When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’

Posted on | July 30, 2010 | 166 Comments

Phyllis Schlafly is one of conservatism’s great heroines. Both Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter acknowledge Schlafly’s influence as a role model. Forty-six years after her rallying cry for Goldwater, A Choice Not an Echo, and three decades after she led the crusade to stop ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, she’s still driving liberals nuts:

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for their living. For example, do you know what was the second-biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? . . . Unmarried women. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider. . . .”

This is what we in the journalism business call a “fact”:

Those numbers are from an exit poll conducted by a notorious right-wing extremist group — CNN — and Schlafly’s explanation of why single women vote overwhelmingly for Democrats is neither new nor “extreme” nor uniquely hers. Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum in National Review, April 10:

Take a recent report entitled “Advancing the Economic Security of Unmarried Women” by the Center for American Progress, the “progressive” nonprofit run by Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta. The report reviews the problems of a growing segment of our society: unmarried women. They are poorer, more likely than other women to be unemployed, have less access to health care, and often struggle to care for children without support from fathers.
What’s CAP’s solution? More government at every turn. Among the recommended proposals are more generous unemployment benefits, more job-training and job-placement programs, greater subsidies for child care, more generous child-nutrition programs, direct welfare payments for those with children, government intervention to prevent foreclosures, expanded low-income-housing programs, an increased minimum wage, government intervention to increase the pay of occupations dominated by women, mandatory paid family and sick leave, and, of course, government-provided health care. In other words, complete cradle-to-grave, taxpayer-provided government support.
It’s tempting to call this paper sexist: Women — especially unmarried women — are portrayed as barely able to subsist without extra protection. One could also ruminate on CAP’s view of family formation, which seems willing to substitute a dependent relationship on the government for marriage. A woman without a man is encouraged to depend on Uncle Sam.

One might disagree with that analysis, but it is hardly “extreme,” and yet the Schlafly speech making the same basic point is being seized as a campaign issue by Democrats:

Democrats aim to exploit the comments to pressure the more than 60 Republican candidates who have earned Schlafly’s endorsement. . . .
Democrats plan to jump on the 75 Republican candidates for federal office that Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has endorsed and donated to — a list that includes Todd Tiahrt in the Kansas Republican primary for Senate, Ken Buck in the Colorado Republican primary for Senate, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and his Senate Conservatives Fund and Sen. David Vitter. Already, reporters in Vitter’s home state of Louisiana are getting releases from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pressing them to ask Vitter if he agrees with Schlafly. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is doing the same thing to Eagle Forum-endorsed House candidates, painting Republicans on dozens of ballots — including Rep. Michele Bachmann and Scott Rigell in the competitive VA-02 race — as “extreme” and saying the candidate should refuse Schlafly’s endorsement.

I plan to renounce any Republican who renounces Phyllis Schlafly.

UPDATE: Linked by Da Tech Guy and liberal feminist Taylor Marsh, and there’s a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE II: Linked by Virginia Right and Scipio 62 at Red State, and featured by Red at Caught Him With a Corndog.

UPDATE III: Professor Donald Douglas suggests that Rocky Raczkowski is inviting renunciation. I’m not going to be hasty, like Vilsack throwing Sherrod under the bus.

The Blog Prof offers a primer in the techniques of liberal bias, as demonstrated by the Oakland (Mich.) Press News.

For the benefit of any Republican confused by all this uproar, let me explain the basic problem: The way to tackle feminism is head-on.

Feminism is a left-wing phenomenon. It is a radical egalitarian ideology based upon a fallacy, and should never be endorsed or appeased in the erroneous belief that, by kowtowing to ideologues, Republicans can win “The Women’s Vote” (capital-T, capital-W, capital-V, denoting a dubious category that is reified by feminist ideology). A brief explanation:

Insofar as men and women are different, they are not equal.
Equality implies fungibility — that two things are perfectly interchangeable, so that one thing may be substituted for the other without any difference in value. Only a fool could believe that men and women are equal in that way, and yet this is what feminists would require us to believe. And any man who dares contradict this egalitarian dogma is a sexist, an oppressor, a reactionary representative of the patriarchy.
All the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes. Men and women are not the same, and therefore are not equal.

