Phyllis Schlafly, in my opinion, was no “feminist”. She was a Woman.
(NOTE: mewzilla, I suspect you have far, FAR more in common with a “feminist” like Phyllis Schlafly than you do with a “Feminist” like Gloria Steinem. I have noted your comments on feminism and you embrace the title with a small “f”, but I believe there are two different things at play, and you have alluded to them in your comments about “equality of opportunity”. Embracing that does not make you a “Feminist”, it makes you a “feminist”, and more importantly, the distinction is, it makes you more of an American Woman than a “feminist”. Americans believe in equality of opportunity. If I am mistaken in my assessment, having had discourse with you in the past, I have zero doubt you will set me straight, and I promise to try not to take that rebuke of my presumption too personally.)
So, Phyllis Schlafly was a Woman, and she embraced that fully, and all that went along with it biologically. She too embraced “Equality of Opportunity” but...she did NOT embrace “Equality of Outcome”, because she understood that not only are all people different in mental capability, they are also different with respect to physical capability, and as such, she recognized that “Equality of Outcome” is a Leftist pipe dream.
There are women who HATE being female. They hate it. It oozes out of every look on their face and every sound that comes out of their mouths. They hate and reject it because they need to blame their shortcomings on something. As a result, they reject all of it, everything ranging from the traditional things women do to make themselves attractive to men, to menstruation, and perhaps most of all, child-bearing and child-rearing.
As a result, in an odd twist (which would be humorous if it weren’t so damned sad and destructively serious) they tend to become biological female analogs of the type of men they profess to hate the most, and become themselves: Misogynists. Unhappy, insecure people who hate women (themselves) and loudly broadcast it, which drives men and women away, except for those who share that world view.
In other words, they hate themselves. The irony.
Misogynist Males loudly proclaim the evil flaws in women, and reject them while pursuing meek and submissive ones who might give them sex without having to engage them at any deeper level. Shallow, angry, and internally repulsive.
Misogynist Females loudly proclaim the evil flaws in males, and in more couched terms, reject the elemental tenets of being a female, while trying not to reveal that they hate women, and thus, themselves. Shallow, angry, and internally repulsive.
The only real difference between the Misogynist Male and the Misogynist Female is in the level of destructive and corrosive Cognitive Dissonance.
Misogyinst Males often don’t experience cognitive dissonance because they hate women more than they hate themselves. They may indeed hate themselves, but it is, for shallow and unintelligent persons as they are, easy to fully and unconsciously transfer that to females, who “are not them”.
However, Misogynist Females do, in my opinion, experience a deep and significant degree of destructive cognitive dissonance. They hate men, but know, deep inside themselves, that it is themselves that they are unhappy with and even despise.
It is why Phyllis Schlafly was so centered and self confident and intrinsically content, and Gloria Steinem was a personal train wreck, always unhappy.
Phyllis Schlafly was the kind of woman that any intelligent man would want as a life mate. I have had her on my Freep Page for nearly twenty years as one of my “Heroes”. I admire her greatly, and have read several of her books. She was a remarkable woman. She completely comes across as my epitome of a true American Woman who, when paired with a true American Man, were the types who made their generation “The Greatest Generation”.
I have never met her, but I can imagine her working at a war factory assembling and testing .50 caliber machine guns (which she actually did) then, when she got out of work as a young woman, dressing up to go to a party, and nicely made up, dressed to the nines in a cocktail dress, showing up at a party. I can easily see her in that scene.
She likely was more average looking than knockout beautiful, but I can see her sitting in a part of a room, surrounded by a group of men. Engaged in conversation with them, her eyes sparkling, all the men interested in her, and it shows on their faces, which men often cannot hide. Women who are attuned to this can see it on the faces of the men, especially if it is THEIR man who is part of that group talking to her.
We have all seen it, at least those of us who can remember. The woman, surrounded by men who find her interesting or attractive at some party, and women observing are wondering “What do they see in her? She isn’t that great looking, rather plain, though she apparently cleans up nicely. What do they see in her?”
What those women often didn’t or don’t see is the expression in reality of the truism that a semi-attractive woman who enjoys and appreciates men for what they are, will almost always be more attractive to men than a woman who views men with a derisive or negative cast. It is true, and always has been, that on many levels, there are men who “only want one thing”. And to insecure or unintelligent men like that, a dull, submissive female, or an attractive one who dislikes men will be a compelling proposition to them.
But intelligent, self-confident men are always attracted to intelligent, self-confident women who openly enjoy and appreciate the company of men, and those men will flock to her. And it puzzles many women who observe this phenomenon. “What do they see in her? She must sleep around...”
It is true that a lot of men want a meek and submissive woman. I think there is an element of that, and always has been.
An insecure or unintelligent male often can’t cope with an intelligent, assertive woman. But that is a flaw with the male, not with any woman.
But I think there exits a significant number of men who seek females from other cultures (and it isn’t always a “mail order bride” from another country) who are deemed “more traditional”, and this is often a specific reaction to, and rejection of Western “Feminism”.
One of the most damaging things Feminism has wrought is the removal and protections that society painstakingly built up over the centuries, often unwritten and if not codified in law (which they often were) were reinforced in culture. Things to protect vulnerable women from the predations of unethical or unsavory men.
There are many women who are just fine with this tradeoff, but it victimizes many women who would benefit in a positive way from those vanishing protections.
A few women are fine with being alone. They're antisocial. They may be career oriented. Perhaps they have found a niche in their field.
So in that aspect, feminism is great for them.
But for the majority of women, feminism had failed them. The American society (or the Western society in general) is telling women that they are all "princesses" from the time they were born.
They were used to getting all that attention until they're around 30.
Then they're not pretty anymore because they're old. And they can't have children. Men are no longer interested in marrying them.
Phyllis Schafly was a true twentieth century heroine. Did you know she was the first woman invited - asked! - to apply to Harvard Law School? Yes it’s true!
That was a very thoughtful and extensive reply. Believe me, I feel that Phyliis Schafly and Margaret Thatcher are the women comtemporay women should aspire to emulate. Unfortunately that is more the case.
Might be useful to also throw in the word "misandrist" occasionally.
Regards,