I missed that part in the wedding vows, apparently. I didn't realize that getting hitched meant handing over any right to decisions about your own body. Silly me!

If you think that's scary, many of the comments in response to the article are pretty damn ignorant as well.

Again we are left with the question: What is more damaging, the event itself or all those who fall in line believing the crap this woman spews?

Oh, and I was unaware that if I decide to get married, my husband (or wife since I live in Mass!) would get an all-access pass to my vagina! Wow! My god! It's people like this who continue to view marriage as a sexual transaction that makes marriages fail, not those of us who simply want some equal rights! If the fact that I want to have sole ownership of my vagina regardless of my marital status makes me a ball-busting feminist, then let it be so!

I guess the moral is: as long as you are fornicating, you can still say no to sex!

My sister goes to Bates; I will see if we can get her to post a first-hand account.

Um wow.

If you think that's scary, many of the comments in response to the article are pretty damn ignorant as well.

Again we are left with the question: What is more damaging, the event itself or all those who fall in line believing the crap this woman spews?

Oh, and I was unaware that if I decide to get married, my husband (or wife since I live in Mass!) would get an all-access pass to my vagina! Wow! My god! It's people like this who continue to view marriage as a sexual transaction that makes marriages fail, not those of us who simply want some equal rights! If the fact that I want to have sole ownership of my vagina regardless of my marital status makes me a ball-busting feminist, then let it be so!

I guess the moral is: as long as you are fornicating, you can still say no to sex!

My sister goes to Bates; I will see if we can get her to post a first-hand account.

lazy-fat-fat
Just because you go to Harvard doesn't mean you are intelligent. In PS's case, she long ago removed any doubt about which camp she falls into.

And I love how the right wing supports/promotes a woman as a public speaker and political scientist as long as she tells other women that they aren't smart enough to follow in her footsteps. (A la Ann Coulter) The only reason PS is even ALLOWED to speak in public (or wear pants for that matter) is because some silly deluded feminists fought long and hard for that right. It's like standing on the shoulders of giants in order to chop off their heads.

lazy-fat-fat
Just because you go to Harvard doesn't mean you are intelligent. In PS's case, she long ago removed any doubt about which camp she falls into.

And I love how the right wing supports/promotes a woman as a public speaker and political scientist as long as she tells other women that they aren't smart enough to follow in her footsteps. (A la Ann Coulter) The only reason PS is even ALLOWED to speak in public (or wear pants for that matter) is because some silly deluded feminists fought long and hard for that right. It's like standing on the shoulders of giants in order to chop off their heads.

I don't usually use derogatory slang to refer to women, but that cunt really fucking gets on my nerves. More over, her name reminds me of the word "syphilis". In fact, I propose that she only be referred to as "syPhyillis" on this blog henceforth.

Huh. I guess the fact that my vagina will (and should, since I want to be a good little wifey) be open like a 7-11 makes me change my mind about marriage.

"by getting married, the woman has consented to sex." i guess that means that whenever he wants it, he gets it. no matter what. i wonder if that applies to her own marriage.

Having a master's degree doesn't constitute merit as far as I'm concerned - it's what one does with the education and/or intellect that counts. Schafly, Coulter, and many others in the "women should stay home and make babies" camp may have nice degrees (although why they got degrees instead of making babies is beyond me), but many of the things they advocate are truly ignorant (since most of them come from very privileged backgrounds) and hypocritical (since they don't seem to live the life choices they so strongly support). That's why they are undeserving of any level of respect.

P.S. I'd say the same damn thing about anyone who claims that women are obligated to work outside the home, yet choose to stay with their children.

Also, does that mean if I want it, I can demand an erection off my beau?

Hell is a two way street. Just ask the Bible.

Oooh, I'm so tempted to leave a comment there expressing delighted glee at being given Ms. Schlafly's permission to anally rape my husband with a giant dildo. Hey, he consented to sex when he married me!*

*No, I'm not actually married, and I would never condone raping anyone. I'd love to rattle their cages, though.