Do not think that you, a Republican, can benefit by attempting some sort of “me-too” feminism, nor should you fall into the error of thinking that there is some sort of “conservative feminism” which can be mobilized to elect you. Such foolish behaviors and atttitudes only betray your lack of judgment and courage.

Most of all, do not think that you can benefit by throwing Phyllis Schlafly under the bus. Do you know how Phyllis Schlafly earned her way through college? Working in a munitions plant during World War II, when her job was test-firing .50-caliber machine-gun ammunition.

Think about that, gentlemen.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! BTW, did you hear what happened to the Republican billionaires who didn’t hit my tip jar?

Category: Conservatism 101, Feminism, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Comments

166 Responses to “When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’”

KG
July 30th, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

As I read these anti_Schafly arguments, I can’t help but feeling that something is … off. Sure, their arguments appear to have merit, yet there also sseems to be a sheen of sophistry to them. It’s subtle, and fortunately, I don’t care enough about their opinions to tease out their wrongness.
KG
July 30th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

As I read these anti_Schafly arguments, I can’t help but feeling that something is … off. Sure, their arguments appear to have merit, yet there also sseems to be a sheen of sophistry to them. It’s subtle, and fortunately, I don’t care enough about their opinions to tease out their wrongness.
Eva Braun
July 30th, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

You people are f(l)unking crazy!
Eva Braun
July 30th, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

You people are f(l)unking crazy!
The Righteous Rant Of The Day… « The Camp Of The Saints
July 30th, 2010 @ 5:14 pm

[…] Rant Of The Day… 30 July 2010 @ 17:13 by bobbelvedere …comes courtesy of Robert Stacy McCain, the eternal ingrown hair on the butt of GOP Establishment, for his justifiable beat down of […]
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

Stacy – your post ate my comment!
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

Stacy – your post ate my comment!
Kojocaro
July 30th, 2010 @ 10:14 pm

i like how TQ falls back on the that jooo lover abused gays so she is an extremist what about the muslims who express their wish to kill gays oh wait i forgot that is ok in your eyes
Kojocaro
July 30th, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

i like how TQ falls back on the that jooo lover abused gays so she is an extremist what about the muslims who express their wish to kill gays oh wait i forgot that is ok in your eyes
Mary Rose
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

Rock on, Roxeanne! I was blessed to have two parents growing up, and although they fought like cats and dogs at times, they stayed together until the day she passed in 2007. I attribute my semi-moments of sanity and responsibility to having two adults who toughed it out.

As for Schlafly, I cut my political teeth on her book, The Power of the Positive Woman back when I was in high school. (I need to see if I can get some of her out-of-print books…) I loved her story of defeating the ERA. And she is dead-on with her assessment of single women and the government.

I always thought that there was this strange addictive relationship between those on welfare and the government. Especially for women. The government doesn’t benefit from really helping inner-city men to be responsible citizens of society, to be strong fathers and husbands. Nope. There has been a systematic razing of masculinity and fatherhood in this country since the 60’s.

Meanwhile, with those bothersome males out of the way, who can help those poor, abandoned women? Uncle “Got the Bling to Ring” Sam!

“We’ll never let you down, beaten-down women. We’re much better than men! We’re always around, we won’t cheat on you (instead we’ll cheat the responsible citizens of their hard-earned wages..), and no one will ever turn our gaze away from you!”

Sure, why wouldn’t these women gaze all starry-eyed at President Obama & Company? It’s co-dependency at the highest level. The women will cling and the government will enable them. What a great system.
Mary Rose
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

Rock on, Roxeanne! I was blessed to have two parents growing up, and although they fought like cats and dogs at times, they stayed together until the day she passed in 2007. I attribute my semi-moments of sanity and responsibility to having two adults who toughed it out.

As for Schlafly, I cut my political teeth on her book, The Power of the Positive Woman back when I was in high school. (I need to see if I can get some of her out-of-print books…) I loved her story of defeating the ERA. And she is dead-on with her assessment of single women and the government.

I always thought that there was this strange addictive relationship between those on welfare and the government. Especially for women. The government doesn’t benefit from really helping inner-city men to be responsible citizens of society, to be strong fathers and husbands. Nope. There has been a systematic razing of masculinity and fatherhood in this country since the 60’s.

Meanwhile, with those bothersome males out of the way, who can help those poor, abandoned women? Uncle “Got the Bling to Ring” Sam!

“We’ll never let you down, beaten-down women. We’re much better than men! We’re always around, we won’t cheat on you (instead we’ll cheat the responsible citizens of their hard-earned wages..), and no one will ever turn our gaze away from you!”

Sure, why wouldn’t these women gaze all starry-eyed at President Obama & Company? It’s co-dependency at the highest level. The women will cling and the government will enable them. What a great system.
GOP Conservative Phyllis Schlafly attacks US women, they should be cared for by men - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:26 pm

[…] […]
Mary Rose
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:40 pm

The stats show that the highest percentage who voted for Obama were unmarried women with kids.

I didn’t get married until I was 39. I was definitely able to provide for myself. The stats show that women who have children were more apt to vote for Obama. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why. If the government continues to reward it, then it’s no surprise that you get more of it.

I know not every single woman who is in the situation of being a single mother is taking advantage of the system. But unfortunately, there are enough who do and things haven’t improved. Blame it on the disappearance of the “shotgun marriage.”
Mary Rose
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

The stats show that the highest percentage who voted for Obama were unmarried women with kids.

I didn’t get married until I was 39. I was definitely able to provide for myself. The stats show that women who have children were more apt to vote for Obama. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why. If the government continues to reward it, then it’s no surprise that you get more of it.

I know not every single woman who is in the situation of being a single mother is taking advantage of the system. But unfortunately, there are enough who do and things haven’t improved. Blame it on the disappearance of the “shotgun marriage.”
TQ White II
July 31st, 2010 @ 3:06 am

My argument decimated? I just don’t see it.

Here’s my argument: Most unwed mothers are teenaged girls that haven’t a clue about anything. They are children with parents that suck. They aren’t doing it because they will get welfare. They are doing it so the boy will like them. The attempt to recruit them as villains in your political drama is the usual, cynical right wing use of the unfortunate.

That said, it is you people that brought up single mothers, when it became obvious that condemning all single women was extreme. Like the right-wing in general, you are happy to use sad girls, trapped by their own ignorance, as a foil for you to support this awful Shafly woman.

Nothing that any of you have said contradicts my real point that Shafly’s comments support your ugly inclination to condemn women that are show any independence and that her comments are not “truth”, fact or any other kind of reality. Her condemnation of an entire class of people is the purest sort of extremism.

My favorite thing though, is that, like it always does when I drop into rightie-world, after we condemn women that don’t obey their man, and after we blame unwed mothers, we eventually get to bigoted comments about moslems (“their wish to kill gays,” incredible!) and then personal attacks (that killing gays “is ok in your eyes”).

But then, incredibly we learn that shotgun weddings are the solution. Gotta love it. You’re happy with the idea of forcing people to marry. Reproductive choice, not so much. I know, freedom isn’t much of a virtue around here.

It’s always great to visit the fantasy world of the right-wing where denigrating all single women is not extreme and malleable dishonesty is a virtue.
TQ White II
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:06 pm

My argument decimated? I just don’t see it.

Here’s my argument: Most unwed mothers are teenaged girls that haven’t a clue about anything. They are children with parents that suck. They aren’t doing it because they will get welfare. They are doing it so the boy will like them. The attempt to recruit them as villains in your political drama is the usual, cynical right wing use of the unfortunate.

That said, it is you people that brought up single mothers, when it became obvious that condemning all single women was extreme. Like the right-wing in general, you are happy to use sad girls, trapped by their own ignorance, as a foil for you to support this awful Shafly woman.

Nothing that any of you have said contradicts my real point that Shafly’s comments support your ugly inclination to condemn women that are show any independence and that her comments are not “truth”, fact or any other kind of reality. Her condemnation of an entire class of people is the purest sort of extremism.

My favorite thing though, is that, like it always does when I drop into rightie-world, after we condemn women that don’t obey their man, and after we blame unwed mothers, we eventually get to bigoted comments about moslems (“their wish to kill gays,” incredible!) and then personal attacks (that killing gays “is ok in your eyes”).

But then, incredibly we learn that shotgun weddings are the solution. Gotta love it. You’re happy with the idea of forcing people to marry. Reproductive choice, not so much. I know, freedom isn’t much of a virtue around here.

It’s always great to visit the fantasy world of the right-wing where denigrating all single women is not extreme and malleable dishonesty is a virtue.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 3:58 am

condemn women that are show any independence

Comedy gold! The issue isn’t independent women – as an unmarried, almost 30-year-old, paying her own way through life engineer-turned-lawyer, I have the independent woman thing DOWN, bitches – it’s DEPENDENT women.

Women who depend on the government. Women who depend on abortion. Women who cannot live their own lives and make their failures everyone else’s problem.

That you fail to understand that is your own damn problem, not mine.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:58 pm

condemn women that are show any independence

Comedy gold! The issue isn’t independent women – as an unmarried, almost 30-year-old, paying her own way through life engineer-turned-lawyer, I have the independent woman thing DOWN, bitches – it’s DEPENDENT women.

Women who depend on the government. Women who depend on abortion. Women who cannot live their own lives and make their failures everyone else’s problem.

That you fail to understand that is your own damn problem, not mine.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 4:06 am

A quick summary of the comment that Stacy’s site ate:

To liberals, facts are a bitch. The idea that 24% of women don’t ever marry? According to the CDC, 86% of all women have been married at least once by the age of 40, and 93% of non-Hispanic white women have:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db19.htm#sex
To add: the median age of first-time marriage for women is before 25, and 74% of women have been married at least once by age 30.

The idea that I’m simply wrong to say that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock? The CDC again supplies us with answers:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
38.5% of births are to unmarried women. Aside from the vanishingly small percent of whom are widows, the idea that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock is rather well-supported by data.

Finally, do a google search of who initiates divorces; I came up with a source that says 65%, and another 75%, initiated by women. (Stacy’s site might be cranky with all the links.)

So that leaves us with one of two options:

1. My claims about women who choose to have birth out of wedlock, who divorce, and who marry are hardly the claims of a woman who makes up facts to suit her own agenda; they are the claims of a woman in cahoots with the government, attorneys, social scientists, and news sources to design a conspiracy to support my radical agenda. Also, women are the victims of rogue semen-filled turkey basters and storks.

OR

2. You are a liberal dumbass, which is also a redundancy.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:06 am

A quick summary of the comment that Stacy’s site ate:

To liberals, facts are a bitch. The idea that 24% of women don’t ever marry? According to the CDC, 86% of all women have been married at least once by the age of 40, and 93% of non-Hispanic white women have:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db19.htm#sex
To add: the median age of first-time marriage for women is before 25, and 74% of women have been married at least once by age 30.

The idea that I’m simply wrong to say that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock? The CDC again supplies us with answers:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
38.5% of births are to unmarried women. Aside from the vanishingly small percent of whom are widows, the idea that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock is rather well-supported by data.

Finally, do a google search of who initiates divorces; I came up with a source that says 65%, and another 75%, initiated by women. (Stacy’s site might be cranky with all the links.)

So that leaves us with one of two options:

1. My claims about women who choose to have birth out of wedlock, who divorce, and who marry are hardly the claims of a woman who makes up facts to suit her own agenda; they are the claims of a woman in cahoots with the government, attorneys, social scientists, and news sources to design a conspiracy to support my radical agenda. Also, women are the victims of rogue semen-filled turkey basters and storks.

OR

2. You are a liberal dumbass, which is also a redundancy.
Tennwriter
July 31st, 2010 @ 4:15 am

TQ,
Have you heard of Independence Day? Its the time when a young girl who lives with her single mother, and a couple rowdy brothers, and has ‘uncles’ sniffing around….Then she turns sixteen, and if she has a baby, she can leave all that, and have her own apartment.

As long as she’s not married.

Sounds like an inducement to have more single mothers doesn’t it?

That’s the story I’ve heard.

And Go Phyllis Go!! Kick the dweebs in the teeth! If only we had more giants with the moral courage of Phyllis instead of the collection of punks that make up the Republican party.
Tennwriter
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:15 am

TQ,
Have you heard of Independence Day? Its the time when a young girl who lives with her single mother, and a couple rowdy brothers, and has ‘uncles’ sniffing around….Then she turns sixteen, and if she has a baby, she can leave all that, and have her own apartment.

As long as she’s not married.

Sounds like an inducement to have more single mothers doesn’t it?

That’s the story I’ve heard.

