Network of enlightened Women
blog.enlightenedwomen.org
Network of enlightened Women

Virginity Sold at a Price

In some unsettling news, a college student in New Zealand auctioned off her virginity to pay for tuition. All real love, all real romance, all meaningful commitment dies when virginity becomes characterized as a commodity. There is much at stake for all of us when a girl sells her virginity online to a stranger. We are pressed to ask:  What is virginity? Who gets to define it? Why is it important?  

Feminists must not be the ones to define virginity because they misapprehend womanhood entirely. The definition must be placed beyond their manipulation. Virginity is becoming a commodity because feminism has divorced women from their roles as wives and mothers. Girls have been taught to place a low premium on virginity because they have been deceived into placing a low premium on marriage. Virginity is becoming a commodity because feminists underestimate men. There are men who will offer women something far more respectful and permanent than $31,900 for loving them enough to wait.  In a culture where the thought of two people waiting until marriage to consummate their love is ridiculed and deemed nearly impossible, there is no room for error in how we value virginity.   

It falls upon conservatives to define virginity, truly and completely. Virginity is about so much more than simply not having sex. It's about saving certain areas of one's personality and life to share with only one other person.  It involves personal development and nonsexual preparation.  It gives us a sense of what is sacred and what is possible. It is the beginning of a history of intimacy. Virginity finds its highest expression not when we keep it, but when give it to the man we love and to whom we are committed. Virginity speaks to the first and last of our lives. Those who dare to put a price on virginity do not even begin to see how much it is really worth.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Which Super Bowl Commercial was Your Fav?

While I appreciated the men taking back their masculinity during the Super Bowl, I have to say my favorite commercial was from Google.  After all the hype over the Tim Tebow ad, I found that Google did an excellent job of not only marketing its search engine, but also communicating important messages about making decisions, relationships, and family values. 

In case you missed it...





My favorite part is when he changes his search from "Long distance relationship" to "Finding jobs in Paris, France."

Which Super Bowl commercial was your favorite?

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

The college gender gap and dating

It’s Friday night, my girlfriends and I get together at Hume Hall, swap clothes, do each other’s makeup and put band aids on our ankles to protect against blisters. Then we “go out.” We meet another set of girlfriends on University Street and make “home base” a corner booth at our favorite spot—for Gator Girls c/o 2009 it was ":08" on Thursdays. But what is to come of all the makeup, glam and pre-gaming? One boy will wander over to our booth and talk to ALL 8 of us. Sound familiar? Insert your dorm, your bar and your favorite style and you have a Friday night for most women who went to college sometime over the last 5 years. But alas, someone other than us girls is beginning to catch on.

The NY Times headlined the article; “The New Math on Campus” connecting the dots between the male/female ratio in college classes and how the ratio is affecting the dating pool.

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, with a student body that is nearly 60 percent female, is just one of many large universities that at times feel eerily like women’s colleges.

Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at UNC-Chapel Hill, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”

 According to a recent report by the American Council on Education, women have represented about 57 percent of enrollment in colleges since 2000. Some schools recognize the gender inequality in the classroom and have created quasi “affirmative action for boys” programs. Yet, leading feminists organizations see this as female discrimination and in December, "the United States Commission on Civil Rights moved to subpoena admissions data from 19 public and private colleges to look at whether they were discriminating against qualified female applicants," according to the NYT.

This aside, what can be said of the social ramifications of such an inverted ratio?

“A lot of guys know that they can go out and put minimal effort into their appearance and not treat girls to drinks or flatter them, and girls will still flirt with them,” Felicite Fallon, a senior at Florida State University said, which is 56 percent female.

Girls are often pressured to go “outside their comfort zone” just to ensure that the boy at the bar will call back the next morning. Women are pining for attention from men on “men’s terms” and forgetting their own values. The result: women are waking up alone with the memory of a casual hook-up from the night before.

