NOW Defends Palin for Being Called a 'Dumb [Vagina]' Without Mentioning Maher, Then Attacks Conservatives
The National Organization for Women on Tuesday finally responded to Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a highly derogatory term for a woman's vagina, but did so without mentioning Maher's name, the program he said it on, or the television network he represents.
NOW Communications Director Lisa Bennett also took the opportunity to bash conservatives (photo courtesy Reuters):
1. Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don't like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs. OK? Can you do that, please? If you think someone's an idiot or a danger to the country, feel free to say so, but try to keep their sex out of it. Sexist insults have an impact on all women.
That was the extent of her defense of Palin. Even worse, the offending party and the particulars of his sexist remark weren't even mentioned. As such, folks not aware of this issue still aren't.
But Bennett didn't stop there, for she felt the need to blame this all on conservatives:
2. We're on to you, right-wingers:
a. You're trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women's bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc. Sorry, but we can't defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women's equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.
So sticking up for America's most powerful women that have been publicly defamed on national television is not a "productive way to fight for women's equal rights?" Wouldn't that actually be the most productive way for it would get the most attention?
Apparently not:
b. As usual, you're looking for any way to discredit NOW. You claim we care and work only for liberal woman, but that's a LIE. We have defended Sarah Palin and other conservative women from sexist attacks. Maybe not on your schedule, but we've done so. And by the way, all those laws we advocate for -- we don't ask that they include a clause saying only certified liberal women can benefit from them. Conservative women benefit from them, too! Just because we don't open up a Palin wing on the NOW website doesn't mean we don't think that every single woman -- right, left and in-between -- deserves equal pay, full reproductive rights, justice in the courts, etc. So knock off the facetious whining that right-wing women are not represented by NOW's work.
Actually, there would be no attempt to discredit NOW if it quickly came to the defense of conservative women that are being sexistly attacked by prominent media figures. The fact that NOW has largely stood by and watched this sexist Palin-bashing for over two and a half years is a part of the problem.
So, too, was NOW's decision to ignore New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd calling Republican women "Mean girls" last October.
If NOW had a better record of admonishing sexism aimed at conservative ladies, this wouldn't be an issue. More importantly, maybe such attacks would stop. NOW's silence after such offenses potentially increases their number.
Consider that in this instance, since Maher, "Real Time," and HBO weren't even mentioned in Bennett's condemnation of this event, there is absolutely no negative consequence for him, his program, or the network that airs it. As such, there's no reason for him to stop what he's doing, and no reason for HBO to ask him to.
But this wasn't the first time NOW incorporated a conservative rant into a pseudo-defense of Palin. When CBS "Late Show" host David Letterman was regularly ridiculing her back in 2009, the women's rights group decided to address the matter by also bashing Rush Limbaugh.
I guess this organization is so uncomfortable defending Palin that it feels the need to go after others on the right when doing so.
This hypocrisy was not lost on members of NOW.org who overwhelmingly condemned Bennett's statement in the comments section:
Comment from: jazcat [Member]
Love #1, don't understand #2. You believe the right-wingers are trying to discredit NOW. Wouldn't it be easy to make a statement whenever some idiotic "entertainer" makes any kind of degrading comment about any woman. I mean, quick, easy, done. @ 16:53
Comment from: notasexistman [Member]
I would agree with #1, not a classy or PC thing to do, very degrading to women, but could you explain # 2? And could you give specific examples?
03/22/11 @ 16:56
After a number of such comments, Bennett responded:
Comment from: Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director [Member]
I said all I had to say. If it doesn't make sense to you, it never will.
03/22/11 @ 17:05
This was clearly a mistake:
Comment from: notasexistman [Member]
Really? I'd really like to see your point of view, progress can only be made if people see both sides of the issues. I understand your problem with the traditionally conservative initiative against abortion, but what have right-wingers done to threaten your "freedom, safety, livelihood, etc."? I don't think it's in any political party's agenda to intentionally harm the lives of women.
03/22/11 @ 17:11
Comment from: fallon [Member]
I don't know about you but I spoke up for Paula Jones. She may not be as glamorous to defend as Hillary and Nancy appear to you, but she was an innocent victim of Bill Clinton's sociopathic tendencies, and you threw Ms. Jones under the bus.