I have a friend who called the police on her husband after being subjected to his unrelenting advances and taunting. This was in Canada. She wanted to sleep in the guest bedroom by herself, but her husband physically wouldn't leave the guest bedroom, and wouldn't stop badgering her. The police supported her. They told him he had to back off and give her her space.

So the police in Canada are more enlightened than Ms. Schafly. And as a general matter, police aren't known to be a socially progressive bunch.

And my other anecdotal story is a guy friend of mine, whose wife flat out refused sex during their entire marriage. He respected her right to say no to sex. (Married women DO have that right.) But he divorced her. Which is the right result. And the happy ending is that he's happily engaged to a woman who digs him...THAT way.

What would you expect from the woman who opposed domestic violence protection legislation because "it broke up families.?"

I think its reasonable to divorce someone who refuses to have sex with you, but I don't see how anyone can defend forcibly having sex with your wife.

It sounds like something out of the 15th century.

I think its reasonable to divorce someone who refuses to have sex with you, but I don't see how anyone can defend forcibly having sex with your wife.

It sounds like something out of the 15th century.

Steven's on the right track... you've got to understand, when she started her public speaking career in 1649, this was conventional wisdom.

It's a bad marriage when your husband won't accept that you're not in the mood for sex.

Vervain,

The male anus is sacred, much like the sperm, and the Bible says it shall not be penetrated because that's what the vagina is for, silly. (I'm sure it's in there somewhere, look around).

If I were to post there I'd point out that the right wing has to bring out the strawmen arugments of "Women can't be firefighters/police officers/soilders" because of their PHYSICAL inabilities most men can't do those jobs either and it really takes a LOT of physical strength to sit in a cubicle all day, TYPING. Oh yeah. Us little womenzz can't bear the weight of our index finger, let alone another human body [sarcasm/].

And since women aren't physically as strong as men, and that's why we shouldn't be allowed in jobs traditionally held by men, does that mean men, since they can't PHYSICALLY give birth, need to stay out of the abortion rights debate altogether?

It's a bad marriage when your husband won't accept that you're not in the mood for sex. Hopefully, when I'm married it will be to someone who loves me enough to respect my choices- in all aspects

Oh yeah. If this is the kind of tripe the right is pushing to go back to traditional marriage is it any wonder that over half of women are now still single, and a good portion of those women are single and heterosexual? I know this doesn't make me want to jump onto the marriage bandwagon.

testing

if you want to read something REALLY scary, read the comments at the bottom of the original article from the sunjournal. makes my fucking skin crawl.

if you want to read something REALLY scary, read the comments at the bottom of the original article from the sunjournal. makes my fucking skin crawl.

What if I want sex and my husband doesn't? Is he obligated to have sex with me on demand, because he married me, so he's consented carte blanche to sex? So what if he's not in the mood, they have medicine for that now you know, he needs to be doing his husbandly duties.

Not that I'm married, but still, it's just as ridiculous either way you put it. Nasty. I'd rather marry someone who respects my whole self than someone who just expects 24/7 access to poon.

testing

Holy shit. There are still people who listen to Phyllis Schlafly? Didn't the whole "I'm a woman who doesn't want equal rights" thing more or less ruin any claim she had to credibility she ever had? Seriously, this is just bat shit insane. What's next, if you're married it's not murder?

The saddest thing is how widespread this sort of view really is. I've spoken to acquaintances who've described things that are quite clearly rape, and act as if it's simply assholery. Being choked until they "consent" to sex or consenting to one sex act and then being forced to perform another. I never really know what to say.

Holy shit. There are still people who listen to Phyllis Schlafly? Didn't the whole "I'm a woman who doesn't want equal rights" thing more or less ruin any claim she had to credibility she ever had? Seriously, this is just bat shit insane. What's next, if you're married it's not murder?

The saddest thing is how widespread this sort of view really is. I've spoken to acquaintances who've described things that are quite clearly rape, and act as if it's simply assholery. Being choked until they "consent" to sex or consenting to one sex act and then being forced to perform another. I never really know what to say.