 

So while women appear the “victors” in academia, we are losing out on stable, committed relationships. Researchers may not fully know the effects of this new form of college hook-ups for years, but I do hope this article sheds light on an issue that so many of us can speak to personally. 

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

What is a "real man"?

Last night, millions tuned into watch Super Bowl XLIV.  Folks crowded around televisions with the intention not only to watch a good shootout between the Colts and the Saints but also to view the much-anticipated super bowl ads.  With the hype of the Tebow pro-family commercial, there was much anticipation what the ad schedule would hold.  And there were quite a few worthy of analysis.

I found the "Dove Real Man" ad to be an interesting commentary on societal expectations of men and women.  We've all seen the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty that shows women for who they are—not as barbie doll figures, but curvier and more natural-looking women.  Last night, Dove unveiled a similar campaign targeted at men.  It seems that men, like women, are sick of the constant advertising that portrays men as perfectly handsome and impressively successful, according to one source.  In order to advertise its line of skin care products for men, Dove has launched a new campaign encouraging men to be comfortable in their own skin and in who they are.  Take a look at the full ad in case you missed it: 


Wow, so much to say about this.  What does this ad say about real men?  How does the ad compare societal perceptions of men and what men really want?  I found it interesting that the ad showed a "real man's" life as one where he grows up, plays sports, gets married, has kids, brings home the bacon, and serves as the "protector" of the family.  The ad very much supported traditional roles for men in society.  Do you think the ad served more as a reminder to men that they should aspire for the same things their fathers did?  Is this a response to the way our society treats men today?

One British writer from The Independent seems optimistic about what the ad could do for men in America:

"Unilever’s ad could be the start of something, the start of a more interesting and engaging way of telling men that they don’t have to be 16 and desperate for sex, or a buffed model or a sporting titan to want to smell better than a stale samosa. They can just be themselves. That’s OK. 100 million Americans might just be starting to agree."

Let's hope this is the case.  Maybe this is the wake-up call we all need to remember that it's okay just to be who we are.  What do you think?

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Manhood: Valued at the Superbowl but Ignored in Academia?

The Superbowl gave America a hearty dose of masculinity last night. The commercials even sent messages about what it means to be a man. Doveshowed us the progression from boyhood to manhood. Dockers told men to wear thepants. The Dodge Charger is the man’s car of choice even when he has to sacrifice his manliness in other areas in order to make his significant other happy.

 

As funny or even sarcastic as the commercials were, it gave insight into manhood in the US. It’s too bad that football games are one of the few places that masculinity is valued. Some feminists condemn masculinity as a repressive social construct or the dangerous motivator behind the infamous patriarchy that is blamed for the ills of the world. Even our TV shows cast men in a negative light as the clueless dad or the bumbling boyfriend without any heroic qualities. Universities have entire women’s studies departments, but sometimes fail to offer even one class on authentic manhood.

 

There is at least one college class out there available to men at Monterey Peninsula College. However, it is not accepted as transfer credit at other institutions because it lacks diversity. This sounds like a course that is a minority to me. Check out the article from The National Association for Scholars.

 

“When Aaron Graham, an English major, transferred to the University of Wyoming this year, he requested to transfer credit from the ‘Literature By and About Men’ course at Monterey Peninsula College to fulfill the English department requirement. A few days later he received the petition back. The faculty committee representative, Leslie Rush, denied the request.  In the space given for her to provide a reason, she wrote simply, ‘List II courses should be on literature by and about women, not men.’”


I think many women would agree that they don't desire feminized sons, husbands or fathers. So why is there a lack of study on honorable manhood in academia? 

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

The Million-Dollar Misunderstanding

We have heard for years about the income gap between high school and college graduates and naturally, we have come to believe that it pays to get a college education.  In fact, a 2002 Census Bureau report states the difference between the earnings of an average high school and college grad, multiplied by 40 years results in a difference of $780,000.  This figure has been repeated by The College Board and no doubt countless colleges and universities making their case to perspective students.  The report is even titled, "The Big Payoff" so obviously there is something to be said for a college education.  Right?

