PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY'S VIEW OF MARRIAGE IS IDENTICAL TO DWORKIN'S AND MACKINNON'S

Conservative anti-feminists and supporters of Phyllis Schlafly frequently attempt to evoke a horror of modern feminism by quoting radical feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon regarding the nature of traditional marriage, as in this paragraph from  Ruth Malhotra's column at the Young American's Foundation:

. . . Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution. In Feminism: An Agenda, radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin declared that the home was a dangerous place stating, “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.” In Feminism Unmodified, feminist law professor Catharine MacKinnon states, “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.” Not only are such statements absurd, but illogical, bizarre, and downright ridiculous. These “pearls of wisdom” were uttered by the leaders of the modern-day feminist movement . . .

But Phyllis Schlafly, icon of American anti-feminism, agrees with Dworkin and MacKinnon.  Consider the following from a story about Shclafley's recent speech at Bates College:

At one point, Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.

“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,” she said.

I have heard Schlafly express this sentiment before.  She honestly believes that a married woman has no right to say "no" to sex from her husband.  Schlafly believes that a woman gives a man ownership of her body the moment she utters her marriage vows.  Schlafly believes that a man has a right throw his wife down and physically force her to have sex, regardless of whether she is ill, in pain, in the middle of doing something else, in mourning, or just plain doesn't feel like it for whatever reason. 

The only area where Schlafly's view of marriage appears to differ from that of Dworkin and MacKinnon is that Schlafly considers a woman's loss of rights over her own body within marriage to be a good thing. 

What she may not be counting on is that her view of marriage provides a strong, almost impossible to counter disincentive for women to give up single status. (Who in her right mind other than Schlafly would give someone permission to force sex on her at any time for the rest of her life?) Fortunately, thanks to feminism, marital rape is now a crime throughout the United States (and I assume in most industrialized countries), thus saving marriage from total extinction. 

Hat tip: Feministing and Pandagon

Comments

[Emily]

I think this point of view is tied to the idea that a woman coudln't possibly actually want to have sex; it is just a chore to be put up with. If women never want sex, and in getting married you are surely agreeing to have sex sometimes, then you are necessarily agreeing to have sex when you don't want to. It's a short step from there to "there's no such thing as marital rape."

[Mary]

Actually, as a Christian I can tell you there are many branches of Evangelical Christianity that teach women's bodies "are not their own" and that means when your husband has the urge as a good Christian wife you will see to your husbands needs and not be so "selfish" as to not put his needs over anything you happen to be feeling at the time. Fortunately, my Christian husband takes his role seriously in loving me as Christ loved the church and is considerate of my feelings in all matters. There is a huge emphasis in Evangelical circles right now for women to be "Biblical Women" unfortunately it's creating these monster men who think they have the right to dictate what their woman wears, thinks, and does in every aspect.

[Zan]

I actually just heard about Schlafly for the first time a few weeks ago. Yes, I've been living under a rock. I think it is wrong for a woman to say no to sex to her husband, BUT it is equally wrong and sinful for a man to force sex on his wife. When I am sick or not in the mood, my husband would NEVER force himself on me. Good grief. The man who does this is the ultimate creep. I would have to read the context of Schlafly's statement before I comment on it. I have met extreme Christians who abuse their wives and those men are NOT Christians and blaspheme God. If the husband is not loving his wife as Christ loved the church and the woman is not submitting in love than the marriage is not the beautiful thing God intended it to be. I think extremist Christians forget that we live in a fallen world and sin can ruin a lot of things that God meant for good. This sin could be abusive husbands.

One of my favorite preachers, Al Martin, preached strongly against men who used and abused their wives like, "house harlots." He practically told men like that, that they were not saved and going to hell faster than the street walker on the corner. (He was a very firey preacher ;-))

I hope you don't confuse all Christians with the extreme ones. Sometimes, the real Christians are the ones who live quietly and keep to their own affairs. That is something I have learned over the years.

[Zan]

Exactly, Mary! You must have posted the same time as me. I do worry about the lack of more Biblical Manhood. The thing I worry about is that the men who ARE the biblical men are not the ones with the podiums. Personally, I have seen more abusive men in the ultra conservative circles I have been in than unsubmissive women. We need more Al Martins to call these men on it.

[arielladrake]

Zan, I'm genuinely curious here, you say "I think it is wrong for a woman to say no to sex to her husband, BUT it is equally wrong and sinful for a man to force sex on his wife."
Are you referring to a woman who refuses to have sex with her husband at all? Because otherwise, I'm confused as to how telling your husband you're not in the mood isn't effectively saying no to him. I'm also confused as to how you determine that saying no to one's husband is on equal terms with marital rape.

[The Happy Feminist]

I agree that partners in a marriage have an obligation to try to please each other sexually. That doesn't necessarily mean hopping to whenever your spouse is in the mood, even if you aren't. It means trying in good faith to make sure that your spouse's needs are being met over time. It also means respecting your spouse when he or she does not want to have sex or wants to go for a period without sex. It's a mutual moral obligation for both parties to work together on this aspect of their lives in good faith. It's not something either party or the State can or should enforce.

The injection of force into the equation is another matter altogether. That is the issue here.

[The Happy Feminist]

I also second Arielladrake's position that neglecting a spouse's sexual needs is NOT morally equivalent to forcing sex on someone.

[Zan]

I didn't mean that saying no was on equal term with marital rape, but I do think there are some jerky women out there who use sex to control their husbands. That is very sinful. Saying no because you are ill or sick is not the same as marital rape, but I think that toying with your husband because you want to be controlling is bad. The whole thing about it being "equal" with rape is tricky. I believe all sin is equal in God's eyes. In the eyes of man's law rape is much worse than a controlling emotionally abusive woman. Men who commit violent crimes are highest on my list of people to dislike. So, if your husband has a brain and loves his wife he will see that when she is sick or not in the mood that he won't force the issue. Without going into personal detail, my husband will not engage in relations with me unless I am up for it. I think there is a huge problem with women saying no for their own selfish reasons or using sex as a weapon to get their own way. This is the "no" I am talking about. Sorry I wasn't clear.

[Mary]

Zan, I think we're saying the same thing but this comment came across to me differently:

"I think it is wrong for a woman to say no to sex to her husband,"

The only time I think it would be wrong for a woman to say no is if she's being manipulative or withholding purposely for long periods of time. I think this would indicate some sort of emotional issues or even physical issues. I think it's true of any marriage Christian or not that some times the husbands and wives are out of sync and when both partners are loving their spouses there has to be some give and take. Christian marriages when they are truly Biblical are actually more egalitarian than most nonChristians recognize. I think this is because Evangelicals focus so much on women's role and not so much on men's. As a mother it's my responsibility to raise my sons and daughter to know what's Biblical and what is simply man's distortion of the Bible regarding the roles of men and women in marriage. Women are not mere doormats placed on earth to serve some mans every little whim.

[Mary]

"The injection of force into the equation is another matter altogether. That is the issue here."

Sorry, for wandering off on a rabbitt trail. Not sure if I made the point that their are some Evangelical marriages where men believe that if they get the itch their women are to drop everything and hop to. Not physical force but a mental force? Can't think of how I want to say that. To me if a man "made" me have sex because he just wants it and I really really didn't feel good or was just overwhelmed or whatever, but if he used his "biblical authority" in marriage -- that is just as bad to me as if he physically forced himself on me. Now I have a stronger will than that, but unfortunately I've know Christian women who were brainwashed into thinking however and whenever their man wanted it they were to hop to and they absolutely came to hate that aspect of marriage because of that attitude.

[The Happy Feminist]

I can't speak for other people's religious beliefs, but certainly in terms of what our secular right should be, it's very simple:

I do not have the right to invade someone's body against his or her will for my own sexual gratification. I do have the right not to have someone invade my body against my will for his or her own sexual gratification.

As far as women using withholding sex to manipulate men, I have a couple of observations: (1) I bet a lot of men perceive that as the woman's motivation even when that is not the case; and (2) Don't forget that women are (morally) entitled to sex within marriage as much as men are. The Jewish tradition actually places the obligation on the HUSBAND to ensure that his wife is satisfied by having sex with her a certain number of times per week. And don't forget the plight of poor Mrs. Roper in "Three's Company," whose husband never had sex with her to never ending disappointment.

[The Happy Feminist]

Sorry, Mary, that last comment of mine wasn't in response to you at 10:43. I think you are right on when you say:

To me if a man "made" me have sex because he just wants it and I really really didn't feel good or was just overwhelmed or whatever, but if he used his "biblical authority" in marriage -- that is just as bad to me as if he physically forced himself on me.

I agree. I can't imagine going through something like that. Mental or psychological coercion is not illegal, however (and I am not sure how we could make it such), except for very specific cases like blackmail.

[Zan]

Ya, Mary. I hope I clarified myself, better in the third comment. I often say things I don't mean. ;-)

In the Christian faith a man is supposed to love his wife as his own body and pressuring sex on her when she is not feeling up to it is wrong. I say no when I'm menstrating, but I usually don't have to say anything because my husband "just knows." I think a lot of evangelicals forget that the Christian man is supposed to be incontrol of himself. Just because he is married, it doesn't mean that he should lose all control of his sexual urges.What about when you are post-partum. You are supposed to refrain from intercourse for 6 weeks. Husbands should have control and common sense in this area. I guess I didn't realize this until I met my husband who is not from the extreme Christian circles.

[Zan]

I completely agree with you, Happy, about women being satisfied in the marriage bed. If a husband truly loves his wife, he will try to the best of his ability to do this.

[Mary]

Happy, I agree with your observations. Sorry if I'm wandering in this thread, but another point about women being forced into their so-called Biblical role is that the women are told by their culture that if they say no to their husband no matter the reason that they are using sex to somehow manipulate men. For these women any time they don't "meet their husbands needs" they're taught that they are being purely selfish and manipulative. I'm making general observations that are not true of all Christian marriages (Zan and me) but it seems to be an increasing trend that women are taught to submit every aspect of their body, mind, and soul to men who are not being taught to love their wives in a Christ-like manner.

[Mary]

No prob Zan!

[Zan]

I do know women who use sex as a tool to keep their husband in submission. I have some friends who brag and joke about it. This is not cool! Men use sex to express love, more so than women, and that must be so humiliating for a husband. I guess I never thought about the popular idea going around that saying 'no' at anytime is manipulative. What should Christian women do, Mary, who are in these kind of extreme situations?

[Mary]

Zan, I've sent you an email. I didn't want to wander off the topic more than I already had. I would however be happy to to share my answers to your question, What should Christian women do who are in these kind of extreme situations, to anyone interested.

[K.A.]

There is still such a burden placed on women when it comes to being seen as deserving objects of sexual abuse. Whether it be a contract of marriage used as a means of justification for rape or positing that how she dresses in public could be an open invitation, there still seems to be this notion of excusability on the man's part if a woman doesn't play by society's archaic rules. That's why women aren't afforded the same outrage in response to sexual assaults as, say, a child would be afforded.

I left a response on the Amazon message board for The Secret, as I was trying to point out its utter stupidity. I came across a topic explaining how the guy promoting the book implied that a child being attacked by a pedophile was somehow attracting it, according to the laws of The Secret! What struck me was not just how horrific and stupid this was, but that the person who posted the thread had to emphatically point out in the subject line that the Jessica Lunsford in question was not a woman, but a CHILD! As if the outrage wouldn't be potent enough had she been a grown woman who may, indeed, have put out rape-vibes. The responses to my observation about society at large as embodied in that one statement were off-the-wall frightening, to say the least. And the craziest ones were from a WOMAN. There are still women who believe that other women who break certain social "rules" are somehow more deserving of a sexual assault than other targets of prey.

Check out the message board on the bottom of The Secret's Amazon page. You really have to see this lady's response to believe it.

[The Happy Feminist]

Of course, those who believe that marital rape shouldn't be a crime are saying it is okay to force sex on a woman who IS following all the rules (or perhaps they are saying she is not following the rules because she shouldn't be saying no to sex). In any case, it seems that forced sex is a woman's justifiable lot if she asserts herself in any way, such as going out by herself or making her wishes known within her marriage.

[K.A.]

Oh, apparently enough people blind to sexism voted the comment down so that it doesn't automatically show up...it has to manually be expanded and viewed.

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

Noting on Mary's first comment where some religious circles use Paul to justify their view of marriage with "the woman does not belong to herself but to her husband" quote. They never finish that verse; the rest of the verse says "just as a man does not belong to himself but to his wife" (See 2 Corinthians 7:3-4). One again reiterating that true biblical marriage is between equals who are submitting to each other out of love and respect. (I've written more on that here.)

I absolutely could not believe the Schlafly comment. I had to look at the calendar to make sure I hadn't somehow time traveled back a couple of hundred years. I wonder what she would say to a man whose wife forced him to have sex?

[Hunter]

Um...as someone who has never been in the mood for sex after 1) a blowout argument and 2) after a day of being treated not necessarily badly, but let's say, with a certain lack of respect, I resent the idea that I'm "punishing" my husband because "sex" is "his" way of making up for being a jerk. If this is the case: Spiffy! "There's the hole, go for it, Big Guy...let me know if it was good for you."

It comes to this: my emotions are intimately tied into my ability to enjoy sex, and if I am expected to hop to unwanted sex as an apology without any discussion, then just call me a manipulative bitch.

Fact is, no man gets to treat me like an appliance all day, and expect the meaty juices to flow that night.

Thirty years later, the BH gets it.

[Hunter]

The BH is looking for trouble. The question of whether I use sex to apologize has come up during Pistons game commercials, along with some hilarious memories.

He claims I threw the mayo jar at his head. The truth is that I was shaking the lidless mayo jar at him, warning him off as he sat in the kitchen jokingly micromanaging my sandwich-making, and it slipped out of my hand. The jar glanced (no really!) off the side of his head and ended up in his lap.

We're pretty sure #2 son was my apology.

[mythago]

"No, honey. THIS is when I hurl the mayo jar at your head."

Zan, I would guess those women feel that's the only power they have in their marriage at all.