Phyllis Schlafly v. Betty Friedan

Draft script for a mock debate between Phyllis Schlafly v. Betty Friedan
This is a fictionalized debate script designed for performance, and is not to be taken as historical fact.

A curtain rises to a stage dressed for guests, modestly yet meticulously decorated with flowers and well-polished podiums. Ms. Friedan is on the left, Mrs. Schlafly on the right.

MODERATOR Hello ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to tonight’s event, a thrilling bout of wits and intellect between two women who could not be more different. To my left we have Mrs. Betty Friedan—

FRIEDAN [hissing] Ms. Betty Friedan

MODERATOR [visibly embarrassed] – my apologies, Ms. Betty Friedan, an outspoken feminist and best-selling author of the book The Feminine Mystique. And to my right we have Ms. Phyllis Schlafly, a self-proclaimed pro-family activist, mother of six and noted for igniting a grassroots movement that blocked passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Thank you both for being here

FRIEDAN It’s my pleasure

SCHLAFLY Yes, thank you, but just so you know I do prefer Mrs. Schlafly.

MODERATOR My apologies

SCHLAFLY It’s really no problem, I understand the mistake. But as I always say, to me, Ms. means misery, and American women are more privileged than any women in the world.

FRIEDAN (interrupting) now Phyllis that is just ridiculous! You malign the feminist movement and fight against equality but to make so petty a remark about a title! Why is that any of your business what women ask to be called in the professional sphere?

SCHLAFLY Well, Betty, words have meaning and thus they matter. “Ms.” came into use as an intentional way to separate women from both the “Miss” of young pre-married status and the “Mrs.” who are fortunate to have a husband. By abandoning both titles, feminists are trying to create a role for themselves in society that does not have a happy ending. I'll call feminists whatever they want, but to me "Ms." stands for misery.

FRIEDAN The whole reason women should use Ms. is to signify that they too deserve to be treated the same as any man, as any Mr., and to say otherwise is quite possibly the most harmful thing a woman can do to herself in the modern day.

MODERATOR (interjecting) Let’s try to get started although [laughing] the audience is already loving this as you can tell [several yells and slight applause]. However, let’s get to the substance of the debate. I will ask you both about several issues, and both of you will have plenty of time to discuss it. At the end, we may offer the audience a chance to answer a few questions as well. Are both of you ready?

SCHLAFLY Yes, but before we start let me first thank my husband for allowing me to be here.

FRIEDAN Your comment is insulting to women.

MODERATOR (abruptly interjecting) Let’s begin anyway. Ms. Friedan, in your book you talk about how women can only reach the most basic level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the physiological level, by fulfilling their role through sex and child-rearing. You proceed to argue that the home and being domestic are not meaningful work. Can you comment on this further?

FRIEDAN Why yes, I’d be happy to. In my book, I believe it’s Chapter 13, I discuss Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a groundbreaking psychological model of how humans can achieve the highest level of their existence, which Maslow terms self-actualization, and for my purposes meant finding the meaning of one’s life. I came across this model during my psychology studies before I raised a family, and it has always stuck with me as a telling way to analyze the whole ideal of a woman belonging in the home. You see, when a woman is relegated to cooking, cleaning and raising her children, and men are told that they are the bread-winners, the ones who go out and have meaningful work and a career, it prevents women from ever reaching any of the other needs and thus self-actualization. I think it’s pretty simple: when the woman is merely a baby-producing machine, she is existing solely on a physiological level.

MODERATOR Thank you, Ms. Friedan a very good explantion [applause]. Mrs. Schlafly, how would you respond to Ms. Friedan and also put forth your role of the home in a woman’s life?

SCHLAFLY Well, first I would like to thank my husband, Fred, for allowing me to come here this evening.^[1]

I am appalled at the notion that a woman’s work in the home is not meaningful. What can be more meaningful than being the master of a domain, a perfect miniature of society, the very building block on which society rests? By ruling one of these, running a home with efficiency and grace, a woman achieves a much more meaning than at some repetitive operating, secretary or assembly line, where the labor is repetitive and expendable. No! The work of a woman in the home is unique, impactful, and irreplaceable. Furthermore, the idea that a woman only finds meaning in sex in the home is very juvenile and reductionalist. What of teaching her children how to think and behave? Praying with them and guiding their growth in faith? These transcend any corporal restraints that Friedan claims traps women. In fact, when a home is working as it ought, when the children are raised to be healthy, polite, and upstanding citizens, a woman has reach self-actualization

FRIEDAN No, Phyllis, that’s a very stunted and ill-informed view of the issue.This is the modern world, and we all know that such elementary actions such as teaching children to wash their hands or say their please’s and thank-you’s cannot be substitute for the gratification of advancing one’s career path. Subjecting women to the sexist idea that only they can be the housekeeper and child-rearer is outdated malarkey that boxes women into a role that leaves most of them unsatisfied. In fact, in the beginning of my book I talk about how statistically many women are unhappy in their vocation of raising their children.

