HolyCoast: Tim Tebow and the NAGS
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Tim Tebow and the NAGS

Sally Jenkins, a sportswriter for the Washington Post, offers one feminists' take on the Tim Tebow pro-life Super Bowl ad controversy, and her column will probably tick off a lot of members of the National Association of Gals (NAGS):
I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't.

There's not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the "need" for abortions wasn't so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow's ad.
There's a lot more about Tebow at the link and it's worth reading.

Just two days ago the same Washington Post ran a piece from some of the main NAGS on "How to be pro-choice on Super Bowl Sunday". They have a link to that piece on the article I mentioned above. I must be old fashioned, but I always thought Super Bowl Sunday was about football, not social issues.

This is once again a situation in which the left is their own worst enemy. By vigorously complaining about an ad which promotes life and family they brought all kinds of media attention to the ad that it wouldn't have had if they'd just remained silent. The 30-second ad would have quickly come and gone and few would have noted it.

The NAGS made themselves look like the silly pro-abortion ideologues that they are.

Well done, ladies.

1 comment:

Goofy Dick said...

I used to hear people talk about NAGS and I knew what they were. In thinking about these modern day NAGS I find there is no change in what I used to think a NAG was, only these gals are much worse.