|
Phyllis Schlafly's Battle Against the ERA and Women in the Military
by David John Marley Raped American female POW's in Iraq, Kelly Flynn, and the Tail Hook scandal, these are some of the phantoms that haunt any discussion of women's service in the military. The debate has lasted over thirty years coveting a variety of issues in an attempt to reach a final resolution; Those opposed to having women serve in combat are still arguing their case, and the battle is far from over. The history of the issue shows more or less a steady progression of acceptance for women. For most of American history, women served only in the most urgent cases, then recently finding a larger role in a peace time army. It now appears that with women having served in Panama, the Persian Gulf War and the Balkans, the debate is waning, but reality is rarely so simple. There have been some significant obstacles for the acceptance of women in combat. Among these roadblocks one name keeps appearing: Phyllis Schlafly. More than remaining one of the major leaders of the antifeminist movement, she is one of the only leaders of the Christian Right who was able to make a lasting change in the American political landscape. Like Carry Nation and the Prohibitionist movement before her, Schlafly has been able to use a grassroots movement to influence the government at the highest levels. By and large, the leaders of the Christian Right have been against women serving in the military in combat roles. Although opinions varied among the leadership, there is no one who has been consistently opposed to it as Phyllis Schlafly. She is known to most Americans as the woman who helped to kill the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). However, since the day Schlafly held a rally to declare the ERA movement dead in 1981, she has continued to fight the feminist agenda. She is unique in that her rhetoric in the debate about the role of women in combat is different than almost any other leader of the Christian Right. Instead of talking about the biblical role of women, she is a defense hawk who sees the use of women in combat positions as a liberal-led attempt to destroy the American military. While many think her opposition to the ERA was due to her fears of gender role swapping, a close analysis of her works shows that it was a fear of a weakened military more than anything else, that drove her forward. While other Christian Right leaders focus on sexual harassment and rape as the primary reasons for disapproving of women in combat, Schlafly takes a different tack. That is what makes her opinions so unusual and important to understand. While men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, use religious talk and biblical admonitions, Schlafly's more secular reasoning carries more weight outside Evangelical circles. Another significant point is that while her male contemporaries have sought to work within the system as power brokers, Schlafly revels in being an outsider. She has been able to mobilize a grassroots army to defeat the wishes of the National Organization for Women and even American presidents. However, while Robertson and Falwell, sought to have the government pass legislation in their favor, Schlafly could claim victory simply by getting the government not to act. This is a key difference. Who is this woman and why does she matter? While some may have forgotten her past accomplishments, the fact remains that she stands alone among the members of the Christian Right as someone who was able to truly effect American politics. While others talk about prayer in school, ending abortion, and the like, Schlafly was able to not just defeat the ERA, but to push back some of the gains made by the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s. To understand this women gives insight into why it has taken America so long to embrace women warriors. To understand her is to understand the religious conservative opposition to women in combat. Her ideas on women's role in the military range from the quaint to conspiracy laden, but no matter what one thinks of them, they are significant for Schlafly was able to change the face of the nation based on the fire of her beliefs. Who is Phyllis Schlafly? Phyllis Schlafly is first and foremost a modern liberated woman. All that she has been able to accomplish was due to the massive changes in gender roles that have occurred since the Second World War. She was able to take advantage of a world that did not exist for earlier generations of women. However, Schlafly wanted modern women to still act in a Conservative -- Neo-Victorian manner, and she used modern means to get her point across. Born in 1924 in St Louis, Missouri, Schlafly was the first of two girls in the family. It was, ironically, a manpower shortage during the Second World War that gave Schlafly her chance to reach her goals(2). While war raged in Europe and the Pacific, Schlafly worked her way through college at a rifle factory. Her job was to test fire the weapons before they were shipped to the troops. With the money she made, Schlafly used her earnings to attend Washington University in St. Louis. From there she went to Radcliffe College outside of Boston. After quickly finishing her master's degree, she worked for a short time in Washington DC before getting married in 1949 to Fred Schlafly who, as she put it, "rescued me from the life of a working girl."