The N.O.W.’s Wrong-Headedness

The National Organization of Women, the organization liberals look to when they want someone to “speak for women” (whatever happened to our ability to speak for ourselves?) is considered the authority on all things “women”.

NOW was established on June 30, 1966 in Washington, D.C., by people attending the Third National Conference of the Commission on the Status of Women.”

And their original Statement of Purpose started with:

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

Supporting the “full participation” of women into the “mainstream of American society”, they pulled and pushed and screamed and burned bras so that women left their homes, quit raising their children and went into the workforce; leaving children to be raised by the public school systems, before and after school programs, babysitters and child care facilities.

Trending: BEN CARSON: Just Dropped this BOMB on Obama’s Lap [WATCH]

N.O.W. supports marriage; marriage of a sort. Even though — thanks, in part, to N.O.W. and their teachings on marriage — fewer marriages were taking place in America since their inception, more marriages have ended in divorce since the appearance of the N.O.W. than in the forty years prior to their inception. And it seems that those stats are fine with the N.O.W. There’s another kind of marriage to support. The N.O.W. promotes same sex marriage (which also ends in divorce: witness “Glee” star, Jane Lynch’s, recent divorce filing), and are rabid supporters of abortion (they call it “reproductive rights” [where are the baby’s rights?]) and never falter in their support of that sacrament. If they had to sacrifice everything else, abortion support would stay.

The N.O.W. organization supports putting women in the front lines in war via “equality and justice” stances, but they say they are against violence against women. At the same time, they support the president’s anti-gun push! Although it has been shown that if a woman has a gun she can protect herself and her loved ones, no matter her age, her build, or her hand-to-hand fighting skills. Anecdotal proof is in the actual events:



There are many other stories out there that prove that a woman with a gun can hold her own against the bad guys out there who intend to harm her or her loved ones.

Considering this, one would think that the organization that is allegedly PRO-women (and everything that will help them, keep them safe, support them and all the rest), would be pro-gun as well. After all, if it helps save a woman’s life, why not be in favor of guns, right?

Apparently not when it comes to the N.O.W. They even put together a report that they presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland about the dangers of having a gun in the house and available to women.  Their numbers are in conflict with other numbers. They quote a liberal (shock) organization, the Violence Policy Center, to get their numbers. The problem is that their numbers conflict with the stats published by pro-gun organization, the Gun Owners of America. They can’t both be right.

To find out who is more likely to be telling the truth, look at another instance of “research” on the VPC website. They published a study comparing 2010 gun deaths to those caused by motor vehicles — picking and choosing which states to use and not using the numbers of the whole U.S.A. which would be a better indicator, but highly inconvenient for their purpose. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 32,855 vehicular deaths nationwide in 2010. (The CDC says there were 33,687 vehicular deaths in 2010. Hmmm…) According to the CDC in 2010 there were 11,078 homicides via firearms. There were 19,392 suicides using firearms in 2010; 606 accidental deaths from firearms (page 91).  That’s 31,076 firearm deaths in 2010. Subtracting the 31076 from the NHTSA’s 32,855 vehicular deaths, we get 1,779 fewer gun deaths nationwide than vehicle deaths. (That number would be 2,611 if we used the CDC’s vehicular death number.) That tells us that the N.O.W. chose a skewed report to quote in order to push their agenda. Shock. Surprise.

If the N.O.W. was actually for women, wouldn’t they be doing everything in they could to empower women to stand up for themselves, sponsoring self-defense classes that include gun ownership classes featuring safety classes and even use of a firearm; i.e. time at the shooting range? Can you imagine a nationwide N.O.W. concealed carry push? No? Wouldn’t it be in the best interests of their membership to teach them how to use a gun that may be in the house instead of leaving them defenseless and pushing to take away the Second Amendment rights of all Americans?

Wouldn’t a “truly equal partnership with men” include their members being proficient in firearms? Being equally capable of shooting an intruder in their own house if they are home alone, instead of having to call a cop to try to be safe? A “truly equal partnership with men” would be teaching women the art of self-protection against a man in not just words, but in deeds: including shooting to kill in self-defense.

Of course, that’s not what the N.O.W. is about. It’s not about actually helping women. It’s about pushing a politically left, progressive agenda that doesn’t give a flip about women. It cares about politics and the power that can come from it. As far as the organization itself is concerned, upon starting it could have been a pick from a hat that got its alleged focus on women as their purpose for existing. The N.O.W. is so wrong-headed that it doesn’t matter what it’s stated purpose is. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong and on the issues concerning women — especially self-defense — the N.O.W. is wrong.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.