#Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Eric Hananoki at MMFA:

Right-wing commentator Ed Martin, who was recently appointed to a senior position for the Republican National Convention, has complained about Spanish speakers in the United States and said he is a “big admirer” of leading white nationalist group VDare. 

VDare has posted content claiming that “one problem with these Hispanic immigrants is their disgusting behavior”; “America does not need ANY immigrants from Africa”; the United States needs to “rethink Martin Luther King Day”; “Miscegenation has risks”; antifa and Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 might be part of a “Jewish coup”; and the country should “EXPEL Muslims.”  Martin is a podcaster, author, and frequent guest on right-wing media programs. He briefly worked as a pro-Trump pundit on CNN from 2017 to 2018 but was fired after he repeatedly embarrassed the network, including attacking his colleagues as “Black racists.” Martin, who was on a 2020 Trump campaign advisory board, was also a notable figure after the 2020 presidential election when he helped organize “Stop the Steal” rallies and later defended accused participants in the January 6 Capitol insurrection. He has also pushed the QAnon conspiracy theory, repeatedly using the movement’s slogan “WWG1WGA,” short for “Where we go one, we go all.” 

The RNC announced Martin’s appointment as deputy policy director of the Republican National Convention’s Committee on the Platform on May 15, with RNC Chairman Michael Whatley praising Martin and other selections as “brilliant” and having “sound judgement and principled vision.” Martin joins Russ Vought, a key Project 2025 figure who has pushed for Christian nationalism and “ideological purity tests” for civil servants, on the committee.  [...] Martin also repeatedly hosted VDare leader and white nationalist Peter Brimelow on his now-defunct radio program The Ed Martin Movement. During an episode that aired on November 29, 2018, Martin praised Brimelow as “a guy worth listening to” and told him, “I'm always glad to give you a voice, you’re always welcome here.” (In addition to leading VDare, Brimelow has, among other things, pushed an effort to “rethink Martin Luther King Day,” “arguing that MLK was a deeply flawed figure and an inappropriate role model for American whites.”) 

Right-wing commentator Ed Martin was named to a senior position within the RNC, and he has stated his admiration for White Nationalist group VDARE.

[thenewdemocratus]

Eagle Forum: Cal Thomas: What Works? Common Sense Solutions

Source:The New Democrat  Right-wing commentator, columnist and author Cal Thomas, who I do like and respect, had a book come out this year called What Works. And in his book he lays out what works in America and what he believes is the best way for Americans to live. Essentially built off the two-parent family with a mother and father. Where romantic couples don’t live together until they are…

[historybizarre]

From today’s vantage point, many of the anti-feminist ideas Schlafly espoused sound extreme. But it’s worth thinking about why so many people found her message compelling.

In a 1991 paper, Susan E. Marshall looked at the popular support for Schlafly and other antifeminist activists over the previous two decades, starting with their successful fight against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.... Schlafly’s Stop ERA project, which later transformed into the Eagle Forum, was an inseparable part of New Right ideology, which blended “traditional values,” economic individualism, and anticommunism.

[allmacrofurriesdeadcommunity]

[johnnyrobish]

Pastor Calls Criticism of Trump Photo Op Damaging to Body of Christ

Pastor Calls Criticism of Trump Photo Op Damaging to Body of Christ:  Ed Martin, head of the "Phyllis Schlafly Eagles,” conservative pundit and evangelical pastor, is describing criticism of President Trump’s photo op march to a shrine to Pope John Paul II, in which the President had peaceful demonstrators gassed and shot with rubber bullets - as “classic American social justice gobbledygook” and claimed it was “damaging to the body of Christ.”

Gee whiz, criticism of Trump’s photo op is “damaging the body of Christ?”  Why, is it possible that Pastor Martin believes that Christ may be buried somewhere in downtown Washington DC?  Wonder if it’s in Georgetown?

Now, in all fairness, it might not be his fault.  There’s always the possibility that he’s suffering from some sort of severe head injury.  Anyway, it sounds like these right-wing pundit “snowflakes” get a wee bit rattled when their cult leader is teased by we infidels.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I sense this Ed Martin guy is one of those folks who, if he weren’t running the Phyllis Schlafly organization - he’d be just another freak in a long black overcoat, screaming at all the pigeons in the park.

https://www.johnnyrobishcomedy.com

[gettothestabbing]

Equality for women has already been found in the Constitution. Ginsburg was an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union when she wrote the plaintiff’s brief in a case that made women’s constitutional rights clear in Reed v. Reed, finding that the 14th Amendment did apply to both men and women.

Passage of the ERA would open a Pandora’s box of litigation, beginning with the fact that the legal deadline for passing the ERA has long been missed, and even since that deadline, some states have reconsidered and pulled their support. Serious problems exist with the legal status of the proposal, making Congress a logical next stop as ERA advocates try to fix the issue of the lapsed expiration date.

Then there is the controversy surrounding taxpayer funding of abortion. Already, state supreme courts have found that ERA-like laws at the state levels do require taxpayer funding of abortion, something that most Americans oppose and would also be hotly contested by pro-life advocates in court.

Consider that “Every justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court agreed that this classic ERA language mandates taxpayer-funding of abortions. The unanimous court held that a state ban on tax-funded abortions “undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked condition that is unique to women.”

If the ERA truly is not about abortion, but is only a measure for women’s access and rights in society, a compromise does exist. Pro-life leaders have advocated that a line be added, noting: “Nothing in this article [the ERA] shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” Not surprisingly, abortion advocates have opposed this language.

[anarkittyuwuuniverse]

"Knowing a lot of stuff may seem harmless, albeit insufficient, but the problem is that efforts to shape schooling around this goal, dressed up with pretentious labels like “cultural literacy” or “content rich,” have the effect of taking time away from more meaningful objectives, such as knowing how to think* or deriving pleasure from doing so. If the Bunch o’ Facts model proves a poor foundation on which to decide who is properly educated, it makes no sense to peel off items from such a list and assign clusters of them to students at each grade level. It is as poor a basis for designing curriculum as it is for judging the success of schooling.

The number of people who do, in fact, confuse the possession of a storehouse of knowledge with being “smart” – the latter being a disconcertingly common designation for those who fare well on quiz shows — is testament to the naïve appeal that such a model holds. But there are also political implications to be considered here. To emphasize the importance of absorbing a pile of information is to support a larger worldview that sees the primary purpose of education as reproducing our current culture. It is probably not a coincidence that a Core Knowledge model wins rave reviews from Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum (and other conservative Christian groups) as well as from the likes of Investor’s Business Daily. To be sure, not every individual who favors this approach is a right-winger, but defining the notion of educational mastery in terms of the number of facts one can recall is well-suited to the task of preserving the status quo." -What does it mean to be well educated? By Alfie Kohn

[dwellordream]

“In the wake of technological advancements and second-wave feminism, some ex-husbands and sympathetic lawmakers began a movement to overturn men’s thick obligation to serve as breadwinners. Of course, not all men served as breadwinners for their families, even as this expectation peaked in the postwar period. Nonetheless, divorced men throughout the country stopped paying support and sometimes formed men’s rights groups to lobby lawmakers to eliminate alimony laws. They found ready allies in judges, legislators, and bureaucrats. By 1970, new divorce laws began to undermine alimony, undoing men’s traditional obligations to provide for their financial dependents. But many ordinary Americans did not note the injury already done to men’s legal obligation to provide for their families and instead identified the ERA as the real threat to breadwinning. The ratification process for the ERA went much less smoothly in state legislatures than it had in Congress. 

After its passage, the swelling of anti-ER A sentiment among ordinary citizens led some organizers to found new anti-feminist organizations. Longtime anti-Communist political activist Phyllis Schlafly founded the most famous of these organizations with STOP ERA and the Eagle Forum in September 1972 and November 1975 respectively. Schlafly thereafter functioned as the public face of the movement. The Eagle Forum had sixty thousand members by 1982. Smaller organizations proliferated as well. For instance, Mormon activist Jacquie Davison founded Happiness of Womanhood in 1972 for members of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and ten thousand women joined the organization. Such dissent held sway with state legislators much more than it had in Congress. After 1974, the rate of approval for the ERA in state legislatures slowed significantly. States that were expected to pass the ERA easily, including Illinois, failed to do so.

