Phyllis Schlafly -- Because Washington University Learned Too Late That Borat Isn't Real
Jessica Valenti of Feministing is pretty burned up about Washington University honorary degree-holder Phyllis Schlafly's yet-another-unambiguous defense of marital rape. I'd just like to point out that her endorsement of marital rape comes directly from her equally horrifying articulation of marriage
I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed.
Read the quote of the quote in context here.
Got that? All that talk about to have and to hold? Nope. Sickness and in health? No. Better or worse? Not for Schlafly. Love, honor, and cherish? Obviously not.
Nope. Marriage is all about Teh Sex. Or, more accurately, *his* sex, even if it means sex with the smell of bile on his wife's breath while he hides his pickle. Charming! And these are the folks who think it's *gay marriage* that's destroying the sanctity of marriage!
I've been asking this a lot lately but what the *fuck* is wrong with those people that they think they're little master-gender is better off with *their* plan?
The volunteer on a rape crisis line I called once defended marital rape.
Well, you know, the modern ideas of marriage originally evolved from it being about his *children* - because, you know, no paternity tests, so she shouldn't be having sex with other guys and he ends up raising the little bastards and they inherit his stuff. It's not directly about sex, though they'd be irresponsible Christians not to breed like bunnies... but, you know, martial rape doesn't necessarily enter the picture. Only when it's so hyper-paternalistic that what the man says goes, no matter what.
But, you know, things change. It doesn't have to be that way anymore, and quite often isn't.
[I agree it was certainly about children and patrilinearity. And until very recently (and even today in more traditional cultures... including, I believe, Italy) it was tradition for millenia for children to go with the father in the event of divorce. So yeah, they'd care even more back then. But as you say it *hasn't* been that way for a while, it certainly doesn't *need* to be that way, there's no reason to drag society back to the dark ages so it can *be* that way again, and consequently *what's wrong with those people!!?!?!* Thanks, Nightfall. --fl]
Re-reading this, I only just realized that I actually wrote "you know" three times when I hardly ever say that! You know, that's like totally weird, you know. ;-)
(also recaptcha: roach inn)
[Like, totally. :-) Thanks, Nightfall. --fl]
Well, the real puzzle to me is that Schlafly is not a member of the "master gender" - though she may *think* she has balls of steel. Yeah, I know "patriarchy" has always required elite women to help prop it up. But Schlafly is of a generation where it was possible for ambitious women to succeed on their own merits and not merely as tools.
As you might imagine, colleagues of mine in St. Louis are totally frothing about this, not just due to her politics but also due to her livid anti-intellectualism. I wrote about it last week when I first heard how pissed they were - and I don't want to rehash it all, so I'll just say the highlight is that she thinks the current administration is captive to feminists!
My contacts at Wash U say that anyone inclined to squawk about this can email their chancellor, Mark Wrighton, at wrighton@wustl.edu. (Figleaf, you will edit that out, won't you, if it's too much direct activism for your taste?)