in 347 539-5420

Event: Free Us Now Radio Show
What: Performance
Host: BettyJean Kling
Start Time: Monday, April 6 at 10:00pm
End Time: Monday, April 6 at 11:30pm
Where:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/no-we-wont

Call-in:  347 539-5420

Why do the women return?

A Mighty Rant by: BettyJean Kling

Look whose getting all the support! Do you see the abused getting the support? No! The abuser is caught on tape abusing the woman- she has 20 stitches- he was released immediately – he was at her side as was his powerful family and his friends from the minute they could get to her. Who is rallying around her? NO ONE! And we want to know why she is uncooperative? Give me a break!

Rallying Around a Politician Charged With Assault


Kirsten Luce for The New York Times
  

State Senator Hiram Monserrate and his supporters went on the offensive in and out of court on Friday as he pleaded not guilty to charges of slashing his companion’s face with a broken glass.

Supporters wearing purple ribbons — including a Democratic district leader who runs an organization for preventing domestic violence — declared that the charges were politically motivated and waved signs reading, “Monserrate is pro-choice and pro-woman.”
A political consultant hired by Mr. Monserrate, a Democrat, passed news clips around the courtroom, detailing a 2007 dispute in which Mr. Monserrate, then a Queens city councilman, criticized Queens prosecutors’ handling of a 14-year-old murder case; in the articles, the Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, retorted that Mr. Monserrate was “irresponsible” and “ought to be ashamed.”
Karla Giraldo, the woman prosecutors say Mr. Monserrate attacked, stood on the courthouse steps, in a long fur-trimmed cardigan, spike heels, large sunglasses and long bangs that covered the area around her left eye, where she required 20 stitches after the injury. She called a judge’s protection order barring Mr. Monserrate from contacting her — renewed on Friday over her objections — “an injustice.”
“I want to be with my boyfriend,” she declared. “I love him a lot.”
Prosecutors introduced new ammunition in the case at what would ordinarily have been a quick proceeding in State Supreme Court in Kew Gardens, Queens.
Countering a defense lawyer’s request that the judge not renew the protection order, Scott Kessler, an assistant district attorney, gave a newly detailed description of a surveillance videotape from Mr. Monserrate’s Jackson Heights building on the night of the episode, Dec. 19, 2008.

He said the video showed Mr. Monserrate emerging from his apartment and throwing an object into a trash chute, which the prosecutor had previously described in court as a Police Benevolent Association card belonging to “another man.”

A few hours later, Mr. Kessler said, the video shows Ms. Giraldo come out of the apartment with a towel pressed to her face and ring a neighbor’s doorbell, after which Mr. Monserrate yanks her away as she tries to cling to a banister.

After viewing the six-minute video in his chambers, Justice William M. Erlbaum said it showed that a protection order was “amply warranted,” and extended the order banning all contact — even through e-mail or third parties — through Dec. 1.

Ms. Giraldo, 30, who works at a Spanish-language publication called Resume, asked to address the court to oppose the order. The judge denied her request, saying the case was a matter of community concern between “the people of the state of New York and Mr. Monserrate,” not a private matter between the couple.

Queens prosecutors often pursue domestic violence charges even after a victim recants accusations, in the belief that it takes pressure off victims who may fear an abuser will retaliate against them for a prosecution.

Mr. Monserrate’s lawyer, Irving P. Seidman, spoke at such length against the order — at one point noting that he had two daughters and a wife of 50 years — that Justice Erlbaum lamented, “I’ve been on the bench 30 years and this is the longest application I have ever received” on a protection order.

Mr. Monserrate, 41, said after the hearing that prosecutors had discussed with him the possibility of pleading guilty to a nonfelony charge with no jail time. “I said unequivocally no to that because I am innocent,” he said.

He faces felony charges of second-degree assault that could lead to a seven-year prison sentence.

 

Mr. Monserrate was arrested after his election to the State Senate, where Democrats won a narrow majority last year, and was sworn in after his arrest over the objections of some senators.

At the courthouse, he was welcomed with hugs and cheers by more than a dozen supporters who wore pins showing St. Michael — “They ward off evil,” one explained — and waved signs.
“No one’s going to take our senator away from us,” said Martha Flores-Vazquez, the Democratic Party

district leader from Flushing, Queens, who was one of the most vocal supporters and is the executive director of Community Prevention Alternatives, an organization that she said works against domestic violence.
A handful of people demonstrated against them. 

