The National Organization for Women (NOW) in the Age of Data Governance

Running head: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 1

Arizona State University

FAS 264 - Sociology of Gender

October 27, 2020

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 2

Description

Nation Organization for Women; in the United States is a major organization of female

activists, with over fifty thousand contributing memberships and more than five hundred campus

and local affiliates in 50 states of the US and Columbian District. From 1966, when it was

established, its goal of taking action in bringing equal opportunities among women states Ryan,

(2013). Both the actions of NOW and its stand on matters are uncompromising, principled and

always looking into the future. NOW is leading and not a devotee of the public’s opinions.

It is resolute in putting themes of the conferences into practice. At its inception, Friedan

and other founders invited the irritated conference members to deliberate on alternate

approaches. Freidan then noted down the abbreviation NOW on paper. Assembled in Friedan’s

hotel apartment were about 15 to 20 women that night. Among them existed: Inka O’Hanrahan,

Catherine Conroy, Mary Eastwood, Rosalind Loring, Dorothy Haener, Kay Clarenbach and Pauli

Murray (Barakso, 2014). Loring recalls the group’s fury on what was going on at the meeting.

She says that there was a bad feeling in many women that time and they were not ready to

formalize the group. However, they met during a final conference’s luncheon and initiated the

formation of the organization.

By October 1966, 300 men and women were already the charter members. Reger, (2012),

states that the establishing conference was in Washington, D.C on October 29th to 30th, but 30

of all the charter members contributed. A group of officials was nominated through an election,

comprising Clarenbach Kathryn being the Board’s Chair, Betty Friedan being the President.

Aileen Hernandez, having announced her forthcoming resignation from her incumbent job at

EEOC as the Supervisory Deputy President was absent. Graham Richard became the Deputy

President, and finally, Carolyn Davis became the Auditor and the Secretary at the same time.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 3

They assumed a Declaration of Purpose with wide-ranging concerns, regarding all the

facets of the life of a woman. It declares a passionate obligation to the global upheaval of the

human rights that was happening beyond the US national boundaries and remained in many ways

an eternal document (Reger, 2012). It was virtually debated by the Statement of Purpose, though

not divided substantially nor on the action of targets to which they committed themselves in the

setting of the task forces that had drafted the Statement of Purpose.

More of NOW’s organizing and politicking is accomplished by more than six hundred

local chapters doing everything from the staging of protest marches and stakes for organizing

educational agendas. Each chapter essentially has at least twelve members with each electing its

own, commonly unpaid officers. Each chapter is obliged to elect a treasurer and a president and

frequently elect more officials like the vice president. In many cities around the United States,

the local agent gets paid.

Data unearthed by activism and digital communication have changed how organizations

such as NOW define feminist autonomy and how they mobilize supporters in the current day. As

Grafanaki (2016) notes, social systems technologically often subordinate personal autonomy

through surveillance-based profiling and behavior modification. This shrinking freedom reflects

past feminist battles against institutional domination and shows how technology and digital

freedom have become pivotal in new struggles for equality. Feminist networks ability to organize

and utilize online spaces relies upon a certain level with the data trust privacy, yet the social

inequalities now opposed algorithmic bias operates as a crucial factor within the data trust

privacy, and contemporary feminism. André et al (2018) argue that algorithmic personalization

and the insidious capture of attention shaping public activism perception shifts and gatekeeping

attention exerts influence over behavioral activism. Feminist geography of activism does

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 4

activism advocacy demonstrates how contemporary social feminism has to Angela Mullis verse

fundamentals of technology determination and control. Bodo et al. (2017) argue that algorithmic

agents are ascribed with the role of discourse and representation of the unvisible intermediaries

within social systems, hence the importance of digital feminism. The window of opportunity for

NOW shifts into digital advocacy, strengthening the ethical control over information frameworks

by the algorithmic governance of empowering technology in cym with democratic and feminist

principles, not data-centered exploitation (Mik, 2016).

Autonomy is still an essential part of feminist theory, and its evolution progresses,

especially in relation to frameworks for personal and collective identity in data and analytics.

Mik (2016) observed that consumer autonomy in the online world is, more often than not,

limited and undermined due to massively inaccessible and hidden consent manipulation systems.

This is akin to feminist analyses of patriarchal systems of power that impose authority over

women’s agency through structural power. Ruotsalainen and Blobel (2019) further add that

digital ethics and the protection of privacy are essential for the preservation of trust between

users and institutions, which is consistent with the position of NOW on trust and self-

determination. Data governance is revealing in that it shows how the ethical aspects of data

governance illustrate how equity is not purely a gender issue. Larsson (2018) argues that, with

the world in its current state, it is increasingly likely that individuals will be unable to challenge

certain automated outcomes that are determined through automated systems. Such individuals

are likely to be in a position where freedom is under siege, and it is more than likely that the

siege will emanate from legal frameworks, and it is also probable that it will emanate from

technological systems. Feminist organizations can reframe these obstacles as an impetus to

expand the meaning of empowerment to include self-determination in digital spaces, largely in

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 5

order to fulfill the goals that NOW has advocated for since its foundational inception. With the

current extent of the ever-expanding influence of algorithms, activism, too, is in need of ethical

literacy and critical engagement with technology in order to preserve true collective agency

(André et al. 2018).

NOW has consistently fought for equality in participation. This goal has survived to

today as a fight for empowerment in algorithmic spaces. Bodo et al. (2017) state that algorithmic

control imposes a disempowering asymmetry on the users and the data-centered platform. It is

similar to the social orders which the feminists fought against in the past. When algorithms

define the scope for public interaction and engagement, they definitely control the public voice

and resources for representation. According to Larson (2018), governance structures need to

include participatory oversight in order to rebalance and restore trust. Such governance is an

example of control which resonates with feminist principles of collective responsibility and

democratic participation. Martin (2019) discusses the ethical need to account for algorithmic

systems on which the users operate, arguing that accountability comes with a need to explain the

costs of such systems. This is in defense of the principles of transparency which Martin supports.

It is worth noting that NOW has always been an advocate for the moral obligation of equality.

These ethical principles can help further feminist movements to advocate for digital justice.

The examination of psychological liberty within feminist engagement with digital

autonomy remains critical. André et al. (2018) capture the way algorithmic suggestions craft

takes and emotional responses and mechanisms of framing issues, influencing perception of

social issues and social movements. This, in turn, reminds one of some prior feminist analyses of

the cultural conditioning that underscored women’s silencing. Rachmad (2017) describes in

detail how artificial intelligence nurtures consumer loyalty by anticipating a set of behavioral

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 6

patterns. This describes, in detail, the reinforcing mechanisms of ideology within political

communication. Predictive governance of such a nature can reinforce and solidify social

stereotypes and diminish the voice of nonconformist views unless they are fiercely defended. As

Martin (2019) observes, the mechanisms of accountability of governance are the very essence of

what can provide a strategy for framework for algorithmic influence, and pose new moral

challenges for the boundaries of participatory ethics. Ruotsalainen and Blobel (2019) capture

mid-level governance of their algorithmic machine in the more encompassing notion of trust,

asserting that governance through ethics facilitates systemically fostered social trust. Translating

these observations for purposes of feminist organizing, one can argue that psychological

empowerment in digital spaces remark on the extent to which participants realize how algorithms

shape discourses. Feminist advocacy in the contemporary moment, there, is neither uncritical

embrace nor outright disavowal of technology, but a revisionist approach in which feminist

digital autonomy is structural and cognitive. Thus, digital literacy is a basic part of the broader

framework for the feminist advocacy articulated by NOW, which aims to foster responsible and

critical citizens equipped to dismantle systems of covert oppression (Mik, 2016).

The intersection of data, ethics, and activism is reframing the meaning of equality in the

21st century. Grafanaki (2016) highlights the algorithmic environments that redefine privacy as a

commodified lacking vis a vis consent. That sort of condition thwarts the collective agency that

organizations like NOW sought to institutionalize through participatory democracy. Bodo et al.

(2017) claim that algorithmic research has to embrace some form of methodological

transparency for the sake of accountability and user trust. Such transparency is the opposite of

what NOW seeks. Larsson (2018) has argued that data-driven governance constructs a central

point of control, which is a black box, and is, therefore, hostile to civic-spirited activity. Martin

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 7

(2019) counter-proposes that ethical thinking ought to be ingrained in data policies at the

corporate and government levels. Integrating frameworks of NOW with these can extend NOW’s

legacy to contemporary activism where social justice means justice for gender and information.

Equality has now come to mean the tackling of algorithmic imbalances which mirror power

asymmetries. Feminist organizations, therefore, need to promote data justice as a social justice

issue, which is grounded in the fact that social justice means equitable access to information to

participate in democracy. That synthesis expands the notion of liberation to include digital ethics

and responsibility concerning technology.

Modern theory and practice of feminism require an understanding of the effects of

technologies on coordinated action and identity. R. Rachmad (2017), for example, explains that

the underlying and unexamined dynamics of AI-driven communication fundamentally change

how social movements become visible by elevating some voices and silencing others. In such

contexts, the term communication biases refers to filtering practices that, as Mik (2016) points

out, algorithmically conditions the experience of users to a managed system siloed from social

spontaneity. Such practices contradict the free, participatory, and open philosophy that the

organizing of the National Organization for Women (NOW) is built on. André et. al. (2018) raise

the possibility that agency-enhancing digital systems are possible when the design of such

systems incorporates mechanisms of responsiveness and transparency. Accountability allows

feminist movements to regain some narrative power over construction and representation of their

movements. In a similar vein, Ruotsalainen and Blobel (2019) stress that ethical and trustworthy

governance are the central conditions for sustainable participation in the digital realm. In the case

of feminist activism, these ideas support the cultivation of digital frameworks that are

programmable and autonomous for the purpose of activism. Compliance between these ethical

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 8

conditions, design, and expression of activism assures that feminism is able to protect and

promote democratic equality in the face of technological change.

Examining NOW’s origins within the framework of digital ethics suggests that autonomy

remains an unresolved, albeit evolving, concept. Bodo et al. describe the “algorithmic crisis” as a

struggle over control and interpretation within data systems akin to the ideological battles over

representation in social movements. Grafanaki argues that autonomy is informed consent under

conditions of transparency and choice. These principles reflect the feminist insistence upon the

necessity of awareness and agency as the basis of equality. Larsson emphasizes the importance

of consumer empowerment to avert data monopolies, reinforcing the feminist objective of power.

Martin formulates algorithmic ethics as a moral obligation infused in governance, reinforcing the

previous arguments. Such a synthesis of thought indicates that NOW’s historical mission of

equal participation is relevant to current debates on digital autonomy and technological justice.

Contemporary feminist movements still bear the same burden of challenging freedom-restraining

systems, be it legal or algorithmic. The equality struggle, therefore, extends to data and

information ethics, where design is transformative as an act of data liberation that aligns with

NOW’s foundational framework (Ruotsalainen & Blobel, 2019).

How it fulfills its goals

NOW is devoted to the fact that a woman, first and foremost, is a human being, who, like

all other society’s people, must be having a chance to cultivate her total human potential. NOW

has confidence that a woman can achieve this equality only through acceptance to the

responsibilities and challenges she has in common with other people in the community. It is an

integral part of its policymaking and as a mainstream of the American economic, political and

social life.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 9

It also organizes the initiation and supports action countrywide in many another part of

the United States, by organizations or individuals, in breaking through the silky curtains of

discrimination and prejudice against women. It also does this in the industry, government,

professions, political platforms, churches, labor unions, the judiciary, education, medicine, the

scientific organizations, religion, and among various fields that are significant in the US.

NOW does not support the nominal appointments of a small number of women to sophisticated

positions in the industry and government as a substitute for the serious ongoing effort to advance

and recruit women bestowing to their personal capabilities (Barnett, 2015). To this end, it urges

the American industries and government to mobilize the same resource of command and

ingenuity through which they have been able to solve problematic issues of great difficulty than

those who are now obstructing the progress of women progress within America.

The activities of NOW have come to intermingle with the global development agendas

with gender responsive policy focus. Razavi (2016) argues that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development calls for organizations to articulate how the rhetoric of gender equity would be

turned into actionable outcomes and measured. This transition from advocacy to implementation

requires clear metrics and accountability systems, which is aligned with NOW’s insistence on

organizational accountability. Bradshaw et al. (2017) observe that women’s economic

participation is still constrained by structural obstacles such as unpaid work and limited access to

credit, which NOW has been addressing through advocacy for paid parental leave and fair

wages. These economic issues illustrate that equality is as much a product of social infrastructure

as it is of legal changes and reforms. Arat (2015) argues that global gender frameworks which

are not accompanied by transformative social changes are likely to focus on reducing

empowerment to technical objectives. Spending time to think critically about which rights are

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 10

lived and which ones are merely abstract policies as described by NOW is what helps to preserve

the human-centric viewpoint that is critical for its advocacy. Kretschmer (2019) argues that the

debates on diversity and inclusion that happen in the very core of the organization mirror these

global tensions, showing the extent to which feminist advocacy is able to integrate conflicts

between principles and practice. This is how the principles of operational flexibility and domain

consistency in the fundamental objective of universal equality is maintained in the advocacy of

NOW.

