Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« My FOIA Battle | Main | Scientology Targeted Randi and Kurtz »
Category:
Posted on: May 7, 2008 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton
Washington University of St. Louis (WUSTL) is going to give Phyllis Schlafly an honorary doctorate in - of all things - humane letters at their commencement on May 16. Humane letters? For a woman who has spent her entire adult life advocating the dehumanization and oppression of gays, not to mention women? By what possible logic?
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Heh. I just sent your link to my WashU alumna daughter. Ed, you'll likely hear the explosion there in Michigan when she opens it.....
Posted by: Coragyps | May 7, 2008 10:25 AM
/spit take
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2008 10:26 AM
Somewhat OT: There is no Phyllis Schafly page on Conservapedia.
Less OT: Perhaps it's just due to the fact that there is no doctorate in inhumane letters at Washington University.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 7, 2008 10:31 AM
Phyllis, I'm pretty sure I speak for women everywhere when I say practice what you preach: shut up and get your uppity ass back in the kitchen.
Sending this news to my 71-year-old mom, a Wash. U. alumna and all-round butt-kicking, brass-ovaried, ahead-of-her-time woman who raised me not to partake of any societal bullshit about my destiny as a submissive wife and incubator.
That wasn't easy in South Carolina in 1965. Thanks, Mom, and happy Mother's Day.
Posted by: Laurel | May 7, 2008 10:57 AM
Sure there is---it's here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Phyllis_Schlafly
One thing you wont find on conservapedia is a page on her gay son John. Her wacko son Andy has one, and her odd son Roger has one.
Oh, and is Wash U fucking NUTS????
Posted by: PalMD | May 7, 2008 10:58 AM
Actually, there is indeed a page on John Schlafly, though it's very short and doesn't mention the whole gay thing, oddly enough. There's a link to it from Phyllis's page.
Posted by: Dave | May 7, 2008 11:28 AM
Yes, i forgot. Any mention of John kept getting scrubbed, until Andy realized he could just censor the word "gay" and all it's synonyms from the context.
Of course, he does talk about homosexuality quite a bit, for a straight guy.
Posted by: PalMD | May 7, 2008 11:37 AM
Her wacko son Andy has one, and her odd son Roger has one.
"Wacko" and "odd" cover it. Google their foray into talk.origins, about 8 or 10 years ago.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 7, 2008 12:24 PM
That woman is just bat shit crazy. I never could understand why conservatives couldn't see how ridiculous she made them appear; then, Ann Coulter came along, and I finally got it. The Right doesn't care about how crazy these people are; they care only about how much support they can garner, and how many dollars it translates into.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | May 7, 2008 12:51 PM
chancelikely, for a real Conservapedia chuckle, read their totally objective entry for "Jesus."
Posted by: Eveningsun | May 7, 2008 12:54 PM
Not surprisingly, everybody here goes absolutely nuts because (gasp) somebody that disagrees with you all is getting honored by some other people that disagree with you. Schlafly is a woman who stands up for the traditional family, and I think her views are very common sense. Schlafly's opponents consider her picture of the stay-at-home mom who nurtures and raises her children as oppressive, and the highest ideal is for a woman to become an income stream in the workplace. Men are denigrated as oppressors who want to keep women down. Tell me, how is the human race supposed to propagate itself under this kind of system? The absurdity of any view can be best illustrated by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If marriage is so bad and men are so evil and the highest ideal for a woman is to slave away in the workforce, then marriage should be outlawed, women should stay away from men, and every woman should get a job. Tell me, what would that do to the human population? It should be no surprise that countries that have adopted feminism have declining birth rates, even to the point where the population doesn't even replace itself. Feminism has not only led to a decline in birth rates, it has led to higher divorce rates, which in turn have led to higher incidences of crime and poverty. Women that cannot reach the point of foregoing the traditional family altogether are in the position of being a mom and an employee - and maybe a wife - and trying to do all well. No wonder many women are such a ragged mess these days. Feminism is a disaster; it has reduced the worth of a woman to a paycheck and denigrates the high calling of motherhood. It has also led to higher rates of divorce, poverty and crime and is a disaster for the traditional family - which is the foundation of a stable society.
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 1:10 PM
You wouldn't be interested in supporting any of that chain of causality you propose there, would you, Mroberts? Or defending the good that will come to our planet from unrestrained population growth?
