Washington U. to honor anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.
Washington U. to honor anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.
Washington University in St. Louis has announced that it will award right-wing activist Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree at its upcoming graduation ceremony. Schlafly is well-known for her outspoken belief that women should be homemakers and her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment for women. The university, however, lauded her as a “leader“:
Schlafly, a native St. Louisan and two-time Washington University graduate, has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the 1964 publication of her book, “A Choice Not An Echo.” … In 1972, she started a national pro-family volunteer organization and led a successful 10-year battle against the Equal Rights Amendment. She continues as president of the group, now known as the Eagle Forum.
Named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by Ladies Home Journal and one of the 10 most admired women in the world by Good Housekeeping, she is a well-known advocate for the role of a full-time homemaker.
Women “are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate,” Schlafly once said. She has also described sex education as “in-home sales parties for abortions.” So far, 960 people have joined the Facebook group opposing the award.
(HT: Kathy’s G-Spot)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hey…I’m in that facebook group…
The great thing about it, though, is the amount of booing that she will receive. Why she and the university want to endure that embarassment is beyond me…
May 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pmI guess Phyllis isn’t likely to vote for Hillary either then.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pmPhyllis Schlafly — one of the original neo-cons.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pmmmm, she like neanderthal, him have big club, him keep her barefoot, in kitchen, she talk back, him have big club, she stay in cave, not come out, him have big club, she cry too much, not make sense, him have big club.
What a crock of crap, she’s part of de-evolution.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pmBig deal. She’s an alumna and a St. Louis native. It’s not surprising that the university would think to honor her. So what if her politics are repugnant to us? I doubt if Washington U consulted with TP on this award, and there’s no reason they should.
Let’s move on.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:42 pmPerhaps she’d give us a demonstration of good old ‘home correction’, with her playing the role of the lazy good for nothing chocolate gulping, layabout housewife in need of a good punch in the face…
May 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pmGood grief. Maybe she should start wearing a scarf so the sight of her hair doesn’t incite lust in men. “Man” made religion is so defensive no matter which one you choose. They all want to keep women supressed and controlled. Otherwise they don’t feel manly I guess. Poor little guys.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pmRalph, I’m offended that anyone thought about giving this vile woman any sort of prize.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pmI’m with ralph, she wouldn’t get the time of day any more than a few miles from the Big Muddy.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:48 pmIs that a Pekinese peeking over her head?
May 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pmHer views on women being less capable than men is wrong. And the sex education comparasion to abortion is crazy.
But, the idea of a full time homemaker (man or woman) has some merit. I’m lucky that, although my wife and I both work, we have opposing schedules that allow for one us to be home with the kids at any given time.
Sometimes I feel that to support today’s increasing expectations for standards of living, many couples feel that they both need to work.
This situation makes it necessary for the kids to spend more time in the care of people that aren’t family. And I think it waters down the individual’s responsibility for the upbringing of the child. Without that clear responsibility, parents point to schools to handle situations that teachers complain are the responsibility of the parents. The kids needs are postponed in the meantime.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pmWow, I read up on her history. This lady is a real freak of mental evolution.
Ann Coulter sounds just like her, she must have read a lot of Schlafly’s writing. **gag**
Schlafly has been vocal against neocons. But she is still far right to the point of fascism and racism. She opposed the equal rights amendment, for example.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:53 pmShe is also one of the first to put the slogan of “activist judges” on the lying tongues of the GOP.
Wait what. She was outside protesting? Your place is at home..woman! (no, I’m not serious)
May 5th, 2008 at 7:53 pmIf the husband is earning $5 per hour, then the wife must not work, but stay home and raise the 2 1/2 kids?
May 5th, 2008 at 7:54 pm“Sometimes I feel that to support today’s increasing expectations for standards of living, many couples feel that they both need to work.”
Capt. Man
My my, aren’t you all cuddly and snuggly…
May 5th, 2008 at 7:56 pmDid you have to access your inner spoiled brat to find these emotions?
Nothing says self-hate quite so much as a woman who is anti-feminist.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:57 pmNamtillaku Says:
Nothing says self-hate quite so much as a woman who is anti-feminist.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Spot on, Namtillaku.
When I was a naive teenager, I thought all women must be feminists, until I got wind of this old cow and her kind.
To this day, my own mother and sisters will say, “I’m not a feminist, but…” Grrrr….
May 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pmIt would be easy to cynically assume that Schlafly does her whole routine just for the money, but she has been beating this drum for decades and has never seen the absurdity of her own life as an anti-feminist.