Well, maybe not so much.  (Don't tell your parents.)

This news is uncovered in 
The Wall Street Journal.  According to Mark Schneider, a vice president of the American Institutes for Research, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, the gap may not be as big as we thought.

"Dr. Schneider estimated the actual lifetime-earnings advantage for college graduates is a mere $279,893 in a report he wrote last year."

This new figure calls into question the validity of the original claim.  If the gap is really no where close to $800,000 or 1 Million dollars, as some other reports claim, then the folks at the Census Bureau have a lot of explaining to do.  Schneider notes several flaws in the calculations from the report, namely:

"[T]he income data used for the Census estimates is from 1999, when total expenses for tuition and fees at the average four-year private college were $15,518 per year. For the 2009-10 school year, that number has risen to $26,273, and it continues to increase at a rate higher than inflation."

If the cost of a college education is increasing faster than inflation, what additional expenses are we paying for?  And more importantly, are these expenses providing any more value to the students?  Unfortunately, the article does not discuss this point but you can be the judge for your own educational experience. 

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Happy Birthday to the president who made Americans believe themselves again!

On February 6, 1911, Nelle Reagan gave birth to her son, Ronald Wilson Reagan. At the time, she probably could not image the impact that her son would make upon the world, for so many of us, it is impossible to forget. Ronald Reagan grew up to be the most influential conservative leader in our nation, and arguably the greatest president America has ever known. His Reagan Revolution returned liberty to the American people and promoted liberty throughout the world. For the first time under his leadership, entrepreneurship was highly valued and innovation and creativity were unleashed, revealing America's potential. 
 
                   
                   http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan

Tomorrow will mark Ronald Reagan's 99th birthday. I hope we will all take a moment to remember history's great liberator, and the man who restored the spirit and hope of the American people. Below is an excerpt from his final speech and I think it perfectly sums up his legacy:

"And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you — and especially for young people — is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here. May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill."

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Too young to be a mom?

An 11-year-old girl in the Northeast recently gave birth to a healthy baby boy according to a report by Fox News. 11. That is correct. While she is not the youngest girl to give birth (that honor goes out to a 6-year-old in Peru in the early 20th Century), her story raises legitimate concerns about child and teen pregnancy rates that continue to be on the rise.

Dr. Abdulla Al-Khan, a leading high-risk obstetrician went on record with Fox News:  

"Her body is clearly not defined for pregnancy with its short stature," Al-Khan said. "Her chest is not extensively developed for breast tissue, her bones aren’t quite fused, and once you expose a child this young to high amounts of progesterone and especially estrogen, there is controversy that it could halt her growth."

Al-Khan continued to list a series of risks associated with girls giving birth so young. This list included the intense mental and emotional turmoil that undoubtedly comes along with the high dose of pregnancy hormones.

Despite the obvious question this story brings to mind—ie: who is the father?—I am saddened for this young girl. Any chance at a normal childhood is completely erased as she now has a baby to care for. It seems with each generation children are losing out more and more. Once innocent days of swinging at neighborhood parks disappears with real-life, adult pressures creeping into teenage years and for this girl, pre-teens.

What is the role of community in all this? Where is the support for children to just be children?

What do you think? How would you react if this story was the story of your younger sister?

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

A memoir by the woman who walked away

South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford releases her new book today. “Staying True” is the story of Sanford’s marriage to Gov. Mark Sanford and the difficult events of the past year, according to SC’s Sun News.

After the publically tearful recount of Gov. Sanford’s affair, Jenny Sanford is the one woman, in the series of public affairs in 2009, who chose not to stand by her husband. Sanford’s divorce will be finalized this month after she filed on the grounds of adultery last December.

So why does Sanford retell the story of their courtship (if you can even call it that), his draining campaigns, the birth of their four children and his late nights in Washington DC? She doesn’t need the money, most likely doesn’t want more publicity and isn’t planning on running for office herself. So why the memoir?