Posted by: Coragyps | May 7, 2008 1:16 PM
"The absurdity of any view can be best illustrated by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If marriage is so bad and men are so evil and the highest ideal for a woman is to slave away in the workforce, then marriage should be outlawed, women should stay away from men, and every woman should get a job."
And that's the logical conclusion? You and I have differant views of logic it appears. The point of feminism is to give woman a choice, not to force them to do anything. It is just as wrong to make woman to climb the corporate ladder as it is to keep them barefoot and pregnant. The idea is to let people make their own decisions as to what makes them happy, not fit them into gender roles.
"it has led to higher divorce rates"
Would you prefer people stay in unhappy marriages?
Posted by: jba | May 7, 2008 1:31 PM
>>And that's the logical conclusion? You and I have differant views of logic it appears. The point of feminism is to give woman a choice, not to force them to do anything.
Wow, you must know the nicest feminists I have ever heard of. LOL. Feminism denigrates traditional motherhood as oppressive, therefore how can you say feminists really are wanting to give women a choice between motherhood and the workplace? Hmmm?
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 1:35 PM
"you must know the nicest feminists I have ever heard of."
I have met many nice, reasonable feminists and many rude, extremist feminists (amazing isn't it that people have many differant views despite all the attempts to make them act like the labels you put on them?). I have found that the extremists are just as wrong as the people on the other far end of the spectrum, like Schlafly. If you only look at the worst of a group then you aren't getting the whole picture. What you are doing is like judging all christians by Fred Phelps.
"Feminism denigrates traditional motherhood as oppressive"
It's not "traditional motherhood" that is oppressive, it's being forced into the role of mother when you want something else that is oppressive. It would be just as oppressive to be forced to work when you want to be a stay at home parent. There are feminists who hold these views that you are talking about, but they are, IMO, just as wrong as their male chauvinist opposites. They are also not, in my experience, in the majority. But the point is, not all feminists believe what you think they do. You can say they do till you are blue in the face but it doesn't make it so.
Posted by: jba | May 7, 2008 1:53 PM
Wow, and University of Washington is a very prestigious school. This must be the work of some idiot faculty member. Or maybe Phyllis Schlafy has done some good things that have been overshadowed by her bigotry. There must be something weird going on here. This isn't Bob Jones we're talking about. Keep on this story, Ed.
Posted by: Brandon | May 7, 2008 1:53 PM
Nonsense, Mr. Roberts. "Traditional motherhood" does not exist. It is, and always has been, a myth. When people speak of it, they generally mean a form of family structure that was only ever widespread for a couple decades after WWII - you know, the one where Dad left the house everyday at 8, went to work, got back home at 5:30, and Mom was waiting with a martini, clean house, and dinner in the oven. THe majority of mothers everywhere and at all times throughout history either (a) worked outside the home or (b) worked in the family's home-based business, whether that business was a farm or a shop, where the father also worked. Full time homemaking and childrearing was a luxury of the upper classes.
Posted by: AnneS | May 7, 2008 1:59 PM
Posted by: mikado | May 7, 2008 2:07 PM
Well, blow me down.
There is no "Phyllis Schafly" page. It's "Schlafly".
I can't spell, apparently.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 7, 2008 2:26 PM
I suppose it has not occurred to mroberts that when women are given the chance to take control of their lives, they will sometimes choose to leave bad marriages. They will sometimes choose not to have children. Mroberts, like Ms. Shlafly, cleverly ignores the fact that feminism is about giving women the freedom to make their own choices. I don't know any feminists who want to ban women from becoming stay-at-home mothers-- they want to create a society in which being a stay-at-home mom is not the only option. I don't know any feminists who want to force women to have abortions-- they want to create a society in which women can have the option to do so if they choose. I don't know any feminist who wants every woman to become a lesbian-- they want to create a society in which lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and the transgendered are not treated like dirt.
Feminism has made it possible for women to vote, own property, wear trousers, leave abusive husbands (and prosecute them for their abuse), receive equal pay for equal work, and in general not spend their entire lives as doormats. If Mroberts has a problem with that, wishes that it had never happened, then as a feminist I would frankly advise him to fuck off.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 7, 2008 2:26 PM
My mom worked outside of the home. She and my dad took over a business and have run it together for the last 24 years (dang, I suddenly feel old!) I was glad that my mom was able to build a career for herself while raising two kids. I never felt that I wanted for anything. An added bonus was that I learned how to cook, do laundry, cut the grass, etc. at a younger age than most of my friends who had stay-at-hom moms. My own wife is a professor. I don't think our four kids lack anything because of her being out of the house...in fact it's a benefit because if she were stay-at-home she would probably drive the kids nuts!