The economic participation of women has increasingly become an important dimension

of the way NOW fulfills its objectives advocacy linking feminism with economic and social

progress at the national level. Bradshaw et al. (2017) argue that increasing women’s participation

in employment and entrepreneurship promotes inclusive growth, thereby alleviating poverty and

enhancing civic participation. The above findings strengthen NOW’s position that women’s

advancement is essential, not an afterthought, to sustainable development. Leslie et al. (2017)

document that the achievement of diversity goals can eliminate the traditional organizational

gender pay gaps when there is institutionally supported transparent relative performance

evaluations and reward systems. This advocacy is consistent with NOW’s position on equitable

payment. Nevertheless, without an institutional framework, cultural change, and enforcement,

economic justice is tenuous. Razavi (2016) argues that the informal employment sector is a

barrier to progress on policy issues, and therefore, feminist movements need to take the lead in

pushing for social protection. This need is complementary to NOW’s approach of local feminism

tied to national policy advocacy. Tobias (2018) points out that the capacity of feminists to

address both personal and systemic issues has always been a source of effectiveness. By linking

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 11

economic autonomy with dignity and self-determination, NOW continues to transform equality

to a multidimensional concept that encompasses social, legal and moral obligations.

The multilayered aspect of empowerment is also examined by Gándara (2015), who

claims that Latina women experience significant barriers to advancement in higher education and

to vertical mobility in the professional field. There is a need to address such inequities in an

intersectional manner as they expand the diversity boundaries of the organization. Healing the

schism in feminist movements outlined by Tobias (2018) is a strength that is drawn from

alliances that embrace difference rather than allow it to cause fragmentation. Such alliances

demonstrate the way in which expansion of NOW beyond a predominantly white middle class

base to more inclusive and diverse membership. According to Kretschmer (2019), representation

motivated policies debate change as a reflection of internal organizational responsiveness to a

range of issues. Thus, educational empowerment becomes the nexus of individual dis- and

collective progress. Arat (2015) posits that rights education enhances the ownership of political

power by women as they are able to influence the determinants of their own existence. NOW’s

scholarship, mentorship, and advocacy as part of its Title IX programs are indicative of the

organization’s position that education is the cornerstone for the attainment of equity, and that

knowledge is a powerful form of resistance to systemic exclusion.

Advocacy in public health adds a new dimension of work for NOW in which bodily

autonomy is linked to other fundamental human rights. Requejo et al. (2015) describe maternal

and reproductive health outcomes as crucial benchmarks of gender inequity as the disparities in

maternal health and other inequities in health reveal the existence of inequities in the society.

The reproductive freedom which NOW has defended for a long time echoes these findings and

supports the assertion that bodily autonomy and justice are inextricably intertwined. Betran et al.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 12

(2014) identify gaps in the systems of maternal care and focused on specific policies and

reforms, which echoes the work of NOW where healthcare is accessible and accountable.

Bradshaw et al. (2017) assert that there is an increase in women’s economic participation which

correlates with the equity of healthcare systems, thus linking health to productivity. These pieces

of evidence demonstrate the economic rationale for advocating health equity in feminism. Arat

(2015) laments the difficulty in global agreements that seek to institutionalize reproductive rights

which indicates the lack of civil society. Evidence of the health reforms NOW supports

demonstrates the belief of NOW that gender equality cannot be achieved without bodily

autonomy which also means that empowerment is not only about social recognition but also

about physical safety and dignity.

NOW’s activism furthers resilience and rebuilding community, especially during and

after crises when there are increases in disparities between the genders. Drolet et al. (2015)

describe how during times of crisis, women are crucial in the recovery process through the

formulation of innovative local-level solutions that foster social cohesion. These solutions are

consistent with NOW's focus on community-based leadership and participatory problem solving.

As noted by Bryson (2018), strategic planning within non-profit organizations must, at the same

time, seek to also blur the distinction between the long term and, the need to shift in response to,

the external environment, especially in changing social conditions. This is the orientation the

guides the NOW in devising responses to changing social problems. It is noted by Bradshaw et

al. (2017) that, within the context of recovery from economic recessions, gender-sensitive

recovery programs are the most successful, as they focus on the needs of women in the

distribution of resources. Requejo et al. (2015) also expands the understanding of post crisis

reconstruction by linking it with improved health and education, demonstrating how inclusive

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 13

planning enhances social resilience. NOW’s efforts in advocacy for equal participation in civic

rebuilding at the same time illustrates the institution's philosophy that practices of rebuilding

social equality are not one time but are sustained through collective efforts. This is what enables

the institution to implement feminist ideas in tangible and workable models for the achievement

of sustainable development.

NOW’s reform strategies continue to emphasize the leadership culture of target

professional areas. According to Helmreich and Merritt (2017) the professional divisions of

medicine and aviation, like many other fields, have an unchecked reproduction of gendered

relations that devalue the authority of women. These biases are ingrained even within advanced

technological industries, thus the advocacy linking equity at the workplace to performance and

safety in the workplace is crucial. As Leslie et al. (2017) demonstrates the more organizations

are committed to gender-diverse leadership, the better the performance and innovation metrics of

the organization. This reinforces the argument NOW made that equity is not just a moral issue

but a fundamental aspect towards institutional advancement. As noted by Tobias (2018), the shift

in organizational culture is achieved through persistent advocacy and teaching, which is more

challenging within workplaces dominated by men. These are precisely the conditions outlined by

Bryson (2018) in which the outcomes of strategic reforms in leadership are attained through the

inclusive governance and accountability systems that are put in place. With this in mind and

other suggestions the stance of NOW regarding lack of transparency in recruitment processes,

lack of clear advancement opportunities, and hostile workplace culture is clear. Such actions

impose quantifiable standards of professionalism on behalf of the social justice they seek,

ensuring that institutional effectiveness and the social justice are advanced in unison.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 14

The advancement of culture is yet another area through which NOW seeks to accomplish

its mission by attempting to break any cultural narratives which sustain inequality. As Cox

(2019) describes, culture can become an ideologically battlefield of exclusion by cherishing

patriarchal histories and, thus, must be confronted. Tobias (2018) posits that cultural critique is

an integral part of feminist activism in that it reconstructs notions of self and community.

Kretschmer (2019) notes that the self-critical attitude toward representation within NOW is

illustrative of wider societal conflicts over control of narratives. Changing the laws is Arat's

(2015) position that most empowerment can be achieved by altering the collective

consciousness. NOW attempts to shift culture to one of accountability and inclusion through

campaigns aimed at media representation, school curricula, and political dialogue. Sustainable

development is underpinned by cultural transformation that emphasizes equity and diversity, as

argued by Bradshaw et al. (2017). Activism of this sort integrates the affective, cognitive and

organizational dimensions of feminism. NOW's work on changing the meaning of culture reveals

an aspect of the comprehensive approach to equality which is central to the work of the

organization.

Advocacy and public policy reform through institutional engagement remain an intrinsic

component for NOW for fulfilling its objectives. Consider Bryson (2017), for advocacy to

survive, policy outcomes should be matched to strategic goals, as well as plans and blueprints for

sustainability. Razavi (2016) makes the case that global gender agendas rest on nationally

devised plans that transform vision and standards to be responsive and legally enforceable.

NOW’s aim on legislative change illustrates the same idea, integrating advocacy, research,

education, as well as lobbying. For instance, policy actions that support communalistic goals

boost women’s representation in STEM fields, as shown by Diekman et al (2015). Leslie et al

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 15

(2017) argue that legislation on pay secrecy has the direct effect of reducing the pay gap and

enhancing pay accountability. These support NOW’s legal and cultural strategies on the

intersection of gender policy and legal reform. According to Tobias (2018), activism has its

legitimacy when different sets of expertise are coupled with the critical private experience.

Therefore, NOW is principled that, as an advocacy group, policy is used to defend the position

that equality is an issue that is both socially defensible and grounded in fact, bridging the gap

between scholarship and advocacy.

The unfolding evolution of NOW’s strategies shows the resilience of feminist movements

in response to the complex global and local environments. Arat (2015) argues that achieving

equality is the outcome of balancing universal access and rights with particular circumstances in

a context. Razavi (2016) elaborates that the difficulty is in maintaining the energy of the struggle

in the face of competing political issues. Drolet et al. (2015) illustrate the case where community

level activism adds resilience to the institutional reform, strengthening NOW’s grassroots base

activism. Kretschmer (2019) explains the internal debates about the organization's diversity.

These debates, in the end, enrich the organization by promoting internal innovativeness and

inclusiveness. Tobias (2018) argues that the engagement with the past informs the direction to

take, thus maintaining continuity with the history of struggles within changing forms of activism.

Bradshaw et al. (2017) situate feminist activism within the context of social stability and

democratic health, suggesting a reciprocal relationship. Synthesizing all these arguments,

NOW’s contemporary work is a form of advocacy that integrates vision and pragmatism, a

model of adaptive advocacy. The enduring relevance of the work comes from the framing of

equality not as a static, fixed endpoint, but as a living practice that requires redefinition and

practice with every generation’s realities and aspirations.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 16

Lobbying techniques and how it operates

National Organization for Women’s activists employed both traditional and modern ways

to rally for social revolution. The organization’s activists do broad lobbying with electoral tasks

by initiating litigations. It mobilizes marches, pickets, gatherings, peaceful public defiance with

responsive, immediate actions. It established demonstrations on the rights of women due to the

conservative perception saying it got outdated in late 1970s.

Marches that were planned to back up “Equal Rights Amendment” gathered over a

hundred thousand people in 1978 to Washington. Reger, and Staggenborg, (2015), adds that its

marches for the lives of women drew over five hundred thousand supporters of reproductive

rights in 1989 to Washington, D.C. and another 750,000 in the year 1992, as the largest

demonstration of the rights of women ever. In the year 1995, National Organization for Women

organized a mass demonstration that concentrated on matters of aggression on women which

gathered over 500,000 United States residents at the Mall. Marches in 1996 staged in the “Fight

the Right” gathered over 60,000 people in San Francisco to commence the electoral period that

looked at the efforts on protection of the confirmatory actions. The march in the year 2004 on the

lives of women was the biggest demonstration ever held. It was historic all over United States. It

recorded over 1.15 million persons in Washington, D.C to champion for the reproductive options

of health for women.

National Organization for Women’s actions has given the organization a reputation of

being the main force in the far-reaching changes that made many women get political posts. It

raised education for women, reduced unemployment and increased business prospects for

women, enacted very tougher laws to counter violence, discrimination, and harassment against

women.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 17

National Organization for Women is currently a multi-strategy and multi-issue

organization taking a holistic strategy to the rights of women. The group’s officials prioritize on

winning economic parity and safeguarding it with the amendments to the United States’

Constitution, geared at guaranteeing equality in women’s rights. It defends the rights on abortion,

reproduction freedom together with other issues of women’s health, fights racism and opposes

prejudice against gays and lesbians and termination of violence on women.

The use of multiple platforms by NOW, and their resulting political power, showed that

political power can be drawn from visibility. Through framing various issues with moral

urgency, mass media formed the very frameworks that NOW Campaigns for Social Reform for

Reproductive Rights Rights built upon, during the Reproductive Rights Campaign. Advocates of

the Reproductive Rights Campaign understood the value of disinformation and of using the

media as a tool for the Zeynep network. Approaching from the outside and using the media

during moments of intense public scrutiny can, as Dellmuth and Tallberg (2017) argue, be more

effective than even the most comprehensive internal negotiations conducted by policymakers,

when institutional structures. This attitude turned the absence of political denial into a gesture of

publicity and advocacy. As public interest lawyers, Berry (2015) states, effective advocacy

requires continuous engagement and networking with the primary definers of the news to

influence the agenda. Feminist journalists became the targets of the NOW Media Team which

made use of advocacy frameworks and news releases that widely reframed the policy as a human

rights issue. Rai (2017) asserts that to include gender, institutional frameworks must shift, and

dominant frameworks of visibility and absence argue that the media assists in the

legitimatization of exclusion and thus the dominant invisibility that structures inclusive

frameworks.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 18

The case studies on NOW illustrate the balance between domestic and external advocacy,

as well as the use of strategies often described as “hybrid.” Dellmuth and Tallberg (2017) draw

the line between inside lobbying, which entails direct interaction with the decision makers, and

outside lobbying, which involves the organization of the public as a voice to the decision makers.

NOW engaged in both lobbying types, as the grassroots mobilization was complemented by the

expert advocacy in the congressional hearings. Krook and Norris (2014) note that in the case of

hybrid tactics, advocacy groups are more successful in campaign when the public discourse is

focused on the alignment of the discourse with the institutional objectives. This was the case of

the lobbying undertaken by NOW in relation to the Equal Rights Amendment and, subsequently,

the Fair Pay Act. The Ze- tter (2014) analysis on advocacy and lobbying emphasizes the fact that

the effectiveness and persuasive capacity is determined by the clarity of the objectives and the

supporting reasoning, which evidence-driven organizations are more likely to possess. According

to Berry (2015), coalitions of public interest organizations are also capable of diminishing the

impact that corporate lobbying has by offering competing proposals to the dominating policies.

This demonstrated how through partnerships with civil rights and labor groups, NOW was also

able to transcend the gendered scope of her policies. These actions illustrate the degree to which

intersectional advocacy and coalition building enhances advocacy credibility through

diversification of political entry points that organizations operate within, enabling feminist

organizations to balance emotional activism with procedural power.

