Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Disliked Phyllis Schlafly column

Editor, Manteca Bulletin,

If I was ever to discontinue my hometown paper, another long column by Phyllis Schlafly today, March 2, would be the reason. Why an editor would want to support a woman-hating-woman, I cannot fathom! Even the conservative Manteca Bulletin would not print a long diatribe against Black people, especially by another Black person! Why, then, is it okay to print a long women-hating-column by another woman?

So, Phyllis has never experienced discrimination. I am very happy for her, but why she tries to pretend that it doesn’t exist for many women, I do not understand. She, obviously, just chooses to PRETEND it does not exist, and she covers her eyes to the fact that many, many women are still battered, and even killed, by their partners. Doesn’t she know that the United States still does less to provide good, affordable childcare than any other developed country? Doesn’t she know that most women work because they have to support their families?

Would you print a column by someone saying, in effect, "I have a nice warm home, so there are no homeless people?" Would you support someone that believes that men that are murdered probably deserved it?

Phyllis is a very clever person, able to distort facts, present them out of context, and take, not little "jumps," but great "leaps to conclusions!" I do not have the time nor resources that she has to refute her claims, one by one, but ever since I attended the first National Women's Conference in Houston, in 1977 and Phyllis staged a counter protest, I know that Phyllis has worked tirelessly to try to stop all legislation and any government support for women's rights. While slowing things down, she has not blocked our gains towards full equality, and she never will.

Source: http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/12092/


GrandmaJo said...

Sorry to disabuse the author's comments, but Phyllis does not hate women. Phyllis has done more to RESTORE rights to women that are being taken away piece-by-piece by misguided legislation and attempts to rewrite the Constitution than any other conservative! Equal pay for equal work really has been a law since 1963. The frenzied "bra-less" demonstrations of the late 60s and early 70s have led women to hate being women simply because now they are told they should be unhappy to "just" be a wife and mother. Feminists refuse to acknowledge that biologically, women really are different than men and most women just are not capable of doing many of the same things men are able to do, especially when it comes to often unpleasant and uncomfortable physical labor. In the work world of the executive, women are often not willing to sacrifice their personal lives to give the employer the same number of work hours that a man finds no trouble performing. Feminists complain that these same men "abuse" their wives and families by not spending enough time with them.

True, many women work out of the home by necessity, but that doesn't mean that they feel more fulfilled by their role in the workforce. Most women I know (in hindsight) would have been happy to spend more time with their children instead of working. They would have chosen smaller homes and fewer "things" which did not make them happy.

True, there are many women who are in abusive relationships and who are battered (and, yes, killed) in this country. Truly abused women need protection and counseling to remove themselves from the abusive environment. Women have been conditioned by feminists to feel so worthless without a "real" job, advanced degrees and the status it supposedly brings that they don't think they deserve someone better than the batterer they have chosen as their mate.

Until women learn to value themselves as women, they will continue to allow themselves to be abused not only by men, but by the feminists who intend to bully them into accepting the roles that radical feminists have chosen for women, not the roles the women themselves would choose to be happy.

Anonymous said...

Listen grandmajo, Phyllis has done nothing more that give privileges, not rights to women. Privileges they do not need. you're wrong in your assumption that just because men and women are different, that somehow makes women inferior. Working conditions are no more "uncomfortable" for a woman than they are a man. And a woman is perfectly capable of any kind of work condition a man can handle. Just because YOU are too lazy or selfish to pick up the slack and force your husband to be your slave while you sit around and do nothing, does not mean that that is biologically the way it is. Women are perfectly capable of doing everything a man can do. Some just choose not to because they've been taught at an early age to be selfish and look down on themselves. The only reason women have not been willing to make the same sacrifices men have is because of bad parents like yourself who raise them to believe themselves inferior, when nothing could be further from the truth. So don't assume to know whats in the hearts of all women, or what all women want. You do not represent all women. No one is trying to force their beliefs on you. But you and Phyllis Schlafly are using the law to force your idiot beliefs on other people.

GrandmaJo said...

I don't know why you infer that Phyllis and I believe that women are "inferior" to men! Quite the opposite is true. Women have been held as somewhat superior to men in the laws that have been in place for years to protect them (and not men)! By placing women on "equal" footing, what feminists are demanding is that men be made into a subservient class and women be lowered in status. Already many laws unfairly discriminate against men in favor of women in child custody, support payments (especially when the woman earns a higher salary than the man in the divorce), and the military (women are not required to complete the same requirements for the same program as a man in military academies because they are largely INCAPABLE of the same physical strength requirements and are therefore exempted). If ERA had passed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her publication "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" that the government should abolish the wife's and widow's benefit in Social Security, which would by itself condemn many widows to destitution. Also, men are assumed by feminists to be batterers in relationships. A growing number of women have now become the batterers in relationships, forcing men to leave and break up their families and put any children involved at greater risk because family courts almost overwhelmingly give the woman custody of children after a divorce, even if the woman has been declared "unfit" by Social Services investigations! What are feminists so afraid of? Any woman can already do anything she wants to! Not only can I point to Phyllis herself as an example (obtaining a J.D. in middle-age), but Michele Obama was never held back by any perceived roadblocks to become not only a successful woman in her own right, but a successful BLACK woman! What about Justice Ginsburg? Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? Oprah? All any woman needs is some motivation (as you so crudely referred to in your post)...Oprah came up from absolutely poor and downtrodden to become the richest woman in the U.S.! What stopped her? Nothing! Without ERA! Imagine that!