According to a Time Magazine review, Sanford’s book is not revenge, it is not the story of a scorned wife out to destroy her distraught ex-husband and it is not a tell-all with a media blitz in mind. No, Sanford’s story puts each unflattering revelation of the cheating, relentless and preoccupied Gov. in context.

Why exactly?

Maybe even though she ended her marriage she can’t walk away from defending her home and a public explanation is the best fix? Or maybe, it is just the best type of revenge- cool, calm and collected.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Providing for the Common Defense

As I blogged about earlier in the week, the University of Kentucky hosted a 33 Minutes Screening here in Lexington on Thursday. Dr. James Jay Carafano was able to join us from The Heritage Foundation to provide commentary and answer questions. We had a great turn out- it was the first time I have seen College Republicans, The Federalist Society, NeW, and Kentucky GOP members together all in the same room. What a great networking and learning experience!

While I have seen 33 Minutes in the past, I am amazed every single time I watch the documentary. Amazed at how little the United States actually spends on missile defense (4% of our GDP), how little Americans know about missile defense (didn't we take care of this a long time ago?), and how important it is for Americans to become more informed about the reality of our lackluster capabilities for defending ourselves from a ballistic missile.

As a mass communication instructor, I have the privilege of teaching my communication 249 class about several of the most prominent mass communication theories. McCombs and Shaw (1972) discuss the ability of the media to set our agenda so to speak with their "agenda-setting theory." In many ways the media doesn't necessarily tell us what to think, but what to think about. I think this theory is still relevant, and now that I have drawn your attention to this idea I bet you will take notice of it when you turn on the news at some point today. The media is discussing health care, Scott Brown, the economy, maybe what President Obama is doing this weekend. I assure you, however, most local and national news will not be discussing the problems associated with our national security. 

It's up to you to seek out and utilize information about our missile defense systems. Whether you think it's irrelevant in current times, thought we already had the means to accomplish ballistic missile defense, or have no idea what I am talking about I strongly encourage you to become more informed on the issue. Visit The Heritage Foundation's website, or even start searching online news for current events concerning missile defense systems. Even the Obama administration isn't denying they may be useful in the future, especially as President Obama's attempts of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach to Iran continue to pile up. 

I think the United States should prepare itself for any number of possible threats. As someone who grew up in the beltway when 9/11, anthrax, and the beltway sniper happened, I think I have come to expect the unexpected.  We may have a completely different crisis to deal with in the next to 5 to 10 years, but I don't think that justifies abandoning and under funding missile defense. What do you know about missile defense, and where do you stand? 

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Saving the Gentlemen and Making the Headlines

The NeW women at Arizona State University are on a quest.  A quest to reignite chivalry and find the gentlemen on their campus.  Last year, NeW at ASU hosted its 1st Annual Gentlemen's Showcase, and this year they are at it again.  The women have launched the 2nd Annual Gentlemen's Showcase Video and are preparing for a bigger and better event on March 2nd.  Today, NeW at ASU's efforts were highlighted in the ASU paper, State Press, in an article titled, "Gentlemen, start our engines."

The article begins by describing the motivation behind the Showcase.  And it dates back a few decades.  Author Catherine Smith writes, 

"Sadly, over the past 40 years, there has been an increasing shortage of gentlemen. Starting with the bra burners of the ’60s and progressing to 'The Vagina Monologues’ debut in 1998, women, not an evil foe, have waged a war against men. The message perpetuated by plays like 'The Vagina Monologues' does nothing more than villianize men, objectify women and destroy mutual respect between the sexes."

