Hulu Series "Mrs America" hate piece on Phyllis Schlafly?

[HarryStotle]

I think subjectivity and bias are different things.

For example, Richard III having a hunchback or not is an objective fact - either he did have it or he didn’t.

…
That is different to bias - bias implies prejudgement and distorting available information deliberately to make that information fit what you think it ought to mean…

Sure, all of what you say is true.

That does not alter the fact that objective facts are ultimately there to be determined. It is that cognitive bias can (but does not necessarily) interfere with the proper reading and interpreting of reality. The objective truth is still there in objective reality, which makes the source of the truth distinct from subjective truths which find their source and truth wholly within the subjects themselves.

None of this denies that historical objectivity might be lost to us living in the present because a great deal of the information from the past has been lost and no longer available or written by biased sources. That does not mean all of it is. The entire enterprise we call ‘doing history’ is to glean the truth from what remains available, sometimes finding glimpses of that truth in incidentals. That is far from making history a ‘subjective’ enterprise. It isn’t. To presume that it is is to lose the entire point of doing history which is to objectively determine what happened.

The falsity of the notion that ‘history is written by the victors’ is that the implication is that the objective truth of history is necessarily unavailable to us. That isn’t true because alternate versions of the same events are frequently available so history done properly is more like comparing various witness testimonies (even biased ones, even assuming all of them are biased) in order to determine by distillation what is objectively true.

 

[gam197]

To be fair, her defense of marital rape, of limiting women’s access to college, etc. won’t make her look good no matter how even-handed the production would attempt to be.

How is that statement fair? She never defended rape, held a college degree and thought education for all was good and already in place.

 

[HarryStotle]

Oh, boy. You are really out there. Please don’t play armchair philosopher. Do study some real philosophy.

Thanks but I don’t need you to tell me what to do with my time.

If you want to discuss the point do so.

If you are here to disparage I’ll simply ignore your lack of capacity to contribute meaningfully to the discussion.

I am perfectly willing to let readers decide for themselves whether your points are meaningful or whether they are expressions of subjective drivel pretending to be ‘objective’.

 

[F_Marturana]

As far as I know, she was always Catholic. She was I guess in her 80’s when I saw her on EWTN.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

See the difference?

(First of all, I am going to use the term “reporting” not to mean what journalists do, but what historians do, so don’t get misled).

No. You didn’t answer the question at all, which was about objective reporting, not objective truth.

Isn’t all reporting by necessity subjective? Is there such a thing as an unbiased reporter? Even chroniclers listing simple events are biased as to what events to include on their list.

So can you have a more or less biased reporter? Yes. But not a more or less objective one, unless you are using the word loosely.

Actually you are making a distinction without much of a difference.

The real difference is that journalists are supposed to be reporting about events currently occurring in objective reality, while historians seek to report the objective truth of past events. Certainly some of that reporting will be biased, but if you assume all of it is then you are closing your eyes to the possibility that reporting, even from biased reporters could contain objective truth even about those currently occurring events that reporters might have a stronger attachment towards.

You can have more or less biased reporting, but you could — in the same instance — have more or or less objective reporting, meaning that the reporting accurately depicts the objective reality that has/is occurring.

These are two different things.

Likewise, you could have bias in historical narratives, but also objective truth being conveyed, whether that is intentional or unintentional with regard to the author.

There are ways of assessing how objectively true historical accounts are — i.e., by doing history in a disciplined and assiduous manner.

There are also ways to assess current journalism as objectively true or false; and that can be done whether or not the journalist writing the account is biased or not.

Fundamentally, you are confusing bias with falsity. That isn’t true, though. Someone biased towards a certain perspective might be biased towards the truth even though the reasons they accept the truth in question are not impartial.

Still are we supposed to have a nonchalant attitude to the truth or are we to love the truth and seek it with our whole heart and mind? I think Jesus had something to say on that.

 

[neophyte]

Schlafly was extreme as to the ERA and even Masters and Johnson.

Without context that kind of comment is meaningless, other than it means that you disagree with her.

Some of her positions were very odd and hard to support even as logical.

Every time I listened to her I found her positions to be entirely rational and plain common sense. Perhaps you’d care to give an example of another kind?