The structure of leadership within NOW internalized its lobbying efficiency with its

adaptive capacity. According to Hrebenar and Scott (2015), fragmented interest groups with

strong local chapters can sustain national momentum, even in periods of political backlash.

NOW’s federated model demonstrated this principle, as it allowed regional affiliates to tackle

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 19

context-relevant problems within a federally defined framework of common goals. Bryson

(2018), suggests that flexible governance enhances responsiveness to political opportunities, an

idea, that was captured in NOW’s ﬁexible approach to changing conditions over decades. Berry

(2015) notes that internal democracy within advocacy groups builds trust and long-term

commitment, which strengthens their legitimacy among members and allies. However,

decentralized organization also makes coordination more difficult, which requires sophisticated

systems of communication and control. Rai (2017) argues that achieving gender-equal

institutions requires both top leadership and bottom participation. NOW’s leadership balance

between directive and participatory management allowed it to sustain intergenerational activism.

This structural hybridity exemplifies the balance between cohesive organization and creative

decentralization, which enables local actors to reformulate national frameworks in alignment

with regional political realities.

Another essential aspect of the NOW operational strategy is funding and resource

distribution. As Drutman (2015) puts it, modern lobbying has pivoted to emphasizing

professionalization and reliable funding as its defining characteristics, a shift that endangers the

ideals of the movement by placing greater importance on the institution’s survival. NOW

alleviated this tension by vertically integrating and utilizing members’ dues, donations, and a

volunteer base to maintain independence. As Berry (2015) points out, public interest groups

operate with significant financial asymmetries to corporate lobbies, which makes paradoxically

diminished opacity and high credibility a rare advantage. Zetter (2014) highlights that persuasion

hinges on authenticity, which means financial propriety increases trust in politics, and, in this

case, the pertinent funds. Orisadare (2019) also notes that in developing democracies, women’s

organizations tend to flourish when they fuse community mobilization with economic

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 20

empowerment, thus enabling mutual accountability. All of the above illustrate how the funding

ethics of NOW also encompass democratic ideals. The organization’s alignment with feminist

principles was exemplified in the maintenance of financial transparency coupled with grassroots

funding as reducing the organization’s fiscal operations to profitability was easier than proven

economic feminist activism. This allowed the campaigns to be sustained without any advocates

being compromised, which illustrates that political credibility and movement endurance are

underpinned by economic autonomy.

For a long time, NOW has defined its lobbying strategies with the use of coalition

politics. These strategies facilitate cross-sectional partnerships that amplify the power of

lobbying efforts while demonstrating the tensions of differing ideologies. Brooker and Meyer

(2018) argue that coalitions provide a framework for heterogeneous actors to engage in goal

oriented activities even in the absence of full ideological congruence. The partnerships that

NOW has with labor unions, racial justice organizations, and groups advocating for reproductive

rights serve as a case of this practiced pluralism. Bell (2014) notes that inter-movement alliances

of social movements have, in the past, democratized participation in public life. One example is

the partnership that exists between feminism and civil rights. However, Sanders (2018) points

out the negative coalition dynamics as the norm spoiling, where spilt agenda conflicting

priorities undermine collective agenda. The debates surrounding reproductive rights have

demonstrated the risk of which Sanders speaks, where the partnerships became strategically

aligned, but mechanically fractured. Dellmuth and Tallberg (2017) assert that the combination of

insider reputation with outsider public advocacy can only be achieved through advocacy balance

of coalition diversity. The ability to form partnerships in which distinct feminist positions will

not be eliminated points to the political sophistication of the organization and its understanding

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 21

of feminism as a position which sole or primary advocacy is not sufficient for sustainable

change.

Media representation also functioned as political theater, enhancing the impact of NOW

her message beyond policy papers. Rohlinger (2015) claims that the media transform social

movements into cultural narratives, framing them in a way that forges some emotional

connection. NOW's mass demonstrations, such as the 1978 and 1989 Washington marches,

integrated spectacle with controlled visual communications, turning protest into a theater of

power. According to Zetter (2014), successful lobbying is a seamless blend of emotional and

logical reasoning, where emotion is not a substitute for evidence but is integrated with it. Pro-

choice movements, as noted by John (2017), used visual language in responding to conservative

framing, a tactic found in NOW's advocacy aesthetics. Dramatic politics, as explained by Berry

(2015), is a form of public political action that is a response to the failure of organizational

lobbying to attract media attention. However, the performative aspect of activism raises the

question of sustainability, since public interest may wane faster than the policy outcomes. NOW

diminished this risk through her fusion of protest imagery with legislative action framing, which

ensured that public spectacle was not devoid of considerable pressure for policy change.

The advent of new digital technologies while framing new forms of political

communication made new forms of lobbying possible for NOW. Alemanno (2017) states that

digital activism is a form of advocacy that attempts to widen the scope of accessibility and

participation in activism. As argued by Dellmuth and Tallberg (2017), the internet serves as a

tool for the outside lobby to promote and develop transnational networks that seek to sway

policymakers and publics towards a common goal. However, as pointed out by Drutman (2015),

digital lobbying can also be used to promote corporate capture by having the online environment

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 22

dominated by corporate driven interests. In the view of Rai (2017), therefore gender

mainstreaming in governance now means the integration of technology as a means of

empowerment, rather than exclusion. This transformation reflects how the internet has also now

been used as a tool for participatory democracy, as shown by the increased use of digital

petitions, webinars, and social media campaigns by NOW. These new forms of technology

promote the expansion of feminist lobbying as they are no longer confined to the traditional

institutions of advocacy, thus permitting decentralized mobilization that reflects the grassroots

origins of the organization. Adopting the blended approach of digital advocacy and traditional

advocacy, NOW has once again expanded the definition of participation and visibility on the

advocacy framework, particularly at a time when policy making is highly reliant on public

interaction that is increasingly driven by data.

The Equal Rights Amendment campaign still remains a prime illustrative example of the

legislative lobbying undertaken by the NOW organization. Krook and Norris (2014) argue that

constitutional reforms often face failure when advocacy groups are unable to maintain bipartisan

coalitions. This illustrates the situation that NOW encountered after there was a stall to the

momentum that was gained during the earlier periods. Berry (2015) discusses that issue

persistence, the ability to keep on fighting for a cause even when it seems lost, is of prime

importance for lobbying on behalf of the public interest on a protracted time frame. Sanders

(2018) points out that it was equally the case that conservative norm entrepreneurship

rechanneled the ERA discourse within the family value paradigm and set the feminist framing at

cross purposes. Zetter (2014) argues that effective persuasion in adverse contexts is the case

where the central proposition of the discourse must be rephrased, without losing core values, to

the ethics of the audience that are seen as antagonistic. The enduring advocacy of the ERA by

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 23

NOW exemplifies what is understood as strategic narrative change and resilient advocacy, they

emphasized the ERA as a civic and moral staple, still, tellingly, after the loss of the legislative

campaign. The campaign to recast the principle of equality as not a mere political demand but

instead, a central, persisting, and foundational tenet of the Constitution, is a civic constitutional

value that the organization perpetuated and increased the symbolized elasticity of the

amendment. This perished the constitutional amendment, ensuring that it transcends generations

and cycles of legislation.

Advocating for reproductive rights showcases NOW's niche between grassroots and

lobbying work. As Ziegler (2015) describes it, the post-Roe legal battles changed the politics of

the time and forced feminist groups to rethink their methods of advocacy. According to

Rohlinger (2015), the media policy struggles over abortion framed personal experiences as

political and demanded strategic narratives to gain legitimacy and trust from the public. Berry

(2015) suggests that considering the right to health as a social justice issue greatly expanded the

base of potential supporters for the advocacy. Anderson (2015) notes that women often use

political contracts to gain more rights during transitional periods, illustrating how NOW

capitalized on available legislative opportunities to frame reproductive health as a right. These

initiatives shed light on the resilience of feminist advocacy in the face of competing moral

frameworks. In strategically shifting the focus on reproductive rights to broader civil liberties,

NOW democratized a highly divisive and contentious issue, reframing it with compelling

narratives layered with constitutional arguments that emotionalized the discourse, coupled with

strategic policy advocacy to remain in the public political discourse.

NOW's lobbying approach benefited from selective insider access during important

policy discussions. Dellmuth and Tallberg (2017) describe insider lobbying as the most

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 24

successful form of lobbying when the advocacy group has knowledge that the decision-makers

lack. Rai (2017) substantiates that including gender analysis within institutional processes

improves decision-making by varying the analyses which are brought forward. Berry (2015)

demonstrates that public interest advocacy organizations are able to exercise power by

formulating socially responsive evidence-based policy proposals. According to Krook and Norris

(2014) the institutionalization of equality reforms is able to occur when feminist scholars are

placed within the civil service at the “government of the day” as policy advisors. NOW's

participation in policy consultations and commissions serves as the most useful example of this

insider approach, which advocacy transforming to governance partnership. However, the lack of

self-direction and excessive bureaucratic control that erodes the critical voice from within the

organization is the price of this privatization. Deriving from the charge of expertise and

accountability, insider lobbying is a complement to grassroots activism which retains the

fundamental democratic standpoints that feminist advocacy must possess.

Examining the interaction that NOW had with other women’s movements demonstrates

the ways pluralism deepens collective advocacy. Orisadare (2019) states that collaboration

among women’s groups improves participation and economic empowerment across all

industries. Brooker and Meyer (2018) state that coalition-based mobilization lowers the level of

risk and the burden of resources that must be spent, thus increasing the likelihood that the project

will be sustainable. Sanders (2018) warns that overlapping agendas may lead to competition for

prominence, which then weakens solidarity. Bell (2014) argues that the feminist and racial

justice movements have had and continue to have deeply rooted ideological divergences yet have

formed historical collaborations which have changed society. Such collaborations proves that

NOW has a more practical view of coalition politics and demonstrates the rigidity of the

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 25

organization. More conducive to flexibility and responsiveness, the organization promotes

horizontal networks instead of tightening the primary vertical links. They understand that such

unequal systemic practices must be confronted with collective action at the core. Integrating

intersectional approaches turns coalition work from a matter of tactical necessity to an issue of

ethical conviction that deepens feminist advocacy with plurality and resilience.

NOW has increasingly focused less on mass protests and more on developing policies

and direct advocacy connected with institutional power. Public interest lobbying is slowly

maturing and earning its specialization described by Berry (2015) is how this is more

appropriately described. Rather than adopting a solely street-centered movement approach,

engagement with the state democracy discussed by Rai (2017) considers bureaucracy as a central

focus. Rather than selecting only one element, Dellmuth and Tallberg (2017) state that hybrid

advocacy, the combination of inside and outside strategies, is more flexible and adaptive to

political circumstance. Citizens need to be empowered to decide and be active in the policy

making through direct modern lobbying, advises Alemanno (2017). NOW has changed, with her

focus not on activism as the main element but rather on advocacy as the main goal. Activism in

its form as grassroots protest is used to mobilize constituents towards drafting legislation and

then monitoring and compliance to institutionalize improvements towards women's rights. The

tightening of the advocacy and governing strands of the continuum changes social activism to

social rights, placement of social equity in the context of democratic frameworks makes is an

assertion of the enduring principle.

Membership and NOW’S impacts on society

National Organization for Women’s grassroots groups is a distinctive strength that has

been making an important difference in attaining victories for many years and has helped in

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 26

shaping who women are today in the US (Reger, & Staggenborg, 2015). With state organizations

and chapters throughout the United States, NOW’S activists have made a feminist profound

impact on women’s lives, their families, and men at the states on local and national levels. To be

recruited as a member, one has to be having a feminist perspective, register at a fee and be an

active participant of the organization. Since it does not depend on corporate or foundation

funding, its task on justice and equality has become possible through membership dues,

volunteer hours and individual donations. One’s membership offers allow the organization to

meet its mission of equality for girls and women. Members also pay renewal fees and have to be

updating their profiles on the group’s website.

NOW's membership data illustrates its historical gaps in representation and inclusivity.

Smith (2018) asserts that voluntary associations prosper only under conditions where the balance

between unified identity and varied demographics is maintained, since in such cases, the social

reach is significantly extended. Middle class, educated women have, since the formation of the

organization, predominantly constituted membership. Dommett and Power (2018) argue that

retention in an organization is a result of a lack of consonance between organizational realities

and the lived experiences of its members, an issue for movements that are class and culture

divided. Wilson (2016) states that secular civic associations, unlike their religious counterparts,

need to repetitively validate the shared aim of the association to maintain social unity and lace

the membership of the associations and the rest of society. As noted by Brooker and Meyer

(2018), success in coalition-type associations is gained when there is a deliberate effort to

include peripheral demographics into the leadership to avoid leadership hegemony by one group.

The ongoing fragmentation of intersectional NOW feminism, exemplified by membership

disparities, is consistent with the evolving debates of intersectionality and feminism. Increasing

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 27

age, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity in membership exemplifies a shift in focus, while

equally met by the shift in collective representation that advocacy strategies politically and

socially make available to women in the United States.