And Go Phyllis Go!! Kick the dweebs in the teeth! If only we had more giants with the moral courage of Phyllis instead of the collection of punks that make up the Republican party.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 4:16 am

T.Q.: you don’t “see” the decimation of your argument, because you either never read what I wrote or lack reading comprehension skills (or both).

You claim that I think that 16-year-olds are getting knocked up for welfare, although I explicitly said that it’s leftist adults who are doing the encouraging (and are calling us “slut-shamers” when we try to discourage it). Go figure!

Shafly’s comments support your ugly inclination to condemn women that are show any independence and that her comments are not “truth”,

1. ad hominem, and
2. not true; as per above, we condemn women who claim to be all independent, but hose working strangers to support their lifestyles.

But then, incredibly we learn that shotgun weddings are the solution. Gotta love it. You’re happy with the idea of forcing people to marry. Reproductive choice, not so much. I know, freedom isn’t much of a virtue around here.

As opposed to dismembering the child in the womb or raising it in the worst possible environment? Pray tell, TQ, what is your solution?

Let’s be real: your solutions, like every leftist solution out there, are bad for innocent people. If you’re a slut who is too stupid to use birth control, the “solution” is to harm a person who had no part in creating the problem. If you’re a woman who couldn’t keep her knees shut until marriage, then your “solution” is to raise the child in poverty, sponge off the government, and tell the child who might want a daddy that her mother is an angel come to earth.

I believe in reproductive choice, but that choice does not extend to killing your offspring, no more than a man can exercise his “reproductive choice” by taking a baseball bat to his pregnant partner’s abdomen.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:16 am

T.Q.: you don’t “see” the decimation of your argument, because you either never read what I wrote or lack reading comprehension skills (or both).

You claim that I think that 16-year-olds are getting knocked up for welfare, although I explicitly said that it’s leftist adults who are doing the encouraging (and are calling us “slut-shamers” when we try to discourage it). Go figure!

Shafly’s comments support your ugly inclination to condemn women that are show any independence and that her comments are not “truth”,

1. ad hominem, and
2. not true; as per above, we condemn women who claim to be all independent, but hose working strangers to support their lifestyles.

But then, incredibly we learn that shotgun weddings are the solution. Gotta love it. You’re happy with the idea of forcing people to marry. Reproductive choice, not so much. I know, freedom isn’t much of a virtue around here.

As opposed to dismembering the child in the womb or raising it in the worst possible environment? Pray tell, TQ, what is your solution?

Let’s be real: your solutions, like every leftist solution out there, are bad for innocent people. If you’re a slut who is too stupid to use birth control, the “solution” is to harm a person who had no part in creating the problem. If you’re a woman who couldn’t keep her knees shut until marriage, then your “solution” is to raise the child in poverty, sponge off the government, and tell the child who might want a daddy that her mother is an angel come to earth.

I believe in reproductive choice, but that choice does not extend to killing your offspring, no more than a man can exercise his “reproductive choice” by taking a baseball bat to his pregnant partner’s abdomen.
myohmy
July 31st, 2010 @ 4:20 am

Look at California where unmarried women are rampant. They preferred not to marry to collect welfare from Uncle Sam and continue making more babies to collect more subsidies. It is a sad state of affairs. Thanks to democrats endless pandering.
myohmy
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:20 am

Look at California where unmarried women are rampant. They preferred not to marry to collect welfare from Uncle Sam and continue making more babies to collect more subsidies. It is a sad state of affairs. Thanks to democrats endless pandering.
Jeff Weimer
July 31st, 2010 @ 4:24 am

Don’t look now Stacy…
INSTALANCHE!!!!!
Jeff Weimer
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:24 am

Don’t look now Stacy…
INSTALANCHE!!!!!
pelicans
July 31st, 2010 @ 4:34 am

On the internet, one would hate to sound syrupy or anything but every day of my life, I am grateful for those who try to tell the truth even if it means pointing out the fallacies of the prevailing orthodoxy. Thank you, Phyllis.
pelicans
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:34 am

On the internet, one would hate to sound syrupy or anything but every day of my life, I am grateful for those who try to tell the truth even if it means pointing out the fallacies of the prevailing orthodoxy. Thank you, Phyllis.
livermoron
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:55 am

TQ: How do you explain the sudden drop in the rate of illegitimate, esp. in the black community, that occurred when Welfare Reform was passed?
Roxeanne said it better than I can. All I can add is that people like you are the real evil.
livermoron
July 31st, 2010 @ 3:55 am

TQ: How do you explain the sudden drop in the rate of illegitimate, esp. in the black community, that occurred when Welfare Reform was passed?
Roxeanne said it better than I can. All I can add is that people like you are the real evil.
Steve Skubinna
July 31st, 2010 @ 10:00 am

TQ, shove it sideways. The policies you vermin promote are evil, and have been proven so by decades of miserable failure.