She certainly wasn’t an anti-semite, despite slander to the contrary.

 

[Nepperhan]

Every time I listened to her I found her positions to be entirely rational and plain common sense. Perhaps you’d care to give an example of another kind?

I more than disagreed with her. I have been familiar with her since 1973 or so. Her ideas were outmoded and she was sharply sarcastic an given to demonizing those who disagreed with her. I think she really did a disservice to the advancement of women in the US.

Now, I’m not going to go back to pull out critical incidents to illuminate the basis for my views on her. You can take them as heart-felt.

 

[neophyte]

Her ideas were outmoded…

That’s what a lot of people say about Catholic teaching. It’s not a convincing response.

 

[Nepperhan]

That’s what a lot of people say about Catholic teaching. It’s not a convincing response.

She was not a Catholic theologian. Remember we had Catholic nuns who supported Obamacare.

Her ideas about the role or women were outmoded. This really had nothing to do with religion.

 

[HarryStotle]

Degrees of objectivity, yes, but complete objectivity without bias, no. Historical events are filtered through the lens of human subjectivity, perception, and interpretation, which are prone to cognitive error (bias), and that, I think, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Since historical analysis pertains to human history, any endeavour that humans engage in has various facets, including emotional drives and impulses.

So sorting out history is often a matter of sorting out the ambitions, drives and sensibilities of people from the past. Therefore, historical analysis is necessarily an analysis of the objective and subjective elements that make human actions human to begin with. We can’t escape that, although we can be mindful of the difference.

Again, the subjective orientation (feelings, attractions, impulses, etc.) that any particular person has towards an occurrence may or may not create a distortion of the objective truth, but may, in fact, reinforce that truth BECAUSE that individual might have a strong emotional connection to the truth rather than to a distortion of it.

Emotions are not necessarily antithetical to the truth, they may in fact be strongly supportive of the truth.

While the word “bias” implies a precognitive predilection to a certain view, a bias is not always a bias to falsity. Intuitions might be something like a predilection or precognitive assessment regarding what we intuit to be true, and intuitions — though not always — might frequently be true, because intuitions might be a kind of agglomeration of what we have reasonable certainty about.

The intuitions of a fool might be one thing, however, while the intuitions of a careful thinker and sage another thing entirely.

 

[JulianN]

How is that statement fair? She never defended rape,

“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”

thought education for all was good and already in place.

“The imbalance of far more women than men at colleges has been a factor in the various sex scandals that have made news in the last couple of years. … So, what’s the solution? One solution might be to impose the duty on admissions officers to arbitrarily admit only half women and half men.”

She also suggested that the best thing for women was for the men in their lives to have more opportunities, even if that meant a wage gap. And insulted airline hostesses for not being attractive enough.

 

[neophyte]

Her ideas about the role or women were outmoded.

Again, that just means that you disagree with them. It doesn’t do anything to support the claim that she was wrong.

To be clear, I don’t agree with everything she said and I certainly admit that she could be very abrasive. But it’s a fact that there’s a lot of slanderous misinformation floating around about her, like that nonsense about her being an anti-semite or that her opposition to the ERA was unreasonable.

 

[HarryStotle]

meltzerboy2:

The mere fact of focusing on only one aspect of a situation rather than the total picture is a form of error.

I’m going to disagree there. I would consider an error to be reporting something that was not true. Otherwise, all reporting would be erroneous, as no reporter will ever, or can, give the total picture. I would say that all reporting would be biased, but not necessarily erroneous.

You are conflating different levels of untruth and making them appear to be similar.

An error would be the unintentional conveyance of misinformation.
A lie would be a deliberate conveyance of misinformation.
An incomplete account may be neither a lie or an error, but is a necessary aspect of reportage.
An incomplete account might be a deliberate attempt to deceive AND it could be the result of shoddy or inept journalism where the distinctions between relevant and irrelevant, important and unimportant, crucial and trivial, are not well-understood or ignored by the supposed journalist.

Journalism ought to be held accountable on all of those levels by readers and editors and journalists themselves. That is what is sorely lacking these days.