The community-level initiatives undertaken by the NOW demonstrate the practical

outcomes of activism at the community level. Jagosh et al. (2015) talk about community-based

participatory models as creating synergy in a partnership by strengthening trust and collaborative

ownership of results. This model fits NOW’s bottom-up structure in which local chapters

formulate local programming to solve issues in reproductive health and equity in the workplace.

Muhammad et al. (2015) emphasize participatory engagement as an advocacy model that filters

power to the periphery; a sentiment that can be found in NOW’s community collaborations with

health clinics and domestic violence shelters. Wellman (2018) argues that networked

communities attain sustainability by nurturing emotional and informational give-and-take among

members. NOW’s activism fits the network logic by sustaining social ties through cross-class

collaborative networks. Smith (2018) argues that civic participation has ripple effects that change

the civic attitude and the behavior of the participants and the people around them. These actions

show the impact of community-level feminist organizing as a redefinition of empowerment to a

relational and distributed matter that intertwines individual and societal well-being.

The statistical patterns regarding membership growth and decline indicate the changes in

sociopolitical factors that NOW has worked through over the decades. According to Dommett

and Power (2018), changes in membership level in civic entities often occurs along with changes

in the trust public has in the institutions and the effectiveness of the public in acting in unison.

Regarding changes in participation, Smith (2018) has pointed out that the continual change of

technologies and generational shift necessitate the development of new ways to foster

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 28

participation. Messing and Westwood (2014) argue that social media filters that confer a sense of

activism are more likely to fragment attention that weakly binds through weak ties, which fosters

enfeebled audience commitment to the organization. As Habibi, Laroche, and Richard (2014)

note, digital community participation engages participants in trust rebuilding by providing them

with the opportunity to work freely and a common goal. Membership trends reflect the shift from

formal ties to more network centered participation. Thus, although at certain periods the financial

membership may have contracted, the movement´s digital campaigns and online activism

broaden the symbolic constituency of the movement. The shift from tangible forms of the

membership to hybrid underscores the capacity of feminist activism to respond to the new

generational social rhythms and still hold on to a commitment to collective empowerment.

From the twelve case studies, LPW's ideals, commemorative efforts, and even evolving

from thinking to action all emphasize the importance and value of grassroots and local

leadership. Jagosh et al. (2015) illustrate how trust and reciprocity at the community level are

essential for any intervention to endure, concepts that are evident in the local alliances between

NOW and women’s shelters and legal aid workshops. Muhammad et al. (2015) emphasize that

reflexivity in leadership, perhaps the most easily of which is positional power and privilege, is

more likely to bring in the wider circle and bring validation to the work. In the Illinois and

California chapters, that level of self-awareness has reinforced coalition building concerning

educational equity and workplace rights. Localized efforts are perceived to be the more likely

sources of innovation that focused on new ideas and strategies that are given wider diffusion at

the national level Brooker and Meyer (2018). Infrastructure for decentralized networks is

understood to flourish, Wellman (2018) argues, on the condition that the separate nodes keep

their freedom while cross communicating and sharing ideas. Such conditions are what

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 29

characterize the NOW organization. These works illustrate that the organization’s influence is

not only derived from national policy campaigns. There is an element of local grassroots

innovation, and policy experimentation that is intrinsic to every chapter. Each chapter is a living

example of participatory democracy, which in turn practices civic feminism, demonstrating civic

engagement and action that reforms gender relations at the local level and in the communities.

NOW’s impact on media and cultural discussions goes beyond advocacy work. Messing

and Westwood (2014) show that in the era of the internet, endorsements and social proofs tend to

define information engagement irrespective of the underlying beliefs. This is the phenomenon

NOW takes advantage of when enlisting well known cultural personalities to promote feminist

messages. As noted in Siddiqui and Singh (2016), social media networks improve the visibility

of movements, but they also increase the risk of polarization, thus, requiring the narratives to be

managed strategically. Habibi, Laroche, and Richard (2014) posit that prolonged engagement in

digital spaces effectively creates and fosters trust when audiences perceive genuine and

responsible behaviors. Wilson (2016) asserts that secular movements, and the digital age moral

communities have become, configure social meaning through collective electronic rituals.

Through do-it-yourself online campaigns, NOW offers educational materials and digital

narratives to foster participatory online spaces for the intertwining of activism and identity.

NOW’s cross media presence reconstructs the feminism narrative to reinforce equality as cultural

and civic standards to be integrated into everyday conversations, thus, social consciousness is

politically unobtrusive.

NOW has successfully integrated a system of feminist pedagogy in schools and

workplaces through advocacy and mentorship on Title IX enforcement and a variety of

workshops. This educational activism goes beyond shaping policies as it aims to instill a set of

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 30

values that enables people to identify and confront systematized inequities. This, in turn, sustains

a cycle of empowerment aimed at reproducing feminist consciousness and enduring structural

inequalities. Dommett and Power (2018) argue that in order to maintain interest, members must

encourage a sense of self-advancement. This shifts their involvement to active participation in

continuous education. Wilson (2016) notes that in the contemporary world, secular civic

movements tend to fill the gap left by the absence of traditional religious bodies functioning as

moral educators effectively in the society. Member’s active involvement enables the formation

of a personal sense of achievement, and shifts the practice of participation to that of active

engagement with education that is continuous throughout life. Ziegler (2015) elaborates on the

curriculum changes and public consciousness shifts around the debates on educational

reproductive rights and the discourse of gender autonomy. He states that curriculum reforms

included feminist pedagogy. Civic associations perform as alternative civic learning institutions,

as Smith (2018) points out, because they help members learn skills that are applicable in the

professional and political arenas. Voluntary professional associations learn civic skills as Ziegler

(2015) as well as Smith (2018) outline. Feminism is more than a dominant discourse in a set of

workplaces. It describes work patterns that circulate in political and civic colonies of

professional systems.

NOW's member's endurance and adaptability as well as relational culture are two sides to

the same coin. Wellman (2018) describes emotional solidarity and collaborative pragmatism as

personal bonds organizing networked “net” organizations. Such bonds are framed as

participatory engagement based on resilience and trust in Jagosh et al. (2015). Community trust

is cited by Habibi et al. (2014) as trust in loyalty fostered by members as shared interdependent

participation during politically turbulent times. Persuaded by Dommett and Power (2018),

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 31

retention is a significant factor where personal visibility turns to the positive impact of

personality efforts. These relational dynamics are the reason for Now’s ability to achieve

intergenerational continuity. The movement has integrated activism and a feminist ethic of care

by renationalizing structural changes. The network culture shifts membership from mere

engagement as a transaction to a moral and social participation based on a shared experience.

This is the culture that enhances emotional well-being and political effectiveness.

Critiques of NOW's membership model reveal the persisting struggle of attaining both

inclusivity and sustainability of the organization. Smith (2018) argues that payment of dues

might create additional class barriers by limiting participatory opportunities for those on low

incomes. Dommett and Power (2018) suggest that membership models with flexible

configurations and sliding-scale payment options are more accessible and also promote

sustainable income generation. Muhammad et al. (2015) emphasize that the understanding power

inequalities within participatory spaces is necessary for inclusivity. Wilson (2016) argues that

social movements risk stagnating in their progress when the focus is on maintenance of the

institution and not on self-ethical progress. To that end, NOW has engaged in the

experimentation of the digital model of membership and volunteer-driven approaches to broaden

access. These changes demonstrate emerging patterns of civic engagement that emphasize

inclusiveness and flexibility. By engaging with internal inequalities the organization is exhibiting

reflexivity, an important characteristic of social movements. This self-critical approach permits

the organization to change both ethically and in terms of structure, guaranteeing that feminism is

a practice for all who aspire to attain equality.

NOW has an influence beyond gender politics that touches upon civic participation.

Smith (2018) notes that voluntary associations, in the past, were seen as “training grounds” for

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 32

citizenship and civic deliberation and governance. Brooker and Meyer (2018) affirm that

coalition-based activism enhances civic participation by providing democracy at its arms-length

services. Jagosh et al. (2015) affirm that the ripple effect of “active” processes inspires civic

imagination in seemingly unrelated spheres. Wellman (2018) notes such network effects as

pivotal to the social fabric integration of pluralistic societies. NOW complements these civic

functions through voter registration drives, leadership training, and coalition building. Members

gain civic literacy and organizational skills as well as skills relevant to local governance,

professional leadership, and public administration. This is what NOW refers to as the

multiplication of democratic practices. This illustrates the advocacy and the civic education that

NOW provides to strengthen feminist pluralism. Such civic participation is, then, an advocacy

for democracy, embedded in the daily practices of the community, in the form of feminist

activism.

The long-term social impact of NOW’s membership network shows how collective civic

action can bring about change. Smith (2018) concludes that voluntary associations carve a

permanent mark on social customs by demonstrating cooperation and collective responsibility.

Jagosh et al. (2015) emphasize that trust-centered collaborations have broader reach outcomes

that change systems and social expectations beyond the immediate goals. Ziegler (2015) links

these outcomes to the enduring legacy of policy, arguing that movements like NOW provide

social change continuity even when politically stagnant. Wellman (2018) argues that persistent

networks anchor social identity, offering moral stability in times of social change. These

persistent networks have moral cohesion and anchor social identity. These networks demonstrate

that there are profound effects of feminist organizing beyond episodic protest to include chronic

systems of equity. NOW’s model of participatory citizenship illustrates that the most significant

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 33

outcomes of activism are not residing on the attainment of legislation but rather on the formation

of a civic populace and the ethical posture towards injustice. The organization is situated as both

a live democracy framework and a historical figure of democracy passage because of how

NOW’s legacy easily integrates enduring civic action context.

Effectiveness of Now

For many years, NOW has been influential in the development of important issues in the

organization of women. According to Rosen, (2013), NOW’s officers prioritize on championing

for abortion rights, reproduction freedom among women's issues of health and opposing racism

that is prevalent in the US. It has also been effective in fighting intolerance on gays and lesbians,

and in ending the violence against girls and women.

Some of its most notable achievements have been in the prevention of violence and

sexual harassment. Barnett, (2015), states that the members of this organization staged the first

march that pioneered the hotlines for reporting abuse and shelters for battered women. It has

been active in lobbying for government’s funding of its programs meant to stop violation of the

rights of women. It succeeded in passing of an Act on “Federal Violence Against Women” in the

year 1994.

In 1967, it was the leading national group calling for abortion legalization and the

cancellation of any anti-abortion regulations. Barker-Plummer, (2012) adds that NOW ensured

access by women to reproduction health care, through its projects that have educated members

on the use of the three branch plan that included partisan force, litigation and defending the

female rights in health centers. In the year 1994, a Supreme Court’s case in the US, Steindler vs.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 34

NOW asserted NOW's right to the use of federal laws on racketeering against anti-abortion

radicals who organized campaigns of violence and fear to deny abortion to women.

One of its resilient concerns is recognition attainment in women's work, either in homes

or the payable labor market. Firstly, it popularized the organization’s motto, saying each mother

in the US is a worker, with its expression, that saying woman who works away from home. It

supports this landmark through litigations on sexual discriminations in employment and

appealing to millions in support for women. In 1969’s case, Southern Bell vs. Weeks, Sylvia

Roberts, who is now its Southern Director, and the attorney at the time, was able to win the

United States’ “Fifth Circuit” court’s ruling that discrimination on sex violates the Act of Civil

Rights on Title VII (Reger, 2012). This milestone judgment was the initial application of the

Title VII on sex discrimination.

Additionally, it has also set up its political committee (PAC) whose work is to support

candidates for local, federal and State offices. PAC's work is to help in maintaining and

upholding the rights of women through provision of support to candidates, both women, and men

with feminist perspectives matching those of National Organization for Women’s Political

Action Committee. This aspect of NOW has made it widely recognizable.

The further analysis of the policy results that NOW achieved will benefit through the

connection of its long-standing history of advocacy to the issues of autonomy and structural

power at large. The findings that the contemporary mechanisms of influence may limit the

choices of individuals are supported by studies of the big data setting, where researchers believe

that autonomy is frequently undermined as a result of the intransparent manner of decision

making (Grafanaki, 2016). This diagnosis creates a critical similarity with regards to defining the

challenges that NOW encounters in its attempt to deal with gender inequality because the policy

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 35

changes can be met with hard to alter systems that are based on behavioral shaping in slight

nuances. Analyses of algorithmic agents also reveal the consistent buildup of systemic

constraints into broad social dynamics, as Bodo et al. (2017) find, highlighting the importance of

gender policy also needing consistent monitoring to resist biases where they exist without notice.

The necessity to empower the consumer as explained by Larsson (2018) provides a conceptual

counterpart to the politics empowerment strategies of NOW, by demanding transparent

institutional frameworks that establish effective engagement instruments. The findings of a study

carried out by Ruotsalainen and Blobel (2019) regarding digital health ethics additionally

highlight the importance of establishing trust and accountability in determining the success of

reform by policy makers, which outlines the long term policy success heavily relies on the ability

to maintain institutional credibility. These expanded conclusions indicate that the success of

NOW is not only related to legislative success but also to the capacity to modify the fundamental

structures affecting women in their freedom in a variety of areas.