GrandmaJo said...

Oh, and yes, you and other feminists are trying to force your beliefs on me and others like me!

Roger said...

It is a long letter from someone who did not have the time to refute the claims.

Anonymous said...

Nice try GrandmaJo, but your arguments don't hold water. First of all, you assume that it's a good thing that women are held superior by laws. I don't think so. I don't think women deserve any kind of special privileges that men don't recieve. As a feminist, I believe that both sides should be equal in every aspect of life. No one should be superior to another.
And men are all ready a subservient class in a patriarchal system, because they are enslaved by spoiled lazy women who force the poor men to do all the work that the women are perfectly CAPABLE of doing. It doesn't matter how much you capatalize the word incapable. It doesn't make it true. Women are not naturally weak, they are only weak because bad parents raise their daughters to look down on themselves and don't put them through the same physical exhertions that boys are put through. And that is wrong. Once we change the way we parent children, women will be just as strong as men, including in terms of upper body strength. I remember being in school and noticing how we men were forced to lift a certain amount of weight for a certain number of times, and yet women were allowed less for no good reason. Being a woman does not make you anymore special than a man. So women should be required to do exactly what a man can do, because they are capable of it. The girls in my class may not have had to lift more weight, but many certainly did to show how easy it was for them to do it.
Furthermore, who said women couldn't be batterers? My problem is that you choose to ignore male batterers and only focus on domestic abuse when it's a way for you to tear women down. And the Women's Studies group at my university has called to shelter male victims of domestic violence as much as female. And furthermore, you lie when you say any woman can all ready do whatever she wants to. Can a woman serve in combat? And furthermore, it's really cute how you point to Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor to try and claim that we don't need the ERA, all while purposely ignoring the fact that Phyllis has openly voiced her opposition to women being allowed as judges. I find it funny that Phyllis always points to the fact that women can do whatever they want to stop the ERA, and then turns around and tries to stop women from doing whatever they want. The fact is the ERA is a SAFEGUARD. Passing it, and it will be passed, it all ready has in 30 states and the sky hasn't fallen, will only prevent social conservative control freaks from ruining the lives of millions of women across this country. Yes, laws have been passed to allow women to do many things. But what you fail to mention is that Phyllis, you, and other self-hating women such as yourself are constantly trying to sabotage the laws that have all ready been passed. If Phyllis had her way, women would be banned from most professions. That's why we need the ERA.
Oh and how exactly am I forcing my beliefs on you and others like you? Don't be so silly. The only thing we are forcing you to do is respect the rights of other people to live their lives their own way.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and one more thing. You talk about widows being in destitution. There's one way to prevent that. Widows should do what any widower would have to do and GET A JOB.

GrandmaJo said...

Oh, Anonymous, you are so funny! Most widows that I know are a bit too old to get jobs once they become widows. If they, for whatever reason, chose not to work (which is their right to do as you so ably pointed out) then they have no social security to draw from if the survivor's benefit for widows to collect on their husband's benefits is removed. I don't know anyone, even Walmart, who will hire someone in their late 70s or 80s with health problems.

ERA is dead, so get over it already! It was passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification March 22, 1972. For ten years it was debated in state legislatures and it officially died when the time limit set by Congress expired on June 30, 1982. Plus, five states rescinded their ERA ratification upon further consideration: ID, KY, NE, SD, TN. And, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 4, 1982 that ERA was "moot" (or legally "dead") as of June 30, 1982.

All the arguments you mention are progressive talking points without facts to back them up. High school biology teaches that basic arm structure for men and women is different in the bone and musculature, so the average man is capable of lifting heavier loads than the average women simply by virtue of basic biology. It has nothing to do with "learned" behavior or being taught that women are "inferior" to men.

I can't ever recall Phyllis being against having women per se serve as judges on the Supreme Court or in any lower court. I can recall many instances of objecting to women (and men) that have been nominated to the Supreme Court based on their Constitutional views and particular biases they have shown in their careers. Judges by definition should be at the very least unbiased in either direction and capable of doing as they swear to do: protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Anonymous said...