So how do you fix this "mutual disrespect?"  By stopping the assault on women and men that modern feminism has encouraged.  And perhaps, by taking a look away from yourself and looking at the needs of others:

"To help mend this brokenness, the ASU chapter of the Network of Enlightened Women, a conservative women’s club, has instituted The Annual ASU Gentlemen’s Showcase. NeW President Blayne Bennett, said the idea behind the Showcase is 'to encourage students to reclaim dignity and respect between the sexes.' "

Kudos to NeW women at ASU for looking beyond themselves and taking personal responsibility to make a difference.  They see that as women if we want to bring back respect and encourage chivalry, we need to make our voices heard.  Modern feminism has sought to destroy the differences between the sexes and in fact, discourages men from being gentlemen.  Instead of promoting a victimhood mentality and blaming men for the ills of the world, the NeW women are doing something positive for both sexes.  And they are making a difference.  Stay tuned for more on this exciting NeW event!

If you haven't yet seen the video, you can watch it below.  


NEW Gentlemen's Showcase from Sam Pagel on Vimeo.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Tax Man Wants You to Choose Between Marriage and Career - Part 1

I came across a study done by Edward J. McCaffery for the National Center for Policy Analysis analyzing "Women and Taxes". McCaffery assesses the current cultural climate and concludes that some tax policies affecting women are out-of-date and are having particularly negative affects.

How has the way women participate in the economy changed?  McCaffery explains,

"Today 70 percent of all married women work for wages ... yet the tax laws are biased toward single-earner households in which only one spouse works and is biased against two-earner households."

The code is set up so that when a woman enters the labor market, her earnings are automatically taxed according to her husband's current tax bracket, rather than beginning at the lowest bracket. The report continues,

"Moreover, even if her husband has paid the maximum Social Security tax, the wife who works must begin paying from the first dollar she earns."

This phenomenon has been dubbed the "marriage penalty" and affects the top and bottom levels of income.  What are these affects?

"If you are middle- to upper-income and married, the incentive is to not work. If you are low-income and working, the incentive is to not marry."

Keep an eye out for Part 2, dealing with Social Security!

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Mr. Right Now

Fifteen minutes left to throw me together
For Mr. Right Now, not Mr. Forever
Don't know why I even try when I know how it ends
Lookin' like another, "Maybe we can be friends."
I've been leaving it up to fate
It's my life so it's mine to make

Chorus:
I ain't settlin'
For just getting by
I've had enough so-so
For the rest of my life
Tired of shooting too low
So raise the bar high
"Just enough," ain't enough this time
I ain't settlin' for anything less than everything

Country music’s favorite new child, Sugarland sings “Ain’t Settlin” with the most annoying twang. Which is why when I read Liesl Schillinger’s review of Lori Gottlieb’s new book, Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, Sugarland’s lyrics kept ringing in my ears.

Schillinger takes issue with the book questioning whether women in their 40s actually find happiness by marrying a man who is just “good enough”. To quote When Harry Met Sally, “at least you could say you were married.” 

Gottlieb’s book is loosely based on her 2008 essay in which she writes about the many challenges she has faced in raising a child without a mate. She laments her 20s as a time when she should have jumped on Mr. Right Now, even if he was not Brad Pitt. Or as Schillinger’s tough review recounts,

“But half a decade later, furnished with a toddler (via donor sperm) and a U-Haul of regret, she wishes she and others like her had taken her pragmatic friend’s advice and made finding a 'solid, like-minded teammate in life' job-one from the outset. She writes, 'I wish I’d entertained the possibility when the possibility still existed.' ”

With more and more women turning up in their 40s regretting their “wild single lady” decisions of their 20s and 30s, I am constantly wondering who is to blame? Gottlieb questions the women’s movement who seemed to trick 20-somethings into skipping the romance in favor of ego, career, and bikinis. Having not read Gottlieb’s book (although I loved her essay) I am slow to completely take her side but I can’t agree with Schillinger’s review either. She writes,

That’s right girls: If you’re unwillingly unwed, blame it on mom and Title IX for duping you into educating, respecting and supporting yourselves. She intends this book, she writes, as a blood-chilling cautionary tale, 

“like those graphic anti-drunk driving public service announcements that show people crashing into poles and getting killed.”

