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

[gam197]

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.

I may be wrong on this but I felt Concerned Women was an Evangelical response to National Organization of Women which was really big in the feminist movement at the time. NOW was not as radical early on or at least that is how it was perceived. We hear very little from NOW today.

NOW (1966) had great and I mean great political power.

Eagle Forum really was a small group essentially run by Phyllis Schlafly after ERA. I believe there was not much to it. However, I suppose it is possible that this one woman band wagon that took down the ERA which was a major event during that time period(1972) helped bring about an Evangelical group called Concerned Woman(1979). They saw what she could do as one human being and thought what if we unite our female population and form a group, think of all we can do. Phyllis Schlafly could have inspired them.

Never thought of this aspect of it but you may be right on this, could be that they saw Phyllis Schlafly and Eagle forum as a major catholic group and thought if a catholic woman/women’s group can do this, we need a protestant response that is bigger and better.

Never knew much about Chuck Colson’s thinking. Will look into it. Thanks for the info.

.

 

[gam197]

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.

Not one is disputing that rape/abuse is evil. What they will dispute is consent.

 

[JulianN]

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 stated it in response to questions about the idea of rape being possible in marriage. She said it was not possible because the consent given in marriage was somehow ubiquitous. And prior to the 1970s, this was actually enshrined in law. Rape is abusive force – and it was legal within marriage and was endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly.

 

[gam197]

She stated it in response to questions about the idea of rape being possible in marriage. She said it was not possible because the consent given in marriage was somehow ubiquitous. And prior to the 1970s, this was actually enshrined in law. Rape is abusive force – and it was legal within marriage and was endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly.

No sex is consented to is marriage. It is ubiquitous, I suppose for some… Rape or abusive force was never legal within a catholic marriage and there is no way she would have endorsed it.

Gloria Steinem 1972

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.

 

[JulianN]

Why are we talking about Gloria Steinem? The thread was about Phyllis Schlafly. And she wasn’t talking about Catholic marriage per se, nor about annulments.

She was talking about the legal definition of rape, and was supporting the marital exemption to that definition, which existed in every state in the U.S. until the mid-1970s.

 

[neophyte]

her opposition to the ERA was unreasonable.

So you say, but I had listened to her back in the day and found much of what she said to be plain common sense and reasonable conclusions about what would happen if the ERA was adopted.

Everyone I’ve heard espouse your position also said they believe in fantasies like the non-existent pay gap between men and women, and I’ve heard it more times than I can count so…

 

[gam197]

Why are we talking about Gloria Steinem? The thread was about Phyllis Schlafly. And she wasn’t talking about Catholic marriage per se, nor about annulments.

She was talking about the legal definition of rape, and was supporting the marital exemption to that definition, which existed in every state in the U.S. until the mid-1970s.

I just like to quote Steinem on the bottom since it is a quote about women. That is a whole different topic.

Phyllis Schlafly was a lawyer so maybe from a her point she found the law ambiguous as many did, She was talking about the legal definition of rape. In marriage, consent is already given. It does not have to be given each/every time of the act although usually that is the way it goes. It is tough to get into her head but from speeches she made and from her upbringing and understanding of her faith, she would not have condoned abusive behavior from a husband.

It can’t be said she condoned rape/abusive sex in marriage. What can be said is that she found the laws ambiguous and therefore did not want marital sex to be put into a rape law.

 

[JulianN]

Phyllis Schlafly was a lawyer so maybe from a her point she found the law ambiguous as many did, She was talking about the legal definition of rape. In marriage, consent is already given. It does not have to be given each/every time of the act

Yes. Yes, it does. That’s the whole definition of rape.

She may not have condoned rape within marriage, but she absolutely condoned the laws that made it possible for a man to rape his wife with absolutely no consequence.

 

[gam197]

She may not have condoned rape within marriage, but she absolutely condoned the laws that made it possible for a man to rape his wife with absolutely no consequence.

What law condones/allows a man to rape/abuse his wife? Even if it was 1940, there is no law in this country that allows a married man to rape/ forcefully abuse his wife.

The consequence would be that she would divorce him.

, consent is already given. It does not have to be given each/every time of the act

That is why it is ambiguous. You are saying yes it does.