(3) Besides never having to work again, Schlafly was able to pursue her true passion: politics. She ran unsuccessfully for Congress three times. In 1952 she won the Republican nomination for Congress from Illinois twenty fourth district, but she lost in the general election. She later was a member of President Eisenhower's informal "Kitchen Kabinet" serving as the Secretary of the Treasury(4). This would be the closest she would ever get to elected office. After that she ran as a write-in candidate for congress in 1960, and her last attempt was in 1970. Like many recent conservative Christians, Schlafly had to settle for an office a few blocks from the Capitol instead of a seat in Congress. A major factor that differentiates Schlafly from her Christian Right contemporaries is her Catholic faith. While most members of the movement are Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, Schlafly has always been a Catholic. This is an important distinction for several reasons. First of all, unlike her Evangelical and Fundamentalist counterparts, her reasoning is usually based on logic alone, never relying solely on scriptural quotations. This makes her a more challenging opponent than many others in the Christian Right. She does not have to persuade a secular audience by using religious concepts, she has proven adept at arguing on their own turf. Secondly, Catholics are not easy to dismiss as Bible thumping country folk, thereby deflating one of the most popular attacks on most of the Christian Right. There is a long history of politically conservative Catholics. From the anti-Semitic ranting of radio priest Charles Coughlin to the friendly banter of Fulton Sheen, the voice of the American Catholic church has been overwhelmingly conservative on many issues. While Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority was relatively exclusive, the more recent Christian Coalition of the Ralph Reed era had made explicit attempts to reach Catholics. These two groups made religion a primary component, and political philosophy second. On the opposite side was Schlafly who fought her battles by political means and buttressed them with religious arguments. Schlafly was among the first to attempt to bridge the gap between the two groups a full twenty years before Reed. For Schlafly, like many conservatives, it was Barry Goldwater's candidacy in 1964 that inspired and gave her a vision to follow in the political realm. In support of his candidacy, Schlafly wrote her first, and most successful book, A Choice Not an Echo(5). Not only did it espouse many of Schlafly's and Goldwater's ideas, it propelled her political career in ways that she was not able to in a general election. Her career as an author did not stop there. In the mid to late sixties she co-wrote five books with retired Rear Admiral Chester Ward. The theme of all the books was a call for an increase in military spending. While this idea is standard conservative fare, they took it farther. One very consistent element of Schlafly's character through the years has been her hawkish nature. She has even written an article defending nuclear war as an alternative to Soviet domination.(6) In 1964 she was appointed to be the vice president of the National Federation of Republican Women. She was later denied the presidency and the groups' supposed liberal positions caused her to drop out and form her own group later that same year. Originally called Eagles Are Flying it was changed in 1972 to the Eagle Forum, which today remains a influential lobbying group with offices in St. Louis and Washington DC.(7) The Battle Against ERA and Women in Combat Although she had a political career for almost 20 years prior, it was the ERA campaign of the 1970s that made Schlafly a household name. Surprisingly when Schlafly first heard about the amendment, she thought it was a good idea. When she was first asked to debate the ERA with a feminist, she declined, saying that she would rather talk about defense issues. It was not until the organizer of the debate mailed Schlafly information about ERA did she consider taking a stand against it.(8) By the time she began to take notice, it already passed the Congress, and been sent to the states where it was quickly being passed, she realized that she had to act quickly. By looking into what Schlafly believed and what she did, it is possible to more closely examine some of the central concerns about women in the military. Schlafly's concerns about women in combat could be put into four categories. The first area covers motherhood, childbearing and combat readiness. The second is her views on the physical strength of women in performing combat roles. Next is the drafting of women. The fourth is sexual harassment of women, including their treatment as prisoners of war. Schlafly was able to use these four general concerns as a hammer to beat away at the claims of ERA supporters. Whether true or not, they became powerful rhetorical weapons. Once ERA had been defeated, Schlafly used them to attack women in combat, and gender integration of military academies. However in the early seventies, those battles were far in the future, the first order of business was to slay her personal dragon called the Equal Rights Amendment. Like many members of the Christian Right, Schlafly was appalled at how quickly the ERA was passed by the Congress. She realized that the battle for passage would be in the states. It was on this local level that she was able to halt this seemingly unstoppable amendment. One of the first things she was able to do was use the fear of drafted women as a reason to defeat it. This argument played well, especially in southern states, where militarism and masculinity are closely tied together. The history of the Equal Rights Amendment is one of the most interesting in American history. The amendment quickly passed the congress in 1972, then spread like wild fire across the nation. Within a year, 30 states had ratified ERA, close to the two-thirds needed to make it a part of the constitution. It looked like the amendment would not need the standard seven year time limit given it by Congress. The battle was won and lost over the last states. In the six following years only six more states approved ERA, while another five who had approved it, withdrew their support.