I rarely disagree with Ralph the Wonder Llama, but really, everything about this woman is repugnant and she deserves no honors at all.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:07 pmbackup Says:
Not every couple has the luxury of opposing schedules and they still have to both work in todays economy to make ends meet.
You need to think a bit more out of your personal world at the real world situations of people. US citizens. The economy has actually sucked for the middle class for 7 years. It has really,really sucked for the people making minimum wage. Some are even college grads that have to work service jobs. Sometimes 2 jobs.
With the Oil industry milking everyone, the economy is only going to get worst. And we will drag the rest of the world into recession/depression.
It hasn’t hit bottom yet.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pmWayne. I see what you saying.
But, let me ask you this: You don’t think there is a significant portion of the population that couldn’t lower there standard of living (and still survive) if they made having somebody home with the kids all the time, a priority.
Houses have gotten bigger. Many of us have cell phones, and televisions, computers, cable, more than one car, etc.
I recently moved into a smaller house. My cars are 7-8 years old. If I wanted to work more, I could afford better things. I am making my priority less things and more time at home.
It doesn’t apply to everyone and I am fortunate. But, be honest, many people could get by on one job, if they downsized, cut costs and made different priorities.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:21 pmI want her to meet my 6′ wife.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:24 pmShe will think twice about her comments then.
My wife is an independent thinker. We work together as a team.
Man is not right, woman is not right.
BTW. I am lying if I tell you that I am 5′ 10″.
I look up to my wife literally. I have no choice.
So you don’t think that I am being controlled by her.
This Sunday we have been married for 35 years.
Is that OK Penny?
OK. I will post it. Just don’t hit me.
Yes, I posted it.
Have the right wing asswipes figured out an answer to the dilemma they’ve created:
May 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pmIf middle class and poor families need multiple wage-earners to provide basic necessities for their children, how the hell is either parent able to stay at home in lieu of working a job?
Neanderthal men opposing feminism piss me off. Women opposed to it baffle the hell out of me. This woman was born in the wrong century.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pmbackup (Captain),
No doubt a great many Americans could do with learning to live a simpler life, but many people have dug themselves into quite a lot of debt, unwisely or by unfortunate circumstance, and cannot just decide to live on one income — as much as they might want to.
Hillary Clinton was right about at least one thing: it takes a village to raise a child. Rather than condemning people for living a certain way, for whatever reason, like this Schlafly cow does, we need to come together as communities and support each other in any way we can.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pmHow bad can our oil industry be, if our gas costs $4 gal and it’s almost $9 gal in Europe?
And don’t progressives decry Republicans for what they charge is warring to protect our oil interests?
And won’t continual boycotts on new oil exploration and refinery construction also insure higher oil prices?
Don’t high taxes on gas make it more expensive?
And if progressives succeed in limiting those oil company profits, won’t the oil industry be less likely to work hard to find and produce more? (If it’s less profitable).
And although high oil prices hurt the economy – aren’t they good for the environment and climate change? (Higher oil prices, more efforts to conserve, less CO2 emissions).
I understand (and see the merit) in many progressive positions when it comes to oil. But, sometimes they can be inconsistant.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:33 pmExit Stage Left Says:
This woman was born in the wrong century.
Yeah, I would estimate sometime during the Dark Ages. Definitely not a Renaissance woman,heh
May 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pmbackup at #20…
Thanks for this approach, if more Americans were willing to take it, we wouldn’t be in the bind we are.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pmIt isn’t likely the corporate overlords will support this path however, it is contrary to the buy more, throw away more consumer culture.
I’ll offer a categorical apology for my previous cheap shot at you, under the assumption you are being sincere and truthful.
backup says:
Don’t high taxes on gas make it more expensive?
Average state gasoline tax is about 28.6 cents per gallon, depending on the state, plus 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax makes the total average gas tax of 47 cents per gallon. Fixed price. Federal tax is only 18.4 cents per gallon and goes towards infrastructure, supposedly.
Whats the price of gas right now? How good is your math skill?
May 5th, 2008 at 8:42 pmZooey. I agree and my goal is not to judge people. Everyone has a different circumstance. There is a guy on Atlanta radio(Dave Ramsey) that is putting out a message I think is doing some good. (I’ve run into alot of people that are taking his ’steps’) I think he’s a conservative, but it doesn’t matter, his message could be univeral. He offers solutions to money management and encourages everyone to live debt free.