There is a lot of truth behind modern feminism’s singular focus to push women into careers and not encourage motherhood or marriage. Feminism exclaims “choice” but choice to the BLANKS of the world means “girl cell” or “super girl cell”. For women like Schillinger, who make it to their 40s with children and without mates, it is no surprise that she wants to warn me that there is more to the picture than ego and career. 

Yes, women should be educated, respected, independent and able to support ourselves; but we should also know that there are many ways to do that. I can be every single one of those things and be married. What it comes back to is who I settled down with: Mr. Right Now and Mr. Forever. 

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

When In Rome: What's the Risk?

I went with my dad, again, on opening night to see yet another chick-flick.  This time I convinced him to see When In Rome staring Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel.  A workaholic, Beth, (Bell) goes to Rome for her impulsive sister’s wedding and meets the best man, Nick (Duhamel), but by the end of the evening, she is taking 5 coins out of the Trevi Fountain in an attempt to save these 5 people from heartache.  However, things do not go as planned.  When Beth took the coins from the Trevi Fountain, the owners of the coins fell in love with her.  They even followed her back to New York in an effort to win her love.  By the end of the movie, Beth realizes that the only person that she really loves is Nick.  

My dad thought When In Rome was an extremely girly movie, but I think that this movie, more than any other movie I have written about, has some truth to it.  At the end of the movie, in Beth’s epiphany, she finally admits to herself that she loves Nick more than she loves her job.  Beth has a really great job—she is a young, successful museum curator.  She is a woman; she is not too focused on her job that she is constantly trying to prove herself to her male coworkers.  She is guarded and afraid of getting hurt.  For years, she has put her job before the men in her life.  She was skeptical of the reality of love.  Nick changed things.  She became vulnerable and empowered the moment that she realized she loved Nick.  When walking with her dad trying to think through her relationship with Nick, he tells her “the passion is in the risk.”  

Do you think that the passion is in the risk?  Honestly, I am not even sure what that means.  Is her father only implying that the passion only exists when you are falling in love?  NeW Blog Readers, I want your input.  Do you think that Beth’s Dad is right?

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

A NeW Blue at UK

If you are a college basketball fan, or  even just read sports headlines, then you've heard about the resurgence of the University of Kentucky basketball team this year.  The city of Lexington is all blue this winter.  However, the ball team isn't the only one in town turning heads.  There's also something NeW stirring up the campus.

Today, the NeW chapter at the University of Kentucky was featured in the campus paper, the Kentucky Kernel (yes, Kentuckians are still proud to be the home of fried chicken).  Since its formation this fall, NeW at UK has not wasted any time spreading their message on campus.  They've provided a new outlet for culturally conservative women and are talking about the issues not being addressed on campus.  UK NeW President Rachel expressed her vision for NeW on campus in the article:

“I believe that it is important to educate women about conservatism.  When I say conservatism, I am speaking more about being culturally conservative, as in respecting yourself, making responsible decisions and not only representing yourself well, but representing women well as a whole.  NeW is also a wonderful place to talk about issues that are going on around campus, such as the hook-up culture, peer pressure, etc.  Also, I really want to spread the new wave of feminism, which I strongly believe in … We believe that being a feminist does not exclude getting married or having children, and overall, we encourage expressing our femininity.”

Well-said Rachel!  I have enjoyed getting to know the leaders of NeW at UK and am excited to watch their continued growth.  Congrats to the entire NeW chapter at UK for being featured and providing a powerful voice for culturally conservative women on campus.  So the next time you turn on ESPN and see the UK basketball team dominating the court, remember, NeW women are also making waves on campus.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

What's going on NOW?


The National Organization of Women (NOW) was established in 1966 at The Third National Conference of Commissions on the Status of Women. At the start of our country, women didn’t have much say in the home and definitely no power in public. As the country began to grow and wars began to interrupt our daily lives, women had to take on a stronger role at home while their husbands went off and fought. During the struggles for abolition of slavery, women were able to enter the public sphere. During this time, many realized that as they were fighting for the rights of African Americans, they should also be fighting for the rights of their own gender.

