Her personality and her extreme religious views, and especially her name-calling. Lots of people opposed the ERA without being assholes, but she was extreme and obnoxious, and she also lied her little ass off. (Unisex bathrooms.)
I HATE it when you guys do that! Now I’ve lost my place.
Her ‘little ass’? I remember when the left was trying to pin that remark on GHW Bush after one of the Geraldine Ferraro debates in an effort to make him sound condescending and sexist toward women (when what he really said was that he’d tried to kick a little [i.e., some] ass that night). Have we done a 180 now, or is this another case of…wait for it…liberal hypocrisy?
But be that as it may, why do you think Schlafly was lying? Couldn’t she have genuinely been concerned about unisex bathrooms? She was worried that women would become subject to conscription into the military and forced into combat too. Lefties of the era were spouting all sorts of nonsense about how women could do anything men could do (including physical labor and if you said otherwise you were a sexist pig), so it was a legitimate concern that among the unforeseen consequences of the ERA would be that women might be drafted and have to fight.
In other words, just because someone doesn’t agree with you about the fallout of a proposed amendment it doesn’t automatically follow that they’re lying.
And what sort of name-calling did she engage in? I’m not saying she didn’t, I’m just not aware of it if she did.
What, no Clemmens?
I’m afraid I will be unable to attend the funeral, but let me say that I approve of it.
We can see the current debate over transgender bathroom use to see that she was right. The left excoriated her for claiming that the ERA would lead to same sex marriage, women being required to register for selective service, and unisex bathrooms. They said that was scare tactics and that the ERA would do none of those things.
However, those things have happened/are happening without an ERA.
Right. (Some) liberals here are prone to express negative views of individuals based on those individuals’ actions, whereas (some) conservatives here are prone to express negative views of entire categories of people, often based on strawmen and cartoonish stereotypes. Definitely a clear difference.
Ironically it’s the right’s opposition to transgender people using certain bathrooms that is likely to drive more widespread implementation of unisex bathrooms, since it “solves” the problem from both sides’ perspective. And SSM did not “follow” from the ERA or women’s rights movement; gay rights was a separate civil rights movement in itself. I’m unaware of the current views on women being required to register for selective service.
My goodness, look at all the people I forgot to put on the list…
Does “asshole” count as name-calling?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure I agree that she was lying.
We now know there is no rational reason for concern about people with different physical genders sharing the same restroom facilities – we correctly point out that restroom use does not involve parading naked crotch shots around and there is simply no supportable reason to object to different birth genders sharing the same restrooms.
What remains, then, is the social desire to separate genders – which is precisely why transgendered people want to use the restroom aligned to the gender that they are living, as opposed to their birth gender; it is a visible, social signal of gender identity.
But that social desire for separation has no factual grounding. What strict factual reason is there to separate facilities for voiding waste between genders, when both are human functions that produce essentially identical waste?
I have no idea how case law would have shaped an ERA. I am confident that in 1972, it would not have resulted in unisex restrooms. But I’m at least open to the strong possibility that now, today, the placement of gender classification in strict as opposed to intermediate scrutiny might indeed result in changes in gender-segregated restrooms.
Yep. 
Perfect! After all, that’s just the way she would have wanted it!
In practical terms, there is little to choose between strict and elevated scrutiny. Assuming there is, in fact, no logical reason to segregate bathroom facilities (to frame the argument in your terms) I don’t see what difference strict scrutiny would make; the government would fail to meet elevated scrutiny anyway.
Well, I see jayjay and Starving Artist are in bipartisan agreement that Bricker was implying an accusation of hypocrisy. Bricker, rebuttal?
I remember when Paul Prudhomme died, and the conservatives here just laughed and laughed. Like to of broke my heart, it did.
Inasmuch as I can actually read, I would point out that Starving Artist did not say I was implying hypocrisy. He said that jayjay’s response was foolish – in other words, that jayjay believed I was implying hypocriscy, and that jayay’s response to that accusation was worthy of ridicule.
He expressed no opinion on whether I did imply hypocrisy.
I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that he is well aware that I did not.
Your case might have been better made had your first words been expressions of condolence and consolation. Rather than seizing on an opportunity to decry liberal hypocrisy.
So your rebuttal is deny the obvious and to mischaracterize Starving Artist’s perfectly clear statement:
I am unsurprised. You potentially owe Starving Artist an apology, or at the very least you might consider restating your original comment so it doesn’t leave him with the (according to you, mistaken) impression that you were “pointing out liberal hypocrisy” with casual “shooting-fish-in-a-barrel-ey” ease.
We know what you were trying to do. I was only curious if you’d admit our assessment was correct. Apparently not.
(bolding mine)
“Now”? :dubious: Just now we know there is no rational reason for concern? You’re saying that rational people then did not know this? Why not? Was it unknowable? If it was unknowable then, how do we know it now?
The problem with having a habit of being holier-than-thou is that it creates an envy problem when describing someone like Schlafly who made a living at being holier-than-thou. Bricker’s a mere amateur compared to her, so maybe this colours his perception of her, leaving him disinclined to say anything nice about her but, hey, he may as well say something negative about liberals.
Just speculating. Truth be told, I don’t care in the least about Schlafly, beyond her being just another stooge of the Religious Right and the faster they repent or die off, the better. Mocking Bricker, though… that amuses me.
I’ve used the same phrase regarding GWB and Donald Trump.
Her mouth was moving. Seriously, guy, are you trying to rehabilitate this monster? Are you trying to make up excuses for her lies? That’s sick and twisted. She damn well knew what the ERA said, and she made up shit about it to scare people. That’s lying, and that’s assholery.
Fair cop; yes it does, and yes, I am a name-caller. When I die, you can gloat that I’ve gone to hell.