Head of California National Organization for Women calls Meg Whitman a wh0re

@Taskr36 (13925)
United States
October 15, 2010 12:56pm CST
The president of the organization has already gone on record saying it's wrong for anyone to call a woman a wh0re, but apparently that rule doesn't apply to Jerry Brown, or NOW itself. It wasn't enough that they rushed to endorse Jerry Brown after he called Whitman a wh0re, now they're calling her a wh0re themselves in a show of support for degrading republican women. The head of the California Chapter of NOW has said in no uncertain terms that the word wh0re is appropriate and accurate to describe Meg Whitman. So there you go, NOW has again made it clear that it's ok to call a woman a wh0re so long as she's a republican. I guess this shouldn't surprise anyone as I couldn't find a single person on mylot who though NOW cared about women in the first place, but they have about half a million members, so clearly some people are deluded enough to actually believe their tripe. Does anyone else think they should just change their name to NODW and stop lying to women? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/15/california-chief-says-whitman-wh0re/
1 person likes this
2 responses
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
15 Oct 10
Your link doesn't work, not that I'd give it much credence since it's a right-wing site. Whatever, I'm not here to defend NOW, I certainly don't agree with everything they say or do. Anyway, Jerry Brown HIMSELF didn't call anyone a wh0re and he's apologized more than once and affirmed it during the debate the other night, which was appropriate. I don't think it's right to call ANY woman a wh0re, regardless of her political affiliation but I think it's noteworthy that that word has kind of taken on a life of its own in recent years. It's used far too often in a context other than the one we always think of when we hear that word. It's now used to describe anyone who "sells" themselves to any interest or group. I think far too many "nasty" words are being used much to lightly these days. It makes them lose their meaning. Annie
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
15 Oct 10
Of course any news organization that fails to openly support Obama is "right-wing". The link didn't work since the word "wh0re" was part of it. Since it appears that most stories referring to the incident have that word in the actual link the best I can do is link you to a page that should subsequently have a link to such article. Here is what YOU would consider a fair and balanced source and they have the story as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-governors-race "Jerry Brown HIMSELF didn't call anyone a wh0re and he's apologized more than once" Based on the recording it's not clear whether it was him, or a staffer who said it. Personally I thought it sounded like his voice when I heard it. Either way, he clearly supported the use of the word. "What about saying she's a wh0re?" "Well, I'm going to use that." Sure he gave the generic apology, but that doesn't mean much when he's still acting like it was no big deal stressing that "It's a five-week-old private conversation," and even claiming the recording was "illegal" because apparently answering machines are now illegal in his mind. I do agree that the word is being used far too often, but that doesn't make it acceptable in my opinion. Can you imagine how NOW, or women in general, would have reacted if a male republican candidate had referred to his female democrat opponent as a wh0re? Personally I have yet to see "feminists" or NOW turn on ANY democrat using the word whether it be Alan Grayson, Pete Stark, or Jerry Brown. Quite the contrary, they support them as heroes based solely on the letter next to their name.
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
15 Oct 10
I don't know why you're attacking me, I'm certainly not defending it! It's not acceptable but I was simply pointing out that it's used so much these days it's almost meaningless. I'm not a huge "fan" of Jerry Brown either but if I lived in California I definitely wouldn't be voting for Whitman, based on the issues and her history, NOT on the letter next to her name. Annie
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
19 Oct 10
It seems that if you are liberal you can criticize and name call anything or anyone who is not in lock step with their views. It is alright for people to lump all Evangelical Christians as abortion clinics bombers. It is alright to compare the Christians to terrorists. Just look at the Liberal media's treatment of the families of political figures. Senator Obama told the media that his family was off limits and the media respected that wish. Yet the same media claimed that it was alright to go after Gov. Palin's children because she had them at the convention. Now President Obama brings out his daughters when he needs them for political gain or to promote a new program.
1 person likes this
• United States
15 Oct 10
Figures. Then again, I always thought that NOW was just a bunch of radical women doing what they want to get their way. Also, yes, they do align themselves with the Democratic Party, and they are supposed to be a Non-partisan group, but they aren't.