SCHLAFLY Well, the audience and the moderator may not know this, but Ms. Friedan used a good deal of anecdotal evidence rather than careful statistical analysis, and the main problem with this approach, although it does arguably make for a good read, is that one cannot make claims of “many” or “most” based on it. Thus, we should really examine what we already know, that we only notice the women who complain, rather than the vast majority of women who sit quietly at home and happily raise their children as their vocation.

MODERATOR Thank you, ladies. This next question is for Phyllis Schlafly. Betty Friedan wrote, in The Feminine Mystique, that "The only way for a woman, as for a man, to find herself, to know herself as a person, is by creative work of her own." Do you agree with that?

SCHLAFLY No, I don't. While women can pursue fulfillment however they like, most women find their greatest happiness in their family, in their children, and in their own home. This is a truth handed down generation to generation, and it has helped hold society together as women raise the children and men provide for them in the world. Furthermore, I don’t buy the argument that men can only find happiness through creative work, and I believe that this dangerous assumption that creativity is the root of happiness rests on a disregard for the Creator of all things. When people’s lives are consumed by looking for purpose among temporal things, they lose focus on what is important, and they forget their faith.

FRIEDAN Well that is just absurd! In the modern world one cannot just assert that faith is the foundation for meaning in life! There are plenty of people who are dissatisfied with what their churches and synagogues are teaching, and that unhappiness, in regards to our present discussion, comes directly from the arcane notions that churches claim come straight from God. This is how women become disillusioned by some unattainable and restrictive ideal of femininity, and this is how women are forced to stay at home and mind their own business. I say no. I say that a woman must have the ability to create outside the realm of the home, just as a man does.

SCHLAFLY Well ironically, the Bible does directly teach that, and all Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, so I’ll tell you where it does occur, in Ephesians, chapter 5, starting from verse 22, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should—

FRIEDAN [hissing] This isn’t Sunday school! I don’t care what the Bible says it’s oppressing women. How can you cite such an outdated fairytale as justification for oppression?

SCHLAFLY [cooly] Well, Ms. Friedan, you made a very obvious attack on religious institutions and claimed that they just manufacture reasons to “oppress” women as you call it, so I would appreciate the opportunity the continue my defense of my faith which you have so ingraciously mocked.

[applause from audience]

MODERATOR Please continue, Mrs. Schlafly

[Friedan mutters incoherently until Schlafly gives her a look, upon which Schlafly proceeds]

SCHLAFLY As I was saying, the Paul goes on the say in his letter to the Ephesians that “each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Basically, this verse reinforces the proper way to have a household, with the husbands properly loving his wife and the wife obeying her husband’s wishes, which come from a place of love and care. And I think the point that Ms. Friedan made so clear about how not everyone is religious or happy with their faith shows how we have forgotten the Creator and make claims that we need to create in order to be happy. We need to live the way God intended, and while that means all of us have the capacity to create and do it on a daily basis to some capacity, a woman’s primary vocation can never be to create anything more than her children and a happy home to raise them in.

MODERATOR Thank you, ladies. The next question is for Ms. Friedan, regarding an argument from one of Mrs. Schlafly’s many books, A Choice Not An Echo. In said book, Mrs. Schlafly makes the case for the far-right constituents of the Republican party to take a stand against the more liberal establishment Republicans. The broader scope of such an argument, however, seems to apply to your cause, being the inverse of Mrs. Schlafly’s issue, as you are an admittedly far-left constituent of a more conservative established Democrat party. Can you explain how in your experience grassroots movements have brought success in changing the platform of your party?

