« | »

NOW: Fire Next Person Who Uses W-Word

From the laughably self-anointed National Organization Of Women:

NOW Responds to Jerry Brown’s Apology

Statement of NOW President Terry O’Neill

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.

It really is to laugh. Speaking of "overdue," the National Organization Of Women took a week to even notice this outrage. Worse yet, their California chapter still subsequently endorsed Mr. Brown without even batting a false eyelash.

And even so NOW still had to quickly "update" this press release. They went from demanding Mr. Brown immediately fire whoever said this, to demanding that he fire anyone who uses the word "from this point forward." What courageous champions of women they are!

(Of course the news reports that the ‘W-WORD’ was actually used by Mr. Brown’s wife, may had something to do with their sudden ‘walk back.’)

Indeed, the harridans at NOW were so flustered they actually released this laughably inept sentence: "This term is hate speech that carries with it negative connotations associated with women, and it has no place in contemporary society."

So the word ‘whore’ is "hate speech" and it "carries with it negative connotations"? Really. Hate speech without negative connotations is bad enough. Cleary, Ms. O’Neill is as tone deaf to the English language as she is to the political views of the majority of women of this country.

Worse yet, NOW has once again made it abundantly clear that they will happily perform any contortions to try to get their Democrat masters elected.

Indeed, the National Organization Of Women puts the ‘W-Word’ in ‘NOW’ — politically speaking, of course.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, October 14th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

12 Responses to “NOW: Fire Next Person Who Uses W-Word”

  1. Petronius says:

    SG : “Ms. O’Neill is as tone deaf to the English language as she is to the political views of the majority of women in this country.”

    Whenever I encounter a piece of bad writing or an ugly piece of art, my antennae instantly go up. Bad writing and bad art are often (but not always) a sign of a Liberal mind at work. There seems to be a strong correlation between left-wing opinions and difficulty with the English language.

    In many forums, Liberalism is widely regarded as the only proper outlook for “contemporary,” educated people to hold. But for a century now, Liberalism has failed to produce a single first-rate work of art or literature that gives voice to Liberal or radical ideology, that presents the Liberal vision of a Liberal utopia in all its glory.

    Why is that? Is it because Liberalism really has nothing of value to contribute? No eternal truths for us to ponder?

    George Orwell was a self-described socialist, but he did not write the great Liberal novel. On the contrary, he wrote dystopian novels that are classics of anti-statist, anti-collectivist literature. Much the same can also be said for H. G. Wells.

    You may search but I believe you will find no masterpiece of Liberal ideological literature. I have looked but I have been unable to find any Liberals who have authored any great work of full-blown Liberal-centric literature anywhere. So why is that, do you suppose?

    Nearly all of the literary critics and pundits are Liberals. Virtually all of the journalists, as well. And many of the scribblers of second-rate and third-rate novels are Liberals.

    Yet most of the first-rate authors of the last century have been openly, explicitly, and profoundly anti-Liberal : T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, William Butler Yeats, George Santayana, Joseph Conrad, D. H. Lawrence, J.R.R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Evelyn Waugh, G. K. Chesterton, Ayn Rand, James Joyce, Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, Thomas Mann, Rudyard Kipling, Henry James, Marcel Proust, Thomas Hardy, P. G. Wodehouse, George MacDonald Fraser, William Golding––all anti-Liberal, anti-radical and deeply conservative in outlook.

    Tom Wolfe, America’s greatest living novelist, supported Pres. George W. Bush, much to the dismay of the literary critics. Wolfe invented the terms “radical chic,” “mau-mauing the flak catchers,” and “the right stuff.” He enjoys goading Liberals, saying that he wears an American flag lapel pin because it is like “holding up a cross to werewolves.”

    And it’s hard to get more politically incorrect than Ernest Hemingway. The Left has accused Hemingway of being racist, anti-multicultural, misogynistic, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. That’s like winning the Liberal trifecta. Brilliant.

    So why then? Why no great classic of Liberal ideological literature?

