Phyllis Schlafly is a Lunatic

I know that headline deserves my own “Actual Headline” treatment, but I just needed to plainly state the fact, irrespective of its abundant obviousness. LeMew passed on this post by Roger Ailes critiquing a recent column of Schlafly’s at TownHall (to which I refuse to link; you can click through at Rog’s place if you’re so inclined). Although I, like Rog, have no insight on the merits of the case being discussed—that of a man who was prosecuted for spousal rape—and therefore couldn’t begin to agree or disagree with Schlafly’s assessment, I will comment on this little chestnut, a critique of which isn’t predicated on one’s opinion of the underlying case:

A man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father by malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, one in which the man is always guilty.

boing boing clunk

Just ignore that. It was just my eyeballs popping out of my skull and my head hitting the desk.

In what kind of twisted loopyland does this broad live that rape at the hands of one’s spouse is somehow less noxious than rape at the hands of a stranger? Even the narrowest reading of “honor and obey” surely doesn’t include submitting to sex against one’s will as part of the wifely duty. Good lord. But don’t bother listening to this malicious feminist and rape-resistant wife. I’ll turn it over to the guys:

Rog:

Yes, the testimony of a woman is not evidence. And rape is not rape. And protecting rape victims equally is malice…

It's amusing to see Schafly make all the arguments about the criminal justice system that are usually ridiculed by purported law-and-order types -- unless it's a Republican on trial. Or it would be if Schlafly's arguments weren't a transparent excuse to pen another column displaying her contempt for women.

LeMew:

Oh my, those mean feminists and their crazy ideas about how "just because you've married someone doesn't give them the right to rape you at any time"! You can't get more "malicious" than that! As for the closing empirical claim, sadly, no.

It's really hard to overstate what an odious figure Schlafly is; killing the ERA is just the beginning.

Sigh. I can’t even believe that retrograde reprobate and I reside in the same universe.

(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)