Moreover, five states rescinded their approval of the ERA, beginning with Tennessee in April of 1974. By 1978, only thirty-five of the necessary thirty-eight states had ratified the ERA, and the amendment failed by its October 1982 deadline. The Eagle Forum and STOP ERA’s vision of equality was so terrifying it not only helped defeat the ERA, but it also shored up the conservative movement with newcomers fearing for their own families’ futures. Anti-ERA critiques in part gained traction with the passage of further feminist congressional legislation. An array of other laws that quickly followed the passage of the ERA made many of the issues presented in congressional debate—equity in pay, education, and credit—less relevant.

Though each of these had uncertain applications and even less certain effectiveness, they all drained some of the urgency away from more traditional claims for the ERA. Critics, however, notably did not track the equally momentous changes to marriage and divorce laws that accompanied these public sphere changes. Therefore opponents of the ERA, through artifice or ignorance, justified their position by presenting an evolving set of public policies and a static set of marriage laws. Opponents repeatedly warned that the Equal Rights Amendment would bring about the end of the thick breadwinning obligation. Many studies of these new conservative organizations illuminate the ways in which ERA opponents feared the elimination of husbands’ duties toward their wives. 

The right feared a lack of obligation in many areas of life, but this was an explicitly dangerous one. But studies so far have not acknowledged that these obligations were largely already gone for most men. ERA advocates’ proposals sought to distribute marital obligations more equally in light of the loss of breadwinning, but opponents operated as if those obligations were still in place. Nor did they acknowledge that even at their peak these laws only protected a minority of women. They argued that courts would use the ERA to eliminate all husbands’ obligations. This central misrepresentation— presumably conceit by some; misunderstanding by others—led opponents to repeatedly decry the ERA as an amendment that would eliminate the already lost obligation of breadwinning. 

Opponents’ assertion that the ERA would undermine breadwinning was an effective tactic. Many of these claims emerged early on when it was not yet clear what changes the California adoption of no-fault divorce had wrought. These claims also obscured the reality that a mere 25 percent of wives had ever received alimony even prior to divorce reform. William E. Dunham was the typical early opponent of the ERA, the author of a series of diatribes against abortion, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), socialized medicine, and more produced by the John Birch Society. 

In 1972, Dunham tied men’s breadwinning obligations to their wives directly to the survival of humankind: “To enable women to do these things and thereby make the existence and development of the race possible, these State laws impose upon husbands the primary responsibility to provide homes and livelihoods for their wives and children, and make them criminally responsible to society and civilly responsible to their wives if they fail to perform this primary responsibility.” The ERA, Dunham believed, would end this. At this point, no-fault was a mere two years old and not yet implemented in all states. 

In 1974, STOP ERA stated that older women in particular would lose their right to support and a home under ERA. Similarly, the small Illinois organization ERA Opposed published a pamphlet that promised that wives would lose all the laws that required husbands to provide financial support. The Mormon Church identified a danger of the ERA as the possibility that, rather than make wives equally responsible for husbands, “passage of the ERA could eliminate all legal responsibility for both spouses.” These early claims drew on the ambiguous outcome of divorce reform laws. But claims that the ERA would eliminate breadwinning continued on through the decade, even as divorce reform increasingly eradicated nonsupport as a grounds for divorce and reduced alimony to a rare and short-term benefit. 

In October of 1977, well after many states had passed no-fault divorce and hemmed in traditional alimony, the Texas group the Association of Women Who Want to Be Women (Association of the W’s) declared that it believed in the right of the husband to be a provider and the right of the wife to be a full-time homemaker. Similarly in 1977, STOP ERA still cited Thomas Emerson’s 1971 Yale Law Journal article to predict that the ERA “would take away women’s family support rights” even though the article came out prior to Reed v. Reed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the Higher Education Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, and nearly all the no-fault divorce laws that undermined men’s breadwinner obligations.

In 1981, Schlafly still published anti-ERA pieces in her newsletter that claimed that the ERA would eliminate “the traditional family concept of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker.” In another pamphlet published after Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act in 1981, STOP ERA promised that the ERA would “eliminate the husband’s primary duty to support his wife and children.” Activist husbands and sympathetic lawmakers did not receive the blame because they operated under the radar in fifty distinct political systems. Many women did not know of the new laws until they reached divorce court. Even the U.S. Supreme Court—when it considered Orr v. Orr—did not acknowledge that the right to alimony they had extended to men barely existed in many states. 

The media largely ignored or were ignorant of these changes and the benefits they held for divorced men. And so it was easy for ERA opponents both to deny that the deathblow to breadwinning had already occurred and to suggest that feminism must be stopped so that it did not end breadwinning in the future. On the other hand, ERA opponents did pay attention to the action taken by groups like the National Organization for Women, Homemakers’ Equal Rights Association, the Women’s Equity Action League, displaced homemakers organizations, and every other feminist organization wrestling to create homemakers’ entitlements on the basis of women’s labor in the home. It was a strategy ERA opponents also deployed in the battle over protective labor legislation. 

Long after courts had invalidated protective labor laws, ERA opponents continued to oppose feminism for abrogating labor protection for women. Opponents’ claim that the ERA would end breadwinning took advantage of feminists’ wildly diverging dreams about the possibilities of the ERA. Anti-ERA activists contrasted a false future with breadwinner obligations still in place with whichever future feminist proposal most scared them (or most suited their case). This did not lead to a coherent set of predictions. Oftentimes one opponent would assume the preservation of some aspect of the old order while another would assume it would disappear. Nonetheless, a distinct logic tied all of these predictions together. 

To anti-feminists, the family was a profound but weak institution shored up in the tumult of deindustrialization only by the exclusivity of the government’s entitlements to traditional families. According to ERA opponents, monetarily compensating housewives was economically untenable for all but the wealthy and had the potential for economic and moral disaster. Paying women for their work through Social Security or other measures was not only immoral; it was also impractical. Opponents saw feminists’ arguments that women’s work would count toward the support of the family as false promises or, at best, an inferior proposition to the breadwinning provisions ostensibly still in place. In the long term, the expense of homemakers’ new entitlements would force most women into the workforce and destroy the family. 

Even if the state retained each spouse’s obligations to one another and granted women’s work in the home the same status as work outside the home, the new obligations would compromise the family itself by ending the privacy and respect bestowed on “traditional” families. While the coalition between fiscal and cultural conservatives has frequently been seen as simply strategic, fears about compensating homemaking represented a genuine convergence of these concerns. According to ERA opponents, one program that the ERA’s recognition of housewives threatened to transform was Social Security. Social Security paid housewives a small benefit on the basis of her dependence on her husband—a dependent’s benefit. This benefit was modest because it was designed to supplement her husband’s Social Security income.

The ERA’s supporters argued that the ERA would grant an independent payment on the basis of housewives’ labor in the home. Feminists had a double rationale for replacing the dependent benefit with a larger benefit that wives would earn through their household labor—a homemaker’s entitlement. First it would protect impoverished widows who had to get by on the smaller Social Security benefits that were designed to be only a supplement to their husbands’ full benefits. When a husband lived, the combination of his and her benefits could sustain a household. But if he were to die, her smaller supplement was insufficient for maintaining her. Second, as the laws currently stood, divorced women— including some who had been married up to twenty years until legislators reduced it to ten years—received no dependent homemaker Social Security benefit at all.

But, appropriating feminists’ own struggle with the puzzle of paying for housework, ERA opponents argued that buying into Social Security meant figuring out how to finance the new entitlements. In one scenario, ERA opponents suggested that giving a wife Social Security would reduce a family’s overall Social Security benefits. They speculated that a couple would evenly divide only a husband’s Social Security benefit much like couples did for a private pension in some divorce settlements. One opponent gauged that this would produce “a 19% cut to the traditional family.” This opponent’s use of the word “traditional” ignored the plight of widows, suggesting like other ERA opponents that financing a homemaker’s entitlement would only benefit broken homes.

In another scenario where housewives received independent Social Security benefits, opponents argued that families would have to pay more into the Social Security system to earn two full benefits. Literature circulated by the Mormon Church cited expert Sylvia Porter, a feminist ERA advocate and Social Security expert, as proof that the ERA would grant homemakers an independent Social Security benefit equal to that of their working husbands. How much this would cost was unclear. Nancy J. Rider, a Mormon homemaker from Ohio, gauged the cost at $800 a year per family. Phyllis Schlafly (who had already argued via the Eagle Forum that families would lose an entire benefit) did her own calculations of the costs of a full entitlement benefit. 

She estimated that, if Social Security assumed that a homemaker’s earnings would be $12,000 a year, the Social Security administration would assess an 8 percent self-employment tax on her. This would mean a homemaker owed the federal government $960 a year to earn the premium. According to Schlafly, “the average guy, pinched by inflation, would say, ‘Honey, you’ll have to get out and get your own job and pay your own tax.’” Rider and Schlafly identified the additional cost of recognizing this labor as unaffordable for working- and middle-class families. Therefore husbands would have to take on a second or third job or force their wives to take on work outside the home. 

One contestant in the Babson-Bernays competition, which asked American citizens across the country how to achieve economic justice for homemakers, argued that any sort of compensation for housewives would overwhelm the millions of men already barely bringing home a family wage. This contestant asked whether “a wife who is a homemaker [would] become a privilege for the better-off?” Homemaking would become an inaccessible service for most families. Opponents also argued that the ERA would discredit laws that forced husbands to support their wives after a divorce. Even though courts had been  interpreting homemaking as unpaid work in terms of divorce settlements and child support awards, ERA opponents identified this solution as temporary.

Opponents claimed that under the ERA, a woman’s contribution must make up 50 percent of the total income of all families. They doubted courts’ premise that housework represented an “equal,” that is 50 percent, contribution to the household. ERA opponents cited 50 percent as often as possible. STOP ERA threatened that the “ERA will impose on women the equal (50%) financial obligation to support their spouses (under criminal penalties, just like husbands). ERA will impose on mothers the equal (50%) financial obligation for the financial support of their infant and minor children.” The Happiness of Womanhood newsletter translated equal to mean 50 percent.

The Eagle Forum worried that under ERA “a husband and wife must each pay equal (50%) family financial support.” To ERA opponents, the expectation of a 50 percent contribution doomed women because women’s work in the home was not worth as much as men’s work outside the home. Some contestants in the Babson-Bernays essay contest brought up the value of homemaking repeatedly. These contestants did not see household labor as unpaid. Instead they argued that housewives got more back in the form of goods and services than they gave in labor. 

Jennifer Baker of Kentucky argued that it was a “misconception that housewives don’t get paid.” They were compensated in the form of shelter, food, and clothing. Baker felt that the labor conditions were good—she had breaks. She asked whether husbands who did housework to help their wives would also be compensated, whether lazy housewives would receive the same benefits as conscientious ones, and whether wives without many children did much in the home at all given modern conveniences ranging from polyester to dishwashers. To Baker, women were more than sufficiently compensated by their husbands for doing a job that was not worth nearly what feminists claimed it was, and certainly not equal to their husbands’ labor. 

C. F. Berry more succinctly suggested that husbands bill their wives for room and board, mowing the lawn, medical expenses, and other goods and services they supplied. Opponents believed that women’s household labor would be worth even less if the ERA made federal day care compulsory. ERA skeptics argued that many courts considered housework valuable only when the housewife had childcare responsibilities. ERA opponents believed that day care centers would eliminate this category: all women could support themselves when there was universal childcare. One anti-ERA brochure argued that after the ERA made husbands and wives equally responsible for family support, “the next step will be to agitate for government-operated child care centers. Then even a mother of small children may no longer be considered ‘unable’ to support herself and would lose the right of support from her husband.”

Once day care was available to all women, according to STOP ERA, the monetary worth of women’s work in the home would drop, and women would have to work outside the home to continue to contribute equally to the family economy. This meant  that women’s work qualified as work enough to thrust the family into the market, but not enough to secure women from having to leave her homemaking career once day care was widely available. ERA opponents thus flip-flopped between praising the invaluable, irreplaceable work of the housewife, on one hand, and dismissing such labor as fairly worthless, on the other. This was an explicit flip of feminists’ own questions about underpaid working-class housewives: how much housework would make women’s contribution in the home equal to men’s monetary contribution? 

The implicit threat was that in many families—even those of fulltime housewives—housework would never be equal. In the interpretation of one of the cofounders of the Anti- Women’s Liberation League (AWLL), a wife must become a “joint breadwinner” with her husband because housework could not be considered equal. To some extent, ERA opponents argued that equal contributions in the household would be impossible even for women working outside the home. An editorial in the St. Louis Globe laid bare the relationship between the political economy of the home and wages in a diatribe against the ERA: “The husband and wife would be equally responsible for support of their family, and although the wife’s role as homemaker may be considered, what of the non-worker or low wage-earner who does little housework?” 

To the Globe, even working women did not contribute equally if they had low-wage jobs. Since much of women’s work outside the home remained poorly-paid, the ERA posed an impossible task for women. Nor was the Globe alone. Republican congressman John G. Schmitz, a John Birch Society member and an eventual presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, also worried that women could not compete with men economically. He argued that, given women’s household obligations, wives would lack the time to get their work skills up to snuff. Pink-collar wages and the double day conspired against women, who could not hope to ever match the contributions their husbands made to the household economy. 

At other points ERA opponents argued that the amendment would lead to housewives facing competition from their husbands. Compensating household labor, according to anti-ERA activists, would make it appealing to some men. The worst of these men would then force women out of the home and into the workforce. Illinois STOP ERA argued the amendment would require any principal wage earner to support any spouse, no matter his or her gender. The organization stated “if [a wife] had a lazy husband who did not want to work, and if she was a conscientious woman who took a job to feed herself and the children, then she would by law be the ‘principal wage-earning spouse’ and would acquire the legal obligation to support her children and lazy husband.”

Syndicated columnist Jenkin Lloyd Jones questioned whether men had any support obligation under ERA: “after all, if she has a right to sit around home looking at soap operas, why shouldn’t he?” In a worst-case scenario, one North Carolina woman worried to her congressman that husbands would take over homemaking as wives went overseas to fight in the military. Anti-ERA activists also argued that husbands could usurp mothers’ roles after a divorce. Phyllis Schlafly feared the breakdown of the custom of giving women custody, because she believed that children provided comfort to a traumatized wife. 

Though this qualm seemed at first to refer to a mother’s emotional experience after divorce, Phyllis Schlalfly was actually referring to a wife’s economic well-being after divorce: she clarified “the custody of the children is what enables her to secure a reasonably fair divorce settlement from her husband, who usually has the income-producing job.” Rosemary Thompson, an Illinois officer of the Eagle Forum, objected to a real-life case where a father won custody. She reported that a Washington, DC, judge awarded custody to a husband but reserved her disgust for the judge’s order that the mother pay $200 monthly child support payments. Rather than retaining the status—and livelihood—of homemakers, compensating household labor would make the job appealing to husbands. 

According to ERA opponents, men could count on women to be breadwinners if for no other reason than that they could physically enforce payment. A resolution issued by a relatively small anti-feminist group, Operation Wake-Up, declared, “we do not wish to pay alimony to someone who outweighs us by forty pounds thereby making unnecessary the collection of arrears by the Friend of the Court.” ERA opponents thus reversed the feminist insight that men sometimes used violence to enforce the traditional gendered order. According to Operation Wake-Up, men were not afraid to resort to violence to upend the traditional gendered order either, and this time it would be encouraged by the state. 

Men could not be counted on to do their duty to their wives or their children, with or without equality. These fears were inspired in part by a deep skepticism about men and their generosity toward their families. Most famously, Schlafly believed that, unlike women, men had no natural instinct to care for their families. Schlafly added that men took care of their families only because they knew the consequences of defying the enforceable marriage contract. According to Schlafly, “every man has known when he got married that he was taking on the obligation to support his wife and children.” 

Harvard law professor and anti-ERA activist Paul Freund also saw men as eager to abandon their responsibilities to their families, and New York University professor Warren T. Farrell had warned ERA supporters that “men should eagerly look forward to the day when they can enjoy free sex and not have to pay for it. The husband will no longer be ‘saddled with the tremendous guilt feelings’ when he leaves his wife with nothing after she has given him her best years.” And perhaps most simply, Sam Ervin argued that in his many years as a lawyer, perhaps a simple country one, he saw many women who married “sorry husbands and d[id] need protection from ornery men.”

When pushed, Phyllis Schlafly echoed Charles Metz when she said that divorce drove love for sons and daughters out the window. Courts alone enforced the duty to support children. ERA opponents believed that men not only did not love their wives; they also did not love their kids. In sum, through the very act of granting homemaker rights, opponents believed that the ERA threatened to put homemaking literally out of business. And they used market language to argue this. Several ERA opponents characterized homemaking as a business venture for wives that would fail in the feminist political economy. As the Mormon Church argued, “Women already married who prefer to remain home and bear children would . . . be giving up their own earning power.” 

Similarly Phyllis Schlafly saw the ERA as posing danger to homemakers’ livelihoods: “Children are a woman’s best security.” Schlafly believed that “‘the family gives the woman the physical, financial and emotional security of the home for all her life,” thereby eliding the domestic violence, male un- and underemployment, widowhood, and divorce that many wives faced in their domestic lives. Professor Arthur E. Ryman Jr., of the Drake University School of Law, argued that if the ERA were ratified, it would degrade the homemaker’s supposed financial security. If feminists believed that divorce law had already forced homemaking women into the workforce, opponents argued that only the passage of the ERA could have this effect. 

By denying that thick breadwinning obligations had already been vastly reduced, anti-ERA activists could scare voters with a vision of the future that they did not realize they were already living in. They argued that paying for homemaking entitlements in addition to providing support to wives did not make economic sense—which made it easy to reject an Equal Rights Amendment that they saw as including other troubling changes to the traditional gender order. Such concerns created a big tent.”

- Alison Lefkovitz, “Blaming Feminism for the Fragile Family.” in Strange Bedfellows: Marriage in the Age of Women's Liberation

[go-redgirl]

My dream is coming true: Trump is coming back! Exclusive: Joseph Farah says he's thought about it 'since the earliest days of the Biden occupation' Joseph Farah By Joseph Farah Published April 8, 2021 at 7:31pm

When Joe Biden took the oath of office to become president – or, should we say, presidential pretender – I was morose.

I was one of the million or so cheerleaders for Donald J. Trump in Washington, D.C., Jan. 5-7 – for what has become known as "the insurrection." Then it was over.

That was not easy to accept. I believe Trump was the greatest president in the history of the United States. That's right! His achievements in four years exceeded that of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. I loved them all. Reagan changed my politics. But Trump was one of a kind.

While Trump was the greatest president ever, Biden has been the worst – with a sample size of only three months.

Biden is sullen, his voice hurts my ears, he's cognitively challenged, he's incoherent, he falls a lot – and, worst of all, he's mean. He lies on a grand scale and he's hopelessly immoral.

The worst thing he has ever done is to commit a high crime against America by perpetuating election fraud against the greatest country the world as ever known.

Since the earliest days of the Biden occupation, I have been dreaming, fantasizing and thinking about what might be coming next. Three days after Biden became the Impostor in Chief, it came to me.

Trump is seemingly more popular than ever. He's beloved by ordinary Americans. They know that Joe Biden is simply serving the ruling class he has so loyally served to undo everything Trump put into place. The true uprising he began will not simply fade away. He not only made America great again, he gave America hope again.

So I started noodling around with not only how Trump could regain power, but how he could maximize it, to have more than just four more years as an encore. If it comes to realization, it might be my most serious achievement. So, listen up!

Four days after Biden came to power, I wrote: "What's next? Once we have the House and Senate, we can impeach Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for high crimes and misdemeanors – not phony ones like they had to manufacture against President Trump, but real, weighty crimes.

"That would leave House Speaker Kevin McCarthy as president of the United States – only temporarily. As president, he could appoint anyone in the interim he chose as vice president. He would select Donald J. Trump in early 2023. Then McCarthy, or perhaps Jim Jordan, would resign, leaving Trump as president. After all, who would have more experience and wisdom?"

I warned: "America has much more than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to worry about. China is a real threat. And so is Big Tech." I wrote, "Nobody but Trump is up to the challenge."

A couple weeks after I wrote this, Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist in the early days of the Trump administration, gave a speech to Boston Republicans that turned into a headline in the Boston Herald.

"Trump is a disrupter, but he has a long-term vision because I absolutely believe in the marrow of my bones that he will be our nominee in 2024," Bannon said at a Lincoln Day Breakfast. "He'll come back to us. We'll have a sweeping victory in 2022, and he'll lead us in 2024."

After Republicans win the House and Senate back, and name Trump as speaker of the House, they could turn the tables on Biden and Kamala and impeach them for "his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency."

I texted Bannon a message asking if he had read my column.

"I loved it," he said.

Could this be the way this turns out?

Well, since then, there's been some more interest in the idea.

Paul Bedard took up the idea in his recent Washington Examiner column headlined "Trump for speaker."

"And what about former President Donald Trump? Aides said that he is focused on electing friendly Republicans in the 2022 election. And if it helps the GOP regain the majority, there is growing support for installing Trump as House speaker, allowed under House rules," the report said.

Disrn.com's Peter Heck wrote: "Odds are increasing that Donald Trump could be the next speaker of the House." He said Trump could have a "major role in the upcoming 2022 congressional elections, with a potential payoff that would greatly impact the future of President Biden's term in office."

He pointed out that a GOP

The majority in the House following 2022 could elect Trump speaker.

"House rules allow for the majority to select someone from the outside to serve in the position," wrote Heck.

He said the latest to join the campaign is Ed Martin, president of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles.

Martin told "Secrets": "I'm serious. We need the Trump voters. With the possibility of having Donald Trump as speaker, conservative voter turnout would be through the roof nationwide."

[dailywikis]

Phyllis Schlafly Bio, Age, Wiki, Cause of Death, Husband, Children, Career, Net Worth

Phyllis Schlafly Bio – Wiki

Phyllis Schlafly is a central figure in the new Hulu series Mrs. America. She was a movement conservative and author. Her book, A Choice Not an Echo (1964), a polemic against Republican leader Nelson Rockefeller, sold more than three million copies.

Schlafly was born on August 15, 1924, in St. Louis, Missouri. Her birth name was Phyllis McAlpin Stewart. She died on…

[thenewdemocratus]

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly: The Mistake of Unilateral Divorce

Source:The New Democrat  Again what I call the Traditional Values Coalition like to talk about the dangers of big government when it comes to taxes and the economy in general. While at the same time on perhaps even on the same hand like to talk about benefits of big government by sticking into the personal lives of married couples and telling people when they can end their marriages or not. And…

[politiciandirect]

Hundreds Rally in Pennsylvania to Protest GOP Rep. Charlie Dent: No More Obstructing Trump’s Agenda

Hundreds Rally in Pennsylvania to Protest GOP Rep. Charlie Dent: No More Obstructing Trump’s Agenda

Despite police from a neighboring jurisdiction blocking entrances to Jordan Park in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on Friday, an estimated 300 people showed up for the “No Surrender” rally to protest Rep. Charlie Dent’s (R-PA) ongoing obstruction of President Donald Trump’s agenda. Pennsylvanians helped elect the president and now they want to see his agenda succeed in Washington, Ed Martin, of Phyllis…

[canadianabroadvery]

“ ... “Nothing short of the United States Constitution is at stake,” said David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University. “At a time when we have a president who has expressed hostility to many parts of the Bill of Rights and when members of both parties have facets of the Constitution they are very angry about, I don’t think we can count on the Constitution surviving.”

Republican skeptics mainly worry that gun rights enumerated in the Second Amendment could come under siege. Democrats are concerned largely about how constitutional tinkering might affect issues like abortion and immigration. This has led to a common agenda opposing a convention among strange bedfellows: progressive groups such as Common Cause and right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society and the late Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum.

On the other side, the movement for a convention of states has won major endorsements from Republican leaders and conservative personalities across the country, including U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Fox News’ Sean Hannity. To be sure, though, the 2016 mock convention in Virginia wasn’t the origin of this movement. The Center for Public Integrity’s analysis found that attendees had already sponsored similar bills in at least 15 states, even before their arrival... “

[enchantednightbirdcom]

"Tell Your Children" - Alex Berenson | May 21, 2019 #TheMovement Segment 2 - SoundCloud

Listen to "Tell Your Children" - Alex Berenson | May 21, 2019 #TheMovement Segment 2 by Phyllis Schlafly Eagles on #SoundCloud

[traditionandmodernity]

Oh how to start discussing my favorite person, Phyllis Schlafly. She is truly something else. I’m shifting the tradition vs. modernity conversation over to the United States for a post, something I exclusively focused on before taking this course. When I watched Mrs. America I just couldn’t wrap my head around the women, including the infamous Mrs. Schlafly, who opposed the ERA. One of their main arguments against the ERA was the destruction of tradition. The tradition of the perfect American housewife whose sole purpose in life was to take care of her husband and children. Having their own goals and dreams, working, and being their own person were basically outlawed. One of the biggest contradictions of this time was Mrs. Schlafly. Although Mrs. Schlafly was extremely pro tradition, including defending conventional gender roles, she strived to make a public name for herself. She founded the Eagle Forum, wrote several books, was a successful activist, and went to law school. Although the ERA is still yet to be ratified, there have been many improvements to women’s rights and the shift towards modernity in the US today. There is so much more work to be done, both here and all across the world.