Ok, so here's my question: how does this stupid idea play into the nonsense about how if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should just keep her legs shut? Apparently, if you've got a ring on your finger, those legs have to be open 24/7, so can married women get a special dispensation from all those anti-abortion nuts?

Gee, I thought not.

Early feminists (i.e. 19th century) were adamandly opposed to the "marital rape" exception. Sure, it took until the 1980s or so for the law to fully catch up (the fact that you don't consent to sex in every conceivable manner through consent to marriage); I cannot fathom why Mrs. Schlafly is so far behind the times.

Freakin' 19th century pro-life feminists were against marital rape, deeming it the province of women to control their own bodies and fertility. For Christ's sake!

Hey ikkin, I know Schlafly is an astronomically bad person, but let's leave the c-word out of this.

"Last night at Bates College, Phyllis Schlafly gave a lecture titled, "Conservatism vs. Feminism: The Great Debate" where at one point she contended that a woman can't get raped by her husband: 'By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape.'"

"Ok, so here's my question: how does this stupid idea play into the nonsense about how if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should just keep her legs shut?"

The idea seems to be that consent to staying married = consent to constant sex = consent to constantly having more babies.

Do these idiots want only the small minority of people who actually want to raise tons of kids to have sex and the rest of us to stay celibate and support them? Sure, some societies are already like that, but they're societies of ants instead of human beings...

Also, does that mean if I want it, I can demand an erection off my beau?

Hell is a two way street. Just ask the Bible. - ikkin

Actually, I don't think you're that far off. I dunno if this is Talmudic or Biblical, but I seem to remember that women have a right to refuse sex from their husbands (probably Talmudic, because the Bible is fairly backward about viewing rape as a form of stealing whatever man "owns" the victim) -- although, if a woman continually refuses her husband, then it becomes grounds for divorce.

OTOH, the Bible is pretty clear that husbands are obligated to provide, um, "ointment", to their wives -- and you cannot run from a Mitzvah. So an argument can be made that whenever a man's wife demands sex, he has to provide it to her some way or another.

But then again, I don't think Schlafly is even the type to even bother to use the Judeo part of "Judeo-Christian" in describing her so-called moral viewpoint.

But what I really love is the slippery slope potential, here.

If married women have automatically consented to sex, what about common law marriage? Long term relationships? Short term relationships? How about a nice date?

Is the next argument that date rape isn't possible because consent is implied when you accept the date?

Jebus, this woman makes my skin crawl. If she's so devoted to traditional values, why isn't she in a kitchen somewhere, baking us all pies? Why is she doing something so outrageously unladylike as speaking in public?

Mmmm, pie...

Hmmm...
I remember the vow about honoring each other, loving each other, the whole sickness and in health thing, but I don't remember vowing to be sexually available at his beck and call!

how would that go?

I promise to love, honor, and provide free access to my vagina and other body parts for you to do with what you wish...

"I missed that part in the wedding vows, apparently."

I think she's thinking of the Obey part of the vow. She thinks that wives are property of their husbands to be used as the husband sees fit.

She's 100% wrong, but she does have Biblical support for her screwed up world view.

"I missed that part in the wedding vows, apparently."

I think she's thinking of the Obey part of the vow. She thinks that wives are property of their husbands to be used as the husband sees fit.

She's 100% wrong, but she does have Biblical support for her screwed up world view.

What is starting to piss me off about creeps like Shoe-fly, or whatever her name is, is legitamate instatutions give her air. What I mean is why give her a forum to talk to people. It's the spirit of freedom of speach I guess. I can think of a hundred reasonable, conservative thinkers that would not be this ignorant.

I think that our country needs to have a serious conversation about the direction we have been going. Inviting gasoline throwers, like Schafly, Dobson, O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. does not promote elevated discourse on any issue. She is just not reasonable. I say we cut off her air, don't give her a forum, marginalize her to the point of extinction.

What is starting to piss me off about creeps like Shoe-fly, or whatever her name is, is legitamate instatutions give her air. What I mean is why give her a forum to talk to people. It's the spirit of freedom of speach I guess. I can think of a hundred reasonable, conservative thinkers that would not be this ignorant.