If stay-at-home works for a woman, more power to her. But just because she has ovaries and a uterus is no reason why a wife and/or mom couldn't have a career.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 7, 2008 2:32 PM
Gretchen, sounds like you have a lot more idealism than reality going on there. Feminism destroyed my brother's marriage because it made his wife utterly selfish. Everything was all about HER. It has made life a living hell for a lot of husbands out there as well. I'll prove how pervasive the selfishness of feminism in our culture is with one statement:
Wives, serve your husbands and put his needs before your own.
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 2:44 PM
Pardon? That's supposed to prove the pervasive selfishness of feminists? Either I'm missing some kind of joke, or your thinking is even more backwards than I imagined.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 7, 2008 2:46 PM
No. It's Schlafly's insistence that there isn't a choice in the matter.
Sounds like she was a real selfish bitch and he should have chosen better. Nice people do nice things, assholes are assholes. Being a feminist doesn't preclude you from either persuasion and you blaming it on feminism shows what myopic and sheltered reality you live in.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2008 2:51 PM
>> Pardon? That's supposed to prove the pervasive selfishness of feminists? Either I'm missing some kind of joke, or your thinking is even more backwards than I imagined.
LOL, I thought you would be offended by that. That actually was the point. Statements like that raise the blood pressure of feminists. But I was only giving you HALF of the formula for a good marriage. Wives, serve your husbands and put his needs before your own. ALSO, husbands, serve your wife and put HER needs before your own. My wife and I strive to do that every day, and while our marriage is not perfect, it is a really great relationship. The last thing feminists would ever advocate is for a woman to serve her husband, even though that is crucial to creating a great relationship. NO relationship is healthy where one person is constantly having to serve the other, yet that is exactly the environment feminism creates in marriage. Feminism is SELFISH.
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 2:52 PM
I want to go on the record as saying I have counseled over 70 couples getting married in my time as a pastor. These words have NEVER left my lips once.
I've also never known a divorce situation in which the fault was 100% one person's fault. Divorce is never that simple.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 7, 2008 2:54 PM
Rev BigDumbChimp, you said this:
>>No. It's Schlafly's insistence that there isn't a choice in the matter.
If you believe that, you have no clue what Schlafly advocates. She is NOT saying that women are REQUIRED to stay home and be moms.
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 2:55 PM
No mroberts its her implication that being a feminist means that you can't stay at home and be a mom or that feminists don't. That there is some marching order that goes into your mailbox as soon as you declare your feminism.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2008 2:58 PM
Mroberts: "Wow, you must know the nicest feminists I have ever heard of. LOL. Feminism denigrates traditional motherhood as oppressive, therefore how can you say feminists really are wanting to give women a choice between motherhood and the workplace? Hmmm?"
Actually, I haven't met any feminists who have demanded that women do *anything. By "traditional motherhood" I assume you mean a 20 km hike, gathering fruits and veggies while the husband is off chasing reluctant herbivores with a sharp stick and his buddies? I suspect life was a little more complicated than this archetypical idyllic scene.
Or do you mean the June Cleaver image you had from TV when you were a kid? My mother-in-law was raising three daughters by herself in the 1950s and 60s, because their father left town when he got bored. All are married; one is a dental assistant, one a manager, and my own honey teaches at a prison. We garden together, train in martial arts together, and sent a daughter off to the university, where *her degree will be earned.
I object to Schlafly's being honored, not because her politics disagrees with mine, but because she is an active enemy of reason, science, human rights, and the tolerance necessary for a democratic society to function. She is, as someone said, an anti-humanist. Nor has she accomplished anything that could be misconstrued as academic achievement. Honorary degrees used to be given to a select few who had produced PhD-level work in their fields. Now they seem to be merely happy faces stuck on a celebrity's resume.
You might want to consider getting your ideas about feminism from a source other than Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Kermit | May 7, 2008 3:04 PM
Sure -- if you also add in:
Husbands, serve your wives and put her needs before your own.