NOW was established to give women a voice and recognized their aptitude to participate. Check out an excerpt from their Statement of Purpose:

“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.”

They also claimed that their organization was vital to the success of America and the survival of what a woman should be:

"By the post-World War II era, such strong feminist voices were dwindling in number and volume; the momentum of the feminist movement that won suffrage and expanded women's rights in the early 20th century had waned. A negative media blitz proclaimed the death of feminism and celebrated the happy, suburban housewife.”

After their first conference in 1966, they spanned to 300 members (male and female). Then, they started gaining steam. In 1967, they adopted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), passed the repeal of abortion laws, and supported publicly funded child care. They created “Bill of Rights for Women” and was the first organization to promote the legislation of abortion. In 1970, NOW organized the “Women’s Strike for Equality” and helped pass the ERA in the house. In 1977, a Political Action Committee is formed to get feminists elected into office. In 1980, they denounce the use of a draft, but say that if there is a draft, women should be included. In 1983, they were the lead organizer for the Martin Luther King Jr. march and added equality to the previous theme of peace and justice. In 1984, NOW held the first Lesbian Right’s Conference. In 1987, they initiated The Great American Mother's Day Write-In to counter the right-wing assault to stop the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act. In 2001, NOW spoke out against President Bush saying that he had an anti-woman agenda.

NOW has a long history of standing up for feminist ideals which they claim represent most women's wishes. Currently, on their home page, the top issues concerning them today are Abortion Rights and Reproductive Issues, Economic Justice, Ending Sex Discrimination, Lesbian Rights, Promoting Diversity and Ending Racism, and Stopping Violence Against Women.

As members and supporters of NeW, where do we stand? And, what was wrong with being a suburban housewife? What are our most important issues and how can we use mainstream media, like NOW did, to get women to stand behind us and support us? As NeW women, we have a bright future ahead ourselves…...how exciting!

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

One of NOW's Many Contradictions - Baby Clothing

Many of us are familiar with NOW – The National Organization for Women. By the name, one would expect it to welcome a diverse group of women, but we all know differently. The organization has ostracized conservative women who choose to live their lives a certain way (because they want to) and has evolved into a strictly liberal organization with a liberal agenda.

I thought it might be interesting to browse through the NOW store online today, and while I was doing so, I came across quite a few interesting and frustrating items.

The first is this shirt:

                                 

The title is called “March for Women's Lives / Keep Abortion Legal t-shirt.” Doesn’t that title sound familiar? The name is a bit too close to the March for Life – a conservative march for unborn/aborted children’s lives. There is no way the title is merely a fluke. Knowing NOW’s agenda, the title is intentional; however, they fail to realize that “marching for women’s lives” makes them appear selfish and ignorant of the sanctity of life—which I believe they are. Their lack of concern for innocent life became even more clear when I did some research on this so-called "March for Women's Lives." It was a march in 2004 opposing the recent passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.

If NOW supports Partial-Birth Abortions (a method of abortion where the child's head is taken out of the mother in order to kill him or her) then when do they begin to value life? From what it sounds like, they do not value anyone's life but their own. The title of their t-shirt, their march, and their agenda illustrates this.
 
After seeing the loads of abortion bumper stickers, shirts, pins, and totes, I was even more shocked to find baby clothing. How can an organization sell clothing for babies when they do not even hold the lives of infants to a high standard? It’s clearly contradictory, incongruous, and it demonstrates the closed-mindedness of the organization NOW.

Next week, I’m going to discuss a clash between a t-shirt that promotes peace and another t-shirt that blatantly says, “Doing my best to piss off the radical right.” These are both found on the NOW website.