I think no matter where we are on the economic latter, debt has been harmful to us individually. And I think collectively, it has become a serious problem. We can blame republicans, I don’t care. But, we are in a situation where we have a negative savings rate and huge personal debt. What good are we getting from the interest payments?
Even though Ramsey is not political, I think if he (or at least his message) could have wider reach, it could yield as much or more positive benefit than anything comming out of washington.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:49 pmIn trying to find a bright side to this story I realized that Washington U could be a potential location for the Bush library if SMU rejects it. Maybe if the library would include an exhibit featuring the university’s honored alum(s).
May 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pmBackup, the only thing preventing the construction of more oil refineries are the corps themselves. Raising supply would lower the price.
In 2000 in NC, I knew people who drove 50 miles each way to work. It had been about 95 cents a gallon for seven years under Clinton. Those people would have to pay four times as much today, get a lower paying job nearer their home, or buy a more expensive home today.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pmCaptain, gotta link to this Ramsey?
May 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pmNevar. No need to apologize. I understand the ‘cheap shots’ because most of the time I am contrary to the opinions here. And sometimes I play devil’s advocate to make my points, but my intentions are generally good.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pmNevar Says:
backup at #20…
I’ll offer a categorical apology for my previous cheap shot at you, under the assumption you are being sincere and truthful.
Five will get you ten you’ll be sorry. That’s the way with sympathy trolls.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pmZooey. I warned you, I think he’s a conservative. But on his show, very little politics and 95% money solutions.
Callers will periodically call in to scream “I’m debt free” when they graduate the program and become liberated from their personal debt. Sometimes, that emotional.
Here’s a link:
http://www.daveramsey.com/radio/home/
May 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pmIf corporations were giving the workers a fair share of the productivity for the past 27 years, the majority of Americans would not be struggling like they are. Conservatives are to blame for this by demonizing liberals and unions, and giving all the benefits to the top few.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pmThey must be very proud!
May 5th, 2008 at 9:01 pmbackup says:
But, we are in a situation where we have a negative savings rate and huge personal debt. What good are we getting from the interest payments?
I cut up all my cards, except for my my bank check card 10 years ago. I haven’t missed those interest payments at all.
I am lucky enough with my current job, I can do without credit, I only spend within my budget. Gas prices ( and everything else rising ) are really cutting the amount I can save now though.
Credit card companies are sharks.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:03 pmbackup Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
This may shock you, Captain, but I respect true conservatives. They’re just so very rare these days.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pmI think a few posters whom I respect have misunderstood my post — probably my fault.
I didn’t mean to advocate for this honor, or to defend this woman. But it doesn’t seem all that outrageous for a university to honor a particularly notable alumna, even if that notoriety comes on the back of ugly regressive politics.
Do we really need to look this hard for stuff to be outraged about?
May 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pmHere’s a thought about reducing personal debt, that I doubt will get an traction. But here goes.
I’m not sure the fair tax would work, but consider this:
Proponents say that the tax would be a wash, because instead of paying the imbedded taxes of corporate taxes and income taxes (which amount to about 25% of everything we buy) we eliminate those taxes and instead put a 22% sales tax on everything we buy.
The after tax prices for goods won’t really change, just the way we get the tax.
I think that if the tax burden was removed from income and placed on consumption, it would naturally stimulate savings.
There are protections for basic necessities and lower income groups. And supposedly revenue income neutral for the state.
Very controversial idea, but one way to promote saving our money instead of spending it.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pmZooey. I agree. The conservative waters have gotten very muddy. Republicans are going to need an overhaul after this election, if they want to be relevant in the future.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pmbackup, the megarich love your plan, because they do not have to spend 99% of their income. For the last seven years, the average worker is spending 110% of their income. Hence the unfairness. Are you remembering that states also have their sales taxes? 7.5% for me.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pmCaptain,
The “fair tax” is not fair. It’s a regressive tax, that the rich would jump for joy to see implemented.
Sorry, no link. I need to get back to studying.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pmSchafly is 83, and has done very well for herself these past few decades. To its disgrace, Washington U. is just worming its way into her will.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pmbackup. I guess under your plan, the largest corporations pay zero in taxes? People absolutely cannot handle the shift of that burden onto them. Nowhere within a billion light years!
May 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pm6% sales tax here in Idaho — including food. Truly f_cked up.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:17 pmWayne. It’s a big issue. It’s not just filling up your tank, transportation costs make everything else more expensive.