FRIEDAN Yes, I can, and I’ll start by saying that the change from the Democratic party of yesteryear to today is truly remarkable. The women’s rights movement has truly done its work when you have such a strong woman candidate as Hillary Clinton running for the Presidency. Such a thing would be unheard of fifty, forty, even twenty years ago. It’s a true testament to how the grassroots organization of feminisits have created a faction within a party that has slowly accepted it wholesale. I think there are more victories than just that. If you look to all the changes in society, with women taking on all sorts of roles previously reserved for men. We are breaking down gender roles everyday, and while we still have quite a ways to go, I could not be more proud of the progress me and my sisters have made in the fight for equal civil rights for women. And I do think this was because women made the choice to speak up rather than let the status quo trudge on in its dreary way, never improving the lives of ordinary women who need it to most. So yes, Phyliis is right about the influence a so-called fringe group can have on a political party: as the grow stronger and stronger, they become more mainstream and help to establish their views in the long-term platform of the party.

MODERATOR Thank you, Ms. Friedan. [applause] And Mrs. Schlafly, can you explain how much of an impact anti-establishment movements have made on America?

SCHLAFLY Why yes, I’d love to. In my mind, I can describe to you many little victories for the true conservatism of the Republican party, but two major victories stand out in my mind, and those are the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment and the election of our new leader Donald Trump. To be quite honest, I do not know what victory was greater for conservatism in America, and I suppose for now I’ll have to say the defeat of the ERA, because we’ll need to see what Mr. Trump can get done in office. And he has a great deal of potential, and if he gets enough done I think we can count it as a greater victory than the death of the ERA, for he can end Obamacare, appoint enough justices to last the next quarter-century and be trusted to hand down solid Constitutional rulings, protect us from the threat of Muslim terrorism, and end the illegal immigrant problem in America. But getting back to the question, the ERA is a prime example of how a small movement hijacked the narrative that the media and the political establishment had set up for unaware Americans to buy into. We defended the right of a woman to be protected as a mother and buffered her from the harshness of the working world when she must venture out here to help her family. We united groups often distrusting of one another, the Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Mormons who all share such conservative views about the role of the mother in the home, and we weaponized it against the lies of the mainstream media and radical feminists. And after that was done, and we had hung up our boots, we came back and elected a man who may make the best president in recent history, and this was done once again by mobilizing the sections of the Republican party who are truly conservative, the men and women who want an America rooted in the guiding principles of the Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. And for that, I could not be more proud of America and the Republican party.

FRIEDAN [scoffing] Well that is just the thing you would say, Phyllis. You applaud the destruction of the one amendment that could have helped countless women across America who do not benefit from the privilege that you do. You married rich and have the luxury to both raise your children and have a career in the political arena, yet you deride others who wish to follow your lead. It’s why many people, and myself include, think you’re a hypocrite. You go on and on about how a woman’s role is in the home, and yet here you are, debating away as a working woman. And don’t even get me started on Trump! He’s truly a menace to society, and while I’ll recognize that he was elected by a vocal fringe group, the poor uneducated rural white who showed up in droves like never before to pick such a stellar candidate! Bah! It makes me sick just thinking about how much harm he may do to this country in hopefully his only term. You’re truly misled, Phyllis

SCHLAFLY Well, Betty, I suppose I’ll start with the claim that I’m a hypocrite. I have plenty of time to raise my children, and I always make it my first priority. And as for being here tonight, as I joked in earnest earlier, it was only with my husband’s permission. You notice that while you may call me a working woman I’m out here defending the right of women to stay home rather than leave my children and make minimum wage taking some boring assembly line job in an automobile plant. And in terms of the impact Donald Trump will have, it brings a smile to my face knowing that he will indeed have an impact on the status quo, and I’m glad you recognize how much change will come of his good work for our country.

MODERATOR Thank you. Our next question is for Ms. Friedan. You have been a vocal supporter of abortion as a civil right since the inception of the women’s rights movement. You once said, “Abortion repeal is not a question of political expedience. It is part of something greater. It is historic that we are addressing ourselves this weekend to perhaps the first national conference of women and men. Women’s voices are finally being heard saying it the way it is about the question of abortion both in its basic sense of morality and in its new political sense as part unfinished revolution of sexual equality.” Can you explain what women are saying about abortion both its moral and political sense?

FRIEDAN Well I think the quote you used said it all. The moral quandaries have been relegated to the sphere of men for too long, whether it be from the patriarchal structure of churches who hand down judgements in an attempt to control society indirectly, or the politicians of the modern age who ignore most women’s rights issues, especially those that make them feel squeamish. I’m not saying it’s an easy topic to discuss. It’s certainly not the sort of thing wants to bring up at a dinner table. But to say it’s not easy to talk about ignores how important it is that we do. By sweeping it under the rug in public spheres, by forcing women who have no other choice to go to some back-alley quack and take drugs that could seriously injure her, we used to do far more damage than under the Roe v. Wade era where abortion is safe, legal and rare. And that’s why when I made that speech I not only highlighted the moral elements of abortion but also the importance it held as a political conduit to complete the sexual revolution. Now, Phyllis will get up here and say something about how heinous it is that we [placing airquotes around next few words] “murder innocent children” but even she admits that the mother’s life is more important than the chiild’s, so she truly has no ground to stand on this issue.

