MovieChat Forums > Mrs. America (2020) Discussion > Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly

posted 4 years ago by ajr01 (51)
17 replies | jump to latest

Of course this mini series is meant be a biopic about Phyllis Schlafly, and her personal life, also exploring the relationship she has withe other members of her family. The impression one gets from the first episode, and I daresay this theme will be explored in future ones, is that Schlafly saw the whole ERA debate about the women's liberation movement, as an issue that would get her out of her "dull domesticity", and make her a nationally recognized figure, as the only voice opposing it. That is a completely incorrect perception of her. Prior to her founding STOP ERA in 1972 (just after the amendment had come out of the Senate and was heading to the state legislatures for ratification) Schlafly had been a conservative political activist for some decades, attending every Republican National Convention every four years, since the early fifties. She ran twice for Congress, as a married woman, and a mother. She had written a number of books on political issues, particularly dealing with defense. In 1967, she started her own newsletter called The Phyllis Schlafly Report that by the beginning of the ERA debate, had a readership of several thousand people, and encouraged readers to be more politically active. As a devout Catholic with six children, (who taught all her children how to read before sending them to school) she believed that aspects of the ERA would diminish the traditional family. That was not a popular view at the time, but it was consistent with Schlafly's prior extensive political involvement as a conservative, and was hardly a reaction to her own private "suburban neurosis", and must do something else more exciting, as this series seems to imply!

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12249) 4 years ago

Her son founded Conservapedia.

[–] ajr01 (51) 4 years ago

Of course, Andy Schlafly!

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

So she thought that women should put home and family first... women other than herself, that is.

[–] ajr01 (51) 4 years ago

Again, you are misrepresenting her, like that show is doing. A rather unusual housewife and mother of six for sure, who writes books on nuclear strategy, and ran twice for Congress, before launching a national campaign against a constitutional amendment. Schlafly was defending the right of a woman to stay at home and for that choice to be respected by the government, but what the choice of any individual woman was, that was her business, and nobody else's. But as she herself said, while respecting the right of a woman to have a career, (she said, "I hope she gets a break in the labor force") it is a different thing entirely to refer to a homemaker who has made a different choice as an "obsolete stereotype" that has little relevance in the modern age, something she argued the ERA tried to do. She was effectively the voice of these women, at a time in particular in the seventies and eighties, the media was largely preoccupied with those pursuing a career, as an illustration of women's advancement.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Just because being a housewife was unfashionable at the time, was no reason to work towards keeping other women from getting legal rights and protections.

If the show represents her as anything other than utterly vile, it's doing history a disservice.

[–] ajr01 (51) 4 years ago

Phyllis Schlafly was never against women having legal rights and protections. In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which was designed to prohibit job discrimination for reasons of race, religion, color, national origin, and sex. She strongly supported this legislation, as well as equal pay for equal work. She was never against the proper advancement of women. What her crusade was about was defending the right of a woman to be a full time homemaker, if that was her choice. If a woman chose to be in the work force and have a career, that was her right also. A large amount of blue collar women, who worked in factories, were also against the ratification of this amendment, because they were worried they would lose any protective laws on account of their gender, that were already in effect. I recognize there are many people who don't like Phyllis Schlafly. I for one, do not support all of her views either. What I take exception to is this series, which I believe based on what we have been subjected to already, is a false perception of her aims, and why she chose to fight the amendment, which seems to imply she was just a bored housewife (who due to her affluence could afford plenty of home help!) and mother with too much time on her hands, and saw fighting ERA as a way to propel her on to the national stage, not because she believed there was anything wrong with the amendment. This is just a load of fantasy. Her political action here was consistent with other activities of hers, in previous decades, including being the author of a number of books expounding her conservative views, and writing a newsletter. She first ran for Congress in 1952 as a conservative Republican, when she was only a few years married and had an infant son, 20 years previously, for instance.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 4 years ago

and she misrepresented her crusade since in the states it did pass....like Texas it did not ban full time homemaking. Women were still allowed to do this after era passed, Women were still allowed to be wives and mothers

The unions which included blue collar women DID come around to supporting this amendment. Protective legislation which was female only automatically/uni-formally locked women out of higher paying jobs and prevented career advancement.

Are there women who do not want to do certain positions...yes. I bet there are men who do not either Being able to decide individually for one's own needs and rights is much better and far more equitable vs being told you are prohibited bc you are a woman/you are a man.

Perhaps she fought a little bit out of frustration...remember she also had been subject to the rules re having to get stuff signed off in her husbands name....etc even though she was a licensed attorney. Why would she 'like' doing this? She gets attention and the spotlight if she can stir things up!!

I went over to the eagle forum website to look @ it. Bad layout/writing. Looks like several of these women are the sky is falling type. Schafly had power by manipulating them and their fear of the unknown/fear of change and different. Actually it's sad.

[–] ajr01 (51) 4 years ago

I was not aware of ERA having passed officially. Congress granted a three year extension to the amendment. It should have expired in 1979. By 30 June 1982, it sill had not achieved a ratification of the necessary 38 states. Very interesting what you say about Texas. But that state is largely a Republican one, so I can imagine that even if there was a push for the ERA there, it would still be supportive of homemakers. I am not an American (I am from Australia) but American politics is a strong hobby of mine. I know there are also in the USA, state versions of the ERA! But that is different from making it a constitutional amendment, and to my knowledge, it has not been added to the American Constitution. To add a pertinent anecdote from my previous post, trying to debunk the notion presented in the Mrs America series, that Phyllis' crusade against the ERA, was a reaction to her housewifely boredom, in 1964 nearly a decade before, she published a page turner entitled A Choice Not An Echo. (The last of her six children was born in that year). It sold three million copies! The paperback advocated Barry Goldwater as the Republican presidential candidate in the election later that year, and is widely credited as having given him the nomination. Just to say that Phyllis Schlafly's impressive conservative credentials (even if you don't agree with her) long predate the Equal Rights Amendment

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 4 years ago

It is interesting that Barry Goldwater himself---who schafly proudly touted would go on to support legalized abortion and gay rights. Goldwater's vote against the 1964 civil rights act (states rights) still looks awkward

But Goldwater DID understand you cannot claim states rights in one breath re racial issues and then tell adults what they cannot do with their very own organs with another

Schafly and the rest of the GOP itself disconnected with him on that. They wanted 'big government' to police people's bodies and homes.

[–] ajr01 (51) 4 years ago

As time goes on, people will often lose their prior admiration for somebody. We're all individuals at the end of the day, and not puppets, where somebody can pull the strings. It's good to talk to somebody who knows a bit about American politics! As long as you understand, I am having a go at that series Mrs America, because it is presenting in my opinion a view of Phyllis Schlafly, that is intellectually dishonest, love her or hate her! NB Barry Goldwater in his memoirs, never gave credit to the paperback, written by Schlafly, which most commentators agree made the Arizona senator a national figure in 1964, to the point of him winning the Republican presidential nomination, of course losing to the incumbent Democrat Lyndon B Johnson, in the election. I am aware he voted against the Civil Rights Act, which I am sure hardly won him many admirers.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 4 years ago

I would assume that lack of credit came from the 'disconnect' the two had re what being a conservative meant (re abortion and gays). And you are right re time. I've changed from some of my friends who I once thought were cool. I don't think it bothered Schafly that much though since she did elect several presidents afterwards and who did share her political positions.

[–] ajr01 (51) 4 years ago

Yes, that is correct. She and Ronald Reagan were quite close, and even though she was dying in 2016, she advocated Donald Trump, which caused a fracas in her organization Eagle Forum, as most of the board members did not like him! She died two months before the election result.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5947) 4 years ago

It's much more than a Schlafly biopic. It spends as much or more time with her opponents on the feminist side.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 4 years ago

yes and this is why I (identifying as a feminist) liked it. I thought it was very interesting.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5947) 4 years ago

Agreed. A story that needs telling, especially as time has gone by and folks are beginning to forget all that happened.

[–] LenkoPenko (157) 3 years ago

Actually, I didn't get that impression at all (that she was just a bored housewife).
The first episode made her appear to be very politically driven, while also being a homemaker who wasn't particularly interested in that bill to begin with, but eventually saw it as an opportunity to advance her political career.

To preface, I'm a non-American who wasn't familiar with Phyllis Schlafly until coming across this series.

[–] marktayloruk (2375) 3 years ago

I'd known about her for decades and would certainly have been with her in her fight against ERA. I was disgusted by the feminist radical taking the "you're not going out dressed like that!" line with her teenage daughter.