Sometimes, I’m a pollyanna, but one bright side, people will use less gas. Transportation companies will be forced to be more fuel efficient. We’ll have to find better alternatives. It will be better for the environment.
But, it doesn’t eliminate the pain in the meantime. I don’t support it, but it’s almost an argument for Clinton’s and McCain’s gas tax holiday. In the shortrun. But, three months isn’t going to matter much. And your robbing the infrastructure fund to do it. Not many easy answers. But, Europe is living off $8/gal gas. I guess we’ll have to figure out how to do it too.
BTW, I work for the airlines. It’s a bloodbath, for us.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pmKeith Says:
backup. I guess under your plan, the largest corporations pay zero in taxes? People absolutely cannot handle the shift of that burden onto them. Nowhere within a billion light years!
True, businesses purchase the goods that they use to make goods tax free already. “Fair Tax” ( No tax on income ) would mean Corporations would pay practically no tax. All the burden would be on the workers.
No wonder the rich push “Fair Tax”. Its a Robber Baron’s wet dream.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:23 pmI remember Schafly well….She and regressive people like her were why the rest of us had to work so hard to get equal right’s and keep them….Sad that WA U would support such a person…She make’s me sick…Blessings
May 5th, 2008 at 9:24 pmKeith. I haven’t read the plan. But, I’ve had some of the same objections. To be honest, every time I bring up a similar reason why it won’t work, the fair taxers have an answer. I guess it’s time I read the book.
Apparently, lower income people get money up front to buy basics. There are exemptions for the lower wage earners. The cost of products actually comes down because of the absense of the imbedded taxes (corporate taxes and the eliminated income taxes)
I.e, GM no longer has to pay corporate taxes. GM workers no longer have to pay income taxes.
GM can make cars for cheaper because they don’t pay the tax and they can hire American workers for less money (while the workers still make the same net income)
Even though the 22% tax is high, it’s on a product being sold for 25% less (because the other taxes have been eliminated). A wash.
The big upside is that when we compete with foreigners, their products (which enjoy a never ending tax holiday – because they pay no corporate tax) have a more difficult time against ours. Their costs are still the same, but now they pay the 22% they haven’t had to pay before.
Our products are more competitive and we reward saving instead of penalizing income.
But, I haven’t read the book. The plan would have to insure that it wouldn’t significantly slow our economy, insure that higher burdens wouldn’t be placed on lower income groups, and that we would have a similar tax revenue that we have today.
Oh, another plus: No IRS and no more tax filing.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pmThanks for the response, Wayne.
Backup, so the people take the entire tax burden upon themselves and TRUST the corporations to lower their prices. Any swampland you would like to sell in Florida? In capitalism, the price of anything is whatever the market will allow. It is not the cost of labor plus a tiny amount.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:45 pmThe normal solution is tariffs on imported goods. Backup, You are a fool if you believe under your plan the largest corporations wouldn’t become the robber barons they used to be before progressive taxation begun by Teddy Roosevelt.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pmKeith, the Captain has admitted to being a bit of a pollyanna. This is Exhibit A. :D
May 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pmAnd the 22% becomes 29.5% when states have to meet their budget.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:51 pmKeith. I know the idea is hard to believe. I personally can’t concieve of being able to change that radically from one system to another overnight.
Because it is so radical, it doesn’t have a chance. It would also be hard to insure that some group, whether it’s certain businesses or income groups, wouldn’t get devastated in the changeover.
But, I’ll try to read the book. When I talk to them, fair taxers seem to have an answer for every objection.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:53 pmZooey, Julie Andrews wasn’t this much of a pollyanna. Just trust the corporations, they wouldn’t be unfair when it comes to money!?!
May 5th, 2008 at 9:53 pmguilty about the pollyanna. also guilty about taking this thing off topic. my bad.
Got to split. Thanks.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pmKeith, we all know big corporations are trying to free their inner-altruism. And while they’re doing that, it’s necessary to bleed us dry of every cent we have. :D
May 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pmOh, about trusting corporations, it wouldn’t be about trust.
In my scenerio GM would set the price of the car. They might be tempted to keep the price of the cars the same, so the executives could pocket the extra money at everyone elses expense.
The only problem is Ford. Ford will also want to greed up as much money that they can. But, to make money, they need to sell cars. So, they will undercut GM slightly, to sell them. And GM will undercut Ford. Then Ford. GM. Until, finally, there is equilibrium. A point comes when the corporation makes a profit, but is unwilling to cut any more because then it wouldn’t be worth it.