(9) Some of the states that did not approve it, like Illinois, voted on it every year for seven years. The fifteen states that held out support were located in the South and nearby states.(10) Indiana was the last state to approve the ERA, in January 1977. Why the sudden halt to approval, and then the reversal of states? Many historians point to Schlafly and her "Stop ERA" movement as the reason. While the ERA opposition forces were not invited to speak in Congress, and in many of the early states that approved the measure, they made sure their voices were heard at the state level. The central argument that would be brought up again and again was the fear of drafting women and having women in combat. When ERA was about to meet its time limit, it was given an unprecedented time extension of three more years. Still, not a single state would vote to approve the amendment. In 1982 ERA faded into history, but the legacy remained. Schlafly declared that the defeat of ERA was, "the greatest victory for women's rights since the women's suffrage amendment of 1920."(11) Schlafly was able to create a powerful army that defeated a formerly popular amendment, but now what where they going to do? For a while she pushed the standard conservative movement against immorality in public school textbooks, but quickly went back to her core issue: defense. To this end, her campaign focused on two fronts. She became a voice against the anti-nuclear weapons movement and she attacked the idea of women in combat. Jimmy Carter had been willing to act to put women into combat roles, and even during the conservative 1980s the military was moving in that direction. Attacking women in combat served the dual purpose of fighting a perceived threat and keeping her army, and her power base growing. Now that the history of the battle over ERA has been given, it is possible to study exactly what Schlafly said and did during the campaign. Her attack started off in 1973. The war in Vietnam was still raging, and the draft remained a reality. Schlafly's early success in the anti-ERA movement came when she used the fears of an ERA military drafting young women. While Schlafly claimed that feminist leaders denied the issue, when it came to state approval battles the situation was different. It was at these state meetings that ERA was able to kind of scrutiny that it did not get in the Congress. She was able to use these local confrontations to move her national goals forward. As these battles raged from state capitol to capitol, she kept her faithful fully informed with her Phyllis Schlafly Report. The monthly newsletter featured news, transcripts of the latest testimonies from friends and foes alike. A common place that many scholars have found her thinking is in her 1977 book, The Power of a Positive Woman.(12) This book was her attack on ERA and women's liberation, however the book largely consists of reprints from her Report. These newsletters started in 1971, and in one of her earliest comments on the issue, Schlafly brought to light the admissions of drafting women that her feminist opponents made.(13) Besides the draft, there was one point that she made in 1973 and continues to make; the women agitating for combat roles for women are all over the draft age. She claimed these women pushing for combat were of two types. The first were female military officers who wanted to advance their own careers. The second and more commonly made charge, was that gender integration was a plan by liberal civilian feminists to destroy the United States military.(14) Her beliefs were spelt out in an edition of the Report where she listed her responses to the ten arguments most commonly used by the pro-ERA movement concerning women in the military. They ranged from congressional exemptions for drafting women, the actual percentage of military personnel in combat, and that other nations' use of women in combat.(15) Some of the answers had been used by others, but most were pure Schlafly. She claimed that the ERA would force congress to draft women in equal numbers as men. The issue of physical strength came up with her denial of the modern technological militaries need for smart, not strong soldiers. To this, she pointed to the Vietnam War. The war was still raging and a steady diet of death was being fed to the nation via the nightly news. This gave her comments more weight than they would have in peacetime. It was also during this time that Schlafly began to speak out for the first time on the effect that women would have on military academies. She claimed that reports of how well women were doing in these schools were the result of "the same type of propaganda ... of the pro-lib media combined with the statements of military officers who feel compelled to support a mistaken national policy," in order to avoid being humiliated by politicians.(16) She claimed that the military schools were designed to "produce a highly trained elite corps of officers to lead American troops in battle in defense of our country." And not to give women career opportunities, free travel or college educations.