Neither side can really do it, of course. But, if both husband and wife use it as a general guide, they're probably going to be more willing to work together and compromise on the "small stuff."
You're not supposed to compromise on the "big stuff."
You're supposed to not get married in the first place if there is some real, real big stuff between you. And I think telling people that they should: marry young, put the male in charge, follow a one-size-fits-all template for marriage, and rely on the fact that "with God all things are possible" so you should expect miraculous changes in basic personality types -- is more likely to spur people to ignore the "big stuff" they shouldn't ignore.
Posted by: Sastra | May 7, 2008 3:05 PM
Love, honor and respect one another is a much better way for our society to look at how marriage should be. Too many men have used the word "obey" and yes, even "serve" as codewords for saying that physical and emotional abuse in a marriage is okay.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 7, 2008 3:05 PM
mroberts:
Well yes, just like statements like "Black people aren't human" tend to raise the blood pressure of any non-racist.
Good for you, I suppose. However, I don't think that being kind and loving to your significant other is a matter of serving them and putting their needs before your own. If two people simultaneously serve each other, then nobody is serving anybody. If two people simultaneously put the other's needs before their own, then nobody's needs are coming before anybody's. It's nonsensical, in my view. You don't need the language of servitude and sacrifice to talk about the very basic give and take that happens when two people love each other-- and what's more, the notion that women should have all of the freedoms that men have in no way threatens the ability to have that kind of relationship. Rather, it affirms it. You can't have true reciprocity if one party is viewed as lesser than the other.
All this proves to me is that we have radically different ideas of what feminism is. If you abhor the term "feminist," yet you believe that women are equal to men politically, should have all of the same rights, and are not prima facie lesser than men in any way, then personally I don't care what you call yourself-- you're a feminist in my eyes. If you don't believe the above, then you've got some prejudices that need to be addressed.
I'm sorry that there are people who call themselves feminists who think that men are lesser than women. I'm sorry that some such people think things that I find abhorrent, such as that stay-at-home moms are weak or stupid. But in my view these are far, far from the majority of feminists, and their loud voices give feminism a bad name. The first feminists were the ones who fought for women to have freedom, and therefore I believe the title properly belongs to them.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 7, 2008 3:09 PM
>> Love, honor and respect one another is a much better way for our society to look at how marriage should be.
Agreed.
>> Too many men have used the word "obey" and yes, even "serve" as codewords for saying that physical and emotional abuse in a marriage is okay.
Sure, there are always those that do that. Christians are often accused of advocating that, which could not be further from the truth. Physical and emotional abuse is never justified no matter who it comes from.
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 3:09 PM
Sastra,
I couldn't agree more with the first half of your post. Yes, you are supposed to make sure BEFOREHAND that you agree on the big stuff before you get married. If you don't you are headed for trouble. However, I disagree with your characterization of Christianity as follows:
>> And I think telling people that they should: marry young, put the male in charge, follow a one-size-fits-all template for marriage, and rely on the fact that "with God all things are possible" so you should expect miraculous changes in basic personality types -- is more likely to spur people to ignore the "big stuff" they shouldn't ignore.
That is not what Christianity preaches. Christianity doesn't say either way whether you should marry young or old. And while it does say that the male is the head of the household, feminists conveniently leave out the texts that also tell the husband to love and serve his wife even to the point of death. It is utterly FALSE that Christianity preaches that husbands are supposed to be dictators in their own homes. That came from feminists, not the Bible. The example given for husbands to follow is that of Christ, and he does not exemplify what feminists often portray about Christians husbands. And no, you are not supposed to ignore the "big stuff". The Bible says be "equally yoked", meaning you AGREE on the big stuff. That is just simple common sense.
Posted by: mroberts | May 7, 2008 3:16 PM
mroberts said:
If it said that the woman is the head of the household, but that she should also love and serve her husband to the point of death, I suppose you wouldn't have problem with that?
Posted by: Gretchen | May 7, 2008 3:22 PM
Sorry, Mr. Roberts, but male headship, complete with female obedience, was the traditional Christian teaching on this issue and continues to be the teaching of conservative CHristian denominations. Loving male headship was the ideal for the man, of course, but dutiful obedience, even when her husband was being an idiot, was the ideal for the woman. Be honest - would you rather be in the position of you or your spouse falling short of the ideal (as you certainly will) if you were the man or the woman? Would you rather be the socially and legally acknowledged head of the family when one of you falls short, or a mere dependent?
All of this is beside the point, anyway. The "Mommy wars" are largely a creation of the media and demagogues. They have nothing to do with the way real people live their lives. Men and women, by and large, continue to make the decisions that they think are best for themselves and their families. Feminism and the associated increased involvement of women in public life and the workplace changed the playing field, but not in the way demagogues like Schlafly claim. Men and women are now freer to come up with arrangements that meet their and their families' unique needs, rather than being constrained by the woman's lack of other attractive options.
Oh, and not for nothing, but the increased involvement of women in the workplace that feminism helped fuel probably prevented a depression in the 70s and is responsible for a great deal of economic growth. So, as a feminist, I can only say - you're welcome.
Posted by: AnneS | May 7, 2008 3:29 PM
Why am I not surprised that mroberts is obviously quite threatened by the very notion of feminism? I don't know anything about your brother's marriage, Mr. Roberts, but if your brother is anything like you in that he considers a strong woman "selfish," then frankly I'm glad his wife was liberated from that marriage.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 7, 2008 3:45 PM
mroberts said:
A logical conclusion can be made absurd by taking it to an imaginary extreme. It's like someone told you chicken is good for you and you try to disprove it by pointing out people can't subsist entirely on chicken. You're adding implications that aren't there and calling it logic. So unless you've redefined logic to mean whatever wild hyperbole you think feels right, then I don't see how you can apply that word to your conclusions.
I find your interpretation of feminism as a man hating, anti-family philosophy that reduces women to paychecks to be way off the mark. Feminism, as others have pointed out, is about equality, about a woman's right to choose her own way. Women have the same right as men to pursue happiness. Some people will see that as selfish, some women will even be selfish. But that is their choice, not a feminist principal.
Oppression of women has been part of our civilization for centuries. Changing that is bound to create some social upheaval. But rather than deal with that transitional chaos you seem to be saying that it's better go back to treating women as second-class citizens. I would prefer to move forward through the growing pains instead.
You label feminism as a disaster. I have to ask what part. Should women lose the right to vote? Maybe it's time for arranged marriages to have a resurgence. And those poor women who can't get a husband get to be teachers or secretaries. How about we restore a husbands right to beat his wife (using a stick no wider than his thumb of course). That'll teach those uppity women their place. What exactly do you want?
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 7, 2008 4:06 PM
Mroberts is an idiot and a troll. Don't feed him; feeding trolls reason just makes them fat and obnoxious. If instead of presenting a rational view of feminism, he would rather demonize feminism and partake of an exaggerated caricature of it, then you are not dealing with an intelligent or thoughtful human.
By the way, I heard that some WashU students had started a facebook page against this honorary doctorate, and it has over a thousand signatures already. Way to go students!:)
Posted by: sabrina | May 7, 2008 4:14 PM
Washington University is actually distinct from University of Washington -- the former is in St. Louis, and the latter is in Seattle. I'm glad for that, as I'd be livid if it were the UW giving her this honorary degree -- it's my grad school alma mater.
Posted by: Davis | May 7, 2008 4:27 PM
They also have a strong environmental studies and science program (Peter Raven the most famous); and they're bringing in someone who is ignorant of evolution and environmental issues (yes is Humane Letters but still what a contrast)
Posted by: szqc | May 7, 2008 4:33 PM
I *HEART* Gretchen!!!1!!one!
Posted by: twincats | May 7, 2008 5:06 PM
As predicted: #1 daughter is mightily pissed off at her alma mater. She's even speculating that Large Donations might have been involved.
Posted by: Coragyps | May 7, 2008 5:12 PM
Anyone else notice how 'conservative' slippery slopes resemble the Ripple of Evil from Lewis Blacks' new show (Root of all Evil)?? Even good parody can't really compete with the breathless demagoguery of the rightwingers.
Funny, but scary.
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | May 7, 2008 5:38 PM
Sorry, totally meant to say Washington University. The one in St. Louis. Typos, am I right? I was there for a year and the people there are not morons.
Posted by: Brandon | May 7, 2008 6:19 PM
Feminism destroyed my brother's marriage because it made his wife utterly selfish.
