Talk:Concerned Women for America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you check their web site under the "National Sovereignty" header at [1], you'll see that most of the issues there relate to things like the Convention to End Discrimination Against Women, etc. Meelar 21:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The anti statements portraying statements in terms of what they are against and not what they are for is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book for making people think negativly on an orginization's terms. They are also ways to twist opponents ideas. This group along with other fundimentalists have a more conservative definition of "hate crime." It is therefore inappropriate to call one of their agenda "Anti hate-crime legeslation" since they are in fact only against legeslation for things which they do not view (whether right or wrong) as hate crimes. This artical is tremendously POV oriented and written with markedly liberal termenology, which, right or wrong, is regardless inappropriate in NPOV articals. Thanatosimii 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

criticism of Concerned Women of America

The Biggest are, they are a Hate Group, and they are ran by men. Its something else when an Organization says they are for Women, but all their Boardmembers and top staff are Men.

Also, many of my FBI Friends do not like the fact that they are being forced to drop important cases against Mobsters and Kingpins in order to applease the Fundamentalist in their attacks on legal Porn.

Many Say that they have better things to do than babyset the Moral Majorities Views. (From a personal interview with a Cousin in the Boston FBI force) Magnum Serpentine 8-26-06

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this discussion is about improving the article not a debate on hate groups. The chairperson of the board of trustees is a woman (as of 11/2006). Xxyzzy

I have removed the NPOV banner, as of Feb/5/2007, because it does not apply to this article. No matter what, no written work is ever totally unbiased. Even if the author is attempting to be fair-minded, the article is biased by definition unless it mentions every fact, in equal light, and uses words and phrasing which are 100% neutral to 100% of the readers. Since we all have different word-associations, that's not possible. ANYHOW, my point is the fact that NO article is ever totally neutral. Therefore, the NPOV banner needs to be used wisely. If an article contains opinion statements ("I think..."/"As far as I'm concerned...") and/or value judgments ("...worthless cause..."/"...worthy cause..."/"These crazy bastards..."/etc.), it's blatantly non-neutral. That would be a good time to hoist the NPOV flag. The author of this article did not use weasel-words, did not state personal opinions, and did not make value judgments. The article strikes me as being purely factual. All of the author's text is verifiable, thereby making it appropriate for Wikipedia. He/she spent most of the article stating the views of the group in question, and detailing legal actions which the group has taken. After reading the article, I strongly dislike CWA. But that's not because the author lied or used weasel-words or in any other way manipulated me. The author didn't make CWA look bad. CWA made ITSELF look bad. The article quotes the mission statement and value/belief statements which CWA has on their own website. It also mentions several legal battles spearheaded by CWA, and all of those are documented by the media. If you read this article and think that CWA looks like a group of irrational, anti-social, unfriendly, right-wing freaks, then you got that impression from CWA's very own words...which is what the author makes great use of. Conversely, if you read this article and find CWA to be very appealing because it's in-line with your political/religious/social beliefs, then you got that impression from CWA...again, not from the author. The author is neutral. Here, let me say this one last way: if the leader of a group did something which most people find to be morally wrong, and a reporter bluntly and concisely stated the facts, then most people who read the report would say "that group leader screwed up". If you're an objective party, you either respectfully agree or disagree with that judgment. If, however, you're the wife or lawyer or friend of that group leader, you get pissy and go blame the reporter and say he's being biased. An article isn't overtly biased because it doesn't convey the POV that you want people to see. The fact that it leaves a bad taste in most folks' mouths doesn't make it a bad or one-sided article. All this article did was quote CWA. If you don't like how it sounds, then you probably don't fully agree with CWA's agenda. - Piercetheorganist

I disagree. There are ways of formulating sentences that virtually eliminate the feeling of 'bias' and this article does not carry a lot of those. I am a big fat liberal and a gay one at that, but even I can see that this article isn't up to Wikipedia standards. This part is especially untransparent in author's intentions:

They support their position by claiming that homosexuals do not "suffer from a history of discrimination," and therefore should not qualify for protection as a minority group. This they say in spite of the fact that 10,000–25,000 homosexual men were killed in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Furthermore, today in many countries around the world homosexuality is a crime punishable by jail time or death.

I agree with that sentence wholeheartedly and yet realize it's got to change. It should simply carry a citation from CWA with a nice source attached and not be followed by "this they say in spite of" etc. SergioGeorgini 10:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CWA Opposition to Cervical Cancer Vaccination

[edit] Opposition to Cervical Cancer Vaccination

CWA is heavily active in opposing vaccination against the cervical cancer causing virus HPV, because HPV is frequently transmitted through sexual activity. Instead, CWA suggests that all humans should remain abstinent outside of marriage, imagining that married heterosexual adults will not get sexually transmitted diseases. CWA ignores the fact that 1/3 of American women have HPV, and the likelihood to get the virus is alarmingly high in sexually active individuals, particularly women aged 14-28.