You enslave people. Pretend otherwise among your equally evil compatriots, but the gloves are off, asshole.
Steve Skubinna
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:00 am

TQ, shove it sideways. The policies you vermin promote are evil, and have been proven so by decades of miserable failure.

You enslave people. Pretend otherwise among your equally evil compatriots, but the gloves are off, asshole.
Carol
July 31st, 2010 @ 10:07 am

Phyllis Schlafly is losing her mind or lost it. She is an embarassment to woman. Why do they have nut cases like her in office. Why is she a voice to speak for American woman. She is living in a caveman era. Life is life and no one can decide another’s fate. When things get rough we work and pray. Single woman who love their kids will go out there and fight to keep their children with a roof over their heads, clothed and fed and educated. I did and I never complained or had to beg for help or go on assistance. She sounds like Hitler. Having it hard at times is part of life and only makes you strong. It gives you awareness in life that at times you must fend for yourself. I certainly don’t look at Government as a role model substitue for a husband. She’s an old nasty looking person who is pretty dumb. She probably always was. Does she have children? God helped them if she does. She must of been spoon fed and beat down her husband and thinks that’s the way life should be. Everything I look back on in life is golden both the good and bad and I’m proud to be an American woman who independently raised her child and worked every day. From where I sit, she looks like she is looking to Government as a husband replacement. Who could look at her and listen to what she says about woman and not want to throw up. She is a disgrace.
Carol
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:07 am

Phyllis Schlafly is losing her mind or lost it. She is an embarassment to woman. Why do they have nut cases like her in office. Why is she a voice to speak for American woman. She is living in a caveman era. Life is life and no one can decide another’s fate. When things get rough we work and pray. Single woman who love their kids will go out there and fight to keep their children with a roof over their heads, clothed and fed and educated. I did and I never complained or had to beg for help or go on assistance. She sounds like Hitler. Having it hard at times is part of life and only makes you strong. It gives you awareness in life that at times you must fend for yourself. I certainly don’t look at Government as a role model substitue for a husband. She’s an old nasty looking person who is pretty dumb. She probably always was. Does she have children? God helped them if she does. She must of been spoon fed and beat down her husband and thinks that’s the way life should be. Everything I look back on in life is golden both the good and bad and I’m proud to be an American woman who independently raised her child and worked every day. From where I sit, she looks like she is looking to Government as a husband replacement. Who could look at her and listen to what she says about woman and not want to throw up. She is a disgrace.
Jon
July 31st, 2010 @ 10:16 am

Everyone needs to read ‘The Misandry Bubble’. It will open your eyes about how female supremacism has become a pervasive ideology in the US.
Jon
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:16 am

Everyone needs to read ‘The Misandry Bubble’. It will open your eyes about how female supremacism has become a pervasive ideology in the US.
Matt
July 31st, 2010 @ 11:12 am

In Muslim countries, it’s illegal to be gay, often punishable by death. This is a fact, but being concerned about it doesn’t make you pro gay rights, it makes you an anti muslem bigot, at least in lefty land. The little troll came in the night, like the tooth fairy, and confirmed this.
Matt
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:12 am

In Muslim countries, it’s illegal to be gay, often punishable by death. This is a fact, but being concerned about it doesn’t make you pro gay rights, it makes you an anti muslem bigot, at least in lefty land. The little troll came in the night, like the tooth fairy, and confirmed this.
netmarcos
July 31st, 2010 @ 11:28 am

@Carol: Godwin invoked, debate over. Your side loses.
netmarcos
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:28 am

@Carol: Godwin invoked, debate over. Your side loses.
wormme
July 31st, 2010 @ 11:32 am

“Liberals” once loved to quote John Stuart Mill because of this observation “…it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, (but) it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”

Of course in JSM’s day “conservatives” wanted to conserve power and privilege, not liberty.