First, how can a philosophy or movement make someone selfish if she wasn't selfish to begin with? Second, can you really prove that women were never selfish before feminism came along? Third, are you sure your brother's wife's selfishness was the problem, rather than, say, your brother's unwillingness or inability to satisfy his wife's needs?
Everything was all about HER.
And why is that worse than a marriage where everything is all about HIM?
It has made life a living hell for a lot of husbands out there as well.
"Living hell?" That's a pretty dramatic phrase. Care to clarify? "Living hell" as in chronic abuse? Regular beatings for no reason? And if a marriage is a "living hell," the spouse suffering most is -- thanks to those evil feminists -- perfectly free to file for divorce.
LOL, I thought you would be offended by that. That actually was the point. Statements like that raise the blood pressure of feminists.
That's the problem with ignorant right-wingers like you: when your statements are shown to be false, moronic and/or bigoted, you suddenly pretend "the point" was to raise someone's blood pressure, not to tell a truth or advance a rational argument. Sorry, Skippy, but if that's all you want to do, maybe you should go back to arguing with children.
Wives, serve your husbands and put his needs before your own. ALSO, husbands, serve your wife and put HER needs before your own.
Actually, that's exactly what feminists advocate: equal rights, equal obligations, and mutual service and respect.
Feminism is SELFISH.
Not as "selfish" as men who demand their wives "serve" them. If YOu acknowledge that your wife has needs or desires just as legitimate as your own, why is it "selfish" for feminists to point out that women have legitimate needs and desires?
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 7, 2008 6:43 PM
My mother was one of those first feminists who sang "I am a rock" and burnt her bras etc, etc. I was brought up in a house where she and my father shared the duties straight down the middle. Dad was the bread winner, but someone has to earn the money. I was taught that love and mutual respect is the *most* important part of any partnership. That is the word she used: partnership. When two people come together, a partnership is formed. My sister was with her partner for a number of years before they got married, after which the same partnership persisted.
The feminist movement was, as has been pointed out earlier, an effort to elevate the female half of marriage from "wife" (with all those submissive connotations) to "partner", with equal choices available to both parties in the relationship. Of course, one of those choices is for the mum to stay home with the kids.
Drat those selfish lesbo-fem-nazis. Now who is gonna cook my dinner? I can't work the stove!
Posted by: John S | May 7, 2008 8:01 PM
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | May 7, 2008 8:28 PM
Gretchen said:
I agree, and one of the sad things in our current political culture is the way the word feminism has been hijacked. I have many female students who adamantly claim they're not feminists. When I ask if they don't think they deserve the right to vote, the right to equal wages, etc., they (obviously) say of course they think they deserve that. But they think feminism is all about hating men and being Andrea Dworkinish. Fools like mroberts have fallent for that, too. (Yes, mroberts, if you're still lurking, you're a fool.)And as the father of 3 daughters, I hope the USA that mroberts and pschlafly dream of never comes to pass. Those are my kids lives you're trying to control, you fucks, so just back off and let them enjoy their liberty just like we guys do.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 7, 2008 9:24 PM
Sabrina:
Excellent suggestion.
mroberts:
Fuck off, troll.
Posted by: democommie | May 7, 2008 9:54 PM
While having no evidence to dispute the "major donation" theory, my experience in academia leads me to think the answer as to why this nutbag is getting an honorary degree lies more in the university's trustee. More often than not, the year's list of honorary degree recipients reads like a who's who of The Friends of Those In Charge.
Posted by: Steve T | May 7, 2008 10:50 PM
An honorary doctorate in humane letters from a rabid non-humanist. How droll. Sure it isn't an honorary doctorate in satire?
Posted by: Shygetz | May 7, 2008 11:06 PM
If idiot mroberts has a problem with women being able to think for themselves and decide what they want in life for them selves then he should move his sorry ass to Saudi Arabia or Iran or some similar country where they treat their women as garbage which is evidently more to his way of thinking.
Posted by: Ex Partiot | May 8, 2008 1:48 AM
mrronerts - Actually have to tke you task on a couple of other issues:
a) Birth rates have been declining in countries that are not bastions of feminism (such as Japan). This is due to them being richer, having longer life spans and shifting to increasingly urban lifestyles.
b) Crime rate in "western" countries have been consistantly falling over the last century. This is probably to lower rates of poverty, increased and more efficent policing and better education.
