As for my own view of Schlafly....a few years ago, a brief 2-hour education in college about Phyllis Schlafly's activism and after watching an interview with her, shortly after she squashed the Equal Rights Amendment, told me everything I needed to know about her actual motivation and desires, and evoked in me a heartfelt scorn and condemnation. Pursuing fame and power without regard for one's actions, solely for acquiring fame and power and influence is despicable. Of course Schlafly didn't really think women had no place in the world as educated, political, influential citizens. She craved those things far greater than most women of her time, running for congress twice, killing the ERA, and in the interview I referenced above she stated, so proudly: "I showed them we [conservatives] could actually win." THAT is what she was proud to have done - won a battle. Made her mark. Become a part of history. Yet she herself was a poster child for the potential possessed by the hitherto "weaker sex" when educated and provided a voice - a powerful force (albeit in this case, sorely misguided and fame-seeking) who could, just as a man could, achieve results and effect change.
It's the hypocrisy that I despise. She used her privileged status and hard-won education (one assumes she surely didn't cheat her way all the way to her doctorate law degree) to try to keep the rest of the women of the United States, and by example, the rest of the world, as appropriate only as homebound, reproductive slaves, mentally unchallenged and financially dependent, legally enforced submissives, and not worthy of contributions to and equal status in society. She used the status quo and public opinion and rather dated ideas of the differences in gender to further her own agenda - the goal of being a worthwhile contribution herself, of being powerful, of becoming a well known name. What hubris infects a soul so badly that they are unable to admit the value of other people but feel themselves to be worthy of fame and not required to assume the lower places in society that they proclaim others should and must adhere to? My previous psychology studies evoke in my brain a murmur of sociopath but that may be too strong a word...yet she shared some rather uncomfortable behaviors that align with historical figures such as Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-un.
In her latter years Schlafly spent her time crafting Conservapedia in response to Wikipedia. An example of her work is demonstrated here:
Anyone who uses the format "All ....(insert your most disliked group here)" demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and a refusal to admit any respect for the truth. 'Nuff said.
In her latter years Schlafly spent her time crafting Conservapedia in response to Wikipedia. An example of her work is demonstrated here:
Liberal
A liberal is someone who craves an increase in government spending, power, and control, such asObamaCare. All liberals also support the censorship and denial of Christianity.[1] Liberals who are a part of the secular left prefer the atheist religion over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans. [2] Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including homosexual "marriage". Liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working.[3] The liberal ideology has degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. All liberals support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles, while lacking an actual ideology or values of their own[4].
Anyone who uses the format "All ....(insert your most disliked group here)" demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and a refusal to admit any respect for the truth. 'Nuff said.
No comments:
Post a Comment