I think that our country needs to have a serious conversation about the direction we have been going. Inviting gasoline throwers, like Schafly, Dobson, O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. does not promote elevated discourse on any issue. She is just not reasonable. I say we cut off her air, don't give her a forum, marginalize her to the point of extinction.

What is starting to piss me off about creeps like Shoe-fly, or whatever her name is, is legitimate institutions give her air. What I mean is why give her a forum to talk to people. It's the spirit of freedom of speech I guess. I can think of a hundred reasonable, conservative thinkers that would not be this ignorant.

I think that our country needs to have a serious conversation about the direction we have been going. Inviting gasoline throwers, like Schafly, Dobson, O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. does not promote elevated discourse on any issue. She is just not reasonable. I say we cut off her air, don't give her a forum, and marginalize her to the point of extinction.

lol phyllis schlafly is a walking contradiction. umm isnt it funny how she goes all over the country preaching about how women are weak and fragile and shoud just stay home and squeeze out babies...but she has a succesful political career?
phyllis you just go on back to the kitchen and let your husband take care of it.
yuck.
nothing makes me angrier than women who sell out other women to please men.
i think phyllis schlafly is the only person i have ever hated.

You know, I always pictured Phyllis Schlafly as the inspiriation for "Serena Joy" in A Handmaid's Tale. Anyone else think so, too?

Susan Faludi's "Backlash" from the eighties devotes an entire section to antifeminists like Beverly LaHaye and schaffly who create professional careers built around claiming women should stay home and have babies. It's still worth reading.

Susan Faludi's "Backlash" from the eighties devotes an entire section to antifeminists like Beverly LaHaye and schaffly who create professional careers built around claiming women should stay home and have babies. It's still worth reading.

Oh god --- Phyllis Schlafly is still around? I thought surely her batteries would have run down by now.

Hi there, my trackback didn't take, but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus by sharing my post entitled
"Phyllis Schlafly's View of Marriage is Identical to Dworkin's and MacKinnon's"
below:

http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2007/03/phyllis_schlafl.html

Whoa, look at this comment:

"The fear of admiting that woamn are not phyically or mentally able to do what men do? We give birth. Is that enough control.. I think so."

Look at all the spelling and grammar errors plaguing that well-reasoned comment? I'm appalled that great potential was wasted by such carelessness.

Whoa, look at this comment:

"The fear of admiting that woamn are not phyically or mentally able to do what men do? We give birth. Is that enough control.. I think so."

Look at all the spelling and grammar errors plaguing that well-reasoned comment? I'm appalled that great potential was wasted by such carelessness.

Whoa, look at this comment:

"The fear of admiting that woamn are not phyically or mentally able to do what men do? We give birth. Is that enough control.. I think so."

Look at all the spelling and grammar errors plaguing that well-reasoned comment? I'm appalled that great potential was wasted by such carelessness.

Whoa, look at this comment:

"The fear of admiting that woamn are not phyically or mentally able to do what men do? We give birth. Is that enough control.. I think so."

Look at all the spelling and grammar errors plaguing that well-reasoned comment? I'm appalled that great potential was wasted by such carelessness.

Whoa... Look at it three times. Shit, sorry.

grrrrrr

First of all, she's still alive? Secondly, does she not know the definition of rape? It's non-cosenual sex. It doesn't matter if its your sleazebag husband that is doing it or a stranger.

Marriage does not equal an all access pass to Vaginaland, thanks.

Imagine this as a vow, "Do you, lovely bride, promise to allow your husband to bang you anytime he wishes?"

Appropriate response, "I don't."

First of all, she's still alive? Secondly, does she not know the definition of rape? It's non-cosenual sex. It doesn't matter if its your sleazebag husband that is doing it or a stranger.

Marriage does not equal an all access pass to Vaginaland, thanks.

Imagine this as a vow, "Do you, lovely bride, promise to allow your husband to bang you anytime he wishes?"

Appropriate response, "I don't."

Happy - I haven't even clicked on your link yet, but damn, that is a good title.

So glad you are back!

Happy - I haven't even clicked on your link yet, but damn, that is a good title.

So glad you are back!

Happy Feminist,

It's not actually true that Schlafly and Dworkin and MacKinnon share the same views on marriage. That fact aside even, I can't tell whether you meant to say that Schlafly agrees with feminism and just doesn't realize it, or that MacKinnon and Dworkin agree with anti-feminists and just don't realize it. It's hard for me to know how I feel about your post (on your site) as a result. You quote the writing of a decidedly anti-feminist yahoo, Ruth Malhotra, and *her* quote of Dworkin and MacKinnon, rather than any text by either writer herself. Side note - Malhotra can go fuck herself. Back to topic at hand - you do raise an interesting point at the end of the post on your site, about Schlafly's argument having a potentially discouraging effect on people who might otherwise think marriage was a swell idea. However, I think it's safe to say that most women who get married are not marrying men who they think will later say to themselves "Hey, Schlafly and even the laws in 30 states still grant me some exemptions from consequences for raping my wife, so here comes some rape babydoll!"

Happy Feminist,

It's not actually true that Schlafly and Dworkin and MacKinnon share the same views on marriage. That fact aside even, I can't tell whether you meant to say that Schlafly agrees with feminism and just doesn't realize it, or that MacKinnon and Dworkin agree with anti-feminists and just don't realize it. It's hard for me to know how I feel about your post (on your site) as a result. You quote the writing of a decidedly anti-feminist yahoo, Ruth Malhotra, and *her* quote of Dworkin and MacKinnon, rather than any text by either writer herself. Side note - Malhotra can go fuck herself. Back to topic at hand - you do raise an interesting point at the end of the post on your site, about Schlafly's argument having a potentially discouraging effect on people who might otherwise think marriage was a swell idea. However, I think it's safe to say that most women who get married are not marrying men who they think will later say to themselves "Hey, Schlafly and even the laws in 30 states still grant me some exemptions from consequences for raping my wife, so here comes some rape babydoll!"

Crap! I fell for the double posting thing. Sorry about that.

the world according to schafly:

consenting to sex = consenting to rape

wow.

Hi Joan,

My post shouldn't be taken too literally. I don't know enough about Dworkin or MacKinnon to say whether the quotations that anti-feminist use against them accurately reflect their beliefs or instead are quoted out of context. My real point is that Schlafly seems to be in agreement with Dworkin and MacKinnon as they are presented in right-wing literature! I find that irony irresistible!

Dworkin and MacKinnon are presented as believing that marriage is oppressive and dangerous for women. Schlafly in turn believes that a woman has or should have no recourse if her husband forces sex on her against her will. That seems to support the notion that marriage IS indeed oppressive and dangerous for women, just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said!

And when you consider marriage as it was traditionally practiced before various modern reforms, it was undoubtedly oppressive and dangerous just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said. Women had few viable options for competing effectively as wage earners in their own right and so they essentially HAD to get married in order to gain male financial support. Also, if a woman wanted to have children, she HAD to get married because unwed mothers were shamed and ostracized. Yet, marriage (which was essentially a prerequisite to financial stability and motherhood) meant giving ownership of one's vagina to a man who could legally force the woman to have sex against her will. Yep -- it sounds like a pretty oppressive institution to me, being forced into a situation in which one's must give up one's right to bodily sovereignty.

Fortunately, marriage has improved significantly over the years, now that women have more resources if they choose not to marry, no-fault divorce laws permit women to get out of unsavory situations, and women can call the cops if hubby forces sex.

Hi Joan,

My post shouldn't be taken too literally. I don't know enough about Dworkin or MacKinnon to say whether the quotations that anti-feminist use against them accurately reflect their beliefs or instead are quoted out of context. My real point is that Schlafly seems to be in agreement with Dworkin and MacKinnon as they are presented in right-wing literature! I find that irony irresistible!

