Comments on: IWF heads down the toilet

By: Wonk Room » Nancy Pfotenhauer, McCain’s Dirty Energy Spokeswoman

Wonk Room » Nancy Pfotenhauer, McCain’s Dirty Energy Spokeswoman — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:10:44 +0000

[…] Koch front group, the anti-feminist Independent Women’s Forum (IWF). In 2003 she also became president of Americans for Prosperity (originally CSE), until joining the McCain campaign in […]

By: --k.

--k. — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

A quibble, old man: I dare say it was Buffy's slog long past viability into an ill-advised (no matter how lucrative) sixth and even seventh season that led Whedon to devote more time and energy to more (potentially) rewarding projects such as Angel and Firefly. Ahem, harrumph, and all that.

By: emma

emma — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Come on… Angel has always had much more scope than Buffy… Program makers should realize that people grow up and when characters grow up it is very difficult to keep a program format that was designed around the characters being children! With Buffy they should have either changed the format completely or finished a good few series ago!

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I disagree, Kip. The fifth season was, in my view, the second-best of the entire series. So any argument premised on the idea that the sixth season was “long past viability” is, for me, a non-starter.

And Emma, I guess if you think only the first three seasons (when Buffy was in high school) were good, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

By: --k.

--k. — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The fifth season was the natural climax, silly. Sixth was a priori past viability; my natural inclinations toward hyperbole led me to claim it as being “long past.” (Three months, I suppose, is a long time, sometimes.)

By: Mary-Jane

Mary-Jane — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

For me, the fifth season of ‘Buffy’ really ended half-way through the sixth season, at ‘Tabula Rasa’. (Yes, I know this sounds stupid, but bear with me.) ‘Buffy’ was originally a mid-season replacement, therefore ‘Tabula Rasa’ roughly marked the point where the show had been on the air for 5 years. After that, all the things which made the show worth watching in the first place (like good writing, decent acting, and characters actually acting .. well, in character) were present in such miniscule qualities that it was barely recognisable as the same show. Basically, the show had 5 years’ worth of good storylines and decent writing, and after that it just plunged off a cliff, creatively speaking. For the last season and a half, I was sitting on my sofa thinking ‘Who the hell ARE these people? They aren’t the characters I’ve known and loved for the last few years,’ Actually, I have the same feeling watching ‘The West Wing’ at the moment - but that’s a whole different rant.

By: FormerIWFer

FormerIWFer — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Hey Ampersand: I completley agree with you. IWF is totally headed down the toliet. I am an ex IWF staffer who worked there for many years. I came upon your website by accident tonight and found myself agreeing with your perspective. You’re on the right track. In my opinion the IWF started going down hill the moment Nancy Pfotenhauer was named President and CEO.

She’s a fraud, plain and simple. The reason she is backing away from women’s issues, is due to the fact that she doesn’t understand them. She is a management nightmare, having purged the organization of any real talent. To wit: Anita Blair, Grace Terzian, Christine Stolba, Kate Kennedy, Ivy Stewart, Manon McKinnon. She got rid of all of those ladies. Everyone who had any real credentials or any history with the organization.

Also, did you notice, The Women’s Quarterly doesn’t exist anymore either? That was too intellectual for her.

She’s a disaster. You’re right about one thing. The IWF is sucking away resources from other causes. Rumor has it that she spent a small fortune decorating the IWF’s new offices in DC with furniture from Pottery Barn. Perfect illustration of IWF under Pfotenhauer’s reign. No substance, just fluff.

By: NOT a conservative

NOT a conservative — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Nancy Pfotenhauer is a brillant individual, economist, and business woman. I do not support the organization she runs, nor do I support her appointment to the VAWA committee, but I do not feel it is right to bring her intelligence level into the situation. If you do not support her decisions or organization then be professional enough to deal with your concerns that way. To personally attack someone’s intelligence purely because you disagree with their politics is the lowest form of discrimination possible.