“I don’t think women should be abused,” said one, Simone Dillard.

Both Ms. Giraldo and Mr. Monserrate say she was injured by accident as he brought her a glass of water after they returned from a holiday party for Queens Democrats at the Queens Museum of Art.

Ms. Giraldo’s lawyer, Glenn Marshall, said on Friday that she was lying in bed when Mr. Monserrate tripped over her shoes and spilled water on her face, causing her to start and bump her face into the glass. No one disputes that Mr. Monserrate drove her to Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Nassau County, bypassing several closer hospitals.

Prosecutors say that Ms. Giraldo told the hospital staff that Mr. Monserrate struck her with a broken glass, and repeated the same story to officers summoned by the hospital.

Yet another lie sealed with a kiss

My blog piece the other day You are not alone anymore! explained why women often refuse to testify and why they go back to their abusers. It’s complicated – there are no simple answers and most often the reasons range from and include lack of self esteem , child abuse, fear of abuser, terror, pressure from abuser or others, lack of support, lack of law enforcement relief, lack of laws, being a second class citizen without equal rights to name a few. Too many times these guys get out and terrorize these women and let these women know they are less valuable to everyone- they convince these women they cannot win and so the women fold to save themselves from what they believe will be worse if they proceed. Once they back down they are finished both with the abuser and with everyone else including themselves!

“Look at the Senator from NY case – where he sliced her face. He stands to lose his position as a “State Senator” compared to her ‘few dozen stitches’. The damage done to her mental and emotional health and well being doesn’t even come into the picture – there’s no comparison to these men– hell no — she is considered a rag doll so he battered her – she healed up – why destroy his entire future? I’ll tell you why- because he is an ANIMAL!

                It’s always about how little she is worth compared to how valuable he is and she has been born and bred to
                believe  she is less valuable then he! There is the whole thing in a nutshell.”

Today this Karla Giraldo came to court on behalf of her abuser and not only refused to testify against him, she lied about what happed and sealed it with a kiss. When a woman will not, cannot help herself —we need judges with the good sense to do it for them. We need to prove to these women – we care- they will be safe if they follow through and these bastards will pay .

Let’s hope this judge sticks to his original common sense and uses the video proof of Ms Giraldo screaming for help while the Senator dragged her resisting body down the steps before he hauled her past 5 local hospitals to one out his district. Let’s hope he takes the word of the attending physicians and officers who recorded her original complaint of attack instead of the word of a woman who clearly has been coerced into changing her story.

Hiram Monserrate’s alleged attack victim, gal pal Karla Giraldo, kisses him at court appearance

By nbode@nydailynews.com
Nicole Bode and Corky Siemaszko

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Friday, March 27th 2009, 1:57 PM

Delmundo/News

Former Queens City Coucilman Hiram Monserrate, who was elected to the State Senate last fall, got a kiss in court Friday from the woman he’s accused of brutally attacking, Karla Giraldo (inset).

While a Queens judge was weighing whether to bar state Sen. Hiram Monserrate from seeing the girlfriend he allegedly attacked, the woman went behind the judge’s back Friday – and planted a kiss on the politician.

In a Queens courtroom, Karla Giraldo smooched the man accused of slashing her face with a broken glass,  while Supreme Court Justice William Erlbaum was in another room.

Erlbaum was watching a video that – according to prosecutors – showed Monserrate yanking a bleeding Giraldo in the stairwell of his building.

Word of the brazen buss stunned Giraldo’s lawyer, who was in the bathroom when it happened.

“Did you kiss him in the courtroom?” attorney Glenn Marshall asked her later.

“It’s been a long time,” Giraldo replied in Spanish.

Marshall shook his head in apparent disbelief as they walked back to their cars.

It was not clear if Erlbaum was aware of the kiss, but when he returned to the courtroom he upheld a full order of protection – and ordered Monserrate to stay away from Giraldo.

“The complaining witness could not give you permission to violate this order,” the judge told Monserrate.

Monserrate pleaded not guilty to three counts of felony assault and three counts of misdemeanor assault at his arraignment – charges that could send the former Democratic City Council member to jail for up to seven years.

Monserrate later told reporters he turned down plea deal that would have meant no jail time because “I am innocent.”