Stay tuned. In the meantime, comments are welcome and check out their website: NOW.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Stage 2 of the Tebow Drama: Women's group speaks out against a woman's choice

“Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time” states Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice woman, of The Washington Post. In the face of resourceful feminists who spent the last two weeks declaring the exact opposite, Jenkins' article, “Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are,” does the unthinkable: defend Pam Tebow’s right to chose and Timmy’s right to publicly share his mother’s choice.

By now we are all familiar with the details of the “Tebow- CBS- Modern Feminists Are Crazy” debate which captured our attention last week when NOW and the Women’s Media Center mounted a full frontal attack against the yet-to-be-viewed 30-second Super Bowl ad. But as Jenkins points out,

" 'The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us' has revealed something important about themselves: They aren't actually 'pro-choice' so much as they are pro-abortion."

NOW is not only wrong to attack Tebow’s ad but their actions are also offensive. How has NOW become the de-facto voice of women? NOW is supposed to speak for all women, but it is completely out of touch with what women actually want. Women want freedom to express their life choices. Pam Tebow fully exercised her choice, and we should celebrate her story. America is thrilled with the birth of her record-breaking, scripture wearing, gator chompin son and so should groups who allegedly "speak for women".

NOW should take a cue from the public support for Tebow: other issues warrant more controversy than a 30-second ad celebrating family. Last I checked, women are still starving, female entrepreneurs are being shut down by their nanny-states and barely there bikinis walk around advertising the latest brew. Where were NOW’s resources on these issues this past week?

Jenkins correctly asserts that the Super Bowl is not a reality-free escape zone that is untouchable by advocacy ads. Instead, the Super Bowl celebrates the game of football, and what comes along with football? Players. Athletes who were born from mothers who wrestled with pregnancy, disease and an extra 30 pounds to give birth to the next generation’s role models. Since NOW wants to take issue with the best role model our kids have today, I would like to see who they recommend. On second thought, no thank you.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Could Abstinence Education Actually Work?

I nearly fell out of the car this morning when I heard Bill Bennett declare that The Washington Post was reporting that abstinence-only education might not be as detrimental as many have recently claimed, and in fact, it might actually work.  I had to see for myself.

Sure enough The Post is reporting that a "landmark study" at the University of Pennsylvania found that abstinence-only education actually has achieved its intended results.  Here's what they found:

"Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active."

This study could have serious implications for the future of abstinence education and funding for the programs.  This comes at a time when abstinence education has been criticized relentlessly by many, and as federal funding for these programs has been cut dramatically ($170 million in fact).  But the results from the study may change things:

" 'No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention,' said Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services."

Opponents of abstinence-only education are still reluctant to get behind these programs; however, for many supporters, this study is the ammunition they need to continue campaigning for abstinence-only programs.  

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

The Goodnight Kiss.

A friend recently sent me this horrifying video of a Good Morning America segment called What You Don't Know About Teen Sex. This segment was based on a documentary called Oral Sex is the New Goodnight Kiss by Sharlene Azam. Ms. Azam exposes the new trends in teen dating and sex practices. She spoke of girls as young as ten engaging in prostitution and shared that girls are so far beyond an innocent goodnight kiss that oral sex is becoming the standard.

"If you talk to teens, they'll tell you 'It's no big deal'. In fact, they don't even consider it sex. They don't consider a lot of things sex, which is how much has changed in just, you know, a generation. Where something as intimate as oral sex can be.... nothing."

We must encourage girls to value themselves and protect their hearts and bodies from the negative repercussions of the casual hook-up culture. It is terrifying and heartbreaking that young girls value their virtue so little. Sexual activities like oral sex and prostitution are considered "no big deal" and girls are even proud to engage in these activities. These pre-teens exchange everything from homework to clothes for their sexual performances. It seems that this is precisely where the sexual revolution has led women astray by making them believe that sex is "no big deal" and that there is nothing wrong with experimenting and liberating oneself by means of sex.

How can we fix this trend to save a generation of disillusioned young women?

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg