Anne Reed
AFA Journal staff writer
November 2014 – “American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth,” said Phyllis Schlafly in a recent interview with AFA Journal. Her statement may seem preposterous to those who believe there is a wide-scale effort to restrict women’s rights in America.
Schlafly, now 90 years of age, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University, received her law doctorate from Washington University Law School and her master’s in political science from Harvard University. She received an honorary doctorate from Washington University-St. Louis, ran for office, led a successful political movement and wrote 20 books.
Some might reason that a woman of such notable achievement, perhaps ahead of her time in many respects, would have fought long and hard in the war for women’s rights. Others might surmise that such a woman would have chosen a life far from the traditional roles of mother and homemaker. Either assumption would be plausible – but both are wrong.
Schlafly calls the “war on women” an invention of the feminist movement. “It’s just as phony as a three-dollar bill,” she said with discernable conviction. Her work inside and outside the home has reflected her profound respect for the role of full-time homemaker. As a mother of six, she was voted Illinois Mother of the Year in 1992.
History revealed
In their book The Flipside of Feminism, Schlafly and Suzanne Vender dispel the claim that American women are indebted to feminists for basic freedoms, most notably women’s voting rights secured by the 19th Amendment in 1920. “The word feminist didn’t become boilerplate language until the countercultural revolution of the 1960s when women took to the street in the name of equality and liberation.”
“What [feminists] really want is to get rid of the family and make women responsible for themselves – not reporting to any husband,” said Schlafly. “The whole feminist movement was manufactured by people who wanted to destroy the family.”
No-name feminism
Often academics further the feminist message by portraying men as oppressors. “What they do is make women believe they are victims of the patriarch, and they are trying to abolish the patriarchy,” said Schlafly. “That is ridiculous. They can do whatever they want in this country. They are also taught that women shouldn’t be responsible for taking care of their own children, that it is a demeaning occupation and isn’t worth the time of an educated woman.”
Though schools and media have been infiltrated by this line of thinking, those pushing it in today’s climate do not typically claim to be feminists. Their ideology has simply penetrated the society and become predictable rhetoric in the mainstream media.
What women really want
The results of a 2012 survey of modern American mothers by ForbesWoman and TheBump.com are surprisingly inconsistent with the prevailing feminist view. Eighty-four percent of working women said they consider staying home to raise children a financial luxury to which they aspire. Additionally, more than one in three women actually resent their partners for not earning enough to make their dream a reality.
Sizing up these findings, it appears that the typical wife desires a provider – a husband who earns more than she does, so she can take some time off and take care of their children.
Disdain for God and man
However, men are generally portrayed as nonessential by many major societal influencers. This mindset is clearly evidenced in a statement made famous by Gloria Steinem, one of the key leaders of the feminist movement: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Remarkably, the woman first known to have made this statement was paraphrasing from a philosophical text which read, “A man needs God like a fish needs a bicycle.”
Whether the claim is expendability of God or men, the two messages seem to go hand in hand. Both poisonous assessments are being pumped into the culture with disconcerting consistency. As a result, the strength of America is diminishing in the wake of countless shattered families and broken people living without a moral anchor.
A longstanding fight
Schlafly recognized the oncoming dangerous effects of feminism decades ago when she bravely led a long, arduous battle (1972-1982) against passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA was the primary goal of radical feminists who believed the constitutional amendment was necessary to unequivocally eliminate gender-based inequality.
The ERA appeared to be a noble endeavor, and the majority of the voting body was persuaded to support it early on. But the STOP ERA movement, formed by Schlafly, was able to demonstrate the harmful repercussions to women and the nation as a whole. For example, women would have lost their military exemption, and ERA would have taken away the traditional benefits in the law for mothers, widows and wives. Husbands would no longer have been obligated by law to support their wives, and laws specifically protecting women against assault would have been eliminated.
In addition to other negative effects on women, STOP ERA presented arguments about an enormous transfer of power to the federal government and a devastating decline in morality. The amendment would have put “gay rights” into the U.S. Constitution and forced taxpayer funding of abortion.
Schlafly said three presidents, every governor, 98% of the media, Hollywood and big money supported ERA; however, Schlafly and STOP ERA led the pro-family movement to victory. ERA was unable to garner the needed number of votes for ratification.
Left in need
“The disappearance of the nuclear family is the worst thing that has happened to our country,” said Schlafly. “The family is a self-contained unit – it can support itself and make its own decisions. But we’ve moved into a society where some judge can overrule the parents on any type of child-raising.”
Where women were once dependent on husbands who vowed to love and cherish them, growing numbers are now dependent on government to provide for them and their children. “The breakup of the family has resulted in the current welfare state,” she explained. “If a woman has children without a husband to support her, where does she go? To big brother government.”
This transfer of trust and respect has, without question, affected men in countless destructive ways, including their desire for marriage. “Everybody needs to have a mission in life – the role of a husband is to be provider and protector,” said Schlafly. “But when women don’t want men to be the providers, they’re taking away their mission in life. As a result, many walk away from marriage.”
She points to feminists’ evident resentment toward marriage – the God-ordained, life-long union between a man and woman who raise their children together. “There are no scientific reports that identify anything better for children than being cared for by their own mother and father in a married home,” said Schlafly. “Substitute care by people who are not related to the kids is simply not producing right results.”
After 40 years of feminism, women have indeed gained a certain amount of freedom, education and power. But there have been negative consequences, too. Sadly, the statistics reveal that those advances have resulted in less happiness for women – not more. 
