On the one hand, she pretty much just dropped a bunch of conservative rallying cries and familiarly simplistic non-reasons, and on the other, I could have sworn the CSBT mouthpiece insisted that this event was their latest example of dedication to discourse.

Let’s get one thing straight, right off the bat:

Phyllis Schlafly coming here was not a big deal. She offered nothing new, no perspectives, and certainly nothing resembling a well-thought out argument against the supposed evils of feminism.

Perhaps I was expecting too much, but saying that feminism is evil and bad because feminists love abortion, hate men, hate the traditional family, and hate the American way of life is NOT an argument. It’s like if I were to say that all conservatives are war-mongering, close-minded, xenophobic corporate fatcats who could give a shit about the American middle class. There’s no debate. There’s not even a glimmer or hint that you understand the opposing view when you “debate” in that manner.

For someone who introduced herself as an expert on feminism, Schlafly was awfully stingy in her discussion of the finer points of feminism, good or bad. An entire ideological movement cannot be and should not be boiled down to singular actions. There is an entire idea and rationale behind it all. The only reason you DO do that is because you are only interested in shutting down debate. As a matter of fact, the only thing Schlafly had to say about feminism was that its seminal works and writers are too hard to read and understand. That doesn’t even make it sound like Schlafly has actually read any feminist works – it sounds more like she picked up a book, started reading, and decided to quit because it was too hard. So then, what does she really know? I mean, all I got out of her comment was that we should all just give up when things are complex – we should stick with things that are easy [But doesn’t that make us lazy? Doesn’t sound very American to me… Ed.]

In trying to portray the opposition as extremist, irrelevant, difficult to understand, and not worth consideration, there is NO discourse. There is only the assertion that “they are bad, we are good.”

Speaking of irrelevance, Schlafly did a pretty good job of painting herself as an out-of-touch has-been. Her life story was fairly interesting (by golly, she paid her way through Wash U. and Harvard by working in an ammo factory during WWII!), but in no way pertinent to the contemporary conditions, especially as they pertain to women. Schlafly insinuated that because she could make it and become a success without the help of so-called “feminism,” any woman could do it, and that there isn’t really a need for feminism at all. Of course, she ignores the fact that she’s also Caucasian, came from a relatively well-to-do family, and had legacy consideration when she was admitted to Wash U.

Her analysis of the problems facing today’s youth was equally uninformed – “drugs and sex” are what’s corrupting the youth and keeping them from success. That was a ground-breaking observation…maybe 25 years ago. Couple this with general babbling inanity and circular reasoning during the question and answer session, and I think you’ve got a pretty obviously irrelevant speaker on your hands.

I’m actually being pretty nice about this CLP, too. I haven’t even mentioned any of the many gems she spit out about the place of women, spousal rape, and choices for women.

Oh wait. Now I have to tell you! You’re all wanting to know, right?

Well, apparently:

• All a woman needs to be happy is an electric dryer for cloth diapers
• There is no such thing as spousal rape – it’s all made up by the feminists
• The only way to be successful and have a morally fulfilling life is to have a traditional family
• Women should be happy with what they have in this country – they should just shut up and quit complaining [instead of working for more progress? Ed.]
• Feminists just want to have unprotected sex, lots of babies, and then make the government take care of them AND/OR abort them

Clearly, this woman has a good grasp of current affairs.

Maybe Schlafly was edgy and current in the 1960s, but that is no longer the case.

CSBT, if you’re going to say that you want intelligent discourse, back it up.

Don’t pretend this propogandistic didacticism is anything but shit.