
DATE: Sunday, March 16, 1997                TAG: 9703180541

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J1   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Interview

                                            LENGTH:  178 lines

FOREVER PHYLLIS

For more than 30 years, Phyllis Schlafly has worn like a sharp pebble in the shoe on liberals in general and the feminist movement in particular. A combative and unabashedly dogmatic conservative, she brings her political viewpoint to Norfolk Thurday as a speaker in the President's Lecture Series at Old Dominion University.

Last week, Schlafly and Commentary editor Dave Addis discussed her views on the women's movement, civility in politics, and the current state of the Republican Party. Highlights of their conversation follow:

Mrs. Schlafly, the talk you're planning to give here is titled ``The Feminists Just Don't Get It.'' Just what is it they don't get?

Well, they don't understand that what they're trying to do is repeal human nature, and that this is just not acceptable to the majority of people in this country.

In what way are they trying to ``repeal human nature?''

You can look, for example, at what's going on in the military. Everything that's happening is totally predictable. They say they want equal treatment, but when they get equal treatment they don't like that. They really want affirmative action and special privileges.

Would you say that being sexually harassed is ``equal treatment?''

No, but it's a rough life, and I just don't think women are suitable for combat positions. And I also think when you put young men and young women together at that age - ah, surprise, surprise - you have sex problems.

This is not to excuse anybody who's doing anything obnoxious, it's just that why is anybody surprised?

What the feminists have done is to say there isn't any difference between men and women. And men used to treat women like they were ladies, but they don't want to be treated like ladies, they claim they want to be treated like men. And most women don't like that when it happens. . . .

The other thing about the feminists is that they want the government really to replace husbands. Liberation means liberation from home, husband, family and children. And then after they get liberated they want the government to come in and solve their problems for them.

How so?

They want help getting a job, help in getting a pay raise, they want help in getting promotions. You look at all of their complaints about what they call ``glass ceilings.'' This is asking for a government commission to come in and interrogate the companies and say ``Why did you promote this man instead of this woman?''

So they present all of these problems and they always require government solutions.

That leads to another question: In your writings, you oppose the ``comparable worth'' initiative - that is, that women who work in fields dominated by women should earn the same as men who do work of equal value. That seems fair on its face. Why do you oppose that concept?

Because it requires a subjective decision. It's not objective. What is there that is objective about comparing the work of a secretary with the work of a prison guard? It's subjective.

What (feminists) want is their commissions, that they put their people on, to say that what the secretary is doing is just as valuable as what the prison guard is doing, and then order the same pay.

But isn't it jobs dominated by women that often are at the lower end of the pay scale?

There are factors they're not considering. Women don't like jobs where they're apt to have their bodies banged up. You look at all the statistics on injuries, job-related injuries, you will find that a much higher percentage of men have job-related injuries than women. Now that's not because men are clumsier or less able to take care of themselves. That's because the men will take the job that might result in some type of injury and the women will not take them. Now, that's entitled to a wage differential.

When they have their commissions of women, of feminists, none of whom have done any manual-labor work, they discount all of that.

In a recent column, you wrote that greater numbers of women were attending law school, which would lead to more women as law professors, legislators, prosecutors and judges. And you said the result would be ``ominous for basic concepts of American law and justice.'' Why do you see greater involvement by women in the law as something to be frightened of?

Well, I'm a lawyer, and it's not because women are taking law, it's because the feminists have developed these strange ideologies, and their ideology is, they are rejecting such time-honored concepts as a man is innocent until he's proven guilty, (or) the jury can make its decision on what a reasonable person would do in a given circumstance. . . .

They reject that. What they want instead is: You make your decision based on how the woman felt rather than what the man did.

In the column that I drew this reference from, you talked about, in particular, cases where a woman had struck back or even killed an abusive husband.

Well, yeah, that's another area. They want to call it self-defense when the woman kills a man in his sleep.

Do you think there's no case in which that could be self-defense?

Oh, I can't imagine a situation where that could be self-defense. She could just walk out of the house, not kill him.

In a column a couple of weeks ago, you wrote, ``We don't want to hear any more pusillanimous pandering to the press about `working with' Clinton or civility or bipartisanship with liberals.'' Much of the public, though, seems to be calling for more civility in politics. Why do you think civility between partisans is a bad deal?

Well, it's not that civility is bad. It's that the nature of politics is controversy and confrontation, and we expect the Republicans to define themselves differently from the Democrats and go for the policies they believe in. And I think it's the press that's calling for civility, I think it's a ruse to intimidate the Republicans from carrying out a good agenda.

I mean, I believe in being polite to people. (Laughs).

In that same column, you said ``It is unfortunate - some would say tragic - that Republicans find it so difficult to abandon bad ideas and dump losing leaders.'' You were referring to Bob Dole and George Bush, but would you extend that same argument now to Newt Gingrich?

Well, uh . . . I'm not going to say that. (Laughs).

Ah, c'mon.

(More laughter.) Oh, no, I'm not.

Well, there's a great amount of consternation within the Republican Party right now . . .

There certainly is. They don't have any leadership and they're not going anywhere. And this thing of saying they're going to wait and see what Clinton proposes, and they're not going to pass anything that Clinton won't sign. All this seeking bipartisanship, I'm opposed to all that.

You referred, as well, to the ``worn-out, extravagant rhetoric about the `Republican revolution' and the Contract with America.'' In what way do you feel that rhetoric worn out?

We're tired of hearing about it. There really was very little in the Contract with America that was meaningful to people, and we're tired of hearing about it.

What do you think people do want to hear about?

Well, I think they want to hear about cutting out the mischief that the federal government is doing. The federal government is spending all kinds of money on education, and most of it is counterproductive.

Take for example, (Education Secretary Richard W.) Riley testified last week and he wants all kinds of money for Clinton's education initiatives and he wants a big increase the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act money.

Now, we have put billions into that program and there is no evidence that children who are in these programs are less apt to do drugs. . . . I think we'd be better off if the whole thing were eliminated.

A lot of people within the Republican Party feel that the stridency that you and other hard-liners voice is costing the GOP elections, that you're more concerned about ideological purity than with winning elections, and in doing so you're turning off too many voters. Is that a fair characterization?

No, I don't know who that's true of. In this last election, its clear that the ones, if you look at the Senate in particular, the Senate is much more conservative. They were the hard-line conservatives who won.

Then you don't feel that any moderation in the (Republican) Party, in the general election for the White House in four years, would be the proper way to go?

You mean for a candidate for president? How could you have anybody more moderate than Dole? As far as I can tell he agreed with Clinton on basically everything.

If you had a magic wand and could choose the next . . .

(Interrupts.) It would be somebody like Ronald Reagan, who defined himself as a conservative. He's the model.

But you don't have anybody like Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately. But we're looking for him. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo

KRT

Graphics

WANT TO GO?

Who: Conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly

What: President's Lecture Series, Old Dominion University.

When: Thursday, March 20, 8 p.m.

Where: Athletic Administration Building gymnasium. From Hampton

Boulevard, two blocks west on 49th Street, left on Parker or Elkhorn