The Queens courtroom was packed with Monserrate supporters, including Sean Bell police shooting survivor Joseph Guzman.

“I got to be there to support the senator,” said Guzman, who was badly wounded in November 2007. “He supported me. He was there every day in the hospital.”

Monserrate is on trial for an attack inside the politician’s Queens apartment on Dec. 19 that left Giraldo with a nasty cut near her left eye that required more than 20 stitches to close.

Prosecutors said the fight began after Monserrate found another man’s business card in Giraldo’s purse.

The petite 29-year-old at first told staffers at Long Island Jewish Medical Center that Monserrate cut her in a fight, prosecutors said.

Later, Giraldo changed her story and told cops and the grand jury it was an accident and that Monserrate tripped while bringing her a glass of water.

Prosecutors said the surveillance video from inside Monserrate’s building showed him yanking Giraldo by the arm as she clutched a stairway banister – and caught her banging on a neighbor’s door and screaming for help.

Monserrate’s lawyer, Irving Seidman, insisted the video “showed absolutely no violence.”

 


Gender Apartheid–Not Our Agenda. Part One

By Phyllis Chesler and Marcia Pappas

The issue of Islamic/Islamist gender apartheid is one of epidemic and global proportions. Although it has reached American shores, the feminist establishment here remains tragically ambivalent about how to deal with forced veiling, arranged marriage, separatism, and honor-related violence, including honor killings. Many feminists fear that, were they to tie the subordination of women to a particular religion or culture, especially to Islam, that they would be perceived as “racists,” or “Islamophobes.” This fear trumps their sincere concern for womens’ rights and womens’ lives.

The issue, quite simply, is whether or not non-Muslim white folks can discuss Muslim-on-Muslim crime or black-on-black crime or whether only people who share the same faith and skin-color are allowed to raise this issue.

The issue is also whether American feminists really support an American foreign policy, which both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have indicated can or should be tied to womens’ rights. Feminists viewed President Bush’s post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as morally outrageous and as far more hurtful to Afghan and Iraqi women than was their pre-existing subjugation. Some feminists believed that women had been better off, at least, in Iraq, before the American invasion. We may disagree with this analysis but, nevertheless, why would American feminists hesitate to condemn crimes against women which are being committed on American soil by immigrants, including Muslims, from Third World countries?

The authors have both been speaking out about honor killings in the West and have both described the recent Buffalo beheading of Aasiya Z. Hassan by her husband as an Islamist-style honor-related killing.

Marcia Pappas, the President of NOW-NYS, has been scolded by national NOW’s President and criticized by a coalition of domestic violence advocates for her views about this.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, the author of thirteen books, including Women and Madness, has been writing about Islamic gender apartheid and its penetration of the West for many years. She, too, has been challenged, even condemned, for her views about honor killings in general and for her views about the shocking case of Aasiya Z. Hassan, in particular.

We decided to join forces and write a short piece. However, we discovered that brevity would not serve our goal. The problem is much bigger than honor-related violence, honor killings, or this one case in Buffalo. Indeed, the issue which we still face in 2009, is one that has plagued American feminist leaders for at least 171 years. The issue is that of racism and sexism and the diabolical way in which racism continues to trump sexism among feminists.

A little history lesson is in order.

For a long time, American women had been outspoken leaders in the fight to abolish slavery. However, between 1838-1840, their efforts were increasingly restricted to that of “silent” partners in Ladies Auxiliaries. In 1840, a World Anti-Slavery convention was held in London. American women, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, both ardent abolitionists, were not allowed to publicly speak out against slavery because they were women. Instead, they were condemned to sit behind a partition and remain silent. Cady Stanton returned home and composed a Declaration of Sentiments, modeled upon the Declaration of Independence. In 1848, three hundred American women and men, including former slave and abolitionist, Frederick Douglas, attended the Seneca Falls Womens’ Rights Convention; about a third voted for the Declaration which resolved that women should have the right to vote, control property, sign legal documents, serve on juries, and enjoy equal access to education and employment. This vote and this Convention began the long, slow march towards American female suffrage. See what former NOW-NYS President, Marilyn Fitterman, had to say about this very subject.

