Substantive Blog Post #4
Phyllis Schlafly’s “Positive” Freedom: Liberty, Liberation, and the Equal Rights Amendment
In order to gather enough research for my final paper, I have decided to not only consider gender inequality in the Bible, but also the perpetuation of gender inequality in American political through the conservative use of the Biblical role of women. Phyllis Schlafly, conservative opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s founded the process used by many conservative movements today. Miller, in his article entitled “Phyllis Schlafly’s “Positive” Freedom: Liberty, Liberation, and the Equal Rights Amendment,” Schlafly’s use of positive framing, with an emphasis on Christian principles, to stop the passage of the ERA is outlined (Miller, 2015). The central research questions include the following: What is the difference between positive and negative freedom? What led to the failure of the ERA despite the continuation of gender inequality (Miller, 2015)?
The theoretical approach Miller takes in his argument for Schlafly’s success include, rational choice theory, rhetorical theory, and freedom theory (Miller, 2015). Rational choice theory is applicable to this research because voters are most likely to make choices that best serve their interests. Schlafly was able to gain the support of women by framing her arguments about freedom and gender inequality in a positive way, which made voters believe that her argument was the one most beneficial to their interests. Rhetorical theory was employed by Miller to describe how Schlafly used the positive framing of women in the household as actually giving women more freedoms rather than less. In essence, she was able to use discourse to present her opinion in way that demonstrated women’s freedoms would be restricted by the ERA, not expanded. Freedom theory, an idea progressed by philosopher Isaiah Berlin, was utilized by Miller to expand upon the methods employed by Schlafly to demonstrate the positive and negative aspects of freedom. In other words, which the ERA may give women more freedoms outside of the household, other freedoms that women enjoyed would be restricted or eliminated (Miller, 2015).
Overall, Miller demonstrates how Schlafly successfully halted the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment by arguing that the ERA would take away the wonderful freedom of working in the home (Miller, 2015). As a result of the ERA, Schlafly argued women would be required to give up this freedom and deal with the dangers and responsibility of public work. She emphasized that opposing the ERA was selfless, and fulfilled the responsibility of women outlined by the Bible. Essentially, women were already given more rights than men because they were permitted to stay in the home and work, without the wait of the responsibility to work outside of the home. Proponents of the ERA wrongly focused on the negative status of women, rather than presenting their argument in a way that magnified the rights and roles of women (Miller, 2015).
Several considerations for policy and practice can be formulated based on the analysis of Phyllis Schlafly’s thwarting of the Equal Rights Amendments. For instance, conservative Christian movements have seen success in the US, even when their principles violate gender equality, because they use a positive framework to present their traditionalist arguments (Miller, 2015). This demonstrates that patriarchal societal principles are not maintained only by dominant men, but rather women can serve to progress a patriarchal agenda when they present their arguments in a way present the traditionalist institutions as beneficial to women (Miller, 2015).
References
Miller E. C. (2015). “Phyllis Schlafly’s “Positive” Freedom: Liberty, Liberation, and the Equal Rights Amendment.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, (18)2, 277-300.