And to excuse all of it by lumping together bad journalism with “all reporting is biased” is just inexcusable.

 

[gam197]

“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”

People will disagree on this. Women do give their consent so did men to have sex with each other in marriage. Does that mean that men forcefully take it, I don’t think so at least not by catholic standards. I don’t believe she thought that either nor did her husband. There have always been laws on annulments or divorce.

Is that the same as rape by a man you pass while out walking who takes a knife to your throat? They are both wrong but there are differences,

The imbalance of far more women than men at colleges has been a factor in the various sex scandals that have made news in the last couple of years. … So, what’s the solution? One solution might be to impose the duty on admissions officers to arbitrarily admit only half women and half men.”

She also suggested that the best thing for women was for the men in their lives to have more opportunities, even if that meant a wage gap. And insulted airline hostesses for not being attractive enough.

People will get into this debate forever. Colleges are there and anyone can go. Some believe men have less opportunities.

Families finances work in many different ways and she was speaking on however the money comes to you —if your husband works hard and has an opportunity, who cares.

Phyllis Schlafly was one woman during a period of time when there are a whole range of feminists, many with some extreme views. Gloria Steinem always hit me wrong when she once said married woman are simply paid prostitutes.

 

[JulianN]

People will disagree on this. Women do give their consent so did men to have sex with each other in marriage. Does that mean that men forcefully take it, I don’t think so at least not by catholic standards. I don’t believe she thought that either nor did her husband. There have always been laws on annulments or divorce.

Actually, she specifically said that rape was not possible in marriage – because the woman had given consent by marrying the man. It’s pretty clear it’s what she thought.

 

[Nepperhan]

But it’s a fact that there’s a lot of slanderous misinformation floating around about her, like that nonsense about her being an anti-semite or that her opposition to the ERA was unreasonable.

You can’t slander a dead person and her opposition to the ERA was unreasonable.

 

[gam197]

ctually, she specifically said that rape was not possible in marriage – because the woman had given consent by marrying the man. It’s pretty clear it’s what she thought.

Phyllis Schlafly was a lawyer so maybe her idea of consent in marriage made rape seem impossible. If a male in marriage states I give my body to you and the woman says the same, it is consent. There can be forced abuse and there are church laws that allow annulments so I doubt very much that she would not have completely known that.

She certainly did not believe is abusive force.

Gloria Steinem:

The press is always talking about working women, well the movement is only for working women, when in fact housewives work harder than anyone. She should be paid between eight and nine thousand dollars a year because that is how much it would cost her husband to pay for her services not including off and on prostitution.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Exactly! I cannot tell you how many books about the Tudor family I have read, both non-fiction and historical fiction.

WWII? There are recent books that reveal things that were not known.

Until we perfect time travel, we will constantly unearth different things in history.

 

[Peeps]

Where have you read she converted? She was a cradle catholic and stayed catholic.

Oh, excellent! Good to hear. Since so many of my Evangelical Protestant friends admire Ms. Schlafly and Eagle Forum, I assumed that she had converted to Evangelical Protestantism. Glad to know I’m wrong!

I’m wondering if Concerned Women for America started up as an “Evangelical Response” to Eagle Forum ? Back in those days, there was not the acceptance of Catholics/Catholicism as “Christian” by Evangelical Protestants as there is today (in most Evangelical circles, that is). I was lucky to be raised in an Evangelical Protestant church that accepted Catholics as Christians (although there were plenty of efforts to convince them to join our church!). But other Evangelical Protestant churches taught more along the lines of “Jack T. Chick’s” comic book tracts.

Chuck Colson (R.I.P.) did a great deal before his death to encourage Evangelicals and Protestants to “get together,” and along with Father Neuhaus (R.I.P.), founded “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.”

Chuck Colson’s book, Being The Body, which described Colson’s “journey” to acceptance and love for Catholics, was a major factor in my conversion to Catholicism.

Anyway, thanks for the info!

 

[F_Marturana]

A man who rapes his wife is an abuser. Women consent to a loving, intimate Union with their husbands. They don’t consent to rape and abuse.

I dare say a man who rapes his wife is worse than the rapist who lurks in the shadows. The husband made vows to his wife to honor and love her.