    Perhaps after all because Liberalism at its very core is an embarrassingly stupid, worthless, and false philosophy. Because it ever remains a nihilistic, destructive, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-white, and anti-civilization ideology. Beyond this, it has nothing much else to offer, except perhaps some gooey pseudo-humanitarianism and Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Socialized medicine, death taxes, confiscation and redistribution of wealth, multiculturalism, and affirmative action are not themes to inspire the human spirit.

    Liberalism is simply not the stuff of great art or literature.

    That Liberalism is considered a hallmark of learning and sophistication is ridiculous. That people will surrender their freedom by voting for it is appalling, even pathetic. Yet they do.

  2. NoNeoCommies says:

    For NOW it is all about words and location.
    If you live in a foreign land you can treat women like prostitutes or slaves as long as you don’t call them names.
    (Actually, you can call them names too as long as you are in a nation controlled by Islamists.)

  3. Chase says:


    I can only surmise that the failure of liberal writers to really grab,and hold the attention, or to make enduring waves or landmark impressions on the literary world have much to do with the same reasons that Air America and liberal talk radio have been utter financial failures.

    They have nothing to say that speaks to honest human nature, that carried endearing and enduring messages about the human condition (except the misery part -but who wants to read something without a winning ending) and the pursuit, and realization of happiness. A real happiness that uplifts, inspires, motivates and fulfills. Their “stories” might have winners, but the principles upon which their ‘wins’ are based are dubious, and at unrealistic odds with traditional Christian, capitalist, democratic and enduring human values.

    Wish I could write with more wit, or other poignancy-lending literary craft or examples, but I hope my attempt at a point goes to further your conversational line.

    • proreason says:

      Liberals don’t create great literature because they are all believe in situation ethics, which means they don’t have principles but only react to the current situation. The past doesn’t matter to them. Traditional morality doesn’t matter to them. Actually, tradition itself doesn’t matter to them.

      Great literature always has a compelling story line with heroes and villians, right and wrong, tragedy and triumph. Great literature is the moral compass of humanity.

      The only liberal story line is “it depends”.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:

      Hey, funny you should bring this up (literature and liberal failure).


      I wrote a whole book about this. It’s coming out in a few months. Sorry to post the link here, but my publisher tells me I have to talk about my work more.

      I hope all is well.

    • Petronius says:

      Chase : “They have nothing to say that speaks to honest human nature….” bingo.

      proreason : “they don’t have principles….” bingo again.

      The first –– and last –– example of Liberal ideological literature dates back more than a century to William Morris, “News From Nowhere” (1890) –– to the Victorian era that preceded a century of failed experiments in socialism.

      I tried to read it once but got bored. It can’t compare with his semi-mythic Germanic novels that inspired Tolkien, “The House of the Wolfings” (1889) and “The Roots of the Mountain” (1890).

      Morris was a Renaissance man –– a co-founder of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, a wonderful artist, designer, craftsman, poet, writer, printer, medievalist, translator, romantic, and idealist. He was also an outspoken, honest, and principled socialist –– one of the first –– and last –– of the breed.

      Morris’s socialism was a blend of Luddism and sentimental medievalism. Morris looked back with nostalgia to a lost country life; his socialism was thoroughly romantic and utopian, and it was long ago dismissed as politically naïve. I have a feeling that if he were alive today, Morris would have been a conservative. He loved the English and Nordic heritage, their languages, history, traditions, myths, heroes, and sagas. He was also a preservationist, and believed in decentralization, small government, and local communities.

  4. GetBackJack says:

    Who wants to set the odds that inside the sanctified halls of NOW, Sarah Palin has been called a whore? Or, the “C” word?

  5. Deserat says:

    This is almost as bad as only a black person can use the “n” word – just because a woman said the “w” word, she’s off the hook.

    I’m not surprised with NOW’s stance – NOW lost any credibility with me when they didn’t crucify Billy-boy for his sexual harassment of Monica Lewinsky – and all the rest of the women he attacked. What’s so ironic is the original women suffragettes and womens’ right advocates (late 1800s-early 1900s) were agitating against women being sex objects – now it’s OK, according to NOW. We’ve come full circle, sadly.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »