Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr: The Equal Rights Amendment- Phyllis Schlafly Debates Ann Scott (1973)

Source:Firing Line With William F Buckley- Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Episode S0089, Recorded on March 30, 1973. Guests: Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Scott, Judith Areen, Father Edmund G. Ryan, Brenda Eddy. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution. " 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as WFB puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn."

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men, what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had." 

Source:Hoover Institution- William F. Buckley, Ann Scott, & Phyllis Schlafly.

From Hoover Institution

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists (who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men) what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. 

Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had.

My issues with radical feminism which is just a form of socialism and part of the broader socialist movement in America and outside of America, is that they believe that women are superior to men and therefor should be treated better than men. That it's not equal rights for women that they are seeking, since they already had those under the U.S. Constitution and under our civil rights  laws. But they want women to be treated better than men not just in the culture, but under law. 

Radial feminists want women to be the boss in general instead of women or men just becoming the boss based on their education, skills, and production, but just be treated better than men and having more power than men simply because they're women. Not because they earned that right simply because of their intelligence, qualifications, and productivity.