PHYLLIS Well, you’re right, Betty. You caught me. I am going to say how horrendous it is that America has embraced a culture of death in order to make casual sexual relationships have a nuclear option, a way to erase the sin of the parents by destroying the life of an innocent child. Do not let her trick you into thinking abortion is a form of contraception. On the contrary, in many states, the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes a double-homicide. We all know deep down that abortion is wrong, and those of us who do not have been stunted in growth by a world that lies to you and says that the child growing inside you is only an embryo, only a fetus. By using such language, the left has abstracted abortion to make us think less and less about it and more and more about how convenient and safe it has become. Not only have they tried to change how we discuss it, they actively try to end conversations about such a crucial issue before they start by saying “well that’s just your faith, and a woman should have her choice.” Worse than that are those who are “personally opposed” to abortion, those who say that while they would never have an abortion, others should have the right to make that choice for themselves. It’s ironic, because what these people are saying is that they while they would never murder someone, they suppose it’s okay if someone else makes that choice. Think about that for a while. As young people, the audience may not understand how heavy an issue is. You have all been lied to by your sex ed classes who convinced you it was healthy and normal to kill your own child. Consider the costs.

FRIEDAN That’s insane, Phyllis! Why, I’d like to burn you at the stake for that! It’s so remarkable that you can stand there as a woman who has the privilege of having a husband with a job and your own means of income. What of the single mothers who make one poor choice and are reminded of it the rest of their lives? The teenagers who become outcasts because they did was cool with all their friends but accidentally got pregnant? Have you no compassion for modern women? Can you not look past your stunted religious views and realize that even if abortion is illegal, such women will find a much more dangerous way to do so themselves, with coat hangers and poison pills?

SCHLAFLY I believe you made two charges against me there and I will answer them both. The first was not having compassion for the modern woman. I believe I have more compassion than most when it comes to the modern woman, because I see through the lies that society feeds her about “her body, her choice.” I can see the heartache abortion causes when a woman choses to kill her own because of unsavory circumstances. I feel for all of those women who have made the mistake in the past and for those who will make it in the near future because of the culture of death that has hijacked America. Onto the second claim, not only can I look past my religious views, I can completely justify being against abortion for secular and scientific reasons. But I don’t need to do so here. I can simply say that just because abortion happens even where it’s illegal doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be illegal. Crimes are illegal because they harm the individual citizen and society as a whole. No one says “well, rape, murder, theft, arson, terrorism, suicide, and drunk driving all happen anyway, so let’s make them legal!” No one says that! It’s an illogical argument that the left puts forth as a means of hiding the emotional appeal of “a poor woman forced to abort.” Under no circumstances should a woman abort. Even in the worst scenario, any American hospital or police station will take a baby in, and formal adoption is also always an option. So, when you say that I have no compassion or that I cannot see past my religious views, think about what I’ve just said.

MODERATOR Thank you once again. Ms. Friedan, you have often said that the women’s rights movement was never about sexuality or identity politics, and you even refused to wear a purple armband in support of lesbians marching for feminism. Can you explain your beliefs and even compare them to Mrs. Schlafly’s?

FRIEDAN [very uncomfortable] Well—um, I do think that women can love other women if that’s what they’re about, so to speak. As adults, they can make that decision for themselves and they can live as they choose. In terms of my own actions and attitude toward the lesbian movement, I think that the main problem is the politicization of sexuality. When I helped launch the woman’s movement, it was never about sex, it was about equal rights and fair pay. If you’re enquiring about same-sex marriage and civil unions, I suppose you can call me lukewarm on it, and I do think children are ideally raised by one mother and one father. I certainly do not think that it is within the women’s rights platform to discuss such matters, and I think if the gays want to bring such issues to the front of the American people’s minds, as my fellow feminists and I have done, they can do that themselves.

SCHLAFLY Well, as a Christian woman who takes the Word of God seriously, I do believe that homosexual acts are a depraved sin that offends God and are written into the natural law as heinous and immoral. However, that does not mean that the temptation to do such is wrong; God gives all sorts of people all sorts of crosses to bear, and if someone struggles with same-sex attraction, they are going through temptation just as you and I are. However, the whole point is that one must struggle with it rather than give in and slip into an unhealthy and immoral lifestyle. Now, of course this leads me to believe that no two men or two women should raise children, as that is the role of a mother and father.