To assess the consequences of labor and economic equity campaigns launched by NOW,

it is necessary to put its results into the context where these forces of an agency are determined

by the forces that are not always formal policy. The decision making of consumers can be

transformed through the sophisticated data practices, as Andre et al. (2018) claim, and this is

why structural pressures may undermine the utilitarian advantages of legal changes. This thought

process can be used to make sense of why benefits in workplace equity have been slow to gain in

various instances even when there are vocal advocacies. The loss of autonomy in the digital

transactions as researched by Mik (2016) reveals that people might have to encounter implicit

limits operating at the level lower than that of consciousness and that is the same thing that

remains challenging in the working environment where discriminatory principles remain in

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 36

practice to evaluate and to be promoted. Findings on marketing effects identified by Rachmad

(2017) support the perception that cultural discourses may modify the preference in a manner

that neutralizes equality campaigns, which implies that the policy successes of NOW need to be

complemented by cultural activism. Discussions of algorithmic accountability as ethics by

Martin (2019) also indicate that systems that do not strive to be transparent can recreate

differences, which can refer to the literature that confirms that getting any quantifiable impact in

reducing gender pay gaps can be challenging. This suggests that the policy reforms that are

influenced by NOW will work best when they are coupled with strategies that address the

systemic pressures of the workplace behavior and distribution of opportunities.

Quantitative indicators of measuring the effectiveness of NOW reveal disproportional

results in the progress of the industry, and the same trends are typical of other areas. According

to the researchers, who examine the autonomy of big data, the unequal distribution of

information authority may have an influencing power on the results, though formal rights seem

to be in place, as demonstrated by Grafanaki (2016). This contributes to the understanding that

those indicators as representation in leadership or pay equity tend to alter gradually with the

increase of legal protections. The algorithmic control proposed by Bodo et al. (2017) implies that

uncontrolled systems may sustain any inequalities that existed before, and this is the same

argument supporting the continuation of gender disparities in the workplaces and safety. Results

regarding consumer choice under artificial intelligence obtained by Andre et al. (2018)

demonstrate the way in which institutional frameworks shape the process of decisions, which is

why there is a necessity of institutional-level surveillance in gender policy spheres. According to

the literature on the 2030 Agenda, gender interventions should be supported by effective

implementation mechanisms in order to achieve quantifiable benefits, as Razavi (2016) observes,

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 37

which confirms the conclusion that the efforts of NOW should be supported by accountability

frameworks in order to succeed. All these aspects put together demonstrate that the ambivalent

outcomes of national gender indicators are caused not only by the unwillingness to change but

also the complexity of the systems that reproduce inequality in many social and institutional

mechanisms.

Knowledge in areas that investigate latent processes of risk and control can reinforce

efforts to measure the violence reduction policies proposed by NOW. According to the scholars,

algorithmic environments may obscure power sources that influence the wellbeing of

individuals, as it is demonstrated by Bodo et al. (2017) and this phenomenon is similar to the

multifaceted conditions under which the prevalence of violence in communities is formed. Trust

and privacy that have proven to influence health related behaviors (Ruoutsalainen and Blobel,

2019) support the significance of developing credible institutional relationships as part of

violence prevention initiatives. The autonomous issues in data systems analyzed by Grafanaki

(2016) indicates that the more people have no control over important information streams, the

more vulnerable they get, and the same process occurs in the case of the survivor that has to

work with the system that can potentially expose them to other types of harm. Studies by Martin

(2019) on the importance of ethical responsibility in using algorithms emphasize the importance

of open governance, which argues that the value of the proposal of the standards of violence

reporting in NOW should be tightly controlled. These interdisciplinary lessons show that the

only way a successful violence reduction is achieved is a combination of legal reform together

with the institute of institutional environments where trust, control, and coherent accountability

systems do their combined work in reducing risk factors that are inherent in the system.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 38

The systematic evaluation of the legislative achievements and setbacks of NOW can be

enhanced with the discussions that cover the broader scope of governance in the fast changing

systems. The analyses of digital markets unite and find that the absence of consumer

empowerment can hinder the efficacy of regulatory approaches, applied to this problem by

Larsson (2018) and, thus, can be used to understand why some of the reforms supported by

NOW have not been adopted quickly even though their popularity among people is high. The

2030 Agenda analyses indicate that the gender equality ambitions have gained tendencies to be

faced with implementation hiccups that are rooted in conflicting institutional interests, as

proposed by Razavi (2016), which was also the case with NOW, in spite of the fact that it has to

convert the national commitments of gender equality into a binding policy. A study of loss of

autonomy in online settings developed by Mik (2016) helps understand how structural

constraints might remain active despite the implementation of formal safeguards, which

contributes to the understanding of the reasons why some equality measures are less effective

than expected. The results of Andre et al. (2018) about the lack of decision freedoms under

specific circumstances point to the necessity of considering contextual factors surrounding the

adoption of policies, which justifies the relevance of post-victory advocacy. Such comparisons

demonstrate that the most effective initiatives that are undertaken by NOW include those that are

backed with ongoing institutional interaction, and any reforms that lack structural support tend to

perform poorly.

There has also been much internal criticism that has been leveled at NOW, which regards

the issue of elitism and lack of representation, which can be remedied by a close comprehension

of how organizations can change in complex governance conditions. In algorithms control, it is

pointed out that the structures of decisions can submerge and even obstructive without explicit

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 39

correction systems, as Bodo et al. (2017) argue, and this understanding reflects the attitude to

which NOW had to face at points of organizational stagnation. Included in the works by Larsson

(2018) concerning consumer empowerment are the characteristics of inclusive participation

frameworks, which provide conceptual similarity to the internal changes NOW introduced to

extend member involvement. The literature on autonomy in the context of big data by Grafanaki

(2016) demonstrates that the legitimacy of power imbalances may negatively affect the absence

of transparency, which contributes to the necessity of transparency in addressing the criticism of

internal hierarchy. The debate on ethical responsibility in algorithmic systems in Martin (2019)

lends the argument that organizations should foster effective governance principles to foster

trust, which is similar to reforms NOW that have been adopted to enhance decision making

processes. These interdisciplinary approaches indicate that the reactions of NOW to an internal

critique can be considered as the attempt to simplify an organizational practice to more

comprehensive rules of accountability and participatory governance.

The interaction of NOW with the 2018 #MeToo movement can be seen as a relevant

illustration of the implementation of the old strategies into the current political environment

based on the networked information flows. The studies of consumer behavior in AI affected

settings revealed by Rachmad (2017) indicate that shared narratives can rapidly change when

reinforced by digital means which assists in understanding why some movements such as the one

surrounding the idea of harassment could alter the discussion on a national level within a short

period. According to researchers who focus on the field of algorithmic governance, it is possible

to exacerbate structural inequalities with the help of opaque online machinery, as Bodo et al.

(2017) note, and that is why NOW attempts to promote accountability in the system of the online

reporting of harassment. Survivor issues related to the protection of data are similar to those

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 40

found in the studies of trust and privacy in digital health settings conducted by Ruotsalainen and

Blobel (2019), which reinforces the argument by NOW that the digital reporting procedures

require protective measures. Research of the problem of autonomy carried out by Grafanaki

(2016) can show how people lose personal information in a data-intensive sphere, and the

attention to protective criteria in the movements where digital testimony is actively used should

be paid to. These reflections indicate that the role of NOW in the context of the movement, in

addition to raising awareness, is the creation of structural protections that are consistent with the

interests of the assumptions concerning the vulnerability of the digital location in general.

The advocacy of reproductive justice in the twenty first century must concern the

ideologies that are increasingly dependent on the information-driven procedures, and the

knowledge about digital ethics will help to explain those new issues. As analyzed by Martin

(2019), algorithmic systems tend to be privy to accountability, as do opaque decision models in

reproductive healthcare access. According to the research on the issue of autonomy erosion

conducted by Mik (2016), people may lose the feeling of control in the context of transactions

made online, and this phenomenon indicates the challenges that neighborhoods dealing with the

realities of digital healthcare have to encounter. Ethical and trust issues surrounding digital

health reporting reported by Ruotsalainen and Blobel (2019) also help to recognize the

significance of privacy protection, which contributes to the advocacy of NOW on secure

reproductive health information systems. Evidence related to global gender policy shows that to

meet the equality goals it is important to challenge structural restraints as Razavi (2016) states,

which explains why it is essential to adopt policy measures according to which reproductive

justice and institutional reform should be linked to each other. These contemporary concerns

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 41

demonstrate that the reproductive rights agenda of NOW intersects more and more with the

discussion of the technology of governance, as well as with discussions of data ethics.

The trend of incorporating trans into NOW shows that the institution was changes in the

concept of autonomy, identity, and rule. According to the researchers of the system

understanding the algorithmic agents, the systems have the ability to strengthen the exclusionary

norms unless they have mechanisms of constant review, as is the case with Bodo et al. (2017)

and this justifies the organizations to revise the traditional membership models. Grafanaki (2016)

provides analyses of autonomy issues in high data environments using which one can see how

the understanding of identity can be limited through external classification, similar to the

experiences of trans people in institutions. The points of empowerment in data driven markets

made by Larsson (2018) accentuate that inclusion would involve an opportunity of meaningful

participation, which makes sense to the activities of inclusion that are aimed at broadening the

representational practices by NOW. Ethical analyses of algorithmic decision making by Martin

(2019) tend to capture the presence of systemic bias dangers, which means that the matter of

structural inequity, historically impacting gender diverse communities, is significant. These

readings indicate that the trans inclusion turn of NOW concerned more movements toward fair

governance in changing social environments.

Intersectional Expansion Within NOW

The emergence of NOW’s intersectional feminist governance required understanding that

social identities are situated within relational webs that determine how people engage with and

understand social challenges as group efforts. Scholarly accounts about networked communities

illustrate how different social relationships influence involvement, and this explains Wellman's

(2018) observations regarding the gradual adoption of more complex identity categories within

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 42

the NOW organizational framework. This account shows that governance is more sustainable

when organizations are responsive to the different social realities of their members. Researchers

in feminist intellectual traditions Sharlene S. and Karen B’s. Bratich (2018) mid argument

demonstrate how movements are responsive to the challenges posed by the periphery to

dominant paradigms, and it is this set of critiques by Black, queer and Latina feminists that S and

B Sharlene S show how the NOW agenda was transformed. These changes also illustrate that

diversification of thought is an asset in the context of strategy. Intersectional governance

theorists posit that to ensure exclusion is not replicated, governance cannot ignore overlapping

hierarchies of power, this Boryczka and Disney (2015) have already argued regarding the

intersectional imperative of inclusiveness in thinking and action. This insight emphasizes the

procedural necessity of intersectionality for the organization.

The advanced internal debates regarding race, class and sexuality within NOW needed an

accumulated tension of various member identities, and such need fundamentally changed the

organization’s strategic focus. Intersectional history frameworks show how institutions change as

the new social demands and older governance frameworks described by Shaffner et al. (2019)

integrate, which may explain how NOW changed, albeit incrementally, during the later years of

the twentieth century. Their findings alert us to the fact that organizational memory is not fixed,

but rather complex and contested. Cultural Studies also shed light on the fact that

intersectionality is not static and require rethinking of representational practices, as Guimaraes

Correa (2020) points out, which is an issue for many cultural institutions today. This explains

why for NOW it was imperative to deal with the narratives which silenced women of color, as

well as queer activists. Feminist geography shows that power is differentially distribution across

space and social relations, and Mollett and Faria (2018) detail the way place based disadvantages

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 43

shape political participation, which reinforces the case for regionally focused intersectional

approaches within NOW. This illustrates the importance of contextual detail for national

organizing. Literature on climate adaptation also shows that intersectional frameworks reveal

otherwise hidden social vulnerabilities, as Thompson Hall et al. 2016), designing policy

initiatives that factor in the complexities of disadvantage is a major gap in the literature.

The Acquisition of intersectional understanding demonstrated within NOW’s framework

revealed the need for a remastering of some governance paradigms to include more than one

identity during the decision making cycle. With regard to networked governance, the distribution

of decision making power is known to improve networked agility, a point Wellman (2018)

makes in regard to the ability of varied networks to enhance collaborative action. This

strengthens the notion that increased representation on governance councils will enhance

organizational agility. Studies on mediated feminist intellectual traditions show that collective

understanding of an issue is broadened when critiques from various aspects of identity are

brought into conversation (Bratich, 2018), thus suggesting that more inclusive leadership

promotes greater strategic clarity. Scholars examining the intersectionality of global politics

suggest that governance effectiveness involves the integration of cross cutting inequalities to

avoid tokenistic change, an expectation documented by Boryczka and Disney (2015) who

analyze the adaptive behavior of structures in a globalized context. Their research suggests that

the intersectional leadership principles embraced by NOW are emblematic of more global trends.

Research on coproduction has also demonstrated that the equitable distribution of decision

making power requires the application of specific rules and Castán Broto and Neves Alves

(2018) illustrate how such rules enhance equity within complicated decision making

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 44

arrangements. This suggests that the structural changes made by NOW were in step with new

emerging inclusive methods.