(17) However it was during the post-ERA world that Schlafly would attack this topic with more vigor. In 1979 and again in early 1980, she was asked to appear before a House Armed Services sub-committee on military personnel. This was the first time that she had been invited to the hill since the ERA had first been debated. Schlafly was in rare form as she spoke before assembled Congressmen. Her main concern was the draft and she listed many reasons to not draft women. Her main concern was that feminists saw men and women as "fungible," or interchangeable. She claimed that this violated the "Judeo-Christian culture that which honors and respects women in their roles as wives and mothers."(18) She reminded the congressmen that they had all been in combat and that the purpose of war was to kill. "We don't want our daughters taught to kill," she said. "Women's mission is to participate in the creation of life, not destroying it." Not only was it wrong to send women due to their God given roles, it showed the weakness of men to even think about it. "Have we sunk so low," Schlafly asked, "that men of America are willing to send their daughters and sisters and wives out to fight for them?" According to Schlafly, not only were feminists to blame but other women in "high non-elected positions," also supported drafting women. By this she meant First Lady Rosyln Carter. She later attacked Carter for pressuring senators and state legislators to pass the amendment, even promising to campaign for people who would support the amendment.(19) Schlafly, the life long Republican was more than willing to attack both major political parties and their leaders. In 1974 she demonstrated in front of the White House to protest First Lady Betty Ford's support or ERA. Schlafly spent the bulk of her time before the committee talking about the differences between men and women. Among the statistics she listed were that women had "only 60 percent of the physical strength of men." She also commented that motherhood and fatherhood were very separate things. "Our young women have a right to be feminine," and those rights will not be abandoned as Schlafly put it, "because a handful of women, unhappy with their gender, want to be treated like men." That was why this idea was being debated in the first place, "The only reason we are discussing the idea of draft registration of women," she claimed. "Is because a strident minority of women," had been given too much power. One of her biggest fears was the special role of women in society was being ignored in the face of reality. To bolster her arguments, Schlafly claimed that up to 15 percent of active military women were pregnant at any one time. Another concern was over sexual harassment and exploitation of women. She lamented that seven active military women had recently posed nude in Playboy. This was, however, not all. A Defense Department publication showed salacious pictures of women as well and Schlafly was livid. "To conscript our daughters to titillate their [men's] sexual fantasies is religiously, morally, culturally, and socially intolerable." She ended her statement to the committee by claiming that the nation was threatened by, "groups more interested in social experimentation and appeasing pressure groups than in building a fighting force." And most importantly of all, our enemies were watching. Beside Schlafly at the committee hearing was Mary Lawlor, who represented WAC Veterans for Freedom. As a World War II veteran, Lawlor claimed first hand knowledge of the problems of women in combat. She claimed that "even if we [men and women] were equal, we would still be different." More importantly, she backed up Schlafly's belief that bringing women into the military was not primarily a national defense issue. "I believe the question of women in combat has been raised by feminists who have never served in uniform and never will ... I believe their motives are not to improve national defense, but to satisfy other interests." Lawlor ended her statements to congress by quoting Alexis de Tocqueville on the dangers of gender mixing, "nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women."(20) It was during her attack on ERA that Schlafly realized that the fear of having women drafted was a powerful weapon. While she was able to help kill the amendment by talking about the draft, getting women in combat became an even more important feminist goal and this caused Schlafly concern. In early 1980, she wrote about secret feminist strategy meetings where plans to advance the amendment were laid out. "If they could just get women drafted without ERA, that would deprive the anti-ERAers of their best issue," she warned.(21) Then ERA would be ratified. In August of 1981, Schlafly reported to have unveiled the feminists three part plan. Step one was getting women into combat roles by act of Congress. They wanted women warriors to become a routine occurrence. Secondly, get Congress to reinstate draft registration for men and women. Schlafly claimed that, "the nation would be sweet talked into believing that this was only registration without any intent to draft anyone." The last step was to happen after the 1980 presidential elections. If Carter won, the draft would be started and women would be placed in combat roles. Schlafly feared that the feminists were "misusing the armed services as a vehicle to achieve their feminist and sex-neutral goals. Thereby diverting them from their primary mission of defending America."(22) Schlafly also praised the Supreme Court 6 to 3 decision of Rostker v. Goldberg which constitutionally exempted women from the draft. She called it a victory for "women, families, for morality, for the combat readiness of the armed forces -- and for the Eagle Forum."