29 March 2007 - 10:15am
The sad pathology of Phyllis Schlafly
One of the main conservative leaders who fought successfully to scare politicians away from the Equal Rights Amendment has now revealed some of her underlying thinking, including -- incredibly -- the notion that husbands have carte blanche when it comes to raping their wives.
"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.
That's right, honey. Say "I do" and open your legs 'till death do you part.
She also seems to be oblivious to the changing world around her.
One came when Schlafly asserted women should not be permitted to do jobs traditionally held by men, such as firefighter, soldier or construction worker, because of their "inherent physical inferiority."
"Women in combat are a hazard to other people around them," she said. "They aren't tall enough to see out of the trucks, they're not strong enough to carry their buddy off the battlefield if he's wounded, and they can't bark out orders loudly enough for everyone to hear."
Never mind that women are taller and stronger today than before, thanks to less socially imposed norms of yore, such as the undernourishment of girls and the frowning on women participating in sports.
Besides, making grandiose generalizations based on sex when it comes to who's permitted to do what is a ridiculous claim, and politically is more in line with fascism than the old-line Goldwater conservatism that espouses small government and leaving people alone.
In summary, it seems that the woman who tried to claim that feminism was a victim mindset has completely swallowed whole a pathologically victim-oriented view of the world, where women are soooooo inferior that we should all just shut up, cook dinner and get on our backs for men.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
I read this off of a link on Glen Sacks page and I have to agree with your opinion on this. I walk a fine line on the subject of Fathers/Mens rights and its role in modern americn society.
But this women is way off base with her allergories. She is stuck in the 50s with its preconcieved notions of how marriages should work and how relationships should be formed. Why is is so many people want to believe that we are still "Leave it to Beaver".
Women are much more capable then many men think they are and it almost always a failing of young couples especaially that they dont play to each others strengths.
I supported my first wife in her career for many years and encouraged her to test the boundries of what she could do. Our marriage ended mainly because we just found after a number of years that we had moved in different directions and lost the middle ground. We are better friends then we were as husband and wife.
3 things in any relationship must be satisfied on BOTH sides to have a successful long term relationship/marriage.
Mental: You and your partner must be able to communicate effectively on ALL levels from a social,educational,general, and intimate levels and be compatible or there is general chaos tryig to figure out what the other is really saying.
Emotional: Your partner has to know INSTINCTIVLY that you will support them in thier pursuits and be there for them when things are not at thier best.
Physical: You and your partner must be able to have a healthy discourse of intimacy or you might as well just be roomates.
Any one of these 3 things are bad in a relationship/marriage then it just will not work. It may last a long time but eventually that thing which is weak will start to become worse and worse. Some couples are able to overcome these things in time but they are never as solid as those that have them from the start.
Phyllis obviously never studied this particular school of thought.
Thanks for the Soapbox