Phyllis Schlafly's Social Policies - Development of Anti-feminist Policies

Development of Anti-feminist Policies

Schlafly’s social policies, especially those towards women, were largely formed during her crucial years as one of the main leaders of the anti-Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") opposition front. Schlafly’s policies were in dispute with those of feminists like Betty Friedan; for instance, Schlafly argued that the ERA was “a direct threat to the protection that mothers and working women enjoyed in American society”.

During the 20th century, including during her anti-ERA campaign, Schlafly was able to spread and implement her policies through her personal activities such as radio broadcasts, interviews on public television, circulation of her monthly newsletter, and organization and mobilization of churches and local communities. These activities “unleashed an intense and seemingly irrepressible culture war” during the volatile 70s and early 80s. During these crucial years, the New Right implemented its policies as “opposition to…the Equal Rights Amendment… used to galvanize a substantial segment of voters, funds, and resources on behalf of right-wing candidates and against candidates associated with liberalism and feminism”.

Schlafly also relied on her Eagle Forum, the “alternative to women’s lib”, to implement her anti-ERA social policies. While Schlafly was working against the ERA, both STOP ERA and the Eagle Forum were held together by “Schlafly’s personal leadership plus their organ of communication, the Phyllis Schlafly Report, which each month presented news and new arguments against ERA, kept a running tally of votes by the states, and advised on campaign strategies and tactics”.

Read more about this topic:  Phyllis Schlafly's Social Policies

Famous quotes containing the words development of, development and/or policies:

    I have an intense personal interest in making the use of American capital in the development of China an instrument for the promotion of the welfare of China, and an increase in her material prosperity without entanglements or creating embarrassment affecting the growth of her independent political power, and the preservation of her territorial integrity.
    William Howard Taft (1857–1930)

    I can see ... only one safe rule for the historian: that he should recognize in the development of human destinies the play of the contingent and the unforeseen.
    —H.A.L. (Herbert Albert Laurens)

    We urgently need a debate about the best ways of supporting families in modern America, without blinders that prevent us from seeing the full extent of dependence and interdependence in American life. As long as we pretend that only poor or abnormal families need outside assistance, we will shortchange poor families, overcompensate rich ones, and fail to come up with effective policies for helping families in the middle.
    Stephanie Coontz (20th century)