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

The ISU Committee on Women feels compelled to respond to the column published by Robert Zeis on October 7, titled, “Promise Keepers’ positive message.” This piece is far more an uninformed attack on the National Organization for Women (NOW) than a defense of the Promise Keepers. Below we list eight points that should be considered by both the column’s author and its readers:

Zeis states that “[only] males attend because it is males that have perpetuated the majority of evils today.” This statement is disingenuous.

While the Promise Keepers do acknowledge the evils men have wrought, this group excludes women because as they read the Bible, they see the male as the supreme head of the family. NOW is not against the idea of men gathering together for Christian fellowship.

NOW objects to the fact that they exclude women as well as the fact that there may be a hidden cultural and political agenda.

The backlash against the women’s movement is real (Susan Faludi, “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women,” 1991), and NOW is concerned that the Promise Keepers will turn into a political arm of that backlash.

Zeis states, “the religious beliefs of Christians prohibit homosexuality.” This is a sweeping generalization. (The recent pronouncements of the Catholic Bishops.) Certain passages of Scripture may be construed that way, but there are differing interpretations. Increasingly, more churches are becoming inclusive.

What is frightening is that Promise Keeper founder Bill McCartney was instrumental in passing Colorado’s anti-lesbian and gay amendment that was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is also evidence that the Promise Keepers are racist when one examines their publications and writings (Boone, “Breaking Through,” p. 77).

Zeis asserts that NOW and “women like Ireland have insulted housewives for choosing to stay at home with their families instead of having a career.” This is a flagrant misrepresentation. NOW supports the right of all women to choose how they live their lives.

NOW was instrumental in having the contributions of women to their children and home recognized as “economic,” in obtaining equitable divorces and NOW has been a leader in going after the insurance industry, another area where ALL women have been and continued to be discriminated against.

NOW has also focused on the political rights of women and the constant discrimination against women in the workplace. (Recent studies have shown that women still only earn $.73 to a man’s dollar.) One of the many reasons NOW was formed in 1966 was to protest the fact that newspapers advertised jobs for men and women separately.

Regarding Anita Hill and Paula Jones: Zeis is again incorrect. Anita Hill was not a voluntary witness — she was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee after her comments (solicited by government investigators) were leaked to the media.

Feminists HAVE supported Jones’ right to be heard in court, but have noticed that Jones only came forward after Clinton was elected to the Presidency. It should also be noted that Jones was promoted in her Arkansas state government job after the alleged event.

In regards to Zeis’ comment that NOW supports the idea that all sex is rape — ridiculous! This is not the belief of the majority of NOW members.

NOW supports all political candidates (woman, man, Democrat, Republican, or Independent) that support the following issues: reproductive freedom, civil rights, ending poverty of women, a constitutional guarantee of equal rights and the prohibition of discrimination, affirmative action and ending violence against women.

NOW supports sex-segregated education because numerous studies have shown that girls are discriminated against and harassed as early as grade school. Anyone who reads “Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls” (Sadke, 1994) can understand the potential benefits for female-only education.

We protest Mr. Zeis’ comments regarding the women activists of the 1960s. We would advise him to examine and study the history of women, who have traditionally been denied a public role in American society.

These women of the 1960s, whose activism grew out of the civil rights movement, raised the issues of sexual discrimination. Because of their bravery, women today have more choices in their lives. Discrimination unfortunately still exists, and NOW is working to change that.

To close, we ask Mr. Zeis to conduct research on the issues upon which he has commented, in order to better understand the obstacles that women face today. His diatribe against NOW simply indicates that he has not done his homework.

---

Tanya Zanish-Belcher

Chair

University Committee on Women