African-American men obtained the vote in 1865. It was fifty years before American women of any race, color, religion, or ethnicity did. These First Wave feminists and suffragists decided to put womens’ rights first. They refused to “sit silently at the back of the (abolitionist) bus,” and were sometimes willing to work with anyone, including those who were opposed to abolition, to further their cause. This meant that some of our suffragist foremothers were routinely called “racists.” They were also mocked as unnatural, selfish, and man-hating women.

On the other hand, those men and women who chose abolition over womens’ rights were rarely ever condemned as sexists, misogynists, or woman-haters.

Fast forward to the American 1960’s when many white women, (Jews, too), joined the bravest African-American men and women in a struggle for civil rights. This was a movement against southern and northern segregation, against Jim Crow and for the integration of public places, including lunch counters, buses, and schools. The African-American right to vote–free of intimidation or violence– was also at issue. Women of many races were also involved in the anti-Vietnam war and in various left-tilted black liberation movements which opposed racism, both here and abroad. But, once again, American women were expected to do the secretarial work, and provide food and sex for the “real” leaders who were always men. In the mid-to late 1960s, one of us left all that, driven out by Marxist, hippie, and black liberationist sexism. Betty Friedan published the Feminine Mystique in 1963 and NOW began organizing in 1966.

Second Wave feminism put women’s’ rights first and for about fifteen years, we achieved tremendous, dazzling progress. However, by the end of the 1970s, with the rise of the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Western academy, the ideas of academics like Edward Said, the author of Orientalism, took precedence over many feminist ideas. Suddenly, in terms of symbols, women were no longer seen as the most “wretched of the earth,” oppressed by both poverty and violence. Now, Arab men of color, Palestinians, Muslims, took stage center as the world’s most noble and oppressed victims.

Caucasian feminists and academics were expected to “atone” for their country’s history of slavery, racism, and imperialism by refusing to analyze or protest the fate of non-white women at the hands of their fathers, brothers, husbands, and leaders. To do so would be “racist.” Only women of color, (or academics who were women of color), could comment on the fates of women of color. Control of this academic “discourse” was viewed as too valuable a resource–one which should not be plundered by those whose ancestors had been racists, crusaders, colonialists, and imperialists.

In the 1970s, feminism had embraced a universalist philosophy which believed in one standard of human rights for all. By the 1980s, feminism began to devolve into a politically correct “culturally relativist” philosophy in which one standard applied to the West and another standard to the formerly colonized Third World. Because Third World countries suffered from many serious problems, they were seen as blameless innocents who did not deserve to be harshly judged.

Meanwhile, just as left-influenced Western, Caucasian feminists began to view themselves as suspect, and their culture as guilty, they simultaneously began to view Third World barbarians of color as misunderstood innocents. Feminists did not defend the values of the West to which most intellectuals, especially dissidents from Third World cultures, aspired. Just as dissidents abroad cited Enlightenment values against the Third World tyrants who impoverished, tortured, and silenced them at home, western academics, including feminists, refused to “judge” such tyrants and insisted on viewing them sympathetically.

When forced to, western feminists usually condemned the United States and Europe for having contributed to the rise of such tyrants. They absolutely could not imagine that Third World barbarism, including corruption, including misogyny, might also be indigenous. Nor could they see that they, too, were collaborating with evil tyrants.

Thus, despite great interest in connecting with western-style feminists in Third World countries, and despite genuine interest in the plight of women around the world, by the end of the 1980s, American feminists, especially if they were Caucasian, were highly reluctant to condemn barbarism against women of color, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims by men of color, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, since such condemnations were, by definition, “racist,” or could potentially be used against men of color by white racists.

In 1848, American suffragists decided to focus on the rights of American women only. That struggle was hard enough; indeed, it is still ongoing. However, Second and Third Wave feminists in the latter part of the twentieth century, began to focus on the rights of women globally. To the detriment of feminist movements everywhere, American feminist activists and academics have now recanted, pulled back, apologized, because they have decided that, once again, racism trumps sexism as a feminist concern.

Just as men and women once stood together as abolitionists, we now call upon men and women of all races and religions, including secularists, to stand with us against the subordination of and violence towards women in the name of religion, beginning with Islam or Islamism.

