NOW or Hillary?

So exactly what is the purpose of your last post? Is it another anti-Hillary post or are you anti-NOW? Or, it could be construed, anti-women rights?

I was a member of NOW at one point in my life. I only joined to help in the fight for Choice, but I became disillusioned with the direction NOW was heading. Yes, they have become too radical for my tastes. Inspite of what you may believe, I don't have a problem with being a woman, being a single woman, and I don't hate men. Our generation, the one that grew up in the 70's and 80's are really the first generation to enjoy equal employment opportunities. Prior to the 60's, women were expected to get married right out of high school, become a stay-at-home mommy and live happily ever after, and if you didn't, you became an Old Maid school teacher or secretary. I am, by no means saying that is a bad thing, but with the advent of the the women's rights movement, the expectations changed. Opportunities opened up for women to do other things. You, my dear, wouldn't be where you are today if it weren't for women's rights. Even Phyllis Schlaffley has to give the women's rights movement some credit.

By the way, NOW also works for and supports Choice/Reproductive Rights, stopping Violence Against Women, Caregiver Equality, Social Security, Sexual harrassment in the work place, Title IX, to name just a few.

What about this article 'speaks to you'? This author, Janice Shaw Crouse seems to be espousing the old-fashioned ideas about women's roles. Again, if it weren't for the women's movement, she wouldn't be a respected speaker and author, she'd be a stay-at-home mom. She's basically saying abortion is murder and women should stay home and take care of their babies. I'm pretty sure you don't completely agree with her assumptions. About her issues with the 'Feminist Icons' she makes it sound like a woman who doesn't get married and have babies is something to be ridiculed and looked down on. Do you feel like that? I am, like yourself, an older, unmarried woman, with no babies. Are we crones? Old Maids? Should we be pitied? I'm relatively happy living on my own, and I'm glad I've had the opportunity to be independant instead of relying on some man to make me happy.

In some ways I didn't plan on being unmarried at this point in my life, but it happened. I had a choice, whether I knew it or not. I think a family should be the most important part of your life, and, if you have children, they are your life. You should also be able to make the choice to not have kids without any pressure. In this day and age, if a woman can stay home, more power to her. I have many single female friends who are divorced and are raising or have raised their children on their own, another of the choices society has enabled us to do. And, by the way, not all women are divorced due to anti-masculinity thoughts, latent lesbianism, or just being selfish. Some are leaving abusive relationships, unhealthy situations and cheating spouses.

The biggest reason, in my opinion of the rising divorce rate is the passage of the Family Law Act of 1969 in California, allowing no-fault divorce. Signed by then-governor Ronald Regan, the Family Values guy. Oh, irony.

Anyway, please explain to me the definition of the 'Gay Agenda'. A gay person should not be persecuted because of their life-style, they shouldn't be fired from their job, beaten up and harassed because they are gay, barred from housing, jobs and any thing else open to hetero's and, in a long-term relationship, they should be afforded the same benefits of a more 'traditional' couple. Did you know, if one partner becomes critically ill, the other partner can't visit them in the hospital because they aren't related? I agree, life-style options should not be part of the work place, it is personal as to how you want to life your life, but when you spend 8 or more hours a day with the same people for years, things tend to get discussed. Everyone talks about their spouse, as if I necessarily wanted to hear about it, but it happens.

And the gay/lesbian/transgendered community have money to spend. Business will exploit that angle, anything to make a buck. They will run advertisements to appeal to the less traditional lifestyle and it will therefore become more mainstream. Isn't that what Republicans are all about anyway? Letting business make a profit? Or is it just the Businesses that We Think is Good and Moral?

And, by the way, Sarah Weddington, whom you quoted so favorably at the start of the blog, has a link to the ACLU on her website. Gasp!

As for the dissing of Hillary, not all women will vote for her, just like not all black voters will vote for Barack Obama, or all Mormons will vote for Mitt.