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, modest 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
SCLHAFLY 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
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.” whom so luckily has a husband. By cleaving from both norms, feminists are trying to create a role for themselves in society that is simply untenable. Being a spinster used to be the horror of any well-wishing woman, yet you have tried to turn it into a badge of honor and to me that’s just preposterous.
FRIEDAN But Phyllis that’s just ridiculous! 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
SCHLAFLY I disagree—
FRIEDAN I know you do! I—
MODERATOR Ladies, let’s calm down here [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
FRIEDAN Yes
MODERATOR Let’s begin. 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 of all 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.
Sources
http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/09/06/lessons-we-can-learn-from-phyllis-schlafly/#5bfff8736d85 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1992/09/19/schlaflys-son-out-of-the-closet/bbc13552-b0f8-47d2-a761-461d4b1eee8d/?utm_term=.741cb1017b42 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/phyllis-schlafly-death-housewife-activism-feminism-214213