FRIEDAN I suppose on this matter, in a broad sort of way, we agree. We both think that the ideal way for children to be raised is with a mother and father--

SCHLAFLY (interupting) I'm sorry Ms. Friedan but that's not what I said. It can't be the ideal way to raise children, it has to be the only way children are raised. I think we share a general dislike for the LGBTT movement, in terms of similar views, but we certainly are approcahing it with different rationales and different degrees of severity

FRIEDAN (scoffing) Fair enough

MODERATOR Leading off that question, Mrs. Schlafly, you have been quoted as saying certain surprising things about gays in America, such as that “sodomy is a worse crime than rape” and that AIDS education is “the teaching of safe sodomy.” Comments like these have prompted virtually everyone in the LGBT community to label you as a bigoted anti-gay activist. Can you defend these remarks and respond to such claims?

SCHLAFLY Well first of all, the quotes have been taken out of context, as I never said that sodomy is worse than rape per se. What I did do is write an article about the loss of respect for marriage in society, and in that article I quoted something Sir William Blackstone said, which was in regards to sodomy being an evil of greater malignancy than rape. This is not a remark on the penal element of the crime but rather how heinous it is in the eyes of God. I think rape is a terrible crime against women, and I by no means was trying to diminish its effect one society. However, from a natural point of few, it is less evil in a philosophical sense because it fulfills the role of sex and achieves its primary end, an act that may lead to procreation. Albeit, it’s under forced terms and a violent atrocity against a woman, but sodomy serves no natural purpose whatsoever, and it thus can be considered a greater evil. Now, onto the accusations that I am a bigot: I love all people, as the Bible tells us, regardless of whether they call themselves gay. I simply know something is wrong with the lifestyle, as faith and common sense inform me and the majority of Americans. It goes right with the saying “love the sinner, hate the sin.” As mature adults, all of us can look past the vices a person struggles with and love them for who they are, but that does not mean we do not notice their vices; on the contrary, we have to point out the flaws in someone’s life in order that they may make it better.

FRIEDAN Well, if that doesn’t just take the cake! How can you stand there as a woman and say that sodomy is more evil than rape? I don’t care what some dead white men thought up centuries ago, and quite frankly I don’t care what the Bible has to say on it either. I want you, Phyllis, to consult your common sense, that great guide that you cite so often, and dare to tell me that sodomy is worse than rape. Go ahead, I dare you!

SCHLAFLY Again, Betty, I think you’ve missed the point. I’ll say it again: rape is a horrific crime and one that must be punished swiftly and severly, and I even think by death in some circumstances. But nothing cries out to the heavens more of something rank, something foul, something so terrible as not to be named as sodomy. My common sense tells me that it is worse because it is unnatural and perverted, and that rape is coerced yet natural sex.

MODERATOR Thank you, ladies. I’d quickly like to get both of your perspectives on our newly-elected President, Donald Trump. Mrs. Schlafly, you endorsed Mr. Trump early on in the campaign and even wrote your final book about him. Can you explain what you saw in him?

SCHLAFLY Well, I saw a man who by no means was perfect, and critics can, and will, go on and on about Trump having been married three times, and about how, in the past, he boasted about his indiscretions. But anyone who meets him today will meet an old-fashioned man grounded in his two great priorities -- hard work and family -- and a man who in other respects has led a remarkably clean life. This 'straight-edge' living is remarkable especially for a man of such wealth and success.cnn I think that he will make good on his promises to defend the West from the threat of Muslim invasion, as well as protect our Christian brothers and sisters abroad who face such threats of abhorrent violence on a daily basis. I also think that the claims that he is not qualified for the job is ridiculous, as many of the founding fathers were business men who only entered politics to make their country great. And Mr. Trump plans to do just that. In fact, I find his victory remarkably indicative of how fed up the American people are with career politicians who only have their best interest in mind, and I hope it ushers in a new wave of conservatism to rid the blight Obama has made on this nation in the past 8 years.

[applause, some booing]

FRIEDAN Well, as for me I think anyone as hateful, xenophobic, racist, bigoted, sexist, and ignorant as Donald Trump should not be president!

