FEMINIST FANTASIES
by Phyllis Schlafly (foreword by Ann Coulter)
published: 2003
.
The title of this review is a statement that feminist author Robin Morgan once made to a Phil Donahue show audience. She certainly chose the right forum for it, seeing as how Phil Donahue himself had long before become the kind of woman that his Dad’s generation of men once wanted to marry.
.
My favorite Anti-Feminism book is 'MANHOOD REDUX' by C. H. Freedman, and in that book he wrote: “I consider Phyllis Schlafly to be the most outstanding American in our history. Notice I did not say the outstanding American WOMAN.” Naturally, being staunchly opposed to Feminism myself, I too have great respect for the lifework and intelligence of this American icon who practically singlehandedly defeated the potentially disastrous Equal Rights Amendment.
.
'FEMINIST FANTASIES' is a collection of 92 essays, all of them one to five pages long, written over parts of four decades, and covering a vast array of Feminist-related topics. Although I highlighted passages in nearly all of the essays, I consider 22 of them, in their totality, to be truly essential reading.
.
Before telling you some of the many reasons you should acquire 'FEMINIST FANTASIES', let me first tell you about some of my own fantasies... uh... well... no. On second thought, let me tell you about the rare times where I thought Mrs. Schlafly went a little wrong:
.
1) The first section of this book is titled 'The Revolution Is Over'. Here, Mrs. Schlafly wants to give the reader the impression that the Feminist Movement has been running out of steam as “last year’s models” begin to concede the foolishness of their youthful ideals (e.g., an op-ed piece written by a Feminst in the Chicago Tribune in October 1982 started out, “Let’s face it. The revolution is over. I just turned 31 and all I want is a husband.” ~pg.3). Well, let’s REALLY face it, if the revolution is over, it’s only because the revolutionaries have declared victory! It’s a very easy thing to call off the revolution (and even proclaim that the “revolution was a mistake” ~pg.80) after you’ve taken and now possess nearly every piece of ground you ever coveted! For the most strident TWISTED SISTERS, the war may never end until every man is lying naked at the end of a leash held by a female soldier (think: Abu Ghraib military prison which coincidentally [?] was under the control of a female brigadier general.)
.
But for the more moderate Feminists (yeah, I know that’s an oxymoron) – the ones who share the ideology even if they shun the label – it’s easy to yell “truce” when you own the judiciary, the congress, academia, and the media. They may have lost the E.R.A. but they got nearly everything they ever wanted, anyway. And we may not be a full-blown matriarchy just yet, but the snowball is still rolling. And if you don’t think they’re justified in declaring victory, try reading 'LEGALIZING MISANDRY' by Paul Nathanson. While a handful of the old guard members of the movement may have died off or tempered the “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” verbiage, the feminists are still in high gear, and after four decades of indoctrinating youth, they have even increased their numbers. If Mrs. Schlafly wants to give us the impression that the tide is moving back out, she’s mistaken; men are now standing neck deep in it and it’s still rising!
.
2) On page 112, she writes, “The true answer to the pay differential is to have open access to all occupations so that women are not barred from any.” Well, Mrs. Schlafly is playing a bit loose with her words here since we know that she (rightly) opposes women in military combat, and yet a ranking officer who leads soldiers into combat IS engaged in an OCCUPATION. Should women have open access to that position? Even Mrs. Schlafly would say no. Furthermore, I could give at least four very sound reasons why women should NOT be employed as police officers even if they were capable of passing all of the physical requirements previously demanded of men before those standards were lowered, enabling women to pass the police academies.
.
3) On page 208, Mrs. Schlafly writes, “What is presumptuously called ‘the women’s movement’ has supposedly ‘liberated’ women from the drudgery of housework and given women new opportunities for careers in the paid labor force, especially in non-traditional (formerly all-male) occupations (from astronaut to coal miner).” And on page 55, concerning the feminist college student Linda LeClair, she writes, “No, Linda didn’t do something constructive based on personal achievement like Dr. Sally Ride.”
.
Now, I find that just a shade disingenuous because, truthfully, Sally Ride gained her notoriety primarily as a result of the Feminist movement. I believe that since 1983, every major NASA mission has included at least one female on the flight crew. This has clearly been NASA’s way of throwing a bone to the bulldogs in N.O.W., et al. Although I do respect their dedication and their hard work to get there, the fact remains that every time a woman has donned her space suit and climbed into a rocket for a high profile mission, more technically and physically qualified male astronauts have been passed over in the name of a politically correct quota. I’m sorry, but I don’t think bashing Feminist Linda LeClair with Sally Ride in an Anti-Feminism book is a good idea. I say, hit her over the head with Amelia Earhart – now there’s a famous female flier who needed no assistance from the Feminist movement in order to reach new heights.
.
But these are the only noteworthy complaints I have about Phyllis Schlafly’s erudite book. Otherwise, 'FEMINIST FANTASIES' is a clearheaded examination of the illogical and unnatural arguments that serve as the shifting, hypocritical foundation of one of this country’s worst diseases. Mrs. Schlafly comes at this false religion from every angle and the aggregate force of her keen mental swordplay slices right through the movement’s crapola to expose the heart of truth. (As I’ve written elsewhere, “crapola” is a Liberal landscape colored over with an excrement-hued Crayola crayon.) Just a few of the essays I particularly enjoyed are:
.
* SEXIST SOFTWARE (“I discovered that one of the software programs will search material on the word processor, identify ‘sexist’ words, and instruct the operator how to purge all sexist words and substitute different words. ... A busboy is a clearer. The next time you dine in a restaurant, ask the ‘server’ to have the ‘clearer’ remove your dishes.”)
.
* THE INTELLIGENT CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO THE WOMEN’S VOTE (Mrs. Schlafly gives us a list of dos and don’ts for candidates who want to prepare themselves for traps laid by Feminist reporters. Number 9 is: “Don’t use expressions that some women find obnoxious. Don’t call any woman a ‘women’s libber’; call her a feminist.” When I worked for a magazine publisher in ‘93/’94, we had a card-carrying N.O.W. member in the Art Dept. I remember her once expressing great displeasure at being referred to as a “gal.”)
.
* THE FEMINIST ASSAULT ON V.M.I. (In 1990, the Fems insisted that women be admitted to the all-male Virginia Military Institute because we are forbidden to recognize the differences between men and women. But once they got in, Janet Reno’s Feminist Justice Department went to court to argue that failing to make adjustments for female recruits would amount to "discrimination" because it would discourage women from applying, or lead them to drop out. Whoa! How do they pull these stunts off with a straight face?! Well, maybe “straight” wasn’t the right word.)
.
In closing, let me also point out that I even like the photograph on the dust jacket of 'FEMINIST FANTASIES'. It’s a shame that she turned out the way she did, because the “women’s libber” in the picture has pretty eyes. Yeah, I gotta say, once you get past the Indian war paint, that little “gal” is kinda cute.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