But I wasn't talking about the elderly with health problems GrandmaJo, here's the thing. Both men and women get old and have health problems, no more or less than eachother. Thus if we want to extend benefits to both men and women who are too old and sick to work, then that's fine. The ERA wouldn't prevent that. It would only prevent silly double standards from being enforced. If men don't get help when their old, then neither should women. If women get help when their old, then men should get it too. If benefits are being extended to anyone who is incapable of working regardless of gender, then I don't see how the ERA would threaten that.
And no, the ERA never died, and you never defeated it. So get over it all ready! And quit acting as if it's a person you can kill. You only make yourself sound silly. It's legislation and good movement. So it can always be revived. As I said, it passed in 30 states, so you didn't win. Two out of the three states that rescinded it did so unconstitutionally. Furthermore, the Supreme court can always change its mind. It has many times before. Just look at the last amendment added to the constitution in the early 1990s, which was last debated in the 1780s. And even if that specific ERA fromt he 70s is kept down, another bill can always be brought up in Congress. And the ten year debate that took place in this country over it is inherently meaningless for two reasons. Number one, people's opinions change, and America is not as a sexist society as it was four decades ago. Number two, the thing that postponed the ERA the last time were scare tactics and lies. Remember, the ERA was legalized in 30 states. There are no unisex bathrooms in those states, gay marriage can still be defeated in them, and more restrictions on abortion can and has been put into law in those states.
And once again, difference does not mean inferior. Just because women and men have different bone structure does not mean that the different structures can't attain equal strength. It just means it takes different kind of pressures and excercises for them to attain this strength. And of course their musculiture is different, because women are not put through the same physical tests as men, thus their muscles never develop to their full capability. It has nothing to do with biology, simply corrupt culture.
And I believe that one of the only reasons Phyllis disliked O'Connor's nomination is because O'Connor is a woman. I read it in an article right here on this website.

GrandmaJo said...

The 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was indeed introduced on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.

In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days).

The key difference between the 27th Amendment and ERA is that it was not given an expiration date by Congress. ERA was given a clear expiration date by the Congress that submitted it in 1972. It can be rewritten and reintroduced, but the original amendment cannot be ratified now as it has passed the expiration date, which was clearly indicated as June 30, 1982.

Phyllis did not dislike O'Connor because she was female. She, and many other conservatives, disliked Justice O'Connor because she was a progressive liberal.

I would hardly call Justice Ginsburg's interpretation of the enforcement of ERA as "scare tactics" as she is one of the most liberal Justices who has ever served on the bench. Her book, "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code", clearly outlines what will be required should ERA as it was written in 1972 become ratified:
*prostitution must be legalized as part of "privacy" (pp. 97, 99, 215)
*Bigamy laws would be declared unconstitutional as part of "privacy" (pp. 195-196)
*Prisons must be sex-integrated (pp. 100-101, 216)
*No-fault divorce must be adopted nationally (pp. 214-215)
*The age of consent for sex must be lowered to age 12 (p. 102)

There are more, but those are unpalatable enough and have nothing whatsoever to do with "equality."

Read her book if you dare to.

Anonymous said...

Well no bill should even have an expiration date. That's unconstitutional. Especially when it's a bill involving civil rights.
And how on Earth was O'Connor a progressive liberal?
One Justice's interpretation does not necessarily equal the law. Especially since I can find plenty of errors in Ginsburg's arguements.
Prostitution and Bigamy are victimless crimes. If you don't like prostitution, then don't become a prostitute. Besides, I don't think that will happen anyway, because prostitution is not a female only profession. There are plenty of male prostitutes. As such, to bar prostitution would be barring it on account of it being a filthy profession for all people, regardless of gender. Besides, it's not as if the bigamy laws are even enforced. Those polygamist freaks living in southern Utah and Texas certainly seem to get away with it.
As for prisons being sex integrated and the age of consent, I don't buy it. Let me do some research and I'll post what I find on my next comment. And as for no-fault divorce, well, I don't think the government has a right to regulate marriage. I'm not happy about the high divorce rate, but people have a right to do what they want in their own lives.

GrandmaJo said...

Unfortunately, prostitution and bigamy are not victimless crimes. What about the spouses and/or significant others and families who have to suffer the consequences of disease inherent to multiple partners, especially prostitutes (of either gender)?

Anonymous said...

A person has a responsibility to know what they are getting into if they choose to be with that type of a person. If a spouse gets a disease or something, he or she can certainly sue for damages. But as sympathetic as I am towards a person who goes through that, and as much as I dissaprove of prostitution and bigamy, I'm really wary any government body or law that tries to regulate the lives of other people. I think that's a very dangerous and very slippery slope.
Of course, if children are involved that's a different story. The authorities can sieze children from any situation that is harmful to them. I don't see how the ERA or anything like it could hinder that. Because both men and women are capable of being bad parents. So I certainly agree that the best parents should get the children, regardless of gender. I actually think the ERA could help correct that problem. Because logically one could argue that to favor women all the time over men in custody battles is sexist and thus a violation of the ERA. The better parent should always get the children. Sometimes that's the mother, and sometimes that's the father.

Reason said...

Anonymous you get an F in both biology and common sense. Who in their right mind believes the physical differences between the sexes are 'cultural'?

The biological reasons (cells: genes and hormones) for why men are stronger than women is so common knowledge that it's baffling that anyone could be so ignorant.

The bottom line is men and women are designed for different functions which is obvious to those of us who are not brainwashed.

Clearly feminists have ego / identity problems which explains their bizarre inability to accept the real world we all live in.

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.