The population of Hell is incremented by one.
If you express the sentiment in the bizarre garble of your post, you will succeed only in creating confusion. Thank you, come again.
Slate has a good summary of her fight against the ERA.
Has there ever been a thread here about the death of a prominent left-leaning commentator, pundit, or activist, in which the right-leaning board members expressed glee at the passing?
Probably, and people sympathetic to the deceased were free to defend them, as people sympathetic to Schlafly are free to do now.
<Bricker>LIBERAL HYPOCRISY!!!111!!!</Bricker>
It was 35 out of 38, and then a couple of states rescinded, that being a first, and there was some kerfuffle over whether they were allowed to do that.
According to Gloria Steinem, writing back in the early 1990s, Schlafly was very effective, because of a “equal time” rule that existed, which the FCC has rolled back significantly, and which dictated that any time polemic views were aired on TV or radio, time had to be given to opposing views. Pro-ERA views were a dime a dozen, but finding opposing views was difficult in the 1970s and early 80s, so Schlafly stepped up. She opposed any and all comers, mainly on her own dime, to begin with, which is the important part to keep in mind. There was always a Pro opinion to be found locally, but finding a Con often meant trucking in Schlafly, and she absorbed the expense (later, she had lots of donations).
Steinem said that in the early days, when she frequently spoke out in favor of the ERA, TV executives would ask her if she could give them the name of an “anti.” That’s how hard they were to find. Unless you wanted a man-- they could bring in a fundamentalist preacher, or something, but they wanted a woman, who to all appearances was an “everywoman.”
So yeah, if she hadn’t been there to take the “anti” position in every nook and cranny of the US media, it’s likely the ERA would have passed, because the people speaking counter-point to people like Steinem and Robin Morgan, et al, would have had much less credibility.
IIRC, enough total states eventually ratified, with the extension, but the states that rescinded were allowed to do so. If they had not been, it would have passed.
BTW, here’s the entire text of the ERA:
In spite of all the spectres that Schlafly raised, there’s nothing in there about unisex bathrooms.
Yeah, that was one of her big rallying points. She insisted that if the ERA passed, businesses would not be allowed to maintain separate bathrooms for men and women. People were horrified at the thought.
I’m kinda curious what about American society would now be different, had the ERA been ratified. Would there be fathers in a divorce case successfully challenging custody rulings that had by-and-large favoured mothers?
I understand that clean living and a strict regimen of moral hygiene is responsible for her tragically long life.
You left out “asshole.” When a liberal celebrity who is as big an asshole as Phyllis Schlafly dies, I will be delighted, and will express every bit as much glee.
I don’t recall the instance. Do you?
You don’t appear to know what “hypocrisy,” means.
If I were accusing liberals of espousing one behavior and then evincing another, THAT would be an accusation of hypocrisy.
Here, I’m suggesting that liberals (on this board) are simply different than conservatives (on this board). I don’t know of any liberals here who have suggested that it’s wrong to speak ill of the recently deceased. There’s no hypocrisy here, so far as I can see.
But there is a willingness on the part of liberals here to savagely gloat over a dead conservative political figure, and – so far as I recall – no real corresponding willingness on the part of conservatives here.
Is evidence of her assholishness found in her political positions, or in her personality?
In other words, do you contend she’s an asshole because she campaigned against the ERA? Or because you found her personally abrasive and unpleasant?
You don’t recall correctly.
Ratifying an amendment required 38 states.
Hawaii (March 22, 1972)
New Hampshire (March 23, 1972)
Delaware (March 23, 1972)
Iowa (March 24, 1972)
Idaho (March 24, 1972)
Kansas (March 28, 1972)
Nebraska (March 29, 1972)
Texas (March 30, 1972)
Tennessee (April 4, 1972)
Alaska (April 5, 1972)
Rhode Island (April 14, 1972)
New Jersey (April 17, 1972)
Colorado (April 21, 1972)
West Virginia (April 22, 1972)
Wisconsin (April 26, 1972)
New York (May 18, 1972)
Michigan (May 22, 1972)
Maryland (May 26, 1972)
Massachusetts (June 21, 1972)
Kentucky (June 26, 1972)
Pennsylvania (September 27, 1972)
California (November 13, 1972)
Wyoming (January 26, 1973)
South Dakota (February 5, 1973)
Oregon (February 8, 1973)
Minnesota (February 8, 1973)
New Mexico (February 28, 1973)
Vermont (March 1, 1973)
Connecticut (March 15, 1973)
Washington (March 22, 1973)
Maine (January 18, 1974)
Montana (January 25, 1974)
Ohio (February 7, 1974)
North Dakota (March 19, 1975)
Indiana (January 24, 1977)
That’s 35. No other state ratified it, AND five states rescinded: Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota. Even if you argue that a ratification cannot be undone by a state once passed, it remains that only 35 states ever ratified it.
It’s possible. The effect of this would presumably have been that gender-based classifications would be analyzed under strict scrutiny as opposed to the intermediate scrutiny that the Court eventually crafted out of the Equal Protection Clause. From a textual perspective, it certainly should have eviscerated disparate treatment in custody cases.
Are you saying that “right-leaning” is a fair description of Schlafly?
Yes, although I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
Merging two topics together.
No, and I wasn’t planning to research it. Nevertheless, I’m confident in the accuracy of my comment - anyone who thinks it unseemly for posters to celebrate a recent death is free to express their misgivings, no matter the politics of the deceased. If one chooses not to, so be it. That choice has no bearing on whether others can celebrate (or criticize the celebration of) a different death.
Your tactics have long been predictable. I expect jayjay was just cutting to the chase. If by some implausible circumstance you were NOT implying hypocrisy, then your comment is irrelevant, as it had nothing to do with the life of Phyllis Schlafly. Please stay on point in future.
This is your defense? 'Yeah, we’re hypocrites! What of it??’
Has pointing out liberal hypocrisy become so shooting-fish-in-a-barrel-ey that you no longer even bother denying it but choose instead to behave as though anyone who points it out is taking some kind of cheap shot?