Anyway, JSM, a true freedom-loving liberal, thought that people on the public dole should surrender their right to vote.

It’s obvious when you think about it, right? Children don’t get an equal vote with their parents. People who can’t take care of themselves should not be permitted to vote in adult business.
wormme
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:32 am

“Liberals” once loved to quote John Stuart Mill because of this observation “…it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, (but) it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”

Of course in JSM’s day “conservatives” wanted to conserve power and privilege, not liberty.

Anyway, JSM, a true freedom-loving liberal, thought that people on the public dole should surrender their right to vote.

It’s obvious when you think about it, right? Children don’t get an equal vote with their parents. People who can’t take care of themselves should not be permitted to vote in adult business.
World's Only Rational Man
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:37 am

[…] brings this one is an other McCain post about Phyllis Schlafly. She said, ”Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for […]
Ten
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

Now the villains are unwed mothers. Why not, everyone knows they are sluts, right?

Do your research before calling others liars: The overwhelming majority of divorces are unilaterally initiated by women. Some 85% of all divorces with children end with mom with the kids and the dad’s monthly ransom to see them twice a month. Divorce and custody are nationalized industry fomented by Title IV-D (part of the welfare state) and your local family court’s contract with the DA.

This isn’t opinion, it’s documented fact – some of us have done the work, friend.

All this, in turn, is traceable directly to the far left’s feminist philosophy as designed and enabled in academia and high office. Plus it’s huge business. And yes, it runs on copious mythmaking and financial opportunism.

Of course the enormous incentive, backed by statist orthodoxy, is in place to induce mom to kick dad out and take on the State as parent. In a nation where half of new marriages end in divorce, single female parenting is a inculcated tradition just as much as the welfare state has decimated the minority and poor family.

Get your facts straight. Schlafly has and has been on the forefront of the battleground the State has created where separating children from their fathers is an excellent paying business for lawyers, social workers, and government. Ants always find the sugar and in leftist statism, there’s plenty of sugar.

Had you ever even read Schlafly? Furthermore, readers are encouraged to read the groundbreaking expose of the left’s state divorce and custody machinery. Dr. Stephen Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody documents the willful ruin this state engine is bringing to the American family as we speak.
Ten
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:09 am

Now the villains are unwed mothers. Why not, everyone knows they are sluts, right?

Do your research before calling others liars: The overwhelming majority of divorces are unilaterally initiated by women. Some 85% of all divorces with children end with mom with the kids and the dad’s monthly ransom to see them twice a month. Divorce and custody are nationalized industry fomented by Title IV-D (part of the welfare state) and your local family court’s contract with the DA.

This isn’t opinion, it’s documented fact – some of us have done the work, friend.

All this, in turn, is traceable directly to the far left’s feminist philosophy as designed and enabled in academia and high office. Plus it’s huge business. And yes, it runs on copious mythmaking and financial opportunism.

Of course the enormous incentive, backed by statist orthodoxy, is in place to induce mom to kick dad out and take on the State as parent. In a nation where half of new marriages end in divorce, single female parenting is a inculcated tradition just as much as the welfare state has decimated the minority and poor family.

Get your facts straight. Schlafly has and has been on the forefront of the battleground the State has created where separating children from their fathers is an excellent paying business for lawyers, social workers, and government. Ants always find the sugar and in leftist statism, there’s plenty of sugar.

Had you ever even read Schlafly? Furthermore, readers are encouraged to read the groundbreaking expose of the left’s state divorce and custody machinery. Dr. Stephen Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody documents the willful ruin this state engine is bringing to the American family as we speak.
Ten
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

Carol, your slandering Schlafly at #46 out of hand only serves to confirm that you are both ignorant and abusive.
Ten
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:12 am

Carol, your slandering Schlafly at #46 out of hand only serves to confirm that you are both ignorant and abusive.
aberra
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

Roxeanne –
Agree with your general points, but this one is in error:

38.5% of babies being born out of wedlock does not mean 40% of women choose to have babies out of wedlock.

You can’t use the percentage of babies born out of wedlock to tell you the percentage of women who are having these babies. The two things are not the same.