It has been estimated based on exit poll analysis that 55% of white women voted for Trump during the 2020 presidential election, representing a two point increase from 2016. This is perhaps surprising, given Trump’s past derogatory comments on women, such as tweeting in 2016 that, “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo because that would not be politically correct. Instead, I will only call her a lightweight reporter,” More notably, Trump made a leaked comment to “grab them by the pussy” when talking about how fame enabled him to grope women on a 2005 Access Hollywood Tape.
Still, there is a long history of women as conservative activists working against policies promoting gender equality, raising questions of what exactly feminism in politics looks like. Amy Coney Barrett, recently confirmed to the Supreme Court, typifies this tension with individual empowerment found in anti-feminist politics.
Phyllis Schlafly, one of the most prominent conservative activists in American politics since the 1960s, was also one of these women who seems to employ somewhat contradictory rhetoric. Her fight against the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s is the focus of a new mini-series, “Mrs. America,” and has launched a recent debate over her legacy at the same time as Amy Coney Barrett’s recent appointment to the Supreme Court.
Some critics worried that “Mrs. America” treats Schlafly with too much kindness, attempting to redeem a woman who leaves behind a deeply disappointing legacy to many. Indeed, it is perhaps all too easy to admire her influence as a woman without interrogating the ways in which she deployed this power. Schlafly was described by critic Lara Zarum as “a kind of feminist in her own right.” While this angle is certainly understandable, and Schlafly did give voice to many valid criticisms of the feminist movement, such an analysis of her work is misleading. For all of her individual empowerment, someone who argued that “sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women” certainly cannot be considered a feminist simply by virtue of her presence. While Schlafly did indeed manage to achieve considerable influence in a patriarchal society, she only did so because her personal politics conformed to the same unfair standards she herself had managed to overcome.
Although her crusade against the ERA is the focus of the series, Schlafly was a lifelong advocate for intensely conservative policies. She campaigned for a Congressional seat using the slogan, “A woman’s place is in the house,” and was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater, another politician often credited with sparking a conservative renaissance in American politics, in his 1964 presidential campaign. While Schlafly was a pioneering force for women’s involvement in the largely male-dominated environment of politics, she also actively campaigned against a movement that may have provided women with more opportunities.
However, Schlafly was not exactly blind to the sexism that limited her in certain instances; after she lost her campaign to become the president of the National Federation of Republican Women, she argued that Republicans had organized against her because she would not stay confined within the limited role they wanted women to occupy. Thus, even though it was partly her presentation as the ideal housewife that allowed her to gain such influence, she also found herself undermined because of these same characteristics.
Additionally, while Schlafly’s populist sentiments mobilized many working-class women, she was initially able to launch her political career based on her husband’s wealth. Thus, her class was perhaps more predictive of her behavior and political beliefs than other facets of her identity. Similarly, recently confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been funded by organizations such as the Federalist Society, which is funded by Koch Industries. Some have argued this perhaps contributed to her reluctance to concretely give an opinion on topics such as climate change.
Conservatives often accuse the left of replacing serious ideological debate with identity politics, yet Barrett’s nomination is proof that, at the very least, this accusation is entirely hypocritical. Just as with Phyllis Schlafly, a concerted effort for gender equality requires more than simply placing women in positions of power.
There were many moments during her confirmation hearing where Barrett’s gender identity took center stage. When commenting on critics of her nomination, Senator Joni Ernst told her that, “I’m struck by the irony of how demeaning to women their accusations really are, that you, a working mother of seven, with a strong record of professional and academic accomplishment, couldn’t possibly respect the goals and desires of today’s women.” Senator John Cornyn complimented Barrett by proclaiming that, “I’ll bet there are many young women, like my own two daughters, who marvel at the balance you have achieved.”
Cornyn’s comments remain grounded in a conservative, stereotypical definition of womanhood and success as a woman in society. Even despite attempting to speak favorably of Barrett’s career, he could not help but describe her professional accomplishments in regards to her role in her family, and this instinct is quite telling of the role that many hope Barrett will occupy. Barrett and her allies have taken pains to present the same image that Schlafly put forth — as an archetypal American mother and wife who also happens to be a respectable professional. It seems that Barrett understands, as Schafly did, how to further herself in a patriarchal society.
Barrett has also naturally been compared to and contrasted against the late Justice Ginsburg, given that Justice Ginsburg dedicated her career to securing equal rights for women. Ginsburg, notably, was more interested in “path-marking” than upholding the status quo. Her legacy reflects a deep commitment to not simply enhancing her personal professional prospects but also leaving a path for all women to follow.
While figures like Barrett and Schafly should definitely be understood for all of their complexities, they are certainly not champions for the women they have supposedly represented. They found ways to succeed in systems that were built to resist their inclusion, but in doing so, they have only cemented these structures in place. Representational victories are easy to celebrate, but they do not necessarily indicate progress.
Image Credit: “Amy Coney Barrett – Taking Oath” by Lucy.Sanders.999 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons
