Phyllis Schlafly's new column

Started by dr e, Jan 09, 2006, 06:36 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

dr e

(Thanks goes to Stephen Baskerville for sending this.  E)

This new column by Phyllis Schlafly is a very succinct statement of the problem.  It is especially powerful because it does not bludgeon the reader with divorce/custody issues at the start but draws the reader in with a general critique of feminism.  

Please urge your local editors to run this column, and circulate it far and wide.  There are many quotable lines, but especially the last:  "It's time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the resulting exclusion of fathers from the lives of their children."

This is an advance copy and should be published in the next few days at,, and elsewhere.

Stephen Baskerville

Feminists' Double Standards about Child Care

by Phyllis Schlafly  January 11, 2006

When the feminist movement burst onto the American social scene in the 1970s, the rallying cry was "liberation."  The feminists demanded liberation from the role of the housewife and mother who lived in what Betty Friedan famously labeled a "comfortable concentration camp."

Feminist ideology taught that the duties of the housewife and mother were (in Friedan's words) "endless, monotonous, unrewarding" and "peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls."  Society's expectation that a mother should care for her own children was cited as oppression of women by our male-dominated patriarchal society from which women must be liberated so they can achieve fulfillment in workforce careers just like men.

Articulating vintage feminism in the 1974 Harvard Educational Review, Hillary Clinton wrote disparagingly about wives who are in "a dependency relationship" which, she said, is akin to "slavery and the Indian reservation system."

Demanding that husbands take on equal duties in child care, the National Organization for Women passed resolutions in the 1970s stating, "The father has equal responsibility with the mother for the child care role."

In 1972, "Ms." Magazine featured pre-marriage contracts declaring housewives independent from essential housework and babycare, and obliging the husband to do half the dishes and diapers.  As a model, "Ms." published the Shulmans' marriage agreement, which divided child-care duties as follows:  "Husband does Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.  Wife does Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.  Friday is split according to who has done extra work.  All usual child care, plus special activities, is split equally.  Husband is free all day Saturday, wife is free all Sunday."

Then-ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" that "all legislation based on the breadwinning-husband, dependent-homemaking- wife pattern" must be eliminated "to reflect the equality principle" because "a scheme built upon the breadwinning husband [and] dependent homemaking wife concept inevitably treats the woman's efforts or aspirations in the economic sector as less important than the man's."

Feminist literature is filled with putdowns of the role of housewife and mother.  This ideology led directly to feminist insistence that the taxpayers provide (in Ginsburg's words) "a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."

The icon of college women's studies courses, Simone de Beauvoir, opined that "marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution," and easy divorce became a primary goal of the feminist liberation movement.  Three-fourths of divorces are now unilaterally initiated by wives without any requirement to allege fault on the part of the cast-off husband.

As divorces became easy to get, the feminists suddenly did a total about-face in their demand that fathers share equally in child care.  Upon divorce, mothers demand total legal and physical custody and control of their children, arguing that only a mother is capable of providing their proper care and upbringing, and a father's only function is to provide a paycheck.

Gone are the demands that the father change diapers or tend to a sick child.  Feminists want the father out of sight except maybe for a few hours a month of visitation at her discretion.

Suddenly, the ex-husband is targeted as a totally essential breadwinner, and the ex-wife is eager to proclaim her dependency.  Feminists assert that, after divorce, child care should be almost solely the mother's job, dependency is desirable, and providing financial support should be almost solely the father's job.

It is settled law in the United States that parents (note the plural) have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of the upbringing of their children.  But feminists have persuaded the family courts, upon divorce, to acquiesce in feminist demands that the mother typically be given 80 to 100 percent of those fundamental rights that belonged to both parents before divorce.

What's behind this feminist reversal about motherhood?  As Freud famously asked, "what does a woman want?"   The explanation appears to be the maxim, Follow the money.  Beginning in the mid-1980s, the feminists used their political clout to get Congress to pass draconian post-divorce support-enforcement laws that use the full power of government to give the divorced mother cash income proportional to the percentage of custody time she persuades the court to award, but unrelated to what she spends for the children or to her willingness to allow the father to see his children.

Since the father typically has higher income than the mother, giving near-total custody to the mother enables the states to maximize transfer payments and thereby collect bigger cash bonuses from the federal government.  When fathers appeal to the family courts for equal time with their children, they are opposed by a big industry of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, domestic-violence agitators, and government bureaucrats who make their living out of denying fathers their fundamental rights.

It's time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the resulting exclusion of fathers from the lives of their children.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.


RIGHT ON !!!!......Phyllis    :D
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.


You know, it's kind of interesting that twenty years ago feminists were attacking Phyllis Schlafly for opposing equality, yet now it is the feminists who oppose equality and Phyllis who supports it.


phyllis has always been hot (and I mean that in a literal way)!!!

She writes it like it that Michelle Malikin (?) hottie and other good women who I consider the mothers, sisters and girl-next-doors of America.

You Danika, and that golfing Wie chick, and Jillian from FOX Sunday football....these ARE WOMEN one would be proud to call mother/daughter/sister/next-door neighbor..... :wink:
iper for Revolution than ever before.


Feminists hate mothers, housewives, husbands, fathers, and they hate equality. Chances are high they also hate themselves because they were born female and not male.

Talk about being misfits of the human race!  :twisted:


The child support moms are "dependent" in a sense -- they need the money. However, in another sense, they are independent. They don't have to account to him for anything. They don't have to be nice to him. They have the money by law -- by entitlement.

The miracle of freedom (and its natural corrollary capitalism) is that everybody must do something useful to others. You get money by doing something that others find useful. You get the useful things that others provide only if you also provide something useful. Thus, everybody is motivated to do useful things and everybody is acting of free will.

Child support ignores these principles. The woman (usually gets the money) by force of law and entitlement. She doesn't have to do anything useful to anyone to get the money. Thus, she is about as independent as anyone on the face of the planet. Even the CEO of a huge corporation at least in theory must do something useful for the shareholders. However, the child support mom doesn't. Thus, she is completely independent.

You say she has to raise the children and that is useful? I say she doesn't. Many of them have the grandmothers raise the children. Many of them have the fathers raise the children. Besides, raising the children is not anything useful when it could be done by the father for free. Actually, when it is done by taking the child away from the father, it is the opposite of useful. It is hurtful. The woman is actually doing something hurtful and getting money for doing it. That is true independence!!!


Thanx Dr Evil.
I've posted it in alt.feminism on usenet.
I can smell the vultures circling already.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.


I like Phyllis Schlafly.

For most of the '80s and '90s she slipped into obscurity.  She was mostly shunned and discredited.  During this time she continued to "soldier" on.

It is satisfying to see her making a comeback.  Her rhetoric has not changed much, but some people are starting to hear what she is saying again...

Send your favorite news organization her article.  She needs our support.
 woman needs a man like a fish needs water


National Newspapers

202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000
Fax: 213-237-4712

Letters to the Editor: [email protected]
Readers' Representative: [email protected]

LATimes Contact Information by Department

229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-556-1234
Fax: 212-556-3690
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300

Letters to the Editor (for publication): [email protected]
Write to the news editors: [email protected]

NYTimes Contact Information by Department
How to Contact NYTimes Reporters and Editors

7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108
Phone: 800-872-0001 or 703-854-3400
Fax: 703-854-2165

Letters to the Editor: [email protected]

Give Feedback to USA Today

200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-416-2000
Fax: 212-416-2658

Letters to the Editor: [email protected]
Comment on News Articles: [email protected]

1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071
Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269

Letters to the Editor: [email protected]
Ombudsman: [email protected]

Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.


Emails sent.  8)
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

Sir Percy

Analytical, succinct, hard-hitting. Rubs their noses in their own slimey words. Focused demand at the end.
It's time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the resulting exclusion of fathers from the lives of their children.

I LIKE Phyllis. My kinda wrinkly old Gal.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Go Up