(23) It was in her article explaining the legal victory that Schlafly finally gives a clear reason as to why she thought the feminists chose the military as a testing ground. Besides their anti-military ideology, Schlafly claimed there were two major reasons why it was so attractive. The first was that the military, "is the area where we traditionally have had sharply defined and different roles for men and women. And (2) it is a compulsory environment." Meaning that if the feminists could get the politicians to order the military to act, they would have no choice, and gender equalization would be a fait accompli without ERA. Most importantly, it would also make Schlafly's complaints about the passage of ERA moot. However, since Schlafly had always been a defense hawk, it should come as no surprise that she feared a liberal attempt to destroy the military more than gender experimentation. The reason this comes as a shock to most people is that she is traditionally thought of as an anti-feminist who wanted women at home, but a closer look at her rhetoric shows that for her, the primary concern about ERA was the effect on the military. One of Schlafly's favorite comments was that the American military was being destroyed by a feminist agenda that was anti-military. The destruction of the military was the ultimate liberal plot. Calling the poor performance of women, "the greatest coverup in 20th century politics," Schlafly sees the movement as a way for older female officers to advance their careers.(24) Not only do most of the people advocating women in combat lack any experience in warfare, they have dishonest motives. It was primarily by using those arguments that Schlafly was able to kill the ERA. She held a large rally to declare the amendment dead, and hoped to move on to other things. While Ronald Reagan was in the White House, Schlafly expected a conservative revolution. Like most members of the Christian Right, Schlafly was disappointed with the Reagan administration. Their main complaint was the social issues like abortion and family values, had taken a back seat to economic concerns. By 1982 the Moral Majority was virtually non-existent and the Christian Right was in decline. In response Schlafly went back to her core issues of defense, and its great threat, women warriors. In an interview given to the conservative journal Human Events in late 1981, Schlafly talked about her post-ERA goals. Her biggest goal was to keep women from being drafted. After that she hoped to protect social security benefits for dependant women. Schlafly claimed ending government assistance to women in traditional roles was a top priority of the feminists.(25) As things turned out, Schlafly remained fairly quiet about the military during the Reagan era. When she came back to the topic, it was to deliver men from the threat of women in military academies. The Post-ERA Campaign Against Women in Combat All through the 1980s Schlafly attacked the idea of women in combat. She took her ideas to the media and attempted to expand her base beyond the members of the Eagle Forum. Since Schlafly was able to use the fears of a feminine army to derail the ERA, it should come as no surprise that she continued to use it well in the 1980s and 1990s. Originally, Schlafly kept to the same arguments that had worked so well for the previous twenty years. As the 1988 election campaign began to gain momentum, Schlafly came back to the limelight to warn of the threat posed from women in combat. She began to write a flurry of articles and op-ed pieces to newspapers. In these articles, Schlafly returned to her most popular themes, the weakening of the military and the dissolution of traditional gender roles. The battle to get women drafted was on. It came to light in the 1991 National Organization of Women (NOW) resolution which stated it succinctly. They admitted that the fear of women in combat had been largely responsible for defeating ERA. "Whereas, with women soldiers playing a more significant role ... than ever before in our military history. [The goal was now] to remove what has been overwhelming obstacle to women's equality and the ERA." The feminist group had admitted the linkage of the draft and the defeat of the ERA. The sub-point of the linkage was women in combat. If women could fight, then there would no longer be any arguments against ERA and it would finally pass. Schlafly could not allow this to happen. Instead of attacking NOW as the source of evil, she took on the high ranking women already serving in the military. "The most selfish, uncaring, mean-spirited people in the country are the female officers who agitate for combat roles, knowing full well that their less educated sisters will bear the brunt of the policy."(26) She then theorized that women may want men to do the dangerous roles while they have the command positions. In September 1989 she attacked what she labeled "The Feminazation of the US military." The academies are being attacked and the military was being degraded. According to Schlafly, equivalent training was dangerous because, "there is no real evidence that technology has reduced the need for physical strength among military men."(27) This was a political contest and the military was losing. Like Vietnam, the military was being forced to fight with a political straight jacket strangling them ever tighter. Another example of this was, as Schlafly pointed out, during the invasion of Panama. This was a historic conflict for it was the first time that a female officer had led American troops into battle. Captain Linda Bray was caught in combat and led her troops into a three hour fire fight with Panamanian soldiers. Schlafly was less than impressed. "Bray's survival of a three hour gunfight does not in the least prove that she could endure a war."(28) She questioned how well she could have survived a three-month tour in the jungles of Vietnam. She ended her editorial by suggesting that the officer that assigned Bray to a combat role should have been court martialed since the Congress outlawed women in combat roles. An example of this was brought up after the Gulf War. When it was eventually revealed that the two female American POW's in Iraq had been raped, it came as no surprise to Schlafly. One of the women reportedly said that the rape incidents were, "an occupational hazard of going to war." Schlafly wrote in a USA Today editorial that she seriously doubts that Female recruits are told that the threat should be considered part of their job. Meanwhile, feminists fight sexual harassment in the military, they are teach women to expect it in combat. Schlafly labeled this, "feminist ideology at its most ridiculous. The U.S. armed forces have met the enemy and she is the feminist double standard."(29) Another favorite point of Schlafly was the example of Russia and Israel using women in combat. "The only two nations that used women in combat in modern times ... have both abandoned the policy because it does not work."(30) According to Schlafly, in Israel, women in combat was a myth. They had fought in the 1948 war of independence, but were quickly moved to clerical roles. She pointed out that while men served in the military for three years, women serve for only two. That was only the most significant of the differences. Why did Israel treat the women so differently than the men? Schlafly offered this explanation. "Israel can't afford the luxury of playing around with social experimentation because it has the constant threat of war hanging over its head."(31) The other nation that had experimented with women in combat, the Soviet Union, also had largely given up with having women serve. For Schlafly this was more ominous, for they were America's Cold War enemy. And if a nation that was pledged to America's destruction had given up on women, why should the United States continue? Schlafly was not afraid to make the connection between weakening the military and left wing politics. Schlafly's attacks were much less successful than her war against the ERA. Now that women were taking larger roles in the military, she turned her attention to the military academies. In the 1980s and early 1990s, military schools, like the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and the Citadel came under attack for their all-male policies. Schlafly came to their defense, and since her big crusade, the draft, was a thing of the past, she used conspiracy theories to make her case. The military run academies were the first to allow women a larger role. The naval academy was first, followed by the Army's West Point. Schlafly feared that if these schools allowed women to train and run things, then the war would move to the state run schools, and the mostly, southern military schools that were still exclusively male. West Point has been the training ground of America's greatest warriors for generations. In the fall of 1989, the academy selected the first woman to lead the cadets. While the school's superintendent denied the woman was chosen due to her gender, Schlafly demurred, "She has this honor," Schlafly wrote, "because he is a wimp who toadies to the feminists who are constantly breathing down his neck and demanding more `career opportunities.'"(32) This led to a major threat, the rule of women and the demoralization of men. "The real reason there is a shortfall of male volunteers is not demographics, it is the feminazation of the military." The Virginia Military Institute is a state funded military college located in Lexington, Virginia. It's students had fought for the Confederates during the Civil War, and had always been exclusively male. In 1990 the federal Justice Department informed the school that it was violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act by barring women. In June of 1991, VMI was taken to court, defended by Virginia's state attorney general. When the suit was thrown out, it was eventually taken to the Supreme Court. The high court decreed in 1996 by a decision of seven to one that barring women was unconstitutional. The first women came to VMI in the fall of 1997. During the years that the board of VMI and the state of Virginia stonewalled the federal government, Schlafly went on the offensive to save the school from women. In June 1996 a day after the Supreme Court ruling, Schlafly published an open letter to the school. Like the "Southern Manifesto" of the Civil Rights Movement, Schlafly urged these warriors to disobey the high courts orders and save VMI. "The massive government lawsuit against VMI wasn't about `ending sex discrimination' ... It was a no-holds barred fight to feminize VMI waged by the radical feminists and their cohorts in the government."(33) She then went on to explain why VMI was such an important issue. "The radical feminists just can't stand it that any institution in America is permitted to train real men to manifest the uniquely masculine attributes. Feminists want to gender-neutralize all men so they can intimidate and control them." Schlafly claimed that the war against VMI was part of feminist strategy to create a androgynous society where they could take control of the government. A key component of the Supreme Court ruling was the fear that by barring women from military academies kept them from successful careers in the military. Schlafly attacked President Clinton and his court appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg for destroying the military. She attacked them, even though the case had originated during the Bush administration. Schlafly wrote, "the lawsuit against VMI has nothing to do with securing opportunities or benefits for women; it only had to do with destroying the masculine integrity of VMI."