As NOW incorporated intersectional critiques, tensions emerged between national level

messaging and the diverse lived experiences of grassroots members. Intersectional history

research shows that organizations often encounter conflict during periods of ideological

expansion, and Shaffner et al. (2019) emphasize that these conflicts shape long term institutional

change. Their analysis highlights how internal disagreement can lead to more inclusive

governance models. Cultural theorists argue that intersectionality requires institutions to

reexamine how, within the scope of identity and the narratives that construct normative

identities, culture, as theorized by Guimaraes Correa (2020) who posits that political culture is an

outcome of cultural imagination. This explains why NOW had to modify previous statements

that were based on the assumption of womanhood as a single, homogenous construct. Feminist

geographers note that identity formation is deeply spatial and conditioned by local

circumstances, and Mollett and Faria (2018) show that political participation varies across

geographic contexts, strengthening the argument for NOW’s shift toward region responsive

frameworks. Taken together, these arguments demonstrate how national level advocacy needs to

address regional disparities as well. Research on differentiated vulnerabilities to the impacts of

climate change sheds light on the same issue, and intersectional approaches, as illustrated by

Thompson Hall et al. (2016), reveal uneven power relations within communities. Thompson Hall

et al. (2016) discusses how reflexive social equity frameworks, within the context of climate

justice, can serve as a paradigm for NOW’s outreach strategy.

Like other forms of governance, the intersectional governance of NOW still had to

wrestle with its own history of marginalization the governance of exclusion that made invisible

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 45

the many members who were relegated to the margins and not made visible. Network

scholarship suggests, as Wellman (2018) does in his distributed social network analysis, that

community cohesion is strengthened when overt peripheral involvement is made available. This

is evidence to support the proposition that organizational structures designed to include members

at the margins of the decision making processes are likely to enhance the organization’s long

term survival. Feminist scholars analyzing mediated thought on intersectionality demonstrate

that interpretive frameworks are altered by intersectional critiques, and in particular, Bratich

(2018) shows how many different activist voices contribute to the expansion of the theoretical

imagination of movements. This expansion illustrates that internal critique can stimulate new

ways of thinking strategically. Writers on global intersectionality point out that institutional

frameworks of profound and overlapping inequalities require profound institutional responses,

and Boryczka and Disney (2015) argue that governance frameworks need to embrace the

globalized forms of marginalization. This is similar to NOW’s understanding that domestic

policy debates are constituent to larger transnational policy struggles. All the above evidence

suggests that intersectional governance increases the legitimacy and the strategic coherence of an

organization.

The restructuring of policies seems to stem from the need to change campaign strategies

to deal with integrated systems of inequality. Shaffner et al. (2019) illustrate how the historical

evolution of intersectionality political institutions changes when internal controversies lack

recognition of certain inequalities. Such debates and their internal articulations take place within

the context of more inclusive organizational debates and help make sense of the expansion of

NOW’s singular focus to include policing, childcare, and employment discrimination under the

more expansive intersectional terms. Advocacy by NOW truly reflects the scholarship of cultural

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 46

theorists who ask, as Guimaraes Correa (2020) does regarding certain cultural forms, why

intersectionality is still used to simplify social and political movements and policies. Correa’s

observation collapses the notion of policymaking as singular, reinforcing the need within

scholarship to rethink how policies and activism are framed. Feminist geography argues that

political inequalities are unevenly distributed, and Mollett and Faria (2018) illustrate how within

country variations in location determine vulnerability, underscoring the regionalism within

whole country critique in feminist geography. This aids the renewed focus of NOW on localized

advocacy. Furthermore, climate adaptation literature such as those of Thompson Hall et al.

(2016) shows that intersectional examinations uncover deep sited structural weaknesses, giving

evidence on how methodologies could inform policies designed to respond to multiple

disadvantages.

Overwhelming attraction to NOW orienting more towards the intersectional framework,

the focus switched to eliminating the ideological disparities between the national leadership and

various local chapters. The strained relationship between the general messaging and the localized

lived experiences emerged as the position where organizational learning was in urgent need.

According to the intersectional governance literature, only national policies that can be adjusted

to the social, economic, and cultural realities of various communities can work (Shaffner et al.,

2019). In the case of NOW, this implied a change of advocacy priorities to incorporate more of

the differences in the region, such as access to healthcare, education, and equal legal protection

of marginalized women. According to cultural theorists, e.g., Guimaraes Correa (2020), the

narratives of organizational cultures need to embrace various forms of constructing identity;

otherwise, cohorts with subjectivities formed by inappropriate methods of homogenization will

be marginalized. Therefore, NOW created regional consultation and feedback systems, and thus

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 47

the national campaigns were perceived to be informed by local understanding and this made its

advocacy efforts even more legitimate and more effective. It was also through this process that

the current difficulty of balancing solidarity and respect of diversity was highlighted, a task that

still takes center stage in modern day feminist organizing.

The other aspect of the intersectional expansion was an intentional consideration of

policy integration of issues which were perceived as apart historically. Feminist governance

scholars state that single-issue campaigns can automatically perpetuate structural injustices by

failing to recognize the systemic presence of oppression across the race, class, gender identity,

sexuality and disability (Mollett & Faria, 2018). The campaigns of NOW started to reflect this

fact, and their primary goal was not only the eradication of gender discrimination but also

cumulative disadvantages of women of color, women who are queer, and women with

disabilities. As an example, the Equality Advocacy of NOW was able to incorporate the study of

wage differences, accessibility requirements and racialized employment policies to see how a

strictly gendered framework would have neglected entirely to consider the key aspects of the

inequality. Offering an example of social justice organizations operating on intersectional

understandings by applying them to all policy formulation levels, NOW showed how intricate

academic knowledge can be translated into effective manifestation of advocacy practices,

consequently raising awareness and effect.

The issue of leadership development at NOW also emerged as one of the most important

locations of the implementation of intersectional principles. Distributed leadership studies and

networked governance have indicated that a model is maintained with marginalized voices in

decision-making processes, which improves the responsiveness of the organization and strategic

innovativeness (Wellman, 2018). NOW established mentorship initiatives, leadership grants, and

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 48

rotational governance frameworks that would accomplish the creation of leaders within the

underrepresented circles, such as Indigenous activists, working-women, and LGBTQ+

organizers. This organizational strategy dealt with criticism of tokenism because tokenism was

not significant in organizational agendas, although in this approach, it was possible to have

marginalized members influencing organizational agendas in a substantial way than a symbolic

one. The practical implications of leadership diversification were also applied to the design of a

campaign: having many perspectives to planning, NOW could predict any obstacle to

participation, design more outreach to certain constituencies, and had more holistic ideas on how

to address incomplete social issues. The further developed form of governance is a manifestation

of the modern research supporting intersectional-based leadership as a component of the strong

social movement.

An important key to conducting the translation of intersectional ideals into practice was

introduced through coalition-building. Feminist network theory is interested in the idea that

multi-movement alliances enable more legitimacy and reach services so that organizations can

address multi-layered social inequities (Boryczka & Disney, 2015). NOW collaborated with the

organizations of disability rights, immigrant advocacy, and LGBTQ to co-create campaigns

against the structural injustice, including discriminatory police practices and economic

marginalization. These alliances not only diversified the organizational expertise of NOW, but

also made it a valuable contributor in the rest of social justice networks. Moreover, coalitional

work also showed the strategic benefits of intersectionality: with the help of different expertise,

NOW was able to act on multiple axes of disparity at once, and this served as an apparent

presentation of the multi-faceted reality of the most disadvantaged groups.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 49

Introduction of intersectional assessment measures was another step towards the

organization practice of NOW. The study of feminist institutionalism emphasizes that

accountability systems play an important role in making inclusion substantive, as opposed to

ideological (Castan Broto & Neves Alves, 2018). NOW developed mechanisms that would allow

monitoring representation in leadership, the extent of involvement of its memberships in the

social divisions, and campaign effects on various constituencies. It is these assessments that

made the organization see the ongoing gaps, including the lack of representation of rural women

or accessibility between disabled activists, and modify its strategies to meet them. Furthermore,

reflexive appraisal practices ensured the iterative character of intersectional governance, where it

is important to govern that organizational learning and structural adjustment are constant

processes and not the results obtained. Empirical assessment offers a ground to reforms and

NOW stands to lose credibility and lose the confidence of various mitigations some of whom

constitute its membership.

Intersectional expansion also demanded new conceptualization of communication in

organizations and narrative framing. Research on cultural studies reveals that domineering

discourses tend to exclude or deny the contribution of individuals who hold various subordinated

social statuses (Guimaraes Correa, 2020). The response to this was that has been done

deliberately by NOW through the use of stories and testimonies of members who represent the

varied racial, economic and sexual identities in the public messages, publications, and campaign

materials. This narrative inclusivity did not only disrupt feminism being perceived as a white,

middle-class movement, but it also opened opportunities to wider social participation. NOW has

increased its ability to form alliances, mobilize grassroots groups, and impact policymaking,

which demonstrates how intersectional expansion can extend beyond the kinds of governance

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 50

and policy and include the cultural and discursive means of forming a sense of legitimacy and

appearance in the eyes of the masses.

NOW’s Digital-Era Advocacy Adaptations

Digital technologies have essentially changed the organization strategies of NOW

providing hybrid forms of activism with a combination of traditional grassroots organizing with

online mobilization. Social media offer the organization the chance to target wider audiences,

develop the engagement, and maintain quick-reaction campaigns and is indicative of larger

trends in digital-era advocacy (Rohlinger, 2015). According to scholars, networked governance

can also be done through online tools in organizations, in which participants are distributed

remotely, yet they feel their identity as a group (Dommett and Power, 2018). This change alters

the process of making decisions internally, because data analytics and online surveys allow

leaders to trace the trends of participation, determine the arising concerns, and customize

programs to the experiences of the different members lived (Habibi, Laroche, and Richard,

2014). In addition, the digital platforms also increase the ability of NOW to shape policy

discussions in real-time, incorporating participatory formula in lobbying and advocacy

campaigns (Drutman, 2015). Nevertheless, researchers warn that these changes require a

redistribution of organizational systems to avoid becoming dependent on virtualized systems that

can destroy face-to-face solidarity (Hrebenar and Scott, 2015). This strain represents the kind of

strategic equilibrium NOW needs to operate between the capitalization of the technological

innovation and the continuation of the conventional modes of civic participation, which shows

the dynamic quality of the changes in the feminist advocacy in the twenty-first century.

Algorithms mediation has created chances and threats to the digital campaign carried by

NOW. Engagement metrics are some of the primary visibility factors promoted by social media

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 51

algorithms and may further promote the resonance of feminist messages, as well as lead to

unequal distribution of issues and questions of critical importance (John, 2017). Studies show

how algorithmic bias is also likely to discriminate against minorities or give preference to viral

information instead of meaningful discussions (Rai, 2017). In the case of NOW, to guarantee

equitable representation in online advocacy, one needs to understand the mechanics of the digital

visibility, especially, campaigns representing anti-violence campaigns and the promotion of

reproductive rights (Rohlinger, 2015). The strategic adjustment of messages to algorithmic space

involves the preparation of content and time that contributes certain technical complexity to the

existing advocacy skills (Dommett and Power, 2018). Moreover, women, as well as feminist

advocates are best impacted by online harassment and trolling, which exert a psychological and

organizational burden on shaping campaign strategies (Orisadare, 2019). The combination of

these risks and opportunities of the digital world underscores the need to work towards the

creation of comprehensive digital literacy and ethical engagement policies and underscores the

idea that the technological tools are both facilitative and limiting to the current mobilization of

feminists.

The utilization of digital platforms by NOW has played a major role in recruitment and

retaining membership that has changed traditional ideas of community engagement. According

to brand community theory, online communities help to build trust, shared identity, and long-

term engagement, which are prerequisite to successful long-term attendance (Habibi, Laroche,

and Richard, 2014). Geographically distributed members can stay connected with the association

facilitated by digital newsletters, webinars, and social media campaigns that enable the

organization to maintain ongoing contact without considering geographic distance (Dommett &

Power, 2018). Also, digital tools allow gathering and interpreting measures of engagement,

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 52

which helps to understand the areas of interest, concerns, and responsiveness of members to a

campaign (Drutman, 2015). The data can enable NOW to design outreach interventions, wherein

they will align with the values of the members and increase retention (Orisadare, 2019).

However, depending on the real-time connection exposes the issue of digital inequality, where

the availability of a high-speed internet and technological literacy are not homogenous,

according to socioeconomic and geographical boundaries (Rai, 2017). Such differences are

fundamental in considering the longevity of its inclusive participation and making digital

engagement an addition to, and not a replacement of, localized, face-to-face activism. By doing

so, the high-tech and human-tech ratio is balanced at membership retention strategies, which are

sophisticated.

The examples of how NOW has used online social movements, e.g., the example of the

#MeToo campaign, shows that this organization can use digital platforms to conduct fluid

advocacy. The studies show that feminist narratives can be spread faster through social media by

mobilizing popular interest and provoking a policy discussion at new rates (Rohlinger, 2015).

NOW took advantage of the online networks to spread survivor narratives and organize petitions

and promote legislative changes in the area of sexual assault and harassment (John, 2017).

Intersectional representation by linking coalitions online also allowed various members to

experience and build collective messaging (Brooker and Meyer, 2018). The integration of

quantitative instruments into feminist cause was also manifested in the analytical application of

digital information by the organization to monitor campaign reach, find target reader, and gauge

the effectiveness of message strategies (Habibi, Laroche, and Richard, 2014). Nevertheless, not

everything is smooth in these campaigns because the mobilization on a digital level may cause

fatigue, misinformation, and fragmented interactions in case it is hard to sustain attention

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 53

(Dommett and Power, 2018). The study of effective and weak actions of such efforts is helping

NOW streamline its digital advocacy approach, fulfilling the perfect balance of speed,

inclusiveness, and impact to make the movement as effective as possible.