The whole of your "Few Thoughts" is complete nonsense. You won't even state what the latest "controversy" is because it shows how selective you are when it comes to defending all women.
I thought I was a NOW brand feminist until I had children and then I realized you were not for women at all, you were very much against them. You are Bill Maher-type misogynists' best friends with your victimization of women through the guise of reproductive rights.
You guilt and shame women into voting Democrat for the rest of their lives out of the fear of being called hypocrites by the bully sisterhood at NOW.
No need to try to discredit you, you discredit yourselves...
03/22/11 @ 17:16
Comment from: cabaret voltaire [Member]
I follow NOW closely and while at times you'll defend republican women, it comes no where near your support for liberal women.
Comment from: allisonb1 [Member]
In the amount of time it took to write this statement defending the time it would consume to address the remark about Sarah Palin, you could have issued a basic statement condemning Bill Mahers derogatory remark against women. Just an observation.
03/22/11 @ 18:43
From there, things got ugly:
Comment from: kreynolds [Member]
I am actually appalled at the unprofessional behavior of your communications director. I cannot believe a person at her level in your agency would talk to people she represents this way. I did not take the article to heart at the media sites who are talking about this and came here first to check for myself and am disappointed that this staff person, not only reinforced the media outlets statements, but has further gone on to show that she does not have the temperament I want standing up for me.
03/22/11 @ 19:12
Comment from: bronxgirl [Member]
I am appalled at this organization… and sad.
I’m an Independent voter and have voted for different parties in the past, but I am a woman who would defend any woman regardless of her political affiliation-so I am stunned at this ridiculous response by your director.
What Bill Maher said was beyond repulsive and dirty street talk of the lowest form. The director’s lack of insight and inability to defend ANY woman from this public, blatantly sexist talk is an indication of how partisan your organization has become and therefore, in my opinion, soon to be irrelevant.
Seriously, I can no longer consider you a champion for ALL women’s causes only liberal women.. Sign me, A Former NOW supporter
03/22/11 @ 19:26
Readers are encouraged to review all of the comments concerning Bennett's statement, for the overwhelming majority were disappointed with NOW's response to this matter.
Although I'm not a NOW member, you can include me on this list.
(H/T Daily Caller)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments


I have some "morass" I'd like to see them stuck in
Bravo Noel, bravo
Noel, outstanding job researching, preparing and summarizing this.
Some of you're best work.
I agree with the NOW members, IF anyone calls a female from any walk of life that slur, THE REACTION SHOULD BE SWIFT AND AIMED TOWARDS THE CULPRIT and not the "party" of the demeaned.
Her words speak VOLUMES and PROVES what we already know.
Wow. I don't know who posts at the NOW blog these days,
but I'm pretty sure it's not conservative women. The comments to her screed are overwhelmingly negative.
Bennett's response?
"I said all I had to say. If it doesn't make sense to you, it never will."
So apparently there is a hierarchy even among female feminist moonbats.
So apparently there is a hierarchy.....
And there you have it . . .
. . . In NOW's own words, the rationale for not defending conservative women from the verbal assaults of liberal males: WE DON'T HAVE TIME!
They claim that if they took the time to defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every verbal sexist attack, that wouldn't have time to defend reproductive rights, yadda-yadda-yadda.
But the matter isn't about the words can't and every; in the case of conservative women, it's about won't and never.
And NOW is more apt to ignore the transgressions of liberal male allies than they are to support the women offended or even assaulted by them. Where was NOW when William Kennedy Smith was charged with date rape?
For the best observations and perspectives on the Feminist Movement and its failure to embrace non-liberal women, read the works of Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, and Tammy Bruce (a former president of NOW's Los Angeles chapter).
Don't have Time
Don't you know, Gal, that's
Don't you know, Gal, that's exactly what conservatives want!
They lure idiots like Maher into making insulting sexist remarks, for the purpose of tying NOW up defending women from them, so that they will be distracted from their more important work.
But, unfortunately, the jig is up!! NOW is on to us!!
Regarding the remark about defending Hillary Clinton OR Sarah Palin..when was the last time a conservative made a sexist remark about Clinton, or about any liberal woman, for that matter?