Dworkin and MacKinnon are presented as believing that marriage is oppressive and dangerous for women. Schlafly in turn believes that a woman has or should have no recourse if her husband forces sex on her against her will. That seems to support the notion that marriage IS indeed oppressive and dangerous for women, just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said!

And when you consider marriage as it was traditionally practiced before various modern reforms, it was undoubtedly oppressive and dangerous just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said. Women had few viable options for competing effectively as wage earners in their own right and so they essentially HAD to get married in order to gain male financial support. Also, if a woman wanted to have children, she HAD to get married because unwed mothers were shamed and ostracized. Yet, marriage (which was essentially a prerequisite to financial stability and motherhood) meant giving ownership of one's vagina to a man who could legally force the woman to have sex against her will. Yep -- it sounds like a pretty oppressive institution to me, being forced into a situation in which one's must give up one's right to bodily sovereignty.

Fortunately, marriage has improved significantly over the years, now that women have more resources if they choose not to marry, no-fault divorce laws permit women to get out of unsavory situations, and women can call the cops if hubby forces sex.

Hi Joan,

My post shouldn't be taken too literally. I don't know enough about Dworkin or MacKinnon to say whether the quotations that anti-feminist use against them accurately reflect their beliefs or instead are quoted out of context. My real point is that Schlafly seems to be in agreement with Dworkin and MacKinnon as they are presented in right-wing literature! I find that irony irresistible!

Dworkin and MacKinnon are presented as believing that marriage is oppressive and dangerous for women. Schlafly in turn believes that a woman has or should have no recourse if her husband forces sex on her against her will. That seems to support the notion that marriage IS indeed oppressive and dangerous for women, just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said!

And when you consider marriage as it was traditionally practiced before various modern reforms, it was undoubtedly oppressive and dangerous just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said. Women had few viable options for competing effectively as wage earners in their own right and so they essentially HAD to get married in order to gain male financial support. Also, if a woman wanted to have children, she HAD to get married because unwed mothers were shamed and ostracized. Yet, marriage (which was essentially a prerequisite to financial stability and motherhood) meant giving ownership of one's vagina to a man who could legally force the woman to have sex against her will. Yep -- it sounds like a pretty oppressive institution to me, being forced into a situation in which one's must give up one's right to bodily sovereignty.

Fortunately, marriage has improved significantly over the years, now that women have more resources if they choose not to marry, no-fault divorce laws permit women to get out of unsavory situations, and women can call the cops if hubby forces sex.

Hi Joan,

My post shouldn't be taken too literally. I don't know enough about Dworkin or MacKinnon to say whether the quotations that anti-feminist use against them accurately reflect their beliefs or instead are quoted out of context. My real point is that Schlafly seems to be in agreement with Dworkin and MacKinnon as they are presented in right-wing literature! I find that irony irresistible!

Dworkin and MacKinnon are presented as believing that marriage is oppressive and dangerous for women. Schlafly in turn believes that a woman has or should have no recourse if her husband forces sex on her against her will. That seems to support the notion that marriage IS indeed oppressive and dangerous for women, just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said!

And when you consider marriage as it was traditionally practiced before various modern reforms, it was undoubtedly oppressive and dangerous just as Dworkin and MacKinnon said. Women had few viable options for competing effectively as wage earners in their own right and so they essentially HAD to get married in order to gain male financial support. Also, if a woman wanted to have children, she HAD to get married because unwed mothers were shamed and ostracized. Yet, marriage (which was essentially a prerequisite to financial stability and motherhood) meant giving ownership of one's vagina to a man who could legally force the woman to have sex against her will. Yep -- it sounds like a pretty oppressive institution to me, being forced into a situation in which one's must give up one's right to bodily sovereignty.

Fortunately, marriage has improved significantly over the years, now that women have more resources if they choose not to marry, no-fault divorce laws permit women to get out of unsavory situations, and women can call the cops if hubby forces sex.

Oops, I think a lot of us are double and triple posting because we keep getting a message saying there is a server error that would not allow our comments through. That's what happened to me!

Oops, I think a lot of us are double, triple and quadruple posting because we keep getting messages saying that there is an internal server message that won't allow the post through. At least that's what happened to me!