This is the first of two articles. In our next piece, we will give specific examples of the ways in which mainstream feminists, including NOW, have been sacrificing womens rights in order to be perceived as politically correct in terms of racism.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is a well known author, an Emerita Professor of Psychology, and the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology, and the National Women’s Health Network. She may be reached through her website: http://www.phyllis-chesler.com. Marcia Pappas is a feminist/activist, holds a Bachelor of Science in Cultural Studies, and is currently the President of the National Organization for Women-New York State.

 
NOW NYS: http://www.womenwopinions.com/NOW_new_york_state
Phyllis’ link:  http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/
 

It Can Be Ours!

Join NOW today -by BettyJean Kling

Ladies and Gentleman – please do not forget to join or renew your membership in NOW Today. This is Women’s National History Month- Let’s make some History this year- I have a plan for us. Let us show some solidarity and put our money (NJ charged me $35.00) where our hope might be. We certainly have not had any luck with our so called representative government. A government that is supposed to be of the people for the people and by the people – well quite frankly – how’s that working out for us? This is one option- it might work- it might not – but taking a chance on reforming NOW is one positive step toward change we might believe in – change that we can direct- change that affects us and we can control. Let’s try. The National Organization for Women can and might be an organization of the people for the people and by the people. Some chapters have as few as 4-10 members – some areas no chapters at all. The organization has only one million members right now, imagine an influx of millions? It can be ours!

Last night I had the opportunity to read The original mission statement of the National Organization for Women. (Adopted at the organizing conference in Washington, D. C., October 29, 1966), no- we did not come as far as we had hoped – and we have a long way to go – but thanks to NOW – we have come far! It is up to us to take it the rest of the way. Isn’t it really our own fault if it went its own way– if we left it in the hands of others? Let’s stop blaming it on others and let’s take the reins and the control and see what we can do with it before we cast that stone!

Read the original- the bones are there – it can be ours!

    NOW Statement of Purpose

 The original mission statement of the National Organization for Women. (Adopted at the organizing conference in Washington, D. C., October 29, 1966))

We, men and women, who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.

NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.

We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to breakthrough the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society. Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.

Today’s technology has reduced most of the productive chores which women once performed in the home and in mass-production industries based upon routine unskilled labor. This same technology has virtually eliminated the quality of muscular strength as a criterion for filling most jobs, while intensifying American industry’s need for creative intelligence. In view of this new industrial revolution created by automation in the mid-twentieth century, women can and must participate in old and new fields of society in full equality – or become permanent outsiders.

Despite all the talk about the status of American women in recent years, the actual position of women in the United States has declined, and is declining, to an alarming degree throughout the 1950’sand ’60s. Although 46.4% of all American women between the ages of 18 and 65 now work outside the home, the overwhelming majority-75%-are in routine clerical, sales, or factory jobs, or they are household workers, cleaning women, hospital attendants. About two-thirds of Negro women workers are in the lowest paid service occupations .Working women are becoming increasing-not less-concentrated on the bottom of the job ladder. As a consequence full-time women workers today earn on the average only 60% of what men earn, and that wage gap has been increasing over the past twenty-five years in every major industry group. In 1964, of all women with a yearly income, 89% earned under $5,000 a year; half of all full-time year round women workers earned less than $3,690; only 1.4% of full- time year round women workers had an annual income of $10,000or more.

Further, with higher education increasingly essential in today’s society, too few women are entering and finishing college or going on to graduate or professional school. Today, women earn only one in three of the B.A.’s and M.A.’s granted, and one in ten of the Ph.D.’s.

In all the professions considered of importance to society, and in the executive ranks of industry and government, women are losing ground. Where they are present it is only a token handful. Women comprise less than 1% of federal judges; less than 4% of all lawyers;7% of doctors. Yet women represent 51% of the U.S. population. And, increasingly men are replacing women in the top positions in secondary and elementary schools, in social work, and in libraries-once thought to be women’s fields.

Official pronouncements of the advance in the status of women hide not only the reality of this dangerous decline, but the fact that nothing is being done to stop it. The excellent reports of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women and of the State Commissions have not been fully implemented. Such Commission shave power only to advise. They have no power to enforce their recommendations; nor have they the freedom to organize American women and men to press for action on them. The reports of these commissions have, however created a basis upon which it is now possible to build.

Discrimination in employment on the basis of sex is now prohibited by federal law, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.But although nearly one-third of the cases brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the first year dealt with sex discrimination and the proportion is increasing dramatically, the Commission has not made clear its intention to enforce the law with the same seriousness on behalf of women as of other victims of discrimination. Many of these cases were Negro women, who are the victims of the double discrimination of race and sex. Until now, too few women’s organizations and official spokesmen have been willing to speak out against these dangers facing women. Too many women have been restrained by the fear of being called “feminist.”

There is no civil rights movement to speak for women, as there has been for Negroes and other victims of discrimination. The National Organization for Women must therefore begin to speak.

WE BELIEVE that the power of American law, and the protection guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution to the civil rights of all individuals, must be effectively applied and enforced to isolate and remove patterns of sex discrimination, to ensure equality of opportunity in employment and education, and equality of civil and political rights and responsibilities on behalf of women, as well as for Negroes and other deprived groups.

We realize that women’s problems are linked to many broader questions of social justice; their solution will require concerted action by many groups. Therefore, convinced that human rights for All are indivisible, we expect to give active support to the common cause of equal rights for all those who suffer discrimination and deprivation, and we call upon other organizations committed to such goals to support our efforts toward equality for women.

WE DO NOT ACCEPT the token appointment of a few women to high-level positions in government and industry as a substitute for a serious continuing effort to recruit and advance women according to their individual abilities. To this end, we urge American government and industry to mobilize the same resources of ingenuity and command with which they have solved problems of far greater difficulty than those now impeding the progress of women.

WE BELIEVE that this nation has a capacity at least as great as other nations, to innovate new social institutions which will enable women to enjoy true equality of opportunity and responsibility in society, without conflict with their responsibilities as mothers and homemakers. In such innovations, America does not lead the Western world, but lags by decades behind many European countries. We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other. We question the present expectation that all normal women will retire from job or profession for 10 or 15 years, to devote their full time to raising children, only to reenter the job market at relatively minor level. This in itself, is a deterrent to the aspirations of women, to their acceptance into management or professional training courses, and to the very possibility of equality of opportunity or real choice, for all but a few women. Above all, we reject the assumption that these problems are the unique responsibility of each individual woman, rather than a basic social dilemma which society must solve. True equality of opportunity and freedom of choice for women requires such practical, and possible innovations as a nationwide network of child-care centers which will make it unnecessary for women to retire completely from society until their children are grown, and national programs to provide retraining for women who have chosen to care for their own children full-time.

WE BELIEVE that it is as essential for every girl to be educated to her full potential of human ability as it is for every boy-with the knowledge that such education is the key to effective participation in today’s economy and that, for a girl as for boy, education can only be serious where there is expectation that it be used in society. We believe that American educators are capable of devising means of imparting such expectations to girl students. Moreover, we consider the decline in the proportion of women receiving higher and professional education to be evidence of discrimination. This discrimination may take the form of quotas against the admission of women to colleges, and professional schools; lack of encouragement by parents, counselors and educators; denial of loans or fellowships; or the traditional or arbitrary procedures in graduate and professional training geared in terms of men, which inadvertently discriminate against women. We believe that the same serious attention must be given to high school dropouts who are girls as to boys.

WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility-hers to dominate-his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands different concept of marriage an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of “half-equality” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.

WE BELIEVE that women must now exercise their political rights and responsibility as American citizens. They must refuse to be segregated on the basis of sex into separate-and-not-equal ladies auxiliaries in the political parties, and they must demand representation according to their numbers in the regularly constituted part committees-at local, state, and national levels-and in the informal power structure, participating fully in the selection of candidates and political decision-making, and running for office themselves.

IN THE INTERESTS OF THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF WOMEN,
we will protest, and endeavor to change, the false image of women now prevalent in the mass media, and in the texts, ceremonies, laws, and practices of our major social institutions. Such images perpetuate contempt for women by society and by women for themselves. We are similarly opposed to all policies and practices-in church, state, college, factory, or office-which, in the guise of protectiveness, not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.

NOW WILL HOLD ITSELF INDEPENDENT OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY
in order to mobilize the political power of all women and men intent on our goals. We will strive to ensure that no party, candidate, president, senator, governor, congressman, or any public official who betrays or ignores the principle of full equality between the sexes is elected or appointed to office. If it is necessary to mobilize the votes of men and women who believe in our cause, in order to win for women the final right to be fully free and equal human beings, we so commit ourselves.

WE BELIEVE THAT
women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity-not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes-but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.