This use of sex and raunchy language to demean and diminish a woman is almost exclusively the MO of the left to attack conservative women.
But NOW is too busy to notice. Or care.
They didn't even care when that idiot put out a list of 10 Conservative Women I'd Like To Hate-F***
So shut up, Ms. Bennett. Just. Shut. Up.
Agreed, Motherbelt
Once the Left rolls out the old Grand Conspiracy stuff, gross failure to support women in the public forum is rationalized.
As we pull the Conspiracy thread further, we see that ultimately, it's all Bush's fault. :-)
Liberal male misogyny is the elephant in NOW's living room.
NOW
NOW failed to mention Maher's name because they didn't want to jeopardize the jobs of their members at the Playboy Mansion.
Doubtless Gloria Steinem has fond memories of her days as a Bunny.
Gloria did make a honey of a
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
But boy did she go downhill
Female guests
NB start publishing what
Agreed
they did it to Rush, we should do it to them.
My reply to Maher....
federal NOW funding
Respect For Women
Did NOW waste an apology?
Maybe they got confused over which usage of "twat" they were condemning.
Truly REPLUSIVE
Let me get this straight...
Let me get this straight, NOW claims that it "doesn't have time" to defend individual women from derogatory public comments because it would distract them from protecting women from "threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc" even though the use of those terms are a threat to freedom, safety, and, most important, the livelihood of women?
Yea, that makes as much sense as a police officer claiming that they don't have time to respond to to individual acts of criminal activity because it interferes with their function of responding to criminal activity.
Lady, if you don't understand that the means of protecting women from threats to their "freedom, safety, livelihood, etc" requires you to respond to each and every threat, including every single derogatory remark that occurs publicly, then you never will.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hey NOW,
Standing firm on principle doesn't consume a person or an entity, it nourishes it so that it may grow and prosper.
Selectively employing principle, only when convenient and expedient, consumes those who do so. This action especially loves to dine on credibility.
Here, NOW says to leave the gender out of it, but then they make it about defending Sarah specifically. They example the very thing derided. Hence, a bit more credibility munched.
It is sad to see some of the squirming going on these days. I almost feel sorry for them.
Almost.
Now you listen to me Mister Noel Sheppard....
Amazing
Exposed
And Ms. Bennett, I'm sorry, but if you don't get that, then you never will...
So she claims that that have
So she claims that that have "less time to defend women's bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc."?
I call BravoSierra on that one for multiple reasons.
Proving Once, Again...
...that the NAGs are NOT about liberating women. No, they are about good, right-minded liberal secular progressivism.
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
Bill Maher Has Some Real Issues with His Masculinity
Bill Maher issues
His career just hasn't been the same ever since he starred in "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death" back in 1989, portraying a chauvinist.
Said it before, and I'll say it again...
It seems to me that the best way for NOW to solve this problem
It pains me to say it, but
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
marpel
NOW is then.
Hardly NOW
NOW is hardly representative of women in America let alone the world. I can't take them seriously anymore...not that I ever did.
-Jon
Easiest way to spot how
Easiest way to spot how biased a person/organization: see how they respond when they have to criticize their own. Every time I've seen a liberal do so, it's one or two lines of token, half-hearted criticism, followed by a paragraph of anti-conservative bile to make themselves (and, I suppose, their readers) feel better.
So this doesn't surprise me in the least.
Apparently Bill Maher cannot grow up.
Bill Maher reminds me of the high school jerk who will do anything to get attention, the kind of person the mature kids wish would just disappear.
Maher’s problem is that while he is physically an adult, temperamentally he is very juvenile.
Most conservatives, I believe, know essentially nothing about this creep – not his show, not what time it is on, not what channel it is on, etc. – and are aware of Maher only when, and because, his juvenile behavior is so bad it attracts national attention. Which is why Maher acts the way he does.
On the other hand, I strongly imagine Maher’s audience is made up entirely of people of who are not mature enough to be revolted by his juvenile behavior, and who are either liberals or call themselves “conservative” because they do not quite agree with all their friends in adoring everything Michael Moore does.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
I believe the term is
I believe the term is "arrested development."