(34) In an attack on the "feminist Justice Department" or Janet Reno, Schlafly tried to demonstrate the most successful argument against women in combat, the double standard. Schlafly claimed that gender neutrality was the goal, yet Attorney General Reno sued VMI for failing to make adjustments for female cadets' physical differences. This, according to Reno, was discrimination. All of this made Schlafly fear that the liberals, this time specifically the feminists, would liberalize and weaken military academies just as theological liberals had waged war on orthodoxy in seminaries in the 1920s and 1930s. However things were not that bad at VMI. Applications went up 65 percent after the school went coed. There was also an 81 percent increase in letters from high school students requesting more information. The graduating class of 2001 is expected to have 14 women and 330 men.(35) However these figures did not impress Schlafly, who saw VMI as merely the first domino to fall in the destruction of a male centered military. When South Carolina's Citadel allowed women to join, she was still outraged, but resigned to its fate. Other members of the Christian Right have also voiced their concerns, but it has been rare. One such instance was on a 1999 episode of Pat Robertson's daily show the 700 Club. After Christian Broadcasting Network news did a story on having coed basic training, co-host Gordon Robertson, Pat's son, warned of "hormones run wild" and a fear of high pregnancy rates. His female co-host for the day, Lisa Ryan was slightly more positive. Ryan said, "women can serve, but men have a warrior spirit, it is something that God has put into the heart of a man." She then made what must be considered a positive statement when she said, "women can make a substantial contribution, but it [the male-female relationship] must be worked out."(36) During a later 700 Club broadcast the tone was more harsh. After showing a piece on George W. Bush's contention that the American military was unprepared for war. CBN news reporter Paul Strand attacked what he considered "constant relentless social engineering [pushed by] liberals and feminists" The result, according to Strand was "hurting morale and weakening the military forces."(37) The piece was defined to help the Bush campaign and they used the women in the military to help make there points. So once again, military women were used by the Christian Right to serve another purpose. Schlafly could not help but comment on military issues and the politics of women in combat. One favorite whipping boy of the Christian Right has been the media in general but Hollywood in particular. In late 1997, Schlafly again wrote about women in the military, but this time it was about their fictional portrayal. The movie GI Jane starring Demi Moore was a story about the first female Navy Seal. "The movie," Schlafly wrote, "was apparently designed to make Americans believe the myth that women can perform in combat just like men." She enjoyed the fact that the movies villain was a woman senator who enjoys weakening the military for her feminist goals. Using special effects and stunt doubles, the movie was able to make Moore's character more capable than a real women would have been. However it was not the use of trick photography that alarmed Schlafly the most. It was the scene where GI Jane is raped and her male comrades are told not to interfere. She lamented that the military would use "sensitivity training" to make men immune to the suffering of women. Robertson's 700 Club also jumped on the bandwagon against the "Hollywood propaganda machine." The reporter mocked GI Jane, Starship Troopers, and Wing Commander for showing that men and women as equals with men in physical combat. The news report stressed that women were physically weaker, and that basic training standards had been lessened to make room for more women. From wall climbing to hand grenade throwing, women were required to do less than men.(38) Perhaps the issue that has most recently gotten under Schlafly's skin is the scandal involving Kelly Flynn. America's first female B-52 pilot was seen as a model for women in combat roles, and to Schlafly, her fall from grace just proved her point. Flynn was charged with having an affair with an enlisted man and a husband of an enlisted woman. To hear Schlafly tell the story, Flynn wanted to have it both ways. She wanted to work in a male dominated world and follow the same laws, but then explain away her failings as young girlish mistakes. Schlafly mocked the pilots defense that, "I was only 25 years old, I was confused."(39) "Pardon me!" Schlafly ranted, "we have been endlessly told that women in the military could perform just like men ... now we learn that the top female bomber pilot just wanted to be treated like a woman." Schlafly charged that feminists took their revenge on Air Force General Joseph Ralston, finding an infidelity skeleton in his closet, and forcing him to resign and then go easy on officer Flynn. To Schlafly's eyes, the feminist war on the American military was still going on. Conclusions While Schlafly has moved on from military issues as her primary focus, there is another group that has taken over the mantle of defender of the military against women warriors. The Michigan based Center for Military Preparedness (CMP), has taken Schlafly's place. The leader of this organization Elaine Donnelly has even spoken before Congress on the 1998 debates concerning coed basic training. Her efforts have been less successful, and Donnelly has never been able to garner the support or influence that Schlafly has. There are still other troubling signs for those who wish to keep women at home and away from combat. In a study done in 1989, Georgetown professor Clyde Wilcox discovered that Evangelical women were split just about even on the major issues of feminism.(41) He also discovered that even in the early 1980s at the height of the Moral Majority's power, more Evangelical women supported feminist causes than Falwell's crusade. Clearly, Evangelicals are not a solid block, even though this idea is regularly promulgated by both conservative and leaders and the liberal mainstream media. The meaning for support of women in the military is two fold. First it means that although Schlafly was quite successful in the past, now that the genie is out of the bottle, it will not go back quietly. Now that women have fought in Panama, The Gulf War, and Kosovo, the complaint is almost moot. Evangelicals have a long history of continuing to fight battles that appear lost. One need only look at the continued appeal of the pro-life movement to see another example of Evangelical refusal to concede an argument that is apparently already lost. All of these arguments are largely academic until a major war occurs that is more like Vietnam and less like the made for TV feel of the Gulf War. A prolonged conflict, with mounting casualties will be the only real test of women in combat. When this eventuality comes to pass, it will be interesting to see if the Christian Right super patriotism supports these women. To that end, it depends on how the women perform in battle. For although there has been and will continue to be resistance to women in combat, if women prove themselves in a major war, not just a police action, the super patriotic Christian Right could end up being some of their most avid supporters. Phyllis Schlafly has always been a flag waving patriot, and her concerns over the ERA were more complex than her detractors gave her credit for. While she defended the traditional role of women, she was a patriot first and foremost. The fact that she believed that women should not fight was based on her reading of history and physiology, not the Bible. The threat of a war with the Soviet Union fueled her fears more than single parent families. To characterize her solely as an "apple pie America" advocate, belies the deeply held beliefs and her ability to win wars all on her own. Once again her foes underestimation of her gives her greater strength. Endnotes (1.) The author wishes to thank Linda Grant De Pauw and Alexandra Kindell for their assistance with this article. (2.) Carol Felsenthal. The Sweetheart of the Silent Majority: The Biography of Phyllis Shlafly. (New York: Doubleday, 1981), 69. (3.) Felsenthal, 79. (4.) Ibid, 76. (5.) Phyllis Schlafly, A Choice Not An Echo. (Alton, IL: Pete Marquette Press, 1964.) (6.) Phyllis Schlafly, "Our Moral Duty to Build Nuclear Weapons." The Phyllis Schlafly Report. (April, 1972). (7.) William Martin, With God On Our Side. (New York: Broadway Books, 1996). (8.) Felsenthal, 240. (9.) The states that removed their support for ERA were Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota. (10.) The states that never approved ERA were, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. (11.) Peter Carroll, It Seemed Like Nothing Happened. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990), 271. (12.) Schlafly, Phyllis. The Power of a Positive Woman. (New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1977). (13.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, March 1973. (14.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, June 1977. (15.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, March 1973. (16.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, June 1977. (17.) Ibid. (18.) Phyllis Schlafly testimony before House Armed Services Committee, March 5, 1980. (19.) Felsenthal, 245. (20.) Mary Lawlor, Testimony before House Armed Services Committee, March 5, 1980. (21.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, August 1981. (22.) Ibid. (23.) Ibid. (24.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, June 1977 and September 1989. (25.) Human Events, "Schlafly on Women in Combat, Sex Harassment, and Social Security." June 6, 1981. (26.) Phyllis Schlafly, "Women in Military Can't Fill Equal Roles," USA Today, 6 January 1988. (27.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, September 1989. (28.) Phyllis Schlafly, "Enforce the ban on women in combat," USA Today, 3 January 1991. (29.) Phyllis Schlafly, "Keep Women From Combat," USA Today, 2 February 1991. (30.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, September 1989. (31.) Phyllis Schlafly, "Israel's Distaff Regiment," Washington Times, 1 July 1991. (32.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, September 1989. (33.) Phyllis Schlafly, Open Letter to VMI Alumni, 11 June 1996. (34.) Ibid. (35.) VMI The Institute Report, 11 November 1996. (36.) The 700 Club, August 2, 1999. (37.) The 700 Club, September 18, 2000. (38.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, December 1997. (39.) The 700 Club, September 18, 2000. (40.) The Phyllis Schlafly Report, December 1997. (41.) Clyde Wilcox, "Feminism and Anti-feminism Among Evangelical Women," Western Political Quarterly, 42, (March 1989).
|