Schlafly did not want to see very single sex marital act put into a rape law. Then a husband could say, she winked and that is what she does before we have sex to give approval then lawyers would sit for days/months/years and discuss , Is a wink an ok to have sex.? Is a nod? Is a smile? She did not want to open each/every single marital sex act in marriage to the courts by putting it into a rape law.

She thought the laws were already on the books and they were. If a husband abused you in any fashion, you could get a divorce. These were old laws and as a lawyer, she saw them clearly.

 

[JulianN]

What law condones/allows a man to rape/abuse his wife? Even if it was 1940, there is no law in this country that allows a married man to rape/ forcefully abuse his wife.

Up until the 1970s, there was no legal reality of rape within marriage – the law specifically exempted husbands raping wives in all 50 states.

 

[LilyM]

gam197:

What law condones/allows a man to rape/abuse his wife? Even if it was 1940, there is no law in this country that allows a married man to rape/ forcefully abuse his wife.

Up until the 1970s, there was no legal reality of rape within marriage – the law specifically exempted husbands raping wives in all 50 states.

Better expressed as - a married man who forced sex on his wife was exempt from being punished for rape. And yes, that was exactly the law - I remember discussions about it when I was a child.in the 70s.

And it is absolutely abhorrent and she was fine with it.

 

[gam197]

Up until the 1970s, there was no legal reality of rape within marriage – the law specifically exempted husbands raping wives in all 50 states.

There have always been laws about abuse of women. You can call it rape but it is abuse and these laws have not changed. You cannot abuse women in marriage.

 

[gam197]

Better expressed as - a married man who forced sex on his wife was exempt from being punished for rape. And yes, that was exactly the law - I remember discussions about it when I was a child.in the 70s.

And it is absolutely abhorrent and she was fine with it.

Not true. Plenty of women left their husband prior to 1970 because their husbands were abusive. In 1970 the rate of divorce war 3.5 for every thousand marriages.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Better expressed as - a married man who forced sex on his wife was exempt from being punished for rape. And yes, that was exactly the law - I remember discussions about it when I was a child.in the 70s.

And it is absolutely abhorrent and she was fine with it.

Not true. Plenty of women left their husband prior to 1970 because their husbands were abusive.

Women left their husbands for lots of reasons. Sometimes simply because they were bored. Doesn’t mean husbands who forced sex on unwilling wives were prosecuted (as they should rightly have been) for rape.

 

[JulianN]

There have always been laws about abuse of women. You can call it rape but it is abuse and these laws have not changed. You cannot abuse women in marriage.

You need to do some research. The first criminal case involving marital rape was in Oregon in the 1970s. It was controversial precisely because the law specified that there could be no rape within marriage, and this was the position that Schlafly was defending when she gave the quote I shared.

 

[gam197]

Women left their husbands for lots of reasons. Sometimes simply because they were bored. Doesn’t mean.hisbands who forced sex on unwilling wives were prosecuted (as they should rightly have been) for rape.

But there were always laws on the books for abuse and Schlafly would have known those laws better than I.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Women left their husbands for lots of reasons. Sometimes simply because they were bored. Doesn’t mean.hisbands who forced sex on unwilling wives were prosecuted (as they should rightly have been) for rape.

But there were always laws on the books for abuse and Schlafly would have known those laws better than I.

I’m a lawyer too. I know what the law was!

 

[gam197]

I’m a lawyer too. I know what the law was!

So you also know the laws were on the books for abuse. She simply did not want to open up the discussion as to what is consent and have every lawyer in this country debating it and filling the courts up with cases.

 

[JulianN]

So you also know the laws were on the books for abuse. She simply did not want to open up the discussion as to what is consent and have every lawyer in this country debating it and filling the courts up with cases

Yes, heaven forbid that we would debate consent in a rape case.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

I’m a lawyer too. I know what the law was!

So you also know the laws were on the books for abuse. She simply did not want to open up the discussion as to what is consent and have every lawyer in this country debating it and filling the courts up with cases.

In other words she was too much of a coward to do what good and noble.people.have since done - unequivocally assert that a married person has a right to not have sex forced upon them. And to say that raoe is rape, whethwr withib or outside marriage.