[applause]

I find it truly remarkable that you, Phyllis, can support someone who has said such vulgar things, and you all know what he actually said when I paraphrase here, such vulgar things as “you just need to grab women by the genitals.” Let that soak in. Let that shock your very core and wake up how desensitized you all have become to such vulgarity. This is a crime against women that this man has been elected, and any woman who voted for him is a traitor to her sex!

[softer applause, some booing]

I see that some of you did vote for him. I just hope you realize what a terrible mistake you’ve made. I cannot even begin to properly enumerate how terrible a president he will make. I know not everyone likes Hillary, quite frankly, I don’t care for her one bit! But in comparison to Donald Trump, how could you, America, how could you! And as for you, Phyllis, I challenge you to defend your support for such an evil man rather than give him excuses that “oh, he could have been worse.”

SCHLAFLY Well, you do seem rather worked up about it, Betty, but if you examine what I said, everything still remains true, even though I endorsed him and made such statements before that tape was leaked to the world. I said he has been boastful about his past indiscretions, and while I am disgusted that he would speak that way, we need to remember context here. He said that to a hot mic on a radio shock jock’s program, and this was over ten years ago. It’s not an excuse to behave that way, but it’s not like he said it last week. Onto his suitability to be President: Mr. Trump is a very wise business man, and he’s got what it takes to run this country. He has conservative values, he’s going to bring jobs back to America, and he’s going to help keep our country far safer than it was under the Obama administration.

FRIEDAN How can you claim this country will be safe with Donald Trump’s dirty mitts all over the nuclear launch codes? Have you seen the way that the man tweets his every annoyance and petty grievance with every person that disagrees with him? Or perhaps have you missed how casually he discusses nuclear proliferation and even encourages it? How can that be safe?

SCHLAFLY Obviously, soon-to-be President Trump will not allow his passions to control the nuclear codes, Ms. Friedan. He’s a wise man, and just because he expresses himself on social media does not mean that once in office he’ll express himself through nuclear holocaust! Anyone claiming otherwise is merely looking to slander him, which in fact only adds more ammo to our true enemies in this day and age: jihadists. Radical Muslims have increased their activity during Obama’s watch both at home and abroad, and when the mainstream media bashes him repeatedly, they are aiding our enemies. No, Donald Trump will keep us safe alright, and it will be by defeating ISIS and other terror groups around the world.

MODERATOR Thank you, ladies. We’re going to allow one student to ask a question now, as a way to end the evening, and then I’ll be wrapping up this remarkable debate that we’ve had here tonight. And here is our first student

STUDENT 1 Good evening, Mrs. Schlafly and Ms. Friedan. I’d like to start by thanking you for being here tonight, as it’s been a wonderful opportunity for everyone here to learn more about such important issues. My name is Jeff Pitzer, and I’m the head of Pi Sigma Theta on campus. As a frat, we do a lot of good philanthropic work, but whenever we host a party I’m always concerned something will go wrong. There’s always alcohol and drugs involved, and usually it turns into a case of he-said she-said. I’m talking about what some have deemed as America’s rape culture on college campuses, and I was wondering what both of you think about the problem and how we can fix it.

MODERATOR Ms. Friedan, we’ll start with you

FRIEDAN Well thank you for the question, Jeff. I think rape is not a matter to be taken lightly in today’s day and age, and unfortunately it’s the views of people like Phyllis that help to perpetuate the toxicity of this rape culture. Never before has such a problem been so controversial and yet so ignored. Rape is the worst crime that can be committed against a woman, for it is the robbing of her very femininity by force, and it can never be forgotten by that poor victim. I think the best course of action for you and your fraternity brother is to encourage an environment of consensuality, where you don’t joke about it and you do your best to help your inebriated classmates from making a mistake that they will regret for the rest of their lives.

SCHLAFLY Rather than encouraging you to continue you in your admittedly debaucherous ways, Jeff, I’d recommend you help your fraternity brother and classmates to lead more virtuous lives. Don’t drink underage, especially in mixed company, and try to even prevent the comingling of sexes in unnecessarily intimate spaces, such as the bedrooms of a frat house. It’s very important today to have a good time, but remember that if you don’t put yourself in the position to make a mistake it becomes much more difficult to make that mistake. I hope that makes sense to you and you heed my words.

JEFF Thanks to both of you, I’ll consider what you’ve said.

MODERATOR Yes, and an even bigger thanks for everything tonight, ladies, it has been wonderful. I hope the audience has enjoyed such a thrilling debate over such a wide-range of topics, and I hope that you all realize how special such nights are. [applause, the women cross the stage to shake each other’s hand and bow to the audience, the curtain dropping on stage]