So I guess feminism has no effect on birthrates and a positive effect on crime and poverty rates, notwithstanding the increased divorce rate (actually pretty much stable over the past 10 - 20 years).
Bang goes your agrument. Try again. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 8, 2008 2:56 AM
Boy I must be such a simple person.
I think her views of traditions and how those traditions should apply in a modern world are bat-shit and no matter how couched and sugar coated they are authoritarian code for maintain the status quo (conservative) power structure. But that is a distraction and not the issue that drives me to feel outrage about her honorary degree
All my disdain for the above is in essence a social science disagreement.
However the "advocating the dehumanization and oppression of gays" stuff is real bigotry, direct meanness, and dangerous to all freedom loving people. Would she get a humane letters award for ranting "n...ers (or Jews) are inferior subspecies"? Why is not the denigration of gays (and BTW every family somewhere has or had one) not the same affront to humankind?
Note - mrroberts (like any Rovian arguement former) is diverting our attention from real issue because he wants us to focus on the arguable aspects of the sickening garbage she has as an foundation for her rhetoric.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 8, 2008 7:42 AM
I will never forget being in a seminar my freshman year in college, one where we examined the public and private gender roles of men and women (yes, I went to a liberal arts school). One of the assignments was to read a piece by Ms. Dworkin that argued the marriage=forced prostitution proposition. I thought she was a bit much.
The other piece we read for that class was by Ms. Schlafly, who argued women had the real strength in any marriage - even one based on the "male head, female subserviant" model. Why? Because women could just withhold sex to get what they wanted - they could use sex to get new appliances in the kitchen, a car, etc. It was nearly the exact same argument as Ms. Dworkin, but from a positive perspective.
Incidentally, just before I matriculated, Ms. Schlafly spoke on our campus. Apparently her reception was not very warm, and she took specific umbrage at a question of why her own children were in boarding schools while she travelled around the country arguing women should stay home with their kids.
I was raised by a true feminist - a woman who believed she was entirely equal to my father. My Dad, although from a very traditional family, agreed. Ma was better educated, made more money (although all three paying jobs my parents held together - my Dad had two, my Ma one - were necessary to keep us going). They ended up married for 35 years until Ma died. Pretty much shows how a feminist mindset can destroy a marriage, No?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 8, 2008 2:40 PM
I have written to the university administration and told him that neither of my children will be attending his school.
No one who defends rape deserve any sort of award.
Posted by: Hilary | May 9, 2008 1:36 AM
CPT_Doom - I know this is off topic a little, but you've stirred a little rant I'm afraid. My wife is bright, ballsy and fairly merciless when it comes to dealing with idiots of any stripe. She makes three to four times what I do in a year and although she's happy with the idea of having kids, she has no intention of quitting her job to stay home and raise them - I'll have to do that. We couldn't afford her to quit anyway. She's ambitious too, soon to become a partner at one of Scotland's premier financial companies. When we got married she decided not to change her name, partly out of laziness partly because, well, why the fuck should she, although she does now refer to herself as Mrs. She's hopelessly undomesticated, the house is a mess, we clean up only when we get to bomb-site levels of chaos, no-one irons anything and the vacuuming gets done once in a blue moon.
Thing is, she'd never in a million years describe herself as a feminist and nor, really, would I.
Yet for some reason this hopelessy un-wifey girl is possibly the most loyal, kind, loving and sweet-spirited woman I have ever met. She is in every way what that Schlafly woman and mroberts would describe as a selfish, bad wife, and yet she is the most devoted and caring partner imaginable. But I would say that because my Mum was a feminist too.
I know this is irrelevant, really, but I am sick of these snivelling anachronisms claiming to know what makes a good woman or a healthy family. In much the same way that gay marriage is none of their business, it's none of their fucking business how we choose to negotiate our relationship and they can look down on it all they want, but I bet you we'll stay married longer than they will.
Posted by: Matthew | May 9, 2008 5:25 AM
Matthew:
But their marriages will SEEM longer!!
I see where another, anti-gay, family values Reptilican from NY has been caught having an extra-marital affair with a woman (three years, one child) and that list just keeps growing. Can anyone say, "projection", sure you can!
Posted by: democommie | May 9, 2008 7:11 AM
"No one who defends rape deserve any kind of reward".
Amen, Hilary. Amen.
Posted by: daniel rotter | May 11, 2008 5:09 AM