The advocacy of the digital era has changed the way NOW lobbies people by proposing

new avenues of impacting legislations and making certain societal narratives. Researchers

observe that internet activism is not aimed at replacing conventional lobbying: it allows building

a large momentum of constituent voices and using data-driven persuasive communication

(Zetter, 2014). NOW uses social media, email operations, and virtual town halls to mobilize

policymakers and circulate popular discussion, which shows the strategic convergence of the

grassroots activism and political power (Drutman, 2015). Moreover, online platforms can also be

used to track legislative changes in real-time, where members will receive guidance on the

advocacy efforts and responses to the emerging political developments in a timely manner

(Alemanno, 2017). The transparency and accountability of such digital tool integration are much

better because members could monitor lobbying activities and assess organizational priorities

(Hrebenar and Scott, 2015). Although such benefits are present, researchers warn that online

lobbying may be susceptible to misinformation, polarization and selective amplification by

algorithms, which may negatively affect the perceived legitimacy of campaigns (Rai, 2017).

Consequently, the digital advocacy of NOW has created the need to constantly review and adjust

itself, driving home the theme of technical know-how, ethics, and strategically planning the

current feminist movements.

Digital issues and privacy concern have become a primary ethical issue facing online

activism by NOW. Evaluation of digital governance indicates that there is a risk of data breach,

spotlighting surveillance, and unauthorized surveillance against activists’ organizations, which

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 54

may harm the participants and undermine campaign quality (Orisadare, 2019). The feminist

groups should thus enforce effective privacy, making sure that confidential information of the

members, as well as campaign topics, is safe and applies well (Rai, 2017). These precautions are

essential in the campaigns concerning reproductive rights, sexual violence, or minority

communities, where the exposure may lead to any harm to the social, legal, or personal spheres

(John, 2017). Digital activism ethical frameworks propose that any organization should strike a

balance between transparency and accountability versus keeping vulnerable participants safe,

developing protocols on consent, data control and risk evaluation (Alemanno, 2017). The active

consideration of these issues by NOW not only protects people but also works to strengthen

organizational reputation and prove that ethical management of digital toolism is an inseparable

part of successful feminist activism (Drutman, 2015). The following considerations also make

the situation of digital mobilization more complicated, showing how technological innovations,

strategy, and ethical responsibility interact.

The problem of misinformation and the spread of an echo chamber in the social media

sphere poses serious threats to the digital communication policies of NOW. Researchers believe

that the information streams based on algorithms might result in the secluded communities of

opinions, strengthening the prejudices and preventing the visibility of other opinions (Rohlinger,

2015). In the case of NOW, the leading way of counteracting these dynamics is creating

believable information sources, fact-checking measures, and strategies to engage people across

ideological lines (Brooker and Meyer, 2018). Trends in misrepresenting are directly tracked with

the help of data analytics and identified to determine the effectiveness of campaigns and modify

the messages based on them (Habibi, Laroche, and Richard, 2014). Furthermore, the studies in

political mobilization indicate that active education and framing of a story are the keys to

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 55

minimizing influence of misinformation and maintaining trust among people (Drutman, 2015).

These proposals explain why digital advocacy is an opportunity and a burden, as it requires

attention to the flow of information so as to ensure that organizational credibility and the

effectiveness of feminist campaigns in the digital community are not lost (Orisadare, 2019).

Combining hybrid organizing models has helped NOW to work on several levels of

social disparity at the same time. Theorists note that platforms like the Internet enable

intersectional targeting of campaigns, meaning that campaigns target women due to their racial,

class, sexuality, or geographic disadvantage (Rai, 2017). This ability will increase organizational

responsiveness, whereby leaders are able to locate structural impediments, amplify absent voices,

and develop policy options that are based on empirical knowledge (Krook and Norris, 2014). In

addition, online instruments make it easier to cooperate with other affiliated groups, uniting

forces and skills to advocate better results (Brooker and Meyer, 2018). Other benefits of hybrid

organizing are resilience, because digital and face-to-face approaches can work in tandem with

each other, and the organization will not be taken down by logistical, political, or social

challenges (Hrebenar and Scott, 2015). These advances reveal that digital based activism is not

to replace the traditional organizing but rather a supportive system that enhances inclusion,

responsiveness and strategic efficacy in the broad mission of NOW.

The issue of access is still an important issue in the advocacy of the digital era because

the unequal technological skills and internet access as well as the assistive technologies may

reinforce the exclusion even within a feminist organization (Orisadare, 2019). Digital inclusion

studies note that even the freedom to participate equally demands a careful design of platforms,

materials, and protocols of interaction to support the full range of abilities and socioeconomic

conditions (Habibi, Laroche, and Richard, 2014). In the case of NOW, it has meant that

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 56

advocacy activities are not biased towards only technologically privileged members, accessibility

through the adoption of accessible web design standards, multilingual content provision, and

alternative format delivery of virtual events (Dommett and Power, 2018). Furthermore,

confronted with accessibility will build trust, participation, and retention of marginalized

populations, which underline the organizational stance on intersectional expression in the digital

format (Rai, 2017). Through implementing the appeal of an inclusive design, NOW shows that

any technological innovations need to be supported with moral and viable decisions needed to

foster equal engagement and systematic activism.

The manipulation between digital activism and the role of the legislators serves to

highlight the advanced nature of NOW advocacy today. According to scholars, online campaigns

increase political power due to the ability to coordinate messages, quickly mobilize voters, and

show hidden concerns of a grassroot (Drutman, 2015). The example of NOW makes use of

petitions, social media activism, and digital lobbying, discussed to show how technology has

created such openings and opportunities to effect policy change, especially on topics like

reproductive rights and gender-based violence (Alemanno, 2017). Studies of the process of

lobbying tell that the incorporation of online growth metrics and data analytics enhances

persuasive power, and this fact gives an indication of popular support and of decision-making in

policymakers (Zetter, 2014). Those strategies concentrate on the intersection of digital

technology and political strategy because it demonstrates how contemporary feminist groups can

use the intricate institutional framework to make a legislative and social difference (Rohlinger,

2015).

The long-term consequences of the digital transformation of NOW are indicated by the

necessity to develop an adaptive organization culture and capacity-building. According to

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 57

scholars, advocacy in the new digital age must undergo constant training, technological

invention, and reflection assessment to be relevant and effective (Dommett and Power, 2018).

The case of NOW shows that digital platforms allow mobilizing people within a short time frame

and engaging very large masses but also open the door to privacy risks associated with

surveillance, fake news and unequal participation (Rai, 2017). Recurrent learning abilities,

strategic foresight and cross-platform alignment is needed to be able to keep campaigns and

build robust membership organizations (Drutman, 2015). Besides, addition of digital advocacy as

part of the identity of organizations supports a culture shift in feminist practice, which highlights

agility, inclusivity, and data-driven decision-making. Running in the right direction by taking

these issues into consideration, NOW shows that digital transformation is a means of organizing

feminist movements and a duty, and it is in this way that it will define the future of these

movements in the United States (Orisadare, 2019).

International Comparisons of NOW Strategies

The use of these strategies in the United States by NOW could be compared with

transnational feminist organizations, with the difference in terms of organizational structure,

campaign strategy, and priorities in advocacy. Whereas NOW puts pressure on problems

domestically like reproductive rights, equal pay legislation, and anti-violence campaigns,

international organizations like UN Women pay attention to multilateral systems and orientation

towards global development objectives (Drolet et al., 2015). The comparative studies propose

that the American model of decentralized federalism encourages the federalists to form coalitions

on the state level, whereas the feminist organizations in Europe tend to bypass the legislative

processes and pursue coalition-building within centralized policy structures (Dellmuth and

Tallberg, 2017). These institutional variations dictate the priorities and methods of

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 58

accomplishment of feminist objectives, and are based on the national political cultures and

institutional limitations (Helmreich and Merritt, 2017). Moreover, U.S.-based global activist

groups, such as NOW, tend to use direct, rights-driven tactics of mobilization in the public,

whereas these are replaced by consensus-driven tactics that are commonly apparent in

Scandinavian societies where negotiating and integrating policies are prioritized (Bryson, 2018).

Such juxtaposition shows that although feminist interests can be felt all over the world, the

strategy of operation depends on political, legislative, and social circumstances. These

comparisons enable NOW to assess the effectiveness of its strategies with taking into account the

experience of international colleagues and find out the boundaries and possibilities of U.S. style

activism in the world feminist context (Tobias, 2018).

The priorities of the campaign of NOW can be compared with the international

reproductive rights advocacy groups. Similar networks such as the Marea Verde movement in

Latin America have been able to train reforms on a legal and social level by using the mass

mobilization strategy, exploiting social media, and building coalitions across class and regional

barriers (Betran et al., 2014). Such campaigns rely on intersectional campaigns that preempt

marginalized communities such as rural and Indigenous women to deliver lessons to the NOW-

sponsored actions in expanding its outreach to varied U.S. communities (Gandara, 2015).

According to comparative research, the feminists of Latin America have a tendency to

incorporate the framing of culture and the local standards into the campaigns, showing that

contextual messages can boost the legitimacy of the message and social acceptance (Drolet et al.,

2015). It is the opposite of the U.S. practices, and there, national stories overwhelmingly capture

the campaign content, and thus, minority groups are not always able to resonate. Knowing about

the successes of the international reproductive rights can enable NOW to tune up its advocacy,

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 59

by incorporating subtle storytelling, cultural approaches, and coalition mobilization to better

reach heterogeneous constituencies (Tobias, 2018). This kind of adaptation highlights the role of

cross-national learning with the acknowledgement of the need to calibrate campaigns to the

context (Helmreich and Merritt, 2017).

The policies of NOW regarding gendered economic stratification may be evaluated via

the international comparisons with Nordic nations, where the policies of parental leaves and pay

equity structure have shown quantifiable declines in gender variation (Leslie, Manchester, and

Dahm, 2017). It has been shown that these nations apply the principle of structural incentives of

corporate responsibility, merge activities between the government and industries, and have solid

information surveillance mechanisms to enforce equality between genders in the work

population (Diekman, Weisgram, and Belanger, 2015). In the case of NOW, the experience of

such frameworks offers the possibilities of integrating legislative advocacy with the specific type

of lobbying and promoting the organizational and corporate reform (Berry, 2015). Although the

U.S. political culture tends to focus on the rights of one person and market forces as valid

motivators, the Nordic approaches exemplify how systemic changes may remove structural

inequalities and reveal the shortcomings of policy solutions singly (Bryson, 2018). To translate

such insights, it is important to pay attention to institutional and cultural disparities because it

might be impossible to directly copy and paste it due to the varying legal framework and political

economies (Dellmuth and Tallberg, 2017). Nevertheless, these comparative studies offer a

guideline toward how one may craft holistic campaigns that combine not only policy advocacy,

but also coalition-building, and leverage of organizations to advance pay equity under the U.S.

settings.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 60

One example of priorities of national and international feminism is the violence

prevention campaigns. NOW focuses on legislation and awareness of the issue and support of

victims in the United States, but European and African networks tend to incorporate community-

based, culture-based interventions (Drolet et al., 2015). There are indications that local

campaigns that are integrated with national-level advocacy are more sustainable and legitimate

(Dellmuth and Tallberg, 2017). As an example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, anti-violence

programming is connected with wider developmental objectives, such as education, economic

empowerment, health outcomes, etc (Helmreich and Merritt, 2017). As the experience of NOW

shows, cross-national learning can guide the development of multi-level approaches that are

based on legislative advocacy, social mobilization, and culturally based programming (Tobias,

2018). These strategies show how useful transnational comparison can be, demonstrating how

local knowledge can be combined with global standards to make feminist activism more

successful. They also emphasize the necessity to choose the international models in relation to

the proper adaptation to the U.S. campaigns in consideration of societal conventions and

institutional abilities (Gandara, 2015).

The impacts of the international systems of governance like CEDAW, and the UN 2030

Agenda give further insights to be considered in the course of international positioning in NOW.

Research reveals that the adherence to these instruments may inform the priorities of domestic

policies, enable a better alignment with the transnational norms, and make the access to global

funding and support networks more established (Drolet et al., 2015). Furthermore, the UN

models enable transnational advocacy to enable organizations to rely on international standards

when lobbying (Dellmuth & Tallberg, 2017). These interactions ensure that NOW has both an

opportunity and a threat: on one hand, the international legitimacy can be utilized by the

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 61

organization; on the other hand, the political issues of the U.S. federalism and the state-level

authority can pose a challenge (Bryson, 2018). It is hypothesized by comparative research that

the translation of global roles into the domestic approach presupposes the adaptive one,

prioritizing the rules to be followed and the contextual responsiveness (Tobias, 2018). This

relationship strengthens the purpose of transnational dialogue through the provision of NOW

models in the adoption of international standards into localized advocacy without undermining

the strategic effect (Gandara, 2015).