Corporations are greedy, but it is that greed that will insure the prices moderate to about where they are today (net with the tax). Corporate executives can’t realize their greed without sales. They won’t sell much if their price is too high.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pmThis time I’m really going. See ya.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pmbackup:
The only problem is Ford. Ford will also want to greed up as much money that they can. But, to make money, they need to sell cars. So, they will undercut GM slightly, to sell them. And GM will undercut Ford. Then Ford. GM. Until, finally, there is equilibrium. A point comes when the corporation makes a profit, but is unwilling to cut any more because then it wouldn’t be worth it.
GM will keep churning them out, regardless of sales. If they get too far in the red, they can always lobby congress and get another bailout. They’re too big to fail, remember.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:17 pmIf all the sellers of the oil (for instance) agree to quadruple the price, buyers have no choice if the entire society is built around the oil. We had trickle-down in the 1920’s. We had trickle-down in the 1980’s. And we have had it the past seven years. We don’t have to speculate what it would be like—just know history. They’ll be selling us our water soon. Oh, wait–they already are–bad example.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:20 pmKeith Says:
They’ll be selling us our water soon. Oh, wait–they already are–bad example.
Next is selling us air, for those who can’t take the grossly polluted air. Oh, dang, they are selling that too. =P
May 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pmWell Northwestern University rescinded it’s offer of an Honorary Doctorate to Jeremiah Wright last week. It happens.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:01 pmAnd John Yoo is a fine example of a learned jurist in the USA in 2008? Oh, well. Those university presidents do whatever they want, sort of like GWB.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:17 pmbarfly. please stop muddling my theory with what happens in reality. ;)
May 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pmI wonder how she feels about her gay son.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pmI wonder how her gay son feels about her.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:40 pm.
Too bad Phyllis didn’t know how to keep her place as full time house maker and instead became a full time anti-feminist activist…
She doesn’t take her own advise too well… NO?
.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:44 amSlightly off topic. Her son is one of the big wigs behind Conservapedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Andrew_Schlafly
Lots of “interesting” reading there.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pmbackup Says:
.
.
.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Zooey Says:
Captain, gotta link to this Ramsey?
May 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Ramsey is not only a conservative but he’s a Conservative Christian(CC). Ramsey’s Financial Peace is based in a suburb of Nashville where his radio and TV shows originate. He is famous for his live, and taped, seminars called Financial Peace University(FPU). Many conservative churches offer these seminars.
In addition he does a daily three hour radio call-in show on personal finance. Married couples, including MDs and lawyers; single mothers, and truck drives call his show for advice. Many are able to call and to scream what backup said: “We’re debt free.”
Ramsey doesn’t express political opinion but will comment to the effect that those who are expecting social security to take care of their retirement should remember that the government almost never balances a budget.
He will express opinions about government activities such as the IRS rebate on which the politicians finally agreed. He doesn’t talk about individual politicians or candidates.
Ramsey is not against owning stuff, but he is vehemently against owning debt. Much of this results from his experience of going bankrupt due to over-leveraged real estate holdings.
He may also be on a personal vendetta against credit card companies. He calls the companies by name and gives his opinion that most of them are scum. In FPU he says that American Express told his wife during their bankruptcy period she should leave him because he wouldn’t pay his debts. Ramsey apparently thought this was a little over the top as a collection technique, but AmEx didn’t.
Ramsey says there’s no problem slamming the companies, which he does freely, because he claims he can prove everything he says.
bitblt dropped his AmEx after having had FPU the second time.
bitblt wonders what influence FPU will have on personal debt and property ownership after two or three generations of CCs have listened to Ramsey.
Nonetheless, the man is a CC and reads from the Bible at the end of every radio show.
Ramsey on-line columns can be found at http://www.worldnetdaily.net page 2.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm“Women “are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate,”
Then why, by her logic, should anyone have listened to her? Either she’s wrong, or she can’t handle it herself, or she’s not a woman. Any one of those removes all of her credibility, although I don’t think she needed any help from logic for that.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pmThis woman, who goes around the country and makes appearances and is anything but a housewife, has her NERVE to tell other women what they should do with their lives. This is probably the biggest blatant example of hypocrisy from the Right. You would do well to remember that Shafly was also responsible for keeping condoms out of prisons.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pmNamed one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by Ladies Home Journal and one of the 10 most admired women in the world by Good Housekeeping, she is a well-known advocate for the role of a full-time homemaker.
You can bet the house that not even a 1% of Spaniards know who is this fascist woman.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:38 pm