Re: wedding vows, mine did not include the word "obey" but we did promise to "honor you with my body." That line was the subject of much discussion in premarital counseling (which I highly recommend for anyone making a long-term commitment to a cohabiting relationship!), but if we hadn't talked about it it could be twisted to say "sex on demand."

We talked about how yes, it means sex and maybe making compromises when our sex drives don't mesh; but it also means respecting each others' body autonomy, taking care of our own bodies as a commitment to be healthy and therefore hopefully alive and together for a long time, etc. In the end, I really liked including it.

I don't understand why my comment was deleted. For those of you who didn't see it, the gist was that it seems to me that a Masters Degree from Harvard (Political Science) only carries merit when you have a liberal opinion.

And this is something that no one has proven wrong. A conservative politician or pundit could have the same exact degree as a liberal, but clearly the conservative doesn't have "any merit", and is called stupid or ignorant.

I think the problem is that a difference in opinion is being called the wrong opinion, which is pretty closed minded if you ask me.

And as far as I've heard (please let me know if you've heard them say otherwise), neither this woman nor Coulter has ever said that a woman shouldn't be allowed to do what they do (speak in public as an authority).

i did not delete your note, nor i have spoken with the moderator who did. i can, however, make an educated guess:

in the context of this post, arguing that this woman should be taken seriously heavily implies that she is CORRECT in asserting that marital rape does not exist, and that if it does, that it should be condoned. and i imagine that comments on this blog that encourage/excuse rape would in fact be deleted. i was personally offended and agree with the decision. the end.

A conservative politician or pundit could have the same exact degree as a liberal, but clearly the conservative doesn't have "any merit", and is called stupid or ignorant. I think the problem is that a difference in opinion is being called the wrong opinion, which is pretty closed minded if you ask me.

All right, lazyfat-fat. Let's get down to brass tacks. The position Schlafly is espousing here is that women have no right to refuse to have sex with their husbands. Are you arguing that this opinion has merit?

Such a statement is not merely a "difference of opinion"; it cuts straight to the heart of women's human rights. Are we property owned by our husbands?

So tell me, why would you think feminists would be "open-minded" about such drivel? Not all opinions are worth keeping an open mind about. Rape is unacceptable. Slavery is unacceptable. Pummeling small children is unacceptable. If Schlafly started arguing in favor of slavery, would you be claiming that we have to take her seriously because she has a Masters' degree?

The fact that she is espousing an understanding of rape that makes women into property is why people here think that she shouldn't be taken seriously. If you want to argue that she should be, you're claiming that her position has merit.

it's coulter's and schafly's arguments not the fact they have ivy league degrees. after all, bush went to harvard and yale.

lazy fat-fat, do you agree the following are not feminist positions?

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." (Comedy Central; Politically Incorrect; February 26, 2001)

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." (May 17, 2003)

"I think the other point that no one is making about the [Abu Ghraib] abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation. I mean, this is lesson, you know, number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious." (Fox News; Hannity & Colmes; May 5, 2004)

ann coulter made those statements and a million more inane ones over the course of her career. it's not her degrees that matter but her idiotic statements.

To have people alive still that believe this makes me sick to my core. I think that she is deplorable person. When did “I Do� negate “NO�? Shame on YOU!!! By making this comment you are supporting rape, and you claim to have family values? When did being raped by your husband and having children witness or know that their father raped their mother is having family values? Well, I guess even highly educated people still can make brainless comments that have invalid conclusions.

To have people alive still that believe this makes me sick to my core. I think that she is deplorable person. When did “I Do� negate “NO�? Shame on YOU!!! By making this comment you are supporting rape, and you claim to have family values? When did being raped by your husband and having children witness or know that their father raped their mother is having family values? Well, I guess even highly educated people still can make brainless comments that have invalid conclusions.

you guys are amazing.. that Mrs. Syphilis or whatever is a total idiot and should be slapped. I'm doing a project at college on feminist literature and found this site.. its so great!