Online feminist interest groups offer a critical space on which the international relevance

of NOW can be evaluated. The emergence of transnational online movements through the

example of Women’s March Global proves that digital platforms make coordination across

national borders, fast spread of stories, and unity of the whole world possible (Drolet et al.,

2015). According to comparative data, the U.S. organizations such as NOW can use these

networks to promote their visibility, mobilization of the constituents, and even best practice with

counterparts across the globe (Dellmuth and Tallberg, 2017). Nevertheless, studies also point to

the drawbacks, such as cultural incompatibility, the differences in political environments, and the

danger of introducing the U.S.-based structures into foreign environments (Tobias, 2018). The

combination of the strategic use of digital devices and a careful cultural adjustment could also

multiply the power of collaboration of the NOW without losing the sensitivity to the political and

social reality of the locals (Bryson, 2018). Knowing these processes will help NOW have

mutually advantageous interactions enhancing the solidarity of feminists worldwide without

ignoring regional specificities (Helmreich and Merritt, 2017).

NOW will also demonstrate that mutual learning is central to the feminist movement by

its involvement in transnational coalitions. Studies of the coalition governance indicate that

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 62

cross-national collaborations can increase knowledge exchange and bolster resource allocation

and policy innovativeness (Drolet et al., 2015). In particular, the partnership with Latin

American feminist networks has been used to educate the reproductive justice campaigns of

NOW to incorporate culturally appropriate advocacy strategies (Gandara, 2015). On the same

note, U.S. based campaigns can be enhanced with the help of European collaboration providing

insights into institutional lobbying and legislative framing (Dellmuth and Tallberg, 2017). The

following comparative lessons are emphasized: International exchange is not a one-way process

and a comparative lesson, discussions of different experiences populate the strategy, messages,

and policy agendas (Tobias, 2018). The strategy of successful engagement of NOW in such

networks assumes the need to invest in communication infrastructure, digital organizing, and

culturally sensitive leadership (Bryson, 2018). These strategies emphasize the prospects of

transnational cooperation to enlarge the amount of knowledge as well as sphere of operation.

The issue of exportation of U.S feminist strategies provides constraints necessitating the

contextually oriented adaptation. According to scholars, the advocacy methods are received in

accordance with socio-political, economic, and cultural factors, which restrict the extension of

the U.S. practices of the advocacy to the areas where divergent institutional standards are applied

(Helmreich and Merritt, 2017). In comparison, individual rights-oriented messaging can be found

to have enough differences in collectivism-based societies, and the way to address existing

norms and participatory narratives is needed (Drolet et al., 2015). Likewise, the political culture,

legal systems, and the availability of resources also determine how reproductive rights and

gender equity, as well as violence prevention campaigns, can be organized (Gandara, 2015).

These lessons indicate that NOW needs to be reflexive and context-sensitive in its engagement

on the international level by balancing between exporting organizational expertise and being

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 63

open to the local innovative approach (Tobias, 2018). Good cross-national adaptation is more

effective in creating legitimacy and impact without following the traps of cultural imperialism.

The involvement of NOW with the international advocacy also gives the group a chance

to benchmark the performance and improve strategic planning. Comparative analyses show that

by exploring worldwide achievements and grabs with feminist policies that have been

implemented, one may set objectives and allocate resources and campaign strategies (Bryson,

2018). Drawing on the experience of the Nordic parental-leave schemes, Latin American

abortion-rights efforts, and African violence-prevention interventions, NOW will be able to

determine the transferrable best practices and to adapt to the legal and political circumstances

within the country (Diekman, Weisgram, and Belanger, 2015). In international comparison,

strategic foresight promotes adaptive learning of organizations that enable them to anticipate

challenges, examine the emergent trends, and deepen the institutional capacity (Dellmuth &

Tallberg, 2017). In such a way, the perspective of NOW as reflective and globally active

participants with the ability to use international experience to improve the effectiveness and

relevance of domestic campaigns will be established (Drolet et al., 2015). The cross-national

analysis, therefore, can be resilient and long-term in influencing feminist activism.

The lessons learned with the international feminist networks would help practices in

digital feminist movements internationally, and NOW is well placed to ensure that they take part

in it. The studies indicate that international digital mobilization in combination with local

mobilization and national lobbying creates greater visibility and policy impact (Drolet et al.,

2015). Through partnership with international stakeholders and sharing of resources as well as

adopting new forms of technological orientations, NOW will be able to widen its strategic scope

and foster unity across borders (Dellmuth & Tallberg, 2017). Simultaneously, comparative

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 64

evidence shows that culturally timely adaptation is critical, considering that international

solutions should remain a sidekick of local agency, as opposed to their defining feature (Tobias,

2018). By taking part in the transnational networks, NOW is able to design campaigns better,

exploit global insights and strengthen domestic and global feminism (Bryson, 2018). It proves

that the further relevance of the organization lies not only in U.S. based successes but in its

capacity to participate in and be educated in an interconnected, digitally mediated feminist

movement (Helmreich and Merritt, 2017).

References

Alemanno, A. (2017). Lobbying for change: Find your voice to create a better society. Icon

Books.

Anderson, M. J. (2015). Windows of opportunity: How women seize peace negotiations for

political change. Oxford University Press.

André, Q., Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., Crum, A., Frank, D., Goldstein, W., ... & Yang, H.

(2018). Consumer choice and autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence and big

data. Customer needs and solutions, 5(1), 28-37.

Arat, Z. F. K. (2015). Feminisms, women's rights, and the UN: Would achieving gender equality

empower women?. American Political Science Review, 109(4), 674-689.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 65

Barakso, M. (2014). Governing NOW: grassroots activism in the national organization for

women. Cornell University Press.

Barker-Plummer, B. (2012). Producing public voice: Resource mobilization and media access in

the National Organization for Women. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,

79(1), 188-205.

Barnett, B. (2015). Feminists shaping news: A framing analysis of news releases from the

National Organization for Women. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(4), 341-362.

Bell, J. M. (2014). The Black power movement and American social work. Columbia University

Press.

Berry, J. M. (2015). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups.

Betran, A. P., Vindevoghel, N., Souza, J. P., Guelmezoglu, A. M., & Torloni, M. R. (2014). A

systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't

work and how to improve it. PloS one, 9(6), e97769.

Bodo, B., Helberger, N., Irion, K., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Moller, J., van de Velde, B., ... &

de Vreese, C. (2017). Tackling the algorithmic control crisis-the technical, legal, and

ethical challenges of research into algorithmic agents. Yale JL & Tech., 19, 133.

Boryczka, J. M., & Disney, J. L. (2015). Intersectionality for the global age. New Political

Science, 37(4), 447-457.

Bradshaw, S., Castellino, J., & Diop, B. (2017). Women’s role in economic development:

Overcoming the constraints. In Did the millennium development goals work? (pp. 191-

216). Policy Press.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 66

Bratich, J. Z. (2018). US Feminism, 1968 and Mediated Collective Intellectuality. Journal of

Communication Inquiry, 42(3), 290-299.

Brooker, M. E., & Meyer, D. S. (2018). Coalitions and the organization of collective action. The

Wiley Blackwell companion to social movements, 252-268.

Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to

strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley & Sons.

Castán Broto, V., & Neves Alves, S. (2018). Intersectionality challenges for the co-production of

urban services: notes for a theoretical and methodological agenda. Environment and

Urbanization, 30(2), 367-386.

Cox, K. L. (2019). Dixie's daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the

preservation of Confederate culture. University Press of Florida.

Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2017). Advocacy strategies in global governance: Inside versus

outside lobbying. Political Studies, 65(3), 705-723.

Diekman, A. B., Weisgram, E. S., & Belanger, A. L. (2015). New routes to recruiting and

retaining women in STEM: Policy implications of a communal goal congruity

perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 52-88.

Dommett, K., & Power, S. (2018). The Membership Journey: Understanding and Boosting

Membership Today.

Drolet, J., Dominelli, L., Alston, M., Ersing, R., Mathbor, G., & Wu, H. (2015). Women

rebuilding lives post-disaster: Innovative community practices for building resilience and

promoting sustainable development. Gender & Development, 23(3), 433-448.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 67

Drutman, L. (2015). The business of America is lobbying: How corporations became politicized

and politics became more corporate. Oxford University Press.

Gándara, P. (2015). Fulfilling America’s future: Latinas in the US, 2015.

Grafanaki, S. (2016). Autonomy challenges in the age of big data. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media

& Ent. LJ, 27, 803.

Guimaraes Correa, L. (2020). Intersectionality: A challenge for cultural studies in the

2020s. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(6), 823-832.

Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and

community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in human

behavior, 37, 152-161.

Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (2017). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National,

organizational and professional influences. Routledge.

Hrebenar, R. J., & Scott, R. K. (2015). Interest group politics in America. Routledge.

Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., ... & Pluye, P.

(2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership

synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC public health, 15(1), 1-11.

John, D. M. (2017). Pro-life and pro-choice mobilization: Infrastructure deficits and new

technologies. In Social movements in an organizational society (pp. 48-66). Routledge.

Kretschmer, K. (2019). Fighting for NOW: Diversity and discord in the National Organization

for Women. U of Minnesota Press.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 68

Krook, M. L., & Norris, P. (2014). Beyond quotas: Strategies to promote gender equality in

elected office. Political Studies, 62(1), 2-20.

Larsson, S. (2018). Algorithmic governance and the need for consumer empowerment in data-

driven markets. Internet Policy Review, 7(2).

Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., & Dahm, P. C. (2017). Why and when does the gender gap

reverse? Diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women. Academy of

Management Journal, 60(2), 402-432.

Martin, K. (2019). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of business

ethics, 835-850.

Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media:

Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news

online. Communication research, 41(8), 1042-1063.

Mik, E. (2016). The erosion of autonomy in online consumer transactions. Law, Innovation and

Technology, 8(1), 1-38.

Mollett, S., & Faria, C. (2018). The spatialities of intersectional thinking: fashioning feminist

geographic futures. Gender, Place & Culture, 25(4), 565-577.

Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015).

Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community

based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical sociology, 41(7-8),

1045-1063.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 69

Orisadare, M. A. (2019). An assessment of the role of women group in women political

participation, and economic development in Nigeria. Frontiers in Sociology, 4, 52.

Rachmad, Y. E. (2017). Consumer Behavior Psychology in the Era of Marketing 6.0: Analyzing

the Role of AI and Machine Learning in Influencing Consumer Choices and Loyalty.

Rai, S. M. (2017). Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women: mainstreaming

gender, democratizing the state?. In Mainstreaming gender, democratizing the state (pp.

15-39). Routledge.

Razavi, S. (2016). The 2030 Agenda: challenges of implementation to attain gender equality and

women's rights. Gender & Development, 24(1), 25-41.

Reger, J. (2012). Organizational dynamics and construction of multiple feminist identities in the

National Organization for Women. Gender & Society, 16(5), 710-727.

Reger, J., & Staggenborg, S. (2015). Patterns of mobilization in local movement organizations:

Leadership and strategy in four national organization for women chapters. Sociological

Perspectives, 49(3), 297-323.

Requejo, J. H., Bryce, J., Barros, A. J., Berman, P., Bhutta, Z., Chopra, M., ... & Victora, C. G.

(2015). Countdown to 2015 and beyond: fulfilling the health agenda for women and

children. The Lancet, 385(9966), 466-476.

Rohlinger, D. A. (2015). Abortion politics, mass media, and social movements in America.

Cambridge University Press.

Rosen, R. (2013). The world split open: How the modern women's movement changed America.

Tantor eBooks.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 70

Ruotsalainen, P., & Blobel, B. (2019). Digital pHealth–Problems and solutions for ethics, trust

and privacy. In pHealth 2019 (pp. 31-46). IOS Press.

Ryan, B. (2010). Feminism and the women's movement: Dynamics of change in social movement

ideology and activism. Routledge

Sanders, R. (2018). Norm spoiling: undermining the international women's rights

agenda. International Affairs, 94(2), 271-291.

Shaffner, E. C., Mills, A. J., & Helms Mills, J. (2019). Intersectional history: Exploring

intersectionality over time. Journal of Management History, 25(4), 444-463.

Siddiqui, S., & Singh, T. (2016). Social media its impact with positive and negative

aspects. International journal of computer applications technology and research, 5(2),

71-75.

Smith, D. H. (2018). The global historical and contemporary impacts of voluntary membership

associations on human societies: a literature review. Voluntaristics Review, 2(5-6), 1-125.

Steinfield, L., Sanghvi, M., Zayer, L. T., Coleman, C. A., Ourahmoune, N., Harrison, R. L., ... &

Brace-Govan, J. (2019). Transformative intersectionality: Moving business towards a

critical praxis. Journal of Business Research, 100, 366-375.

Thompson-Hall, M., Carr, E. R., & Pascual, U. (2016). Enhancing and expanding intersectional

research for climate change adaptation in agrarian settings. Ambio, 45(Suppl 3), 373-382.

Tobias, S. (2018). Faces of feminism: An activist's reflections on the women's movement.

Routledge.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) 71

Wellman, B. (2018). The network community: An introduction. In Networks in the global

village (pp. 1-47). Routledge.

Wilson, B. R. (2016). Religion in secular society: fifty years on. Oxford University Press.

Zetter, L. (2014). Lobbying 3e: The art of political persuasion. Harriman House Limited.

Ziegler, M. (2015). After Roe: The lost history of the abortion debate. Harvard University Press.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) in the Age of Data Governance

Students also viewed