| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 190.1 | A better place? | QUARK::LIONEL | We all live in a yellow subroutine | Fri Nov 20 1987 16:23 | 3 |
| Maybe this would be better asked in WOMANNOTES?
Steve
|
| 190.2 | | SALEM::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Sat Nov 21 1987 03:02 | 2 |
| and he also wears a grey power suit too.
now thats sexist!
|
| 190.3 | | NEWVAX::FILER | | Mon Nov 23 1987 12:28 | 6 |
| Let me see, Judge Kennedy is a male, not noted as a liberal.
Yea, that should be enough for NOW to come out against him. They
read six whole opinions!! Now that is work. But statements taken
out of context killed the Bork nomination. I gess they will try
it again. I wish him luck. It sure is getting to be a tough job
to get.
|
| 190.4 | Rant rant, rave rave | OPHION::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Mon Nov 23 1987 16:01 | 27 |
| Re: .3
Statements out of context didn't "kill" the Bork nomination. The
Senate "killed" the Bork nomination. We can speculate endlessly
about *why* the Senate didn't confirm Judge Bork, but speculation
is all it would be. Now I personally believe that the Senate denied
Bork confirmation because Bork was a bad choice.
I believe that NOW has legitimate reasons to come out against Kennedy.
After all, Kennedy has made no secret of his position on abortion,
and NOW has made no secret of theirs. Given that they disagree on
such a fundamental issue, it's not surprising at all that NOW is
against him.
You on the other hand, clearly have an axe to grind and are jumping
up and down and shouting just to hear yourself talk. Justice of
the Supreme Court of the United States SHOULD be "a tough job to
get". The Senate of the United States Congress SHOULD be more than
a rubber stamp for the President, especially in confirming Supreme
Court Justices. Go back and read your Constitution, pay special
attention to the system of checks and balances.
I guess there's a check on the power of the executive that you don't
personally like.
Sorry about that,
-- Charles
|
| 190.5 | | VIKING::MODICA | | Mon Nov 23 1987 16:06 | 7 |
| It seems to me that one could have pro or con views on abortion
and still NOT be a sexist.
I don't know if it was the media or NOW but I wish the news stories
had contained more detailed info as to how NOW came to their
conclusions. AT least then I could understand better. Does anyone
have details about the 6 opinions?
|
| 190.6 | | NEWVAX::FILER | | Mon Nov 23 1987 19:18 | 17 |
| re.4
Me, rant and rave, nah. It doesn't bother me. My point is that
the job of confirming a supreme court judge seems to have shifted from
the US Senate to the press and to what ever special interest group wants
there view point stressed. Maybe my memory is not as good as it used to
be but as I recall prior to the Bork nomination the press covered the
Senate confirmation hearings rather than doing their own "confirmation"
in the press.
Another point was that per previous notes NOW reviewed only 6
opinions and branded Judge Kennedy as "sexist". I understand they have
a difference of opinion over the abortion issue. If that is what it takes
to be labeled a "sexist" by NOW I guess that about half the population that
has any opinion on abortion would be considered "sexist". I'm not sure
about where I stand on the abortion issue and I don't care what NOW thinks
of me. But I do feel they do a little more opinion reading before THEY start
ranting and raving.
|
| 190.7 | and that's the truth | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sat Nov 28 1987 05:45 | 4 |
| 6/400 huh? Gee even Sheer Hype got a better percentage than that!
Russ
|
| 190.8 | this is true, russ | SALEM::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Sat Nov 28 1987 06:19 | 1 |
| AND THAT IS THE TRUTH! BEEEEEEEE_OOOOOOOOWWWWWW
|
| 190.9 | Continue in SOAPBOX? | QUARK::LIONEL | We all live in a yellow subroutine | Sat Nov 28 1987 22:31 | 5 |
| Excuse me if I'm being dense, but I fail to see any relevance of this
topic to MENNOTES. I would suggest that it be continued in
BETHE::SOAPBOX (press KP7 to add it to your notebook).
Steve
|
| 190.10 | White Wedding | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Dec 11 1987 21:14 | 33 |
| re .9 This is a topic that can be discussed here. NOW, whether
we like it or not, is an important organization 'for' men
and 'for' women. The organization's influence was all the
rage thru the 70's, some 'wars' won/lost. They continue
to make their views be seen nationally and have established
themselves as a powerful political body that can influence
voter's perceptions of Issues, along with influencing a
politicians' decisions on Issues.
NOW raised the consciousness of people with the Women's
Movement. Women today think nothing of having a business
career, while 15 - 20 yrs ago, the conflict between choosing
motherhood (and staying home) and having a career was still
a hot matter. Enlightened men do not expect the woman not
to work, or (necessarily) have children early. If at all.
There are times when NOW seems to stray. More than once
I have seen newscasts where a spokesman says "Well, women
will vote Him out of office if he continues to oppose/support
X Issue." ERA and Abortion are the topics that come to mind.
In the case of Judge Kennedy, 6 reviewed decisions (of
400) does not indicate a Professional, Thorough, Research
of Judicial Decisioning. Nor of Judicial Conduct. Much less
the Man's Character. There is a need for thorough research
by groups of all kinds before making emotionally charged
accusations like 'Sexist'. Intimidation tactics and shoddy
research never get an individual or group too far. Small
wonder NOW's MS magazine advertising revenue's have fallen
sharply over the past decade. And many articles are unduly
hard on the men, with few such attacks on women.
Whatever the supposed 'sexual inequality' ratio is, such
type articles and attitudes have only a negative effect.
It's time to clean house.
Russ
|
| 190.11 | what's the story? | OPHION::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Sat Dec 12 1987 21:04 | 13 |
| Come on folks, how many of YOU have made up your mind about Judge
Kennedy? How many of his decisions have YOU examined? How many do
you expect to examine before you make up your mind?
I expect that NOW didn't just use the decisions as a basis for their
position, that there are other things they used to decide. Besides,
how many of Judge Kennedy's decisions had to do with women? I can
well belive that four or six decisions are enough to base an opinion
on, if those six are specific to the issues you believe in.
Or is the real issue here, NOW bashing?
-- Charles
|
| 190.12 | a little research never hurts | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sun Dec 13 1987 01:11 | 38 |
| re .6 Well said. I say rant and rave.
re .11 I'll read up on him. Will call local Rep w/pro or
con vote. Of course the Public can't be up on (or
activists plus) everything ( would require superb
organiz/interest/info sources). That's why we have
Rep's and the press. Our info on organiz's like Now,
do depend a lot on how the press presents what the
leaders say. Unless we're inside (local chap, mag,etc)
we go on a lot that the press tells us.
Of course the leaders of NOW do say things, and
are as opinionated on a vast # of Issues as any group
of individuals. OK, I responded to what I perceived
as another NOW criticism of a man. Their MS magz does
it EVERY ISSUE. Have YOU READ MS today??
Also, it doesn't seem NOW endorses many Republican
Politicians. Seems natural a Republican Supreme Court
Nominee would have similar difficulty getting a NOW
endorsement, especially if the Nominee differed in a
single priority issue. Perhaps the Unitarian Elliot
Richardson would have a chance. Would Richardson's
'87 defense of Bork's (being) right to Fire Nixon's
Spec Prosecuter Archibald Cox come under NOW's scrutiny?
NOW exercises Considerable influence in the Nat'l
Dem Pres Conventions, and I've read that a third of
the delegates are under considerable pressure from them.
Let me go over the past year's *worth* of NOW MS
mags, and give a count of male/female criticisms. That
ratio of criticisms will no doubt reflect the actual
Sexual Inequality Ratio that exists between the sexes.
Better, let's BOTH make a count and match notes. I'll
even take your figure if we can't compromise on one.
Russ
|