Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!houston.cs.columbia.edu
From: travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: The Feminist Majority
Message-ID: <78597@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 18 Jul 90 20:37:10 GMT
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Lines: 29
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


>  From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
>
>  I sincerely hope that if the ERA is reintroduced, NOW a) doesn't sponser
>  it and b) doesn't comment on it.  If they had been able to keep their
>  mouths shut and not alienated the entire center and right of the electorate
>  last time around, we moderates who worked so hard for the ERA would not
>  have seen all our work going down the toilet.

Perhaps you could offer more details on how one organization can be held so
responsible for the loss of ERA?  You don't seem to writing from the
perspective of the '86 book "Why We Lost the ERA".  How can you blame NOW,
an active proponent of ERA, for its failure without mentioning anyone else?
For beginners, you could blame its opponents, such as Phillis Schlafly, or
the byzantine debates of the state legislatures where it was treated as if
it might end the Union.

>  Is there any indication that any of the current NOW leadership display
>  at least that minimal amount of common sense?  NOW is the poison pill
>  of the ERA.

It would be helpful if you didn't portray political differences as the
presence or absence of common sense.  Reasonable people can and do differ
on points of strategy.  The correct point of view is rarely determinable by
an IQ test.  In this case, since you're no longer sure who's in charge of
NOW, or what their beliefs are, wouldn't it be better to hold off on